Self-Destruct theory

Listen, nobody is saying to keep your ideas to yourself - certainly not me.
I'm just saying that it's important to not lump the different theories out there all together.
Because there are people saying ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
I don't agree with everything in Loose Change and Rense is a proven compulsive liar and not a good source of information.

Nothing to forgive you for. Besides, I'm not God...:-)

But again, I repeat: we don't need to prove WHEN the explosives were planted to prove the case for the demolitions. We can nail them on the controlled demolitions with the arsenal of info already compiled.
Sure, we'd love to be able to prove WHEN they did it. Maybe someday this, too, will be known to us.
I hope so.

One more thing:
As far as I'm concerned, the government's official version of 9-11-01 is the de facto theory.
 
harpoonflyby said:
Lisa, when I suggest excessive explosives being placed in lieu of planning a demolition, I mean EXCESSIVE. As in obvious overkill. Yes, in video we can see what appears to be explosive effects during collapse, but honestly they aren't fully apparent as such. I am talking about that amount which would ensure total collapse without planning would result in an outward explosion, not downward. Use of too many explosives would have scattered the building rather than dropped it, resulting in far more damage to surrounding areas, possibly demolishing the remaining WTC tower and surrounding buildings simultaneously.

How does a hush-rush scenario consider the second tower not toppling as a result from the overuse of explosives in the first tower due to a lack of preparation? How does a hush-rush scenario deal with the use of potentially too few explosives which do not result in building collapse required to hide evidence of itself?
harpoonflyby,

Very good logic. The complete "breakage" (term used by blasters) is phenomenal. Basically unheard of in any use of explosives.

I did above ground blasting in 1983 for awhile. It fascinated me. I was the surveyor for the small project as well as driller for the blaster. Later I studied the blasters handbook and texts on demolition in hopes of getting licensed. Requirements for years of job experience kept me from doing so. Almost no blasting takes place where I am.

The blaster who loaded my drill holes explained from day one. "Get the bottom of the hole in the center of the hard strata." We were working in an area with many layers of soft siltstone, sandstone or shale sandwiching very hard material which was termed "well cemented chirt". Chirt is like glass.

Needless to say, with a formation having a dip (vertical angle) of 70 degrees to the south and roadway alignments not perpindicular, I had very difficult geometry to do in order to locate a place on the surface, a point, which was at the maximum depth of my drill steel which was also in the center of the narrow formations. If I was more tha 20% off the charge would simply blow out the side, which we would not know until the dozers would cut down and bounce of the hard rock below. Whereupon we would have to refill moistened dirt over, for cover and restraint, re drill and blast, in order to get through the hirt conglomerate.

In all, after thinking very hard about the Twin Towers; which I happen to know better than most people as I watched an in depth, intimate 2 hour documentary of in 1990 produced by PBS, since removed in all ways (of course, why would the perps leave such information if they could secretly build towers to do this) from the PBS by infiltrators related to the infiltrators of the US government responsible; I have realized that the towers could have only done what they did if they were built to do exactly what we saw.

For one simple reason. The breakage seen, so complete and uniform, can only be achieved by optimally placed, distributed and contained high explosives. There is absolutely no alternative to this. The towers were not just built to demolish they were engineered to do so and reduce all materials to the most convienent sizes for removal.

The issue of deterioration of the explosive would be a problem except for the explosives were completely encapsulated in the concrete and there was stringent quality control applied. Thusly sealed (sometimes not, there were exceptons that can be seen) they were good for the life of the building. The powerdown on the weekend before was simply to place electric blasting caps to finish the extensive setting of detonators to initiate the many explosive circuits connecting the structural elements of the towers.

In order for this deception to succeed it was necessary to conceal the true design of thetowers. This is the reason that the WTC documents were taken from NYC and stored in the ex mayors personal warehouse where courts will not force their removal

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

I have been trying for years to get this informaton out but the 9-11 was pre infiltrated, seeded with activists who just cannot handle the notion that; 1) towers could be secretly built 33 years prior to their demo with explosive encapsulated in concrete and then kept secret, 2)That the basic design of the towers could be hidden from the public.

I have a thread about this here, comments about the comprehensiveness of the post are welcome.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3963

Since 2003 I have been assembling information of inages of the demolition and evidence of the publics general knowledge of the true design of the towers as having a tubular cast concrete core rather than the multiple steel core columns that FEMA's WTC report attempts to state.

My demolition site has links to pages detailing the types of disinformation we are subjected to as well as a page devoted to documenting the concrete core.

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

You will find that the exposure of the concrete core is intrinsic to the demolition, so proof of its existence is scattered throughout.
 
now i feel dumb, since i was responding to the first page but failed to see the continuation....
forgive me, i'm new.
 
Back
Top Bottom