A Physicist Explains

WTC – Evidence of a Nuclear Explosion

MMC is a physicist who started a thread called “WTC – Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?” on a physics forum at http://www.physorg.com, and he is quoted extensively in this section. Like MMC, we believe that nuclear weapons were used to bring the Twin Towers down. All quotes are from MMC.

SUMMARY

The energy required to crush concrete into 0.3 micron-sized particles, the smallest size of concrete particles found after the attacks, the so-called “peak energy”, has to be produced by the gravitational collapse of a tower in order for the official account of the Twin Tower collapses, which is that the towers fell due to gravitational forces, to be true. However, the total energy produced by a gravitational collapse of a single Twin Tower, each of which contained 600,000 metric tons of concrete*, 0.7 kWh/ton or 420,ooo kWh, does not match this energy (1.5 kWh/ton or 900,000 kWh for 60 micron particles, and 180,000,000 kWh for 0.3 micron particles), as calculations below show.

The most suitable weapon that, if detonated, would produce particles of this size (0.3 micron) is a thermonuclear weapon. The blast wave of a nuclear explosion from a 0.5 kton thermonuclear weapon would produce the required energy to smash particles into 0.3 micron-sized particles. Conventional explosives would not be suitable as the quantity needed would be too great, and therefore, difficulties of concealment of the explosives within the buildings would arise. However, a single nuclear device placed in a subbasement level, where the radiation from the explosion would be adequately shielded, would provide the necessary explosive power to completely destroy the steel core of the structure in a single blast, and otherwise cause the complete destruction of the building and the evidence within the planes, as well as destroy the evidence concealed within the tower, which would have been the aims of the perpetrators.

Other evidence that thermonuclear bombs were used in the attack is included in this section, including the direction of the blast, which was laterally-directed, as well as upward and downward-directed, and the seismic shock seen during the collapses.

Other theories are examined too, such as the jet-fuel theory and thermite theory, both of which are debunked. The jet-fuel theory fails because the energy produced in a gravitational collapse caused by a jet-fuel fire is inadequate to produce 0.3 micron-sized particles.

The thermite theory fails because there would be too many practical problems associated with its use, such as the need to strip every steel column down to its surface and apply thermite to the bare surface. In addition, the quantity of thermite needed to destroy the buildings would be too high, and concealment of its use would be too difficult to achieve.

The section also covers the evidence of secondary basement level explosions. The fire theory is looked at as well. The exceedingly high temperatures recorded in the aftermath of the attacks support the theory that thermonuclear devices were used to destroy the towers.

*The weight of the towers varies depending on the source

Summary of suspicious events

Quote from “WTC – Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?

“With fires lasting 3 months, the heat required to melt steel into pools of molten metal, the energy required to reduce concrete to 70-300 microns, the energy required to eject almost 10,000 tonnes of matter skywards, the energy required to eject steel pillars over a quarter of a kilometer, increased tritium levels, the vertical collapse, the recorded basement level explosions and the numerous other anomalies, there is solid grounds for [looking at nuclear weapons].”

Above is from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15 (page 2)

SIZE OF ENERGY CONTAINED IN GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE

Officials say that gravity pulled down the Twin Towers; they claim that jet-fuel fire weakened each tower’s structure to the point that they could not withstand gravitational forces, and so fell down, breaking up into particulate debris in the process, leaving only a surprisingly small amount of larger-sized debris – witness the huge dust clouds that enveloped Manhattan after the towers collapsed.

Above: Dust is 3 inches thick on the ground


Above: Tower exploding into voluminous clouds of disintegrated material

Jerry Russell on the website “911-strike” has calculated the gravitational energy released in the Twin Towers’ fall. Note that the weight of the towers, as seen in various sources, varies from 500,000-700,000 tons.

“Gravitational potential energy is the energy released in a structural collapse, which may typically be dissipated by concrete crushing in a “pile driver” effect.

This energy is calculated by the equation U=mgh, with mass in kg, gravitational force constant g=9.8m/s/s, and h in meters. The energy units in this equation are joules (watt-seconds) but large energies are more commonly expressed in kilowatt hours (1kwh=3.6e6 joules).

