Twin Tower Deception and Demolition Video

I produced a video about what I learned about the Twin towers from the documentary titled "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers", a PBS documentary 2 hours in length that had great detail about the design and construction of WTC1. It has been uploaded it in 2 parts to google.

It's up to the people to recognize the truth which originates with images of raw evidence from 9-11 and begin to loudly reject the garbage that is being pandered.


Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II

See my site for more,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Great audio... So clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

Great audio... So clear.

---

.divx compression seems one of the better, and you can select what size you want it to be. I figured that just under 10 minutes would not exceed 100mb but it was 106mb, so selecting 100 made a 99.9 mb file and I can't tell that it lost anything significant.

Just a threashold of documentation of the concrete core and how it provides a feasible way to explain things feasibly that apparently are so inexplicable that now nukes and space beams are being considered.

The only thing people have a hard time with is the secrecy of the built to demolish scenario. Like they don't want to know how secrecy works so it's better not to consider its involvement to that depth.

I'm no pyrotechnical scholar ......but isn't it a touch risky to build a large skyscraper with explosives pre installed and allow it to sit for 25+ years? .....I understand the theory ....but I doubt the feasibility of it. It's just as easy to shut down sections of the building every now and then and install what ever is needed. It explains the power downs ....the relatively recent computer security electronics rewiring inder taken by Securacom a few years before ....and the random dust that would form over night in some offices that has been not only documented but video taped by one office. Great video .....but I just don't see how a structure that large and public can be constructed with explosives installed and nobody notice or accidentally weld a shaped charge whilst fixing that annoying loose handrail.

Good point Dark. I too understand the concept, and feel about the same as you do about it. It COULD work however, as plastic explosive is detonated by and electrical current, and not shock or vibration. The COULD have just waited and shoved in the detonators when they were ready. I have know Idea what the shelf life of C4 is though... And that wouldn't explain merrily melting steel pouring out of windows either.

Yes....but I was thinking more on the lines of Ralph the janitor accidentally installing that new wallmount cappuchino maker into an explosive somehow ...and the next day Phil from logistics "expresso's" the top 12 floors during the milkfrap process. Way too risky ...I can see from 93 on having anough time and access to accomplish it...not from inception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

I'm no pyrotechnical scholar ......but isn't it a touch risky to build a large skyscraper with explosives pre installed and allow it to sit for 25+ years? .....I understand the theory ....but I doubt the feasibility of it. It's just as easy to shut down sections of the building every now and then and install what ever is needed. It explains the power downs ....the relatively recent computer security electronics rewiring inder taken by Securacom a few years before ....and the random dust that would form over night in some offices that has been not only documented but video taped by one office. Great video .....but I just don't see how a structure that large and public can be constructed with explosives installed and nobody notice or accidentally weld a shaped charge whilst fixing that annoying loose handrail.

---

The key to the uniformity and fine breakage seen here is placement and distribution. Such placement and distribution are actully not practical in a contracted controlled demolition, they might not even be possible. C4 is very safe, if terrorists are not trying to blow it up with high explosives. I actually have no problem with it in a building that is not a target for such.

The powerdown and securacom aspect/ links had their purpose but it was the detonation systems rather than the explosives themselves.

Americans are religiously disabled from understanding what is possible with the unconscious mind. Unconscious is better than secret. And there were leaks, they were just insignificant after 33 years.

The C4 was in very descrete places and security controlled the work around them absolutely. This was a significant part of the 1990 documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers".

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

Good point Dark. I too understand the concept, and feel about the same as you do about it. It COULD work however, as plastic explosive is detonated by and electrical current, and not shock or vibration. They COULD have just waited and shoved in the detonators when they were ready. I have know Idea what the shelf life of C4 is though... And that wouldn't explain merrily melting steel pouring out of windows either.

---

All high explosives are detonated by pressure. Speed equals pressure and electricity has the speed to do it although it is difficult to get the arc from a spark contained with high explosive enough to exert the pressue on the explosive. That is what initates a blasting cap which is filled with a very sensitive high explosive in a small tight area to facilitate the chain reaction.

The powerdown provided the time to set detonators in the floors and perhaps the upper core area. The security phone schematics from securacom facilitated designing a system using digital counters with the appropriate delays and the effect seen.

