World Trade Center Buildings (and Others?) Pre-Rigged for Controlled Demolition: A Hypothesis

[Charles Drago]

Resolved: World Trade Center building 1, 2, and 7 -- and perhaps other skyscrapers in NYC and elsewhere -- were/are secretly rigged for controlled demolition to prevent extensive collateral damage in the event of imminent collapse. These ostensibly benign security precautions are not divulged to the public so as to preclude widespread fear of accidental detonation and for insurance (fraud)-related reasons.

[Peter Lemkin]

Resolved: World Trade Center building 1, 2, and 7 -- and perhaps other skyscrapers in NYC and elsewhere -- were/are secretly rigged for controlled demolition to prevent extensive collateral damage in the event of imminent collapse. These ostensibly benign security precautions are not divulged to the public so as to preclude widespread fear of accidental detonation and for insurance (fraud)-related reasons.

CD, I think not. But I do think that WTCs 1.2.and 7 were rigged for controlled demolition for the spectacle of 911 in the months prior. The twin towers work was likely done under the watchful eye of spook/Bush/Bankster connected Stratotec either when the elevators were being upgraded and/or [I think or] when the upper floors on both were retrofit with new fireproofing on the structural support beams = direct access to all the beams that needed cutter charges and also hidden pre-placed explosive charges every few floors. I think I posted a detailed article on just that and complete with calculation of amounts of namothermite needed...if not can find and re-post.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Not legally. No explosives or CDs allowed by NYC law not even to protect adjacent properties from potential collapse. I've never see anything even resembling pre placed CD devices for such a purpose and I've been in many NYC towers and a a few under construction.

This is a ridiculous conjecture... not to be taken seriously.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Resolved: World Trade Center building 1, 2, and 7 -- and perhaps other skyscrapers in NYC and elsewhere -- were/are secretly rigged for controlled demolition to prevent extensive collateral damage in the event of imminent collapse. These ostensibly benign security precautions are not divulged to the public so as to preclude widespread fear of accidental detonation and for insurance (fraud)-related reasons.

CD, I think not. But I do think that WTCs 1.2.and 7 were rigged for controlled demolition for the spectacle of 911 in the months prior. The twin towers work was likely done under the watchful eye of spook/Bush/Bankster connected Stratotec either when the elevators were being upgraded and/or [I think or] when the upper floors on both were retrofit with new fireproofing on the structural support beams = direct access to all the beams that needed cutter charges and also hidden pre-placed explosive charges every few floors. I think I posted a detailed article on just that and complete with calculation of amounts of namothermite needed...if not can find and re-post.

Lemkin,

This is patently absurd and isn't even consistent with your other claims that the twin towers were COMPLETELY exploded top to bottom... Now you are saying it was a few floors where there were fire prooofing up grades? What then blew up and threw out at high speeds according to YOU and others the steel from the 74th-81th floor which was identified at (less than 450 feet) the Winter Garden. See the work of Joe Princiotta from AE911T

http://www.csi911.info/Exhibit_J.jpg



That steel came from the FACADE not the core where they put the nano thermite DUDE.. and 10- 20 floors BELOW where the so called upgrades were.

You are so under the spell of this nonsense that you don't seem to be able to keep your story straight.

[Peter Lemkin]

The fire generated collapse in its official [BIG LIE] version or in the JO unzip variant can not be true [not possible by laws of physics] for many reasons...one only needs one to rule it out....that is the nearly free-fall speed of collapse [no resistance - as the support columns were CUT]. There are many OTHER reasons it couldn't and didn't happen that way.....endlessly going over this stops movement forward [which is its purpose by the deniers, IMO]. There are much more important NEW aspects to be discussed and explored...but they want us to be on first base and never move past it....the old Colby and others trick. Don't fall for it. They are happy to have interested 911Truth Seekers chase their tails, endlessly exploring the first principals that have been dismissed long ago. Physics and chemistry simply do not hold up for a fire-generated collapse. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. No steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire before or after..but on that special day when physics was miraculously suspended by the national security apparatus somehow three enormous skyscrapers with modest fires burning at heats too low to weaken them OR produce the molten steel seen by many and still visible in the 'meteorites' came down at nearly free fall speed [a second or two later]. No resistance of one floor hitting another - and even if the floors had fallen [they didn't, they were cut] the central core columns would have stood. Oddly they broke up into pieces just the right size for the trucks that removed them....run by the same spook-related company that dismantled and hid the evidence at OK City. There is not enough energy in such a collapse to pulverize all as was done and how does one explain the nanothermite in the dust - both unreacted and reaction products if there were not huge quantities of nanothermite? I'm going to post NEW and ADVANCED information on 911 and IGNORE those who would have us go back to step one and chase our tails.....that is JO's purpose here and a few others, IMO. Just as with the JFK Assassination we can stop discussing LHO being the shooter or doing it in three magic shots we should stop with these introductory 911 101 facts. Those who pulled this off don't want us to look deeply at who benefitied; HOW it was pulled off and by whom....they are happy when we endlessly squabble over the basics - which have already been shown to NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE OFFICIAL LIE - and NOT POSSIBLE, NOT ONLY NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Not my theory about reality..