Because the WTC towers are both massive and tall, the gravitational potential energy of each tower is enormous.

Assuming a mass of 750,000 tons (6.8e8 kg) falling from an average height of 207 meters (half of the overall height of 1365 feet), the gravitational potential energy is about 1.4e12 joules or 400,000 kwh.”

From: http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=105 (page 8)

Jerry Russell also calculates the energy required to crush concrete into 60 microns.

The energy required to crush rock is roughly proportional to 1/sqrt (powder diameter), so the exact amount of energy required is critically dependent on the fineness of the powder. The energy required to reduce solid rock to 60 micron powder is about 20 kwh/ton:

From: http://www.elorantaassoc.com/eob97.htm

However, concrete is softer than rock, and a round number for the energy required to crush concrete is around 1.5 kwh/ton:

http://www.b-i-m.de/public/ibac/mueller.htm

But the available energy from the gravitational collapse of the towers was only 0.53 kWh per ton of concrete, assuming that each tower contained 750,000 tons of concrete.

QUOTE from MMC:

“With roughly 600,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower, the available energy from gravitational potential energy was only about 0.7 kwh per ton of concrete.”

There is clearly a mismatch in the energy that was available to crush the concrete (0.7 kWh per ton) and the energy that was consumed to produce concrete particles that were 60 microns and finer (1.5 kWh/ton).

WTC DUST PARTICLE SIZE

Most of the dust produced in the WTC collapse was composed of concrete and gypsum. The majority of the (non-fibrous) particles had sizes in the range of 0.3 to 3 microns.

“Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World
Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron
Microscopy Point Counting Techniques

By far, the most abundant nonfibrous particles in all samples are gypsum and concrete. Particle size distributions for these components (Figs. 8 and 9) suggest relationships to distance and elevation. Percent frequency is compared to area and maximum diameter, as measured on the SEM. The majority of these nonfibrous particles in each sample have similar particle area distributions with the majority of particles in the range from 0.3 to 3 µm (micron). Sample L18-2, collected adjacent to the WTC site, is characterized by a somewhat higher concentration of particles in the 3 to 300 µm2 size range. Particles in samples USGS 4 and 6 fall at slightly higher values of total area, between 1 and 300 µm2, than in the other outdoor samples.”

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf#search=’Particle%20Size%20world%20trade%20center%20concrete’

http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1031/pdf/OF2005_1031_508.pdf

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=75 (page 6)


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/CONCRETE-05-IMAGE.jpg FROM: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

Indoor samples peaked at 10 microns and outdoor samples peaked at 3 microns:

QUOTE from MMC:

“Figure 9, of the report shows that almost all outdoors samples peaked with sizes of 3 microns…

The indoor samples peak with 2 micron and 10 microns…

The report indicates a “relationship to distance and elevation”…

So, closest to the center of the building L-18-2 peaked at 10 microns (250m) and USGS-36 (400m) particle sizes peaked at 2 microns…

So, if we first have an implosion (the first stages of a bomb) larger particle sizes would be created (10 microns), then comes the blast wave delivering the most energy as effect of the device expands, reducing particle sizes to 2 microns…

As it expands further, it will reach an average force, which is reflected in the rest of the particle sizes peaking at 3 microns, which is mostly concrete…and spreading that over a 1Km area…”

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-2…20concrete

Below is a quote from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=75 (page 6)

There is also this report by NIST on dust analysis but it must be purchased:

Gintautas, V. Hackley, V. A. Lum, L. H. (CERAMICS DIVISION – 852) Ferraris, C. F. (MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH DIVISION – 861)
Partical Size Analysis by Laser Diffraction Spectrometry: Application to Cementitious Powders
NISTIR (NISTIR 7097) –

http://ois.nist.gov/nistpubs/technipubs/recent/search.cfm?dbibid=15825 [dead link]

(http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build04/art005.html)

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=120 (page 9)

“So, if we take the value of 900,000 to create 60 micron and assume a linear relationship (which would produce LOWER energy values)

30 microns = 1,800,000 KWH
3 microns = 18,000,000 KWH
0.3 microns = 180,000,000 KWH

So, you can see that I was being VERY CONSERVATIVE with my values ..”