I too feel some thermite was used above ground level as a distraction at the very least but it appears by the molten metal pouring out of WTC I think it was that perimeter box columns may have been cut to facilitate WTC falling east as it did. Most of the thermite was in the basement however. Tons of it to severe the huge interior box columns which not even explosives could cut effectively.

The 1993 bombing provided and excuse for a remodel and the installation of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

Yes....but I was thinking more on the lines of Ralph the janitor accidentally installing that new wallmount cappuchino maker into an explosive somehow ...and the next day Phil from logistics "expresso's" the top 12 floors during the milkfrap process. Way too risky ...I can see from 93 on having anough time and access to accomplish it...not from inception.

---

Did you see my thread with the sinker drill about 8 months back?

Drilling the concrete is a MAJOR job, VERy noisy and dusty and it would be reported in the news and would take over a year of drilling to get the placement and distribution need for the effect seen.

If the building were closed and demo crews worked on it for 2 years installing charges, I doubt what was seen could have been created. The uniformity was ASTOUNDING!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

Good point Dark I have know Idea what the shelf life of C4 is though.

---

Former Marine Drew Raines III has stated to Dr. Ron Larsen Ph.D that encapsulation in concrete will preserve C4's viability near indefinitly. His site is here.

http://amd.elequity.com/

From speaking with former Navy seal divers I learned immersion in water protected C4 and that charges they had left years before were still viable, although detonators were not, and the C4 could be easily initiated by placed fresh detonators.

Just preventing exposure to the air preserves it. The water slurry of concrete is perfect for this.

I don't know how furthering this discussion will help ...but does remind me of an argument I had with the wife. Her assertion is skyscrapers are "designed to fall apart in nice small pieces for safety reasons" ...so in an event such 9/11 it doesn't damage the surroundings. After I stopped laughing I tried to explain that buildings are built so catastrophic failure does not occer ...i.e. the building falls down quite whole....not pulverised into miles of debris...in the event of an accident. This theory takes it to new level.
My only other issue is Chris' claims of what is needed to replicate the towers destruction .....I'd like to know where your pyrotechnical ordinance knowledge comes from?

This is by far the best explanation for the amount of dust we saw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

I don't know how furthering this discussion will help ...but does remind me of an argument I had with the wife. Her assertion is skyscrapers are "designed to fall apart in nice small pieces for safety reasons" ...so in an event such 9/11 it doesn't damage the surroundings. After I stopped laughing I tried to explain that buildings are built so catastrophic failure does not occer ...i.e. the building falls down quite whole....not pulverised into miles of debris...in the event of an accident. This theory takes it to new level.
My only other issue is Chris' claims of what is needed to replicate the towers destruction .....I'd like to know where your pyrotechnical ordinance knowledge comes from?

---

Wow Dark, you're MARRIED???

Well Auggie .....I was saving myself for you but you were all tied up with Royster so.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

Well Auggie .....I was saving myself for you but you were all tied up with Royster so.....

---

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

My only other issue is Chris' claims of what is needed to replicate the towers destruction .....I'd like to know where your pyrotechnical ordinance knowledge comes from?

---

In 1984 I worked for about 4 months as a driller on a project under a licensed blaster and gained a great deal of understanding of how explosives did the damage they do. Following that I read the blasters handbook and another text dealing with the spectrum of materials in use. Over the years I've encountered a number of ex military people who have had considerable experience in demolition with high density high explosives, of course I picked their brains.

As a driller I learned how critical it was to get the explosives perfectly centered. Distribution was something that became obvious through study as the blasting I was doing only did one shot at a time except for the pre shear of the cut slope. After the shearing of the cut slope the mass was taken out one shot at a time with a technique called "cushion blasting" utilizing ANFO in 10 foot vertical benches.

If the explosives are not centered, complete breakage does not occur. What happens is a hole is blown out the side and the rock formation or concrete in the case of the towers is left mostly whole. In the case of the towers, the reduction to sand and gravel is not short of phenomenal. When I was blasting I felt lucky to get 30% breakage down to particulate. At the WTC there was 100% breakage where detonation occurred per plan.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001...c/pdrm1943.jpg

I have thought that perhaps cameras were confiscated at GZ because there was an intention to prevent recording hydraulic breakers busting up the few large pieces of concrete that were left lying around.

