Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition

teddy_irish

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition

lenght of the interview: 4hrs:16min:20sec - after this interview there will be no more questions unanswered!

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition
a groundbreaking interview of an ex officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence
exposing the truth of the 9/11 events
This Video series has been censored all through the web.

"Why I believe nuclear demolition fits all the evidence we know about.

They didn't call it "ground zero" for nothing! Before 911, ground zero only meant the area below or above a nuclear detonation, after 911, they changed some of the dictionaries to say it was also the place where terrorists attacked the trade centers. It's all mind control.

Dimitri Khalezov has been an expert in nuclear demolition for many years and has an incredible amount of proof that the buildings were taken down by underground micro nuclear demolition charges! I've posted some links to other material such as the melted cars that could have only been done by EMP type effects caused by a nuclear bomb since there was no jet fuel burning at ground level AND some of these cars were missing engine blocks! They were totally melted! How do you melt an engine block when no fire was burning at ground level - many of these cars were 7 blocks away! They were never explained in any way. Also it was never explained why Tritium levels were 55 times more than normal at ground zero. And of course we have ALL the strange cancers from first responders and many of them have died. They were forced to wear "air quality" badges which Dimitri says were really just radiation detectors in disguise so they could monitor everybody's exposure and pull people out of the hot zones for a while when their badges reported higher radiation. Easy to lie to everybody and tell them the badge is to monitor air quality. That is pure garbage if you think about it. There is not going to be that much difference in "air quality around such a relatively small area anyway.

Dimitri even said that in the 70's he was told that the Americans had authorized the twin towers to be taken down at the end of their lifetimes with small nuclear demolition charges! I did some research and it was true! It was determined that only a nuclear demolition charge could safely bring down both Towers and Building 7 because of their construction. Here's some good information on nuclear demolition"

From the youtube uploader

Brown Bomber

Hi Teddy,

teddy_irish wrote: »

They didn't call it "ground zero" for nothing! Before 911, ground zero only meant the area below or above a nuclear detonation, after 911, they changed some of the dictionaries to say it was also the place where terrorists attacked the trade centers. It's all mind control.

Here is the thing - If I was involved in this vastly elaborate and dastardly crime and also the coverup where exposure of my involvement would lead to certain death for treason, that is if angry mobs didn't drag me through the street first, the last thing I would want to do is leave any kind of indicator of the crime that points in my direction i.e. "Ground Zero".

I don't think anyone else would think different.

teddy_irish

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hi Teddy,


Here is the thing - If I was involved in this vastly elaborate and dastardly crime and also the coverup where exposure of my involvement would lead to certain death for treason, that is if angry mobs didn't drag me through the street first, the last thing I would want to do is leave any kind of indicator of the crime that points in my direction i.e. "Ground Zero".

I don't think anyone else would think different.

If you think so... Just check the time frame between 1:41:22 to 1:46:10
It's only 5 mins from the clip above. There is the proof.

weisses

teddy_irish wrote: »

If you think so... Just check the time frame between 1:41:22 to 1:46:10
It's only 5 mins from the clip above. There is the proof.

Neehh that is to far fetched ... Dictionary's always get re-written ... That last comparison was from a American dictionary so i can understand that they rephrased it for future reading

They are more adapting the meaning of the word to what is generally used for the word "ground zero" after 9/11

Border-Rat

Nuclear detonation. Laughable disinfo. The buildings were rigged with conventional military-grade explosives. The wireless detonators were added in the 3 weekends leading up to 9/11 by Israeli military demolition teams. They had access because the security contract had already been won by an Israeli-linked firm.

Penn

Border-Rat wrote: »

Nuclear detonation. Laughable disinfo. The buildings were rigged with conventional military-grade explosives. The wireless detonators were added in the 3 weekends leading up to 9/11 by Israeli military demolition teams. They had access because the security contract had already been won by an Israeli-linked firm.

Three weekends is not long enough to wire up a building and plant explosives for demolition purposes, and that's without taking into account that the explosives would have to be hidden. I remember watching a doc years ago where it took a month to set explosives in a building half that size, and that was without having to conceal them, and there were wires all over the place. I also worked in a quarry for a short while and one day had to help set explosives for a rock blast, which took a day and wasn't nearly as complex as doing it in a building.