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=105 (page 8)

QUOTE from MMC:

The important figures are at the lower end of the range for particle size. At the least, the phenomenon that occurred at the Twin Towers on 9/11 has to account for the creation of such small particles. The majority of the particles in the nonfibrous samples ranged from 0.3 micron to 3 microns. At the least the energy released in the Twin Towers’ fall has to match the energy required to produce 0.3 microns.

Actually the particles measured in Dr. Thomas Cahill’s group’s study ranged in size from 0.09 to 2.5 microns.

“Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns).”

[REF: e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/305393.pdf    Quick view]

So really we should be asking ourselves what kind of phenomenon creates particles of 0.09 micron.

This is the concept of ‘peak energy’. If not enough energy was created in the towers’ gravitational collapse to match that peak energy, then gravity cannot be the cause of the appearance of these ultrafine particles.

The peak energy is a bottle-neck ‘test’ for the soundness of any theory put forward to explain how the towers fell and disintegrated into dust.

The total energy produced in the collapse of each tower was calculated to be 400,000 kwh. Even if that energy had been concentrated in the area of 1 square centimeter, it still would not equal the peak energy that was required to produce the fine dust particles measured after 9/11.

QUOTE from MMC:

“It doesn’t really matter how much, or how little, that peak energy still had to be achieved.

The potential energy involved in the collapse of the twin towers, the collision, the burning fuel and all materials, come nowhere near producing that amount of energy.

That would break the known laws of physics…

You may be saying to yourself, but what about uneven distribution of mass during the collapse?

Well, the “entire” available energy of the collapse is well over 1,000,000 KWH BELOW what it would take to produce 30 micron dust particles. That means at NO point could a 30 micron dust particle be created.

Isolated areas CANNOT exceed the maximum energy of the entire collapse.”

Below is from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=45 (page 4)

“Clearly there is an energy deficit (1,000,000 kWh short if we take particle size 30 micron into the calculation, and this is being very conservative as concrete particles that were as small as 0.09 microns were found by Cahill and his group). The gravity explanation fails the bottle-neck test.

The Twin Tower fires cannot be the cause of the occurrence of fine concrete dust particles either. Officials say the fires caused by jet fuel spillage weakened the buildings’ structure and caused them to fall. An airliner’s full fuel capacity is 22,300 kilograms:

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/GimliGlider.html#crash

Assuming that the two Boeing airliners were carrying full loads of fuel, a single airliner could have potentially spilled a maximum of 7,295 gallons of fuel into the tower they crashed into.

A ballpark figure for the energy contained in that quantity of kerosene can be arrived at by looking at the energy produced by a diesel-powered power plant:

“In a 24-hour running time, a single 1.6 MW diesel generator emits fumes equivalent to a heavy diesel truck driven 6,000 miles and produces 40 pounds of soot, 840 pounds of carbon monoxide and 670 pounds of nitrogen oxides. Of the total particulate matter released by diesel engines, over 90 percent is under 2.5 microns in diameter, contributing significantly to smog. Each generator burns 2,760 gallons of diesel fuel per day and requires a 115 gallon oil change every 21 days.”

From: http://www.nwenergy.org/publications/report/01_apr/rp_0104_3.html

Assuming that the energy delivered by 1 gallon of kerosene is similar to that delivered by 1 gallon of diesel, we arrive at a rough estimate of one plane tank load of fuel delivering enough energy to run a 1.6 megawatt power generator for 3 days. This is by far too little energy to produce the 18,000,000 kwh of energy that is necessary to create 3 micron particles.

Look at how long a small power plant would have to run to produce an equivalent amount of energy as the energy required to produce these ultrafine concrete particles.

Goodyear company built a small-scale hydroelectric power plant in upstate NY. The figures for the amount of power produced by the plant and operating costs are given below:

“The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)”

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6676571

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=120 (page 9)

For particles of the size 30 microns, it would take 2-4 months worth of energy (1,000,000 KWH) from a power station when operating under normal conditions.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=120 (page 9)

Extrapolating from that in a linear way, we get the following figures:

“1. 20-40 months for 3 micron particles (10,000,000 KWH).
2. 200-400 months for 0.3 micron particles (100,000,000 KWH).”

