04-11-2009, 12:25 PM
I found this post while looking for something totally unrelated but found it most interesting. I suppose it has been covered elsewhere of some of the 911 sites but this not being my area I wouldn't know. Nevertheless, it brings up some interesting scenarios for me.
Life expectancy of the WTC
Originally written in August 2006 by Michael.
When the WTC buildings were conceived and the design and construction of them began the future demolition of them would have been carefully taken into consideration and the structure of them would have been carefully mapped and marked out with positions where to place future demolition charges. I have seen this at work in the former West Germany where every vital piece of infrastructure constructed after WW2, such as roads, bridges and key buildings etc, were built with its future swift demolition in mind so as to ensure that no usable structure would be left for the ‘enemy’ to make use of as well as to slow down Soviet and Warsaw Pact land forces (the ‘cold war’ was the reason then with the possible Soviet attack considered a real threat).
No-one builds two of the largest structures in the world in one of the most densely populated business districts on the planet and neglects to take into consideration and make arrangements in the design, development and building for it’s inevitable future demolition.
The point I’m making is very simple, yet has been completely ignored, even ridiculed by some at the forefront of 9/11 research, whoever was given the contract to ensure that the buildings were designed and ‘equipped’ (and I’m not saying that the explosives were installed at that time as Hufschmid interpreted when I first presented this line of investigation to him) with their future destruction in mind would be the ones who held those plans and would be the demolition contractor from where those plans were obtained from in order that those buildings were ’set-up’ in the pre-prescribed manner so as to ensure their efficient demolition which we all witnessed on that day.
This eliminates any useless arguments and theories as to how the buildings were demolished and will conclusively prove that they were brought down with demolition charges. By examining the original “future demolition plans”, which would clearly show where future explosives would be mounted, against the video footage clearly demonstrating where explosives can be seen being detonated we would undoubtedly see that both the footage and the plans match precisely.
Someone has those plans, which would have been carefully locked away securely (especially in light of the first WTC bombing) in the contractors safe or vault and that someone would have had to have been authorized within the demolition company to access them.
http://parapolitics.info/category/fintan-dunne/
Life expectancy of the WTC
Originally written in August 2006 by Michael.
When the WTC buildings were conceived and the design and construction of them began the future demolition of them would have been carefully taken into consideration and the structure of them would have been carefully mapped and marked out with positions where to place future demolition charges. I have seen this at work in the former West Germany where every vital piece of infrastructure constructed after WW2, such as roads, bridges and key buildings etc, were built with its future swift demolition in mind so as to ensure that no usable structure would be left for the ‘enemy’ to make use of as well as to slow down Soviet and Warsaw Pact land forces (the ‘cold war’ was the reason then with the possible Soviet attack considered a real threat).
No-one builds two of the largest structures in the world in one of the most densely populated business districts on the planet and neglects to take into consideration and make arrangements in the design, development and building for it’s inevitable future demolition.
The point I’m making is very simple, yet has been completely ignored, even ridiculed by some at the forefront of 9/11 research, whoever was given the contract to ensure that the buildings were designed and ‘equipped’ (and I’m not saying that the explosives were installed at that time as Hufschmid interpreted when I first presented this line of investigation to him) with their future destruction in mind would be the ones who held those plans and would be the demolition contractor from where those plans were obtained from in order that those buildings were ’set-up’ in the pre-prescribed manner so as to ensure their efficient demolition which we all witnessed on that day.
This eliminates any useless arguments and theories as to how the buildings were demolished and will conclusively prove that they were brought down with demolition charges. By examining the original “future demolition plans”, which would clearly show where future explosives would be mounted, against the video footage clearly demonstrating where explosives can be seen being detonated we would undoubtedly see that both the footage and the plans match precisely.
Someone has those plans, which would have been carefully locked away securely (especially in light of the first WTC bombing) in the contractors safe or vault and that someone would have had to have been authorized within the demolition company to access them.
http://parapolitics.info/category/fintan-dunne/
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
![[Image: seal_s.png]](http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/docs/seal.png)