Then add to that the fact that once the planes hit and the fire started, the explosives would have been set off instantly.

As for wireless detonators, I'm not sure that would have been advisable to use with the amount of cellular devices in New York City, and even in those buildings. They could have accidentally set off the explosives early which would have been disastrous. I'm pretty sure the time I helped with explosives we had to turn all phones off, even though it was a wired detonation, though it was a few years ago now and I can't really remember.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Three weekends is not long enough to wire up a building and plant explosives for demolition purposes,

...

Sheikh A. Alakl Residential & Commercial Center
Over the last 52 years, Controlled Demolition Incorporated has designed and used explosives to cause the controlled, progressive failure of thousands of brick, concrete and steel structures. It comes as no surprise that Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s database is highly useful in analyzing the condition of, and designing the implosion sequence for the demolition of structural systems damaged by construction failure, earthquakes, fires or explosions.

Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.




http://www.controlled-demolition.com/sheikh-alakl-residential-commercial-center

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

...

Sheikh A. Alakl Residential & Commercial Center
Over the last 52 years, Controlled Demolition Incorporated has designed and used explosives to cause the controlled, progressive failure of thousands of brick, concrete and steel structures. It comes as no surprise that Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s database is highly useful in analyzing the condition of, and designing the implosion sequence for the demolition of structural systems damaged by construction failure, earthquakes, fires or explosions.

Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.




http://www.controlled-demolition.com/sheikh-alakl-residential-commercial-center

I'd actually highlight different parts of that paragraph:

Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.

That was a 17 storey building, half of which had already collapsed, and from the start of their demolition preparations took 96 hours or 4 days.

The Twin Towers were two 110 storey buildings, occupied and structurally intact, and three weekends would only be 6 days.

Now fair enough, perhaps I should have said "Three weekends is not long enough to wire up a building of this size and plant explosives for demolition purposes", but in fairness, I think the point still stands when taken in context of the whole paragraph.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.

So 9 ish stories of a deserted, partially collapsed building. In 4 days.
You are agreeing with Penn right?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So 9 ish stories of a deserted, partially collapsed building. In 4 days.
You are agreeing with Penn right?

4 days? Nice exaggeration. You do realise that the travel time to get there is irrelevant?

This is the important part:
"prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours"

And "9ish stories"? Is that a scientific term?

Another point is that obviously "putt(ing) the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety" is not a consideration in the scenario of the twin towers as controlled demolition therefore this would speed up the process.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Now fair enough, perhaps I should have said "Three weekends is not long enough to wire up a building of this size and plant explosives for demolition purposes", but in fairness, I think the point still stands when taken in context of the whole paragraph.

Can you prove this?

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

So 9 ish stories of a deserted, partially collapsed building. In 4 days.
You are agreeing with Penn right?

I think Brown Bomber, and he's free to correct me on this, was pointing out that I had said three weekends was not long enough to plant explosives and demolish a building in, whereas he could point to that example which was done in four days. After all, I only said "a building" and did not specify size or height.

Though I would argue that even regardless of size, if half of the building had already collapsed while it was being constructed then demolition would likely be easier as it would seem that the building was not structurally sound in the first place. Nor was the building occupied which would mean it was quicker and easier to plant the explosives.

enno99

Penn wrote: »

I think Brown Bomber, and he's free to correct me on this, was pointing out that I had said three weekends was not long enough to plant explosives and demolish a building in, whereas he could point to that example which was done in four days. After all, I only said "a building" and did not specify size or height.

Though I would argue that even regardless of size, if half of the building had already collapsed while it was being constructed then demolition would likely be easier as it would seem that the building was not structurally sound in the first place. Nor was the building occupied which would mean it was quicker and easier to plant the explosives.

Could it also be argued that process might have been a lot slower than normal given the precarious nature of the building and a lot more tought to the safety of the team rigging the building would be required

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

4 days? Nice exaggeration. You do realise that the travel time to get there is irrelevant?

The article said it took 94 hours from the start of demolition preparation.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the important part:
"prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours"

Which could mean a lot of things in demolition terms. For all we know it could just mean that the demolition charges were set, but were not wired up.
Hell it could even mean all the prep work that was needed to be done such as clearing the building of rubble etc before they could even set the charges.