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=90 (page 7)

This is extremely conservative as the relationship between particle size and energy required to create it is not a linear one. Energy is inversely proportional to the square root of the particle diameter. Regardless of this fact, we can clearly see that the energy produced in the gravitational collapse was insufficient to shatter concrete into 0.3 micron. And of course the energy was inadequate to produce particles that were 0.09 micron in size.

MMC QUOTE:

“So, it would take between 2-4 YEARS worth of power to produce 3 micron particles and [at the minimum] 16-33 YEARS worth of power to produce 0.3 micron particles and all this supposed to be from the potentional energy of a collapse of the WTC…”

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=90 (page 7)

The “jet-fuel/gravitational pancake-collapse” theory fails on the basis of the analysis of dust-particle size alone.

There is only one thing that can reliably and characteristically deliver that amount of energy in the time it takes for a building to collapse; the inevitable conclusion one reaches after examining the data of WTC concrete particle size is that a nuclear device was detonated to bring the towers down.

PROBLEMS WITH PURE GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE THEORY

MMC compares the energy of the projection of matter from the towers with the energy in the gravitational collapse. From the Physorg forum:

QUOTE from MMC:

“The official explanation for the 911 WTC collapse cites that it was a “gravity collapse”, however, the following photograph completely eliminates that viewpoint.

A “gravity collapse” does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a seismic spike.

gravity-collapse-sauna

The US administration would have us believe that the laws of physics were suspended for this incident.

This is impossible and this photograph provides empirical evidence that the official explanation is a complete fabrication.

The ONLY questions left are these, what types of bombs were used and how many?”

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=0# (page 1)

“What kind of event produces enough energy to “eject almost 10,000 tonnes of matter skyward and eject steel pillars over a quarter of a kilometer”?”

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15 (page 2)

“South Tower – Video showing vertical shockwaves running the length of the building and matter ejection which it takes significant time before gravity effects the outward ejection…this video demonstrates that the force is coming from underneath the matter, pushing upwards and outwards and that it takes several seconds for that energy to be arrested by gravity… “

VIDEO BELOW:

VIDEO: wtc2_demolition_waves

Dailymotion

Above: Image from video

Above: Is this an example of downward gravitational forces? Note matter being ejected outward and upwards.

Above: Another picture showing upwards ejection of material

“You can clearly see heavy solid objects including steel beams being ejected laterally and upwards. The plume in the picture is more accurately classified as a pyroclastic flow rather than a smoke plume.” (MMC)

Sequence of photos of a bomb exploding. The pyroclastic flow resembles the molten lava of a volcano being expelled outwards and laterally. You would not see this kind of projection in a pure gravity-driven collapse. There is very little pancaking to be seen. Most of the building, including the top floors (jets hit the 110-story towers between 94th and 98th floors), disintegrates before it hits the ground.

In this picture, beams and other building materials are tossed outwards and upwards. The plume in this shot is more substantial than a smoke plume – you can see solid, heavy debris being flung out for some distance from the building. It would require a force other than gravity to produce this effect. This picture shows the top of the building exploding.

“As the matter collapses onto the building, some form of shockwave is delivered up through the building, the classical signs are the “mushrooming” type effect. It can be compared to blowing air up a vertical pipe, partially filled with flour and watching it “mushroom” upwards and outwards, at its peak, covering almost 200m (almost a quarter of a kilometer).” […]

“It must be noted that I do not disagree that the building pancaked, there is no force large enough to move mass anywhere but straight down, what I am saying is that there was a very large explosion and that it was a directional blast, straight up through the building…

The blast wave of the explosion has been incorrectly interpreted as energy from the downwards collapse of the upper section.”

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15 (page 2)

Prof. Judy Wood asks:

“The world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet, bookcase or couch on the ground?”

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html

(http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html)

MMC:

“The ONLY question I have is what form of device produced sufficent force to create a “volcanic like blast” that far up?”

MMC discusses the ‘bicycle pump effect’ mentioned by many 9/11 conspiracy debunkers:

“I have considered the “bicycle pump effect”, where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window…it would be almost like a scene from the film “Independence Day”. No such event occurs.