"A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Such a failure may happen in many types of systems, including power transmission, computer networking, finance and bridges. Cascading failures usually begin when one part of the system fails. When this happens, nearby nodes must then take up the slack for the failed component. This overloads these nodes, causing them to fail as well, prompting additional nodes to fail in a vicious cycle."

and then there's this bit of reality you are apparently unfamiliar with:

Mechanical Structural Failure

Certain load-bearing structures with discrete structural components can be subject to the "zipper effect", where the failure of a single structural member increases the load on adjacent members. In the case of the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, a suspended walkway (which was already overstressed due to an error in design) failed when a single vertical suspension rod failed, overloading the neighboring rods which failed sequentially (i.e. like a zipper). Properly designed structures either use an adequate factor of safety or alternate load paths (or both) to prevent this type of mechanical cascade failure.[SUP][4]"[/SUP]


I don't even use the term zipper effect.

Lemkin you are a science and engineering denier. Your citations are basically junk science and spam and grasping at strays.

[Charles Drago]

Not legally. No explosives or CDs allowed by NYC law not even to protect adjacent properties from potential collapse. I've never see anything even resembling pre placed CD devices for such a purpose and I've been in many NYC towers and a a few under construction.

This is a ridiculous conjecture... not to be taken seriously.

More ignorance masquerading as insight from a master of the form.

It is against the law of our land, states the All-Knowing Oz, and it is a thing I have not seen. And so it cannot be.

It may, in fact, not be.

But mine was not offered as "conjecture" --

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork.

Rather, as "hypothesis" --

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Much like his grasp of the principles of deep politics, young Jeffrey's understanding of the nuances of his native tongue is, at best, retarded.

At worst, it is bent in service to darker ends.

What we're looking at here is yet another litmus test by which to measure the full range of young Jeffrey's pronouncements on these cyber-pages.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Charles,

Young Jeffrey is over 65 for the record. Obviously laws are broken every day. In my experience I have seen no provision for CD designed into any structure. Owners are looking to reduce their construction cost, not add items which have to be concealed. Of course if this sort of thing is done clandestinely all bets are off... on the owner's complicity.

It's not very difficult to come up with such off the wall hypothesis which seem to possess a certain level of internal logic. Most of these depend on very complex choerographies, stealhy hi tech systems and technologies which is mostly the stuff of thriller novels and Hollywood.

My work has been, as I have stated many times... to properly log and identify the observed destruction and then use public knowledge about those structures (design) and science and engineering principles to explan the movements seen in the destruction.

Mechanical events involve forces. Forces (energy) can come from a variety of sources... some of them require human intervention... such as explosives... and others come from ever present gravity and the stored chemcial energy which binds and hold materials together.

Rather than speculate bizarre hypotheses... why not study the observables and the science which explains them?

[Charles Drago]

Rather than speculate bizarre hypotheses... why not study the observables and the science which explains them?

bizarre [bɪˈzɑː]
adj
odd or unusual, esp in an interesting or amusing way

Because, young Jeffrey, here we study Deep Politics, which is defined by the coiner of the term as:

"All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged."


Because, young Jeffrey, here we conduct deep political analysis, which is defined by the coiner of the term as:

"Looking beneath public formulations of policy issues to the bureaucratic, economic, and ultimately covert and criminal activities which underlie them."


Because, young Jeffrey:

The Deep Politics Forum is an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems.

We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.

Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows.


The choice you would have us make between study of the observables OR the unobservables is a false, debilitating choice. Until you are prepared to recognize this reality, your observations here are of EXTREMELY limited value.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Only to you and those who see no value in observing reality.

Have a nice day.