The article stated it took 96 hours start to finish.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And "9ish stories"? Is that a scientific term?

Yes, it's halfish of 17.
The point is the building in question was a 10th the size of one of the Twin Towers and it took 4 days to demolish. And that was working without needing to be stealthy.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Another point is that obviously "putt(ing) the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety" is not a consideration in the scenario of the twin towers as controlled demolition therefore this would speed up the process.

No, but the supposed covert demolition team would have their own challenges.
Such as avoiding being seen or detected. Quietly shipping in their equipment. Hiding their work. Making multiple redundant systems so the charges would fire after a plane hit and the resulting fires. Possibly working with exotic materials such as thermite, nano thermite or nuclear weapons.
So what time they might have saved in safety they surely lost in other stuff.

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Could it also be argued that process might have been a lot slower than normal given the precarious nature of the building and a lot more tought to the safety of the team rigging the building would be required

So then perhaps would should use an example of a larger, stable building to determine a fair comparison?
Like for instance: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store
A 33 story building which took 24 days to rig to explode, which does not count the prosecuting and pre weakening that was needed.

And that's still only a third the size of one of the WTC buildings and of a totally different structure.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you prove this?

http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

We've had chimneys prepared in half a day and we've had buildings that take three months. Generally we don't do the preparation work. We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out. The second thing we do is drilling. Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building, the higher up we work. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way. But we work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces. Other preparatory operations are covering—wrapping the columns with chain link fence and then in geotextile fabric, which is very puncture resistant and has a very high tensile strength. It allows the concrete to move, but it keeps the concrete from flying. The chain link catches the bigger material and the fabric catches the smaller material from flying up and out. We also sometimes put up a curtain around the entire floor, to catch the stuff that gets through these first two layers. That's really where your liability is.

Obviously though, I'm no expert. But with the amount of work that I saw both first hand and in the documentary, coupled with my experience in structural design, I really fail to see how two buildings of that size could be wired with explosives for controlled demolition in 6 days, incognito, and covering up the explosives so they are unnoticeable.

Penn

enno99 wrote: »

Could it also be argued that process might have been a lot slower than normal given the precarious nature of the building and a lot more tought to the safety of the team rigging the building would be required

I'd say more time would have been needed both to put everything back as it was so no-one would notice all the work which had taken place.

One of the main factors however would be the fact that, if they knew a plane was going to hit the building, the explosives should have gone off instantly. Now, I'm not an expert so maybe there is some way of shielding the explosives for a certain amount of time, but that could only possibly add even more time to the demolition works, further stretching the credibility of the three weekend limit.

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, it's halfish of 17.
The point is the building in question was a 10th the size of one of the Twin Towers and it took 4 days to demolish. And that was working without needing to be stealthy.

I'd slightly disagree with the 9-ish floor claim. It said half of the 17-storey building had collapsed. It's unlikely that the top 9-ish floors collapsed leaving the bottom 9-ish floors, more likely half of the footprint of the building collapsed, meaning there was still 17 storeys, just with half the floor area.

However, as it doesn't give a floor area of the building, it's unknown whether one floor of the building is equal to one floor of one of the Towers, whether before or after half of that building collapsed.

enno99

Penn wrote: »

I'd say more time would have been needed both to put everything back as it was so no-one would notice all the work which had taken place.

One of the main factors however would be the fact that, if they knew a plane was going to hit the building, the explosives should have gone off instantly. Now, I'm not an expert so maybe there is some way of shielding the explosives for a certain amount of time, but that could only possibly add even more time to the demolition works, further stretching the credibility of the three weekend limit.

Perhaps we have our wires crossed
I was talking about the partially collapsed building in BB's post

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

So then perhaps would should use an example of a larger, stable building to determine a fair comparison?
Like for instance: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store
A 33 story building which took 24 days to rig to explode, which does not count the prosecuting and pre weakening that was needed.

And that's still only a third the size of one of the WTC buildings and of a totally different structure.

How would that be a fair comparison between a structurally sound building and a partially collapsed one

If you read further in to the link you gave it explains why it took the length of time to complete the task

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

How would that be a fair comparison between a structurally sound building and a partially collapsed one

It's a more fair comparison to the twin towers than a partially collapsed one.

enno99 wrote: »

If you read further in to the link you gave it explains why it took the length of time to complete the task

No, the link specifically states that it took 24 days just to place and wire up the charges, nothing else.
This is not counting the safety things or the precutting etc, and it doesn't count any covert operation stuff either.
And that's a building a third the size of the WTC.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

It's a more fair comparison to the twin towers than a partially collapsed one.


No, the link specifically states that it took 24 days just to place and wire up the charges, nothing else.
This is not counting the safety things or the precutting etc, and it doesn't count any covert operation stuff either.
And that's a building a third the size of the WTC.

So how much explosives and time do you think it would have took to bring down 1 of the towers

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

So how much explosives and time do you think it would have took to bring down 1 of the towers

More than it would have taken to bring down a building 1/3 it's size.

Penn

enno99 wrote: »

Perhaps we have our wires crossed
I was talking about the partially collapsed building in BB's post

Ah, I see. That makes more sense alright. Apologies.

It's too hard to say without any information on why the rest collapsed or the design, but I would suspect that works to make the remaining structure safe would have already taken place before calling in demolition crews. Every effort to retain the structure would have been made. After all, the building was still being constructed. The costs of demolishing and rebuilding would be huge. If they could have added new structural members (columns, beams etc) to the remaining in order to make it safe, then rebuild the demolished part also with additional structural elements, they probably would have. In order to decide, engineers would have needed to investigate the part of the building which didn't collapse, so the building would have needed to have been made safe.

Again, I have pretty much zero information on the case so this is all just speculation and what I would expect to happen.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

More than it would have taken to bring down a building 1/3 it's size.

I can see where that would apply

If both buildings were identical in every way except height


No structural drawings of the facility were available, making structural analysis and implosion design a considerable task for CDI. The interdependency of the 12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section of the structure which CDI’s demolition program had to cope with. These factors created an implosion design, preparation and dynamic control challenge for the 2nd and 3rd generation of a family recognized as the international founders of the commercial implosion industry

Perhaps this design needed more than a normal 33 story building

sparxz

teddy_irish wrote: »

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition

lenght of the interview: 4hrs:16min:20sec - after this interview there will be no more questions unanswered!

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition
a groundbreaking interview of an ex officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence
exposing the truth of the 9/11 events
This Video series has been censored all through the web.

"Why I believe nuclear demolition fits all the evidence we know about.

They didn't call it "ground zero" for nothing! Before 911, ground zero only meant the area below or above a nuclear detonation, after 911, they changed some of the dictionaries to say it was also the place where terrorists attacked the trade centers. It's all mind control.

Dimitri Khalezov has been an expert in nuclear demolition for many years and has an incredible amount of proof that the buildings were taken down by underground micro nuclear demolition charges! I've posted some links to other material such as the melted cars that could have only been done by EMP type effects caused by a nuclear bomb since there was no jet fuel burning at ground level AND some of these cars were missing engine blocks! They were totally melted! How do you melt an engine block when no fire was burning at ground level - many of these cars were 7 blocks away! They were never explained in any way. Also it was never explained why Tritium levels were 55 times more than normal at ground zero. And of course we have ALL the strange cancers from first responders and many of them have died. They were forced to wear "air quality" badges which Dimitri says were really just radiation detectors in disguise so they could monitor everybody's exposure and pull people out of the hot zones for a while when their badges reported higher radiation. Easy to lie to everybody and tell them the badge is to monitor air quality. That is pure garbage if you think about it. There is not going to be that much difference in "air quality around such a relatively small area anyway.

Dimitri even said that in the 70's he was told that the Americans had authorized the twin towers to be taken down at the end of their lifetimes with small nuclear demolition charges! I did some research and it was true! It was determined that only a nuclear demolition charge could safely bring down both Towers and Building 7 because of their construction. Here's some good information on nuclear demolition"

From the youtube uploader

SO MANY WARNINGS - SO FEW LISTEN, EVEN LESS UNDERSTAND, AND NO ONE ACTS. ALL OF THE ELEMENTS A CRIMINAL CABAL NEED TO ACT WITH IMPUNITY. - Quote, from this poster.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” - Woodrow Wilson

Justice is incidental to law and order.
J. Edgar Hoover



We[FBI] are a fact-gathering organization only. We don't clear anybody. We don't condemn anybody.
J. Edgar Hoover



We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of [International]communism
[Created by the city of London/TempleBar] are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. ... The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.
― -- J. Edgar Hoover


Above all, I would teach him to tell the truth Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar.

“Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.”
- Henry Kissinger (Bilderburg Conference 1991 Evians, France)

[Visited Dublin, and greeted by Brian Cowan and Mary McAlease in Four seasons Hotel. Michael Martin(FF TD) sent written invites to Trilateral members, from Dept Foreign affairs headed paper, to dine in Dublin Castle].

“Naturally the common people don't want war…but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…all you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” Herman Goering ( One of Hitler's top men, during the Nuremberg Trials)

The easiest way to gain control of the population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamor for such laws if the personal security is threatened. - Joseph Stalin

The real rulers of Washington are Invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes. - Justice Felix Frankfurter - US Supreme Court Justice

"We shall have World Government. Whether or not we like it. The only Question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - James Paul Warburg , Foreign agent for the Rothschild dynasty - Major Player in the Federal Reserve act scam / Feb. 17, 1950 speaking before the U.S. Senate.

"The Technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more CONTROLLED society. Such a society would be dominated by ELITE, unrestrained by traditional values." - Zbigniew Brezhinsky , Advisor to 5 U.S. Presidents - Executive Director Trilateral Commission. "Between two Ages"

“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberg Group have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years.” - Dr. Johannes Koeppl – former official of the German Ministry for Defense and adviser to NATO.

“We are on the verge of a Global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” - David Rockefeller



"Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence because it loathes doing what is needed to counter them," explained Revel. "It awakens only when the danger becomes deadly, imminent, and evident. By then, either there is too little time left for it to save itself, or the price of survival has become crushingly high." - Jean Francois Revel



“Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel . We, the Jewish people, control America , and the Americans know it.” - Ariel Sharon , October 3, 2001



"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson [U.S. President during World War I]

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

I can see where that would apply

If both buildings were identical in every way except height

Height can be used to the demolitions crew's advantage. It's the downward pressure that does most of the destruction.

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

I can see where that would apply

If both buildings were identical in every way except height


No structural drawings of the facility were available, making structural analysis and implosion design a considerable task for CDI. The interdependency of the 12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section of the structure which CDI’s demolition program had to cope with. These factors created an implosion design, preparation and dynamic control challenge for the 2nd and 3rd generation of a family recognized as the international founders of the commercial implosion industry

Perhaps this design needed more than a normal 33 story building

And perhaps the WTC design needed more.

You're welcome to show examples of buildings like the WTC that were demolished in under 6 days.

But all the examples so far seem to indicate such a feat is not likely even if the building was evacuated.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

And perhaps the WTC design needed more.

You're welcome to show examples of buildings like the WTC that were demolished in under 6 days.

But all the examples so far seem to indicate such a feat is not likely even if the building was evacuated.

So like I said in the start your comparison is invalid

christmas2012

i dont believe in any conspriacy theories to this , it is just crazy,i seen one guy use a road runner as an argument on youtube it is just too much to take in as serious you have to laugh at some of these nutjobs going around trying to convince us 911 was an inside job,i cant imagine how infuriating it must be for the relatives of this attack to have to see this online..

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

So like I said in the start your comparison is invalid

But BB's isn't?

Can you show an example of a comparable building of similar size or construction that was rigged in less than 6 days?
Cause so far even the largest example you can find and the nearest analogue to the Twin Towers took 24 days.

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Height can be used to the demolitions crew's advantage. It's the downward pressure that does most of the destruction.

Dont know the ins and outs of it

But I see your point of the speed that can be attained in an emergency situation

Kinda like where theres a will theres a way

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Height can be used to the demolitions crew's advantage. It's the downward pressure that does most of the destruction.

This is true, which is why I would admit that if they had rigged the bottom few floors with explosives and the rest collapsed via downward pressure, it would be more plausible. It would also negate the problem of the fires blowing the explosives upon impact of the plane.

However, as the buildings clearly begin to collapse around the point of impact from the planes and then the downward pressure of the upper floors collapsing the rest of the building from there down, the lowest point the explosives could have been placed would still be within a few floors of where the planes hit. And given that the planes hit different floors in each building, and how difficult it would have been to aim for a specific floor flying a plane, it can't be assumed that the explosives were placed with the intention of being low enough below where the planes were going to hit to prevent the impact setting off the explosives upon impact, but also being high enough to make it look like the point of collapse was where the planes hit.

sparxz

christmas2012 wrote: »

i dont believe in any conspriacy theories to this , it is just crazy,i seen one guy use a road runner as an argument on youtube it is just too much to take in as serious you have to laugh at some of these nutjobs going around trying to convince us 911 was an inside job,i cant imagine how infuriating it must be for the relatives of this attack to have to see this online..

Just a few hundred years ago the same problem was faced by, the people
who said the earth was not flat but round/spherical. They were laughed
at an derided, and called conspiracy theorists.

To understand this effect one has to look at Psychology, to find out
why a person faced with an obvious set of facts would prefer
to think and do the opposite, and seek false temporal comfort
in Conformity & Compliance !
There is large body of people who have been conditioned in such a way,
that inhibits them from looking at scientific fact and political analysis,
that a forensic psychologist would have to examine and report on.

Asch (1951) [see attached image of parallel image test]
We All (Think We) Are Non-Conformists

(Perceived) Conformity in the Self and Others
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201105/we-all-think-we-are-non-conformists



At the more serious and end of psychology, which showed up shocking
and even sinister results. Some of the subjects needed counseling afterwards, even though they they knew there was no possibility of anyone getting hurt(in retrospect).
It is the most famous experiment to prove how you can get trick people
into doing evil things like a pulling off a 9/11. Then look into:
"Stanley Milgram's experiments".

Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to Authority
http://cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm
& also
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/milgrams-progress


I believe many people who have been psychological damged either
deliberately(majority) or incidentally/indirectly(minority), can be helped.

Once the fear of truth as been met and conqured, and the unknowing victim is liberated, then the sky is the limit, and many go on to help
other afflicted with same condition, either through coaxing or challenging.

Penn

sparxz wrote: »

christmas2012 wrote: »

i dont believe in any conspriacy theories to this , it is just crazy,i seen one guy use a road runner as an argument on youtube it is just too much to take in as serious you have to laugh at some of these nutjobs going around trying to convince us 911 was an inside job,i cant imagine how infuriating it must be for the relatives of this attack to have to see this online..

Just a few hundred years ago the same problem was faced by, the people
who said the earth was not flat but round/spherical. They were laughed
at an derided, and called conspiracy theorists.

No they weren't.

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Dont know the ins and outs of it

But I see your point of the speed that can be attained in an emergency situation

Kinda like where theres a will theres a way

Yeah, and it needs to be remembered that it didn't have to be a controlled demolition, just a demolition, like blowing up an enemy bridge or something. It wouldn't have been a CD company who are required to work out everything down to the finest detail, hypothethically it would have been Special Op's/ Navy Seals / Sapper-types who have no concern for for building codes or regulations or even what happens to the surrounding buildings.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

This is true, which is why I would admit that if they had rigged the bottom few floors with explosives and the rest collapsed via downward pressure, it would be more plausible. It would also negate the problem of the fires blowing the explosives upon impact of the plane.

However, as the buildings clearly begin to collapse around the point of impact from the planes and then the downward pressure of the upper floors collapsing the rest of the building from there down, the lowest point the explosives could have been placed would still be within a few floors of where the planes hit. And given that the planes hit different floors in each building, and how difficult it would have been to aim for a specific floor flying a plane, it can't be assumed that the explosives were placed with the intention of being low enough below where the planes were going to hit to prevent the impact setting off the explosives upon impact, but also being high enough to make it look like the point of collapse was where the planes hit.

I should be clearer - I am not arguing that it would be a simple task or that it is the most likely scenario, just that I have yet to be convinced that it's impossible and therefore cannot be ruled out on this point alone.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I should be clearer - I am not arguing that it would be a simple task or that it is the most likely scenario, just that I have yet to be convinced that it's impossible and therefore cannot be ruled out on this point alone.

I'd agree in a way. I don't think it's impossible, just extremely implausible. I'd also consider it to be one of the worst things they could have done as the chances of someone noticing the explosives, or the explosives being set off early etc are just too high, not to mention the amount of people who would be required to do the work meaning greater chance of someone finding out about it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the US or whoever wanted to stage planes crashing into the towers to bring them down, the simplest way would be to crash planes into the towers to bring them down. Hitting the towers at full force with those planes are something the buildings aren't designed for, as they're designed to withstand being hit by a plane flying slowly through fog and trying to avoid hitting the tower.

teddy_irish

A plane with subsonic speed cannot collapse the WTC towers. It's pure physics. If you hit with the tower the aluminium body of the plain what will happen? Will the plane penetrate the building? Nobody of you spent 4 hours to watch the interview with Dimitri Khalezow, do you?

The Untold Story of the Woolworth Building Incidents on 9-11-01

Quotes Relating to a Missile Firing Off the Roof of the Woolworth Building
"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

WNBC News

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News

"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."

Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News

"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"

Police Channel
Portland Inymedia
"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."

Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News

"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."

Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing

"[About 50 yards from the Tower] There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."

Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that [Woolworth] building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood

---

What about the melted cars all around the area???

The cars parked in the back suffered extensive damage. The car on the left and on the far right look like they have had their engines eaten. The cars in the foreground experienced less damage, but many windows are missing, however partial and whole windows also remain. Cause: EMP from underground nuclear explosion

Toasted cars in a lot near the WTC.

A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine go? The bottom of the tire has turned to goo below a distinct horizontal line in the tire.
EMP from underground nuclear expolsion is evaporating the alluminium which is the engine made from.

Why doesn't the paper burn?

sparxz

Penn wrote: »

No they weren't.

Is this you response/effort, just so you can get to 10,000 posts ?
Lame !

AngryHippie

Does anyone know how to calculate the heat generated from the kinetic energy of the collapsing buildings ?

Penn

sparxz wrote: »

Is this you response/effort, just so you can get to 10,000 posts ?
Lame !

I think my previous posts on this thread show I'm not posting in order to boost my post count, I'm discussing the topic. I just think that hyperbole such as "People who thought the earth was round were called conspiracy theorists" is a completely unjustified statement. They weren't called conspiracy theorists because there wasn't a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the shape of the earth. There was never a conspiracy about it, and trying to associate modern conspiracy theorists with the first men to put forward the theory of the earth being spherical rather than flat is seriously removed from reality.

Even if your statement was true, that would not make modern conspiracy theories any more or less true. One conspiracy theory being proven does not mean they all are, and in this case, the one conspiracy theory you're talking about wasn't even a conspiracy theory.

Monty Burnz

sparxz wrote: »

Is this you response/effort, just so you can get to 10,000 posts ?
Lame !

Not quite as lame as trotting out this old canard - The Myth of the Flat Earth.

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1] The idea seems to have been widespread during the first half of the 20th century, so that the Members of the Historical Association in 1945 stated that:
"The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching." [2]
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was nearly nonexistent. However, the exterior of the famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch is a Renaissance example in which a disc-shaped earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

Border-Rat

Penn wrote: »

Three weekends is not long enough to wire up a building and plant explosives for demolition purposes.

Did you even read what I said? I said in the three weekends leading up to 9/11, wireless detonators were applied to laid explosives. Adding the detonator is easy as pie. :rolleyes:

Penn

Border-Rat wrote: »

Did you even read what I said? I said in the three weekends leading up to 9/11, wireless detonators were applied to laid explosives. Adding the detonator is easy as pie. :rolleyes:

So when were the explosives laid? The three weekends are commonly put forth as the time where the explosives could have been set. If you're suggesting that the explosives were already there and just needed the detonators attached, when were the explosives laid.

If the explosives were laid well in advance, wouldn't that have been extremely risky given that a small fire could have set one of them off early?

Border-Rat

Penn wrote: »

So when were the explosives laid? The three weekends are commonly put forth as the time where the explosives could have been set. If you're suggesting that the explosives were already there and just needed the detonators attached, when were the explosives laid.

Kroll Associates, a Mossad linked security firm, owned the security contract since 1993. They had all the time in the world to prepare the three buildings. Explosives were planted in 2000 and Urban Moving Systems (Mossad demolitions team) prepared the charges in August/September 2001. The Brighton bomb was prepared weeks before its detonation and no-one noticed. For all intents and purposes, owning the building makes rigging very easy.

If the explosives were laid well in advance, wouldn't that have been extremely risky given that a small fire could have set one of them off early?

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible. The higher risk would've been the wireless detonators, which is why they were left untill the 11th hour. They're more likely to be detected and more vulnerable to interference. An explosive is useless without its detonator. The highest risk on 9/11 was remotely-commanded planes missing their targets, the two hits on WTC 1+2 are an extraordinary feat which is why Mossad made a spectacle of themselves in front of horrified New Jersey residents. They were surprised both connected.

Penn

Border-Rat wrote: »

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible.

No it's not. If a fire occurred and was not put out in time, the fire could set off one of the explosives. Just because the explosives would have been placed out of staff reach does not mean that fire or the resultant heat from the fire could not have set the explosives off. Then you also have to consider the fact that the earliest a building collapsed after being hit was just under an hour, which means that the enormous fires caused by the crash somehow did not set off any explosives for almost an hour. That's pretty implausible, and considering the point of collapse begins on the floors where the planes hit and where the fires were mainly located, coupled with the fact that the impact from the planes would have damaged any cover on the explosives, thereby exposing them further to the planes, makes the explosives theory highly unlikely.

There are so many risks to using explosives to simulate the towers being brought down by planes that it would make that option unfeasible. Explosives being set off early (whether months in advance due to office fire or as soon as the plane hit which would look more suspicious as the plane shouldn't cause such a quick collapse), detonation not working (meaning the building doesn't collapse and the explosives are later found and revealed), maintenance man or contractor discovering the planted explosives (unless they were all in on it, which would be a huge number of people to keep quiet and too great a risk of someone accidentally revealing the operation).

Again, if the US wanted to stage a huge terrorist attack to bring down the towers, the simplest way would be to have hijacked planes crash at full force into the towers. Why crash planes into the towers and bring the towers down by explosives, when the plane crash (plane flying at full force into the towers) could achieve the same thing?

Sixtus

Contrary to popular belief the job of a controlled demolition company does not just involve slapping chunks of semetex to supporting columns, and then clicking a detonator. Most of the work involved is labour intensive, cutting into the support columns (not work that can be done discretely) to place the explosives.

In addition if someone could explain to me how this work could be carried out without the buildings occupants from noticing when the design of the WTC towers was such that majority of the structural load bearing columns were on the exterior of the building

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

That would be quite a feat accessing external load bearing columns without one of the largest scaffolding projects in the world. In secret. In broad daylight. In the busiest city in the world.

Finally the idea of wireless detonators is frankly absurd. Leaving aside the fact that the WTC complex would be filled with masses of cell phones from the thousands of phones in the building. The towers being the tallest building in NYC area were used as transmission aerials for much of the satellite and broadcast signals for the greater New York area. Several TV stations, radio stations etc had their signal interrupted when the planes hit the towers. The idea of getting a wireless signal free from interference for these imaginary explosives is patiently absurd.

The obvious final point is this. The towers collapse clearly started at the point of impact. Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional or incapable of rational thought. These military grade explosives would have had to have been put in place in secret, and have survived intact the impact and subsequent fires from the airplanes hitting the building so this claim;

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible.

Is patiently absurd.

Monty Burnz

Border-Rat wrote: »

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible.

According to this paper, the thermal ignition temperature of RDX (C4) is 260 degrees celsius, and for PETN (the explosive component in semtex) it's just 202 degrees.

Jet fuel burns in the open air at temperatures between 260-315 degrees celsius, per Wikipedia.

Brown Bomber

Insensitive Munitions (IM)

An insensitive munition is one that will not detonate under any conditions other than its intended mission to destroy a target. If it is struck by fragments from an explosion or hit by a bullet, it will not detonate. It also will not detonate if it is in close proximity to a target that is hit. In extreme temperatures, the missile will only burn (no detonation or explosion). This increased safety allows greater numbers of missiles to be packaged, handled, stored, and transported in smaller containers. Passing these requirements addresses higher levels of safety performance and means the system is safer to operate in any environment while maintaining its highly lethal performance. It also allows for cost saving opportunities for the government.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/im.htm

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Insensitive Munitions (IM)


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/im.htm

LOL you reading my mind or my bookmarks