That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the “compression” of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.

In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existence of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices, watch the news report for yourself here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem…5foundbombs.htm

The following photos demonstrate that it is not a “plume”, but a “targeted ejection” of matter at high velocity, similar to the effect of when a volcano erupts…”

sor111

050106seven11

Above image from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15

More problems with the “pure gravity collapse” theory:

1) Arrest in collapse

“In this video [below], you can clearly see the point of “arrest” in the collapse, it begins 3 seconds into the video and the rest of the collapse does not begin until 5-6 seconds into the event. It shows an additional input of energy pushing matter laterally, so as to confuse it with the collapse…watch this clip over and over and the arrest becomes clearer to see each time (even I missed it the first few times):

VIDEO: North Tower collapse

Dailymotion | Youtube

Old link:  http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_collapse1.wmv

The collapse of WTC 7, is not a pancake effect, but has all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition…”


Link to high quality video version:

VIDEO: WTC 7 High Quality

Dailymotion | Youtube

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=210 (page 15)

2) Sudden acceleration in the collapse:

“In the second video, we once again see evidence of this implosion event, it has enough force not only to arrest the ejected matter, but to actually pull every last particle towards the building and downwards with it. In a gravity collapse, there is no sudden acceleration and matter would be pulled inwards at an equal rate at all times throughout the collapse. A sudden and high energy acceleration is clearly seen in the video.”

VIDEO: 9/11, World Trade Center South Tower Falls

Dailymotion | Youtube

Old link: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_explodes.avi

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

SEISMIC SHOCK AND DIRECTION OF BLAST

Below quote is from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=0# (page 1)

The official explanation for the 911 WTC collapse cites that it was a “gravity collapse”, however, the following photograph completely eliminates that viewpoint.

A “gravity collapse” does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a seismic spike.

sor111

The US administration would have us believe that the laws of physics were suspended for this incident.

This is impossible and this photograph provides empirical evidence that the official explanation is a complete fabrication.

The ONLY questions left are these, what types of bombs were used and how many?

Energy from a nuclear weapon can be directed:

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=120 (page 9)

“Project Orion

Project Orion was the first serious attempt to design a nuclear pulse rocket. The design effort was carried out at General Atomics in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Orion reacted small directional nuclear explosives against a large steel pusher plate attached to the spacecraft with shock absorbers. Efficient directional explosives maximized the momentum transfer, leading to specific impulses in the range of 6,000 seconds (about twelve times that of the SSME). With refinements a theoretical maximum of 100,000 seconds (1 MN·s/kg) might be possible. Thrusts were in the millions of short tonnes, allowing spacecraft larger than 8×106 short tonnes to be built with 1958 materials.”

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

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=150 (page 11)

QUOTE:

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These “short-period surface waves,” reflect “the interaction between the ground and the building foundation,” according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983,” the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was “not coupled” to the ground.

“Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,” Lerner-Lam said. “The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.”

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/…w_seismic_.html

With a directional blast, the energy is directed away from the ground, upwards into the building…ejecting matter in a “mushroom” at the top…the majority of the energy is absorbed by the potential energy of the falling material…practically in mid-air, thus, as Lerner-Lam describes, avoiding the coupling to the ground and would result in a very low seismic event. Such an event would be masked by the collapsing material.

A further “shock absorption” could arise by locating the device on the back of a large truck…the recoil would be dampened by the suspension and tires, if you include pistons, the recoil could be further dampened and again masked within the collapse..

How do you minimise seismic activity?

QUOTE:

Not all demolition blast(s) are implosions. The industry often refers to them as implosions because it is a popular expression. A true implosion is a case when a structure has been caused to fall inwards on itself. Smokestacks, towers, bridges and most buildings are not imploded. They are simply knocked over.
Implosion is used when there is limited area on all sides of a structure making it impossible to lay them out.