Chris..agreed .....but none of us have any clue what type of explosives the military uses or used. C-4 is what 60 years old? I'm sure they have come up with some pretty amazing technologies concerning explosives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eckolaker

This is by far the best explanation for the amount of dust we saw.

---

Yea, the dust is a real issue. Dr. Ron Larsen Ph.D was adamant about finding a solid explanation for that factor. He found some crude volumetric calculations of the city streets, expansion rates, particle size and found a major puzzle therein.

Actually Hoffmans site in 2002 got me thinking with the dust issue. That thinking led me to totally abandon the web as far as an information source of structural image items that might jog my as yet unopened memory of the 1990 documentary. My examination of the demo images and those of GZ really got me thinking about how to reduce concrete to its particulate components so completely.

As yet I had not realized the FEMA core deception or how completely it had been inserted into the as yet unformed movement.

The engineered concrete container for explosives became a logic puzzle to ascetain just how close its performance would come to what was seen and heard. I ran a projected design procedure/sequence past a couple of strcutural engineers and they were okay with how the rebar size, wall thickness and coating thickness could be balanced to get enough explosive on a bar that was selected oversize, making a stronger wall to accomodate enough plastic explosive coating without loosening the grip of the concrete on the bar by being too thick, an important aspect of the shear wall.

When the amount of square area of concrete exposed directly in very close proximity at the center of a concrete container with a breaching pressure just adequate for the quantity of explosive, the maximum pressures attainable are found very uniformly over the centralized rebar grid. That maximum pressure equates to a shockwave that just shreds concrete after the material in close proximity is reduced to the absolute minumum size particle. Iron is easily bonded to silica and calcium under those conditions as well.

For me, when I remembered the 2 tempered steel plates in the floors around the columns, I really felt as though I had a handle on a large part of the the methods used. Later I realized that the type and color of particulate, dust etc. could be equated to the type of different devices or explosive circuits in the buildings. The iron micropheres particulary. I made a page about it.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html

myspace has deleted 4 threads having this url of this video.

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II

It should be clear that only information dangerous to the perpetrators would be removed from Rupert Murdochs space.

As Dr. Ron Larsen, Ph.D. in physics from Cornell University says, "You know you are over the target when you start taking flak.".

BTW, everyweek day AM (except tomorrow) Dr. Larsen and I are live for 1 hour with a mix of politics and 9-11 information.

9:00 AM and 10:00 AM CST, (7:00 AM to 8:00 PST) weekdays through the week. Here is the web radio url,

http://www.live365.com/stations/ronelar

I believe that a copy of the PBS program you're seeking was recently (in June) for sale on Craigslist in Hartford. The link is dead now, but it gave me the idea that Craigslist may be a good way to find it. I found the link simply by googling the title of the documentary. Perhaps if you did this every day, you'd find a copy.

Also, I've not been able to find anything on building codes that would allow or require explosives to be built into a skyscraper. If you could show that this has been done before in other buildings, it would make your thesis much more believable. Most of the resistance I see to your theory is that people just can't believe that the codes would allow people to work in a building riddled with C-4.

Good luck and keep up the good work.
SD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Standard Deviation

I believe that a copy of the PBS program you're seeking was recently (in June) for sale on Craigslist in Hartford. The link is dead now, but it gave me the idea that Craigslist may be a good way to find it. I found the link simply by googling the title of the documentary. Perhaps if you did this every day, you'd find a copy.

Also, I've not been able to find anything on building codes that would allow or require explosives to be built into a skyscraper. If you could show that this has been done before in other buildings, it would make your thesis much more believable. Most of the resistance I see to your theory is that people just can't believe that the codes would allow people to work in a building riddled with C-4.

Good luck and keep up the good work.
SD

---

Generally I've learned that the Port Authority (PA) was able to reject NYC city and state building codes as controlling their construction. Of course, to rightfully do this they would have to have good reasoning, and I think in the cases where it was not a "secret" they did have good reasoning. I do believe that there was reasoning put forth which was supposed to have originated with the PA in the 1990 documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers", for the secrecy which the video producers encountered, or countered with multiple FOIA requests, some not honored,

If any allowances for explosives are to be found it will probably relate to fasteners. Explosive bolts such as are found in the space program are the most common.

I'm giving this a bump because there still is no other feasible explanation for these profound factors at the WTC on 9-11 that the towers having concrete core as and being built to demolish.

free fall
total pulverization
superfine, heated particulate
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet