http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
I have published/debated this scenario on 9-11 message boards and those that have examined my page carefully, who also have the experience to analyse the information there, have provided common sense support. Here are a few.
From the democraticunderground.com
OneMind (53 posts) Fri Mar-11-05 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. RE: "Explosions In The Basement At Impact & More"
Christopher,
I read your website, and, with regard to the WTC, I believe you're on to something important. Suddenly, all of the secrecy about the original construction documents makes sense. I would recommend you contact the following two individuals because they have the contacts, influence and financial resources to make things happen:
1- Karl Schwarz, who is involved with the effort to persuade New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to reopen 9/11, as well as the Sibel Edmonds case. He has a lot of insider information about maintenance problems with the WTC and Silverstein's motivations to purchase the lease for the express purpose of demolishing the buildings, including a reported 300% increase in the insured value of the WTC during June and July of 2001, as well as a Silverstein/insurance connection to Henry Kissinger (remember when * tried to appoint Kissinger as Chairman of the 9/11 Commission?).
http://www.karlschwarz.com /
(Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble: Parts 1-6; Schwarz has more information than anyone about the financial shenanigans behind 9/11; Part V addresses the unidentified aircraft parts at the Pentagon)
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120404Schw...
2- Jimmy Walter, the person behind ReOpen 911.org (based in Santa Barbara, CA)
http://www.reopen911.org /
http://walden3.org / (Jimmy's sustainable living site)
And, 3- You might want to try Jim Hoffman at: http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/contact.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm /
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
Hoffman's site is well respected, and he, like you, has come to the conclusion that something other than conventional explosives was used. Did you listen to his interview with "Guns and Butter?" I think he might be open to hearing what you have to say.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N Dec 15 2004
I would preface your detailed information with a VERY SIMPLE summary, perhaps one to three paragraphs, for example: "My research leads me to the conclusion that the buildings were designed for implosion during their construction in 1984,...." and so on.
I've looked at your website enough now to have a pretty good idea of what you are saying, but I still haven't grasped all of it. Even well-informed researchers might find your information somewhat challenging to comprehend during a first reading. And the first reading is important.
It's just a suggestion. Remember, you've been looking at and analyzing your research for months, and you know it inside and out. Approaching the ".orgs and personalities" requires that you make things as clear and simple as possible, especially for those who might have little or no background in structural engineering, building construction and so on.
Great work.
OTHER POSTS IN THE SAME THREAD
spooked911 (831 posts) Sat Mar-12-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I looked at your site today, and all I can say is that it is fascinating!
I also think you are onto something very important. It sounds like you know your stuff.
I just read it over once, I'll have to reread it again.
Your info is so important I would really recommend changing the format of your demolition page so it is easier to navigate, also the text could be changed to highlight the enormity of what you are saying. Overall, you seem to have some incredible info there
Dancing_Dave (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-15-05 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
36. Mike Pecoraro is one of many witnesses to multiple explosions!
Mike gave this account to a building engineers trade magazine shortly after 9/11, and it is just one of very many accounts of multiple explosions in the WTC on 9/11...including major explosions in the basements early on. Try Googling "WTC Explosions 9/11" and you should be able to find hundreds of witness accounts of the explosives in the WTC...unless these have all disappeared since last I checked.
I'm in an email group composed largely of scientists, who have lately been discussing the site you mention. The site is a very admirable effort from a well-informed citizen, we all learned something about the construction and demolition issues involved. His contention that the Port Authority put C4 in the building during the original construction in very unconfirmed though. THE EARLIEST WE ARE AWARE OF ANY PREPERATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OF THE WTC BEING MADE WERE AROUND 1990, BY WHICH TIME THE BUILDINGS HAD PROVEN VERY UNPROFITABLE FOR THE PORT AUTHORITY. We have direct testimony from someone involved in a group hired by the Port Authority, that studied possibilities including demolition at that time.
However, an actual decision to demolish the WTC does not seem to have been made until early 2001.
HERE ARE SOME COMMENTS FROM Let's Roll 9-11.
Endgame
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 439
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Christopher on this one.
Those towers were reduced to dust. The top sections above the damaged towers were dust before they hit the ground.
Let's say that these top sections fell 4 storeys before crushing the lower floors, leading to the "pancaking" collapse. Sure, the weight of the falling upper sections was very substancial, but was it enough to pulverise to dust the hundreds of storeys below?
And where's the stack of pancakes when all was said and done?
Floor by floor the supports gave way and the towers went down. When there was once 10 feet of air between each floor, now there was none. Where's the frickin stack of matter that made up those very floors?
These bastards were playing with a stacked deck! They had various factors in their arsenal of tricks that gave them supreme confidence in 9/11's execution and the quick to follow cover-up.
..................
When explosives are sheltered from elements such as oxygen, heat and light, do they go bad? I dunno. Seems like a great environment to store them for later use. Again, they know something I'll never figure out or be able to explain as a mere blue-collar joe. Without Christopher's work, I would have never imagined anything close to that level of detail. Now, there's nothing better out there to explain the collapse in my mind.
Respect the enemy. One does not wage war against his foe unless that very foe is identified as weak and incapable of great resistance. No one fires the first shot when the odds are stacked against them. We are the Republican Guard of society. Thought to be well trained, well equipped, and strong enough to repel the invaders. When the shooting started on 9/11, all of our wit, knowledge and understanding of self came crashing down. We broke up and fled to safety, not to re-group and fight again, but to hide and take the hand of the enemy. We surrendered.
We here are the insurgents of 9/11. Using what little power we have to discomfort the occupation, we fight on in hopes of our enemy slipping up and being discovered. Divided and in conflict, we are going nowhere. You don't have to believe the WTC explosive possibility, not one bit. But to mock those who are your comrades, will leave us forever in this struggle.
ANOTHER FROM Let's Roll 9-11
kaha
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 1714
Location: Central Oregon, USA
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:21 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
getshorty911 wrote:
are you saying that the they put explosives in the towers when the were built 30 years ago knowing that 911 was going to happen?
I was in high school when the towers were built. And I recall it being explained to me that these modern "skyscrapers" were designed to be brought down safely at the end of their useful lives, with charges preinstalled throughout the building. I can't remember for the life of me where I heard this, and therefore can't prove that it wasn't just a rumor going around (like how the small crosses on Hoover Dam mark where workmen fell down into the concrete as it was being poured; untrue). But I know that I heard it. And I could almost swear that it was from a teacher, who was enlightening the class on this new marvel of modern technology/architecture.
My post at Let's Roll:
Imagine a cartoon:
Planes fly into buildings knocking them down. When they hit they break the tower at the impact point and the top falls towards the impact side and the body of the tower follows the planes path.
In the case of the plane having enough inertia to do this, the top falls towards the impact because it is at rest, and will tend to stay at rest and the plane will try to fly under it after removing its support. in the case of the WTC it was intended to mimic a structural failure caused by planes and fires.
Say we didn't know where planes hit the towers. If we were to take events at the WTC on 9-11 backwards from the falling towers and the directions their tops and bodies fell according to the above "cartoon" model to determine which side they were hit on, we would say that WTC1 was hit on the south side and 2 hit on the west side. Add to this the logically inconsistent fall/impact sequence issue and it is proof that demolition's took the towers down.
The reason for this is that collapses always occur on the side of the structure that fails to bear the load. Horizontally cutting 45 or so columns on one face, approximately one half the buildings width, in a tower with no core, might cause a structure failure of the remaining columns and the tower would fall in that direction. In the Twin Towers stood a massive rectangular, steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core that could sustain numerous hits from planes and cannot not melt or be weakened by fire. To reduce it to sand and gravel would require massive energy. For all these reasons FEMA lied.
RESPONSE FROM Let's Roll 9-11
stannrodd
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: Aotearoa
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:01 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your logic regarding the demolition collapse and the towers tilting the wrong way is impeccable Christopher. In both airplane impacts the slicing of a part of the support structure would create the possibility of the tower falling toward the impact side. In both cases I feel the aircraft impact was inadequate to be the sole cause of the collapse, since the aircraft were shredded into much smaller projectiles and for the most part entered an empty space.
For the sake of argument if the core was not a solid structure then it would add more to the above empty space concept. Either way the only way for the towers to tilt/fall the wrong way would be to purposely weaken them that way. QED.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
There is a fascinating webpage, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html" that describes a new model for how the WTC towers were demolished: they were built with pre-coated C4 explosives on the core columns. Sounds crazy perhaps, but the guy seems to know his stuff.
There is much more interesting info at his site, and he also attempts to explain the
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/03/proof-that-something-very-strange.html strange story of the spire, that I posted about a few days back. Overall, this fellow has put together an incredible story and it is the best single explanation that I have seen for why the WTC collapsed. It probably takes a few readings to really have it sink in. I definitely will be referring back to this theory in the future. He has these further down on his page. They are: 1) The collapse of WTC 7, not hit by a plane; 2) The rate of collapse equaling that of free fall; 3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11; 4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate.
Ducati 749
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 492
Location: Arizona
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:58 am Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher nailed it!
As an underwriter of architects and engineers professional liability I am privy to many of the means and methods of construction of large bulidings and such (I have to know what I am insuring) . It is a fairly common practice for demolitions to be incorporated within the design elements of any skyscraper such as the trade centers as building designers have to think about the future and an "orderly" method of bringing down these buildings after their useful lifespan has been reached. Any other method could cause "collateral damage" to surrounding structures and this is exactly why the WTC towers came down like a stack of pancakes in such an orderly fashion. Contact any large A&E firm engaged in these types of projects and they will tell you the same thing. Jet fuel melting the super-structure my ass! Even in the event of an "optimal burn" of the jet fuel, you would never, ever reach a temperature high enough that it would compromise the structural integrity of those buildings...
Keep up the good work all and Phil, as soon as you have those shirts made up, you can put my name first on the list!
As always, just try to keep the rubber side down!
From: Endgame
To: Christopher
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:04 am
Subject: Nice One!
I was just on Serendipity and saw that John Kaminski had given your work the big thumbs up.
I agree!!!
T'care man
Endgame
Posted bby dingwing"
Hello, Christopher...
I want to congratulate you for your attention to all these crucial details you have gathered into your website. However, I wish I could volunteer as your webster, or something. Also, and please don't take this wrong, I think you must be a survivor of what has come to be called by some "the deliberate dumbing down of america" -- the title of a book by [url=http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/Civic-Renewal.htm]Charlotte Izerbyt[/url]. So I would likewise volunteer to be your editor, if that works for you.
I believe you're on the trail of another *smoking bullet* as important as the one pursued by Kee Dwedney -- who demonstrated the implausibility of the cellphone-calls soundtrack to this craftily scripted scenario. The first *smoking bullet* I identified as such was Larry Silverstein's inadvertent admission about *pulling* WTC 7.
If you register it -- something like <i>smokingbullets.info</i> -- and let the company I'm with host it, I'll be your webster/editor until such time as you're ready to run it yourself. Let me know and we'll make arrangements. Meanwhile, keep on keepin' up... Yours in Universe,
Feedback to; argus1@earthlink.net