The principles used on an implosion are basically the same whether it is a true implosion, or if the structure is simply going to be laid out. The principle tool in an implosion is gravity. The explosives are used to weaken and cause the supporting members of the structure to fail, thus allowing gravity to pull the structure down or over…

The United States Bureau of Mines adopted a mathematical formula that blasters can use when designing a blast, that when followed, will assure the blaster that there is not enough energy being released at any one time to cause damage to the closest structure. A blaster who is not using a seismograph is required to use this mathematical formula in designing what we call the “Maximum Pounds per Delay” of explosives used. The mathematical formula used, is known as the “Scaled Distance Formula.” This formula, when used, is conservative to the point that it assures there will not be enough energy released into the rock at any one delay period to cause ground vibration damage to a well or structure.

A blasting operator who does not routinely use seismographs to record the actual ground vibration must adhere to the “Scaled Distance Formula” to design the “Maximum Pounds Per Delay” for his blast.

http://www.dykon-blasting.com/faqs.htm
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

CONCAVING OF BUILDING AND IMPLOSION

MMC posts:

“In order to follow what I am about to describe you will need the following videos:

1. South Tower – Video showing vertical shockwaves running the length of the building and matter ejection which it takes significant time before gravity effects the outward ejection…this video demonstrates that the force is coming from underneath the matter, pushing upwards and outwards and that it takes several seconds for that energy to be arrested by gravity…if you take the the video and analyse it frame by frame, you will see, within the first second, that the entire building face becomes concave…4 times within the first second alone…after this point there are at least two further implosions and it becomes visible that the concaving is uniform on all sides.

VIDEO: Demolition Waves (Also: wtc2_demolition_waves)

Dailymotion | Youtube

Old link: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_demolition_waves.mpg

(http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af266/haremountain/A%20physicist%20explains/?action=view&current=wtc2_demolition_waves-1.mp4)

2. WTC 2 – A close-up shot showing an implosion sucking thousands of tonnes of matter towards the WTC in a rapid event, completely inconsistant with a gravity driven vacuum of a collapsing tower.

VIDEO:WTC2 Exploding top

Dailymotion | Youtube

Old link: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_explodes.avi

(http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af266/haremountain/A%20physicist%20explains/?action=view&current=wtc2_explodes.mp4)

Observations:

In the first listed video, the entire face of the WTC building is seen to become concave at least 4 times within the first second. In a gravity collapse, especially a pancake effect, the matter being forced down through the building would have an effect similar to a bicycle pump, it would compress the atmosphere within. The result is that the building should have become convex and the windows should have blown outwards. With explosives devices, the first stage is an implosion, followed by a swift ejection of matter…the energy of the implosion stage is less than the explosion stage…if there was enough energy to concave the entire building during the implosion stage, then there would have been sufficient energy to convex it in a greater manner. No convexing can be seen on the video…only a concaving effect as if the entire building was being sucked inwards from the central core.

In fusion based weapons, it is a pure implosion as the matter being fused then occupies less space, the result would be a concaving of the building, intense heat, a significant drop in internal atmospheric pressure and with 200,000 gallons of water, steam explosions.

In the second video, we once again see evidence of this implosion event, it has enough force not only to arrest the ejected matter, but to actually pull every last particle towards the building and downwards with it. In a gravity collapse, there is no sudden acceleration and matter would be pulled inwards at an equal rate at all times throughout the collapse. A sudden and high energy acceleration is clearly seen in the video.

The fact that only 6 or more concaving events can be seen, with equal force throughout the building, would mean that the entire building would have needed to have been rigged with explosives. That would require a team, working for months, undetected, drilling bore holes and planting radio controlled detonators. The major problem is that within rubble, radio signals drop by over 1000 orders of magnitude and even professional demolition squads are reduced to using cables or command wires.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

What is clear, is either the use of at least 6 separate devices, or a multi-stage device, in the first few seconds of collapse. This induced an implosion event, of such force, that it distorted the entire WTC building into a concave shape and that the main force was coming from underneath the collapse.

What sort of event could concave a 500,000 tonne building at least 6 times in under 2 seconds?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=255
(page 18)

In conventional explosives, the first stage of an explosion decays the material so fast, that surrounding material is sucked inwards…that’s basic physics. The second stage is the expansion of hot gases and a pressure wave that is the main force of the blast.

The following quote is based upon a weapon designed to achieve supercriticality, however, this stage is not required as in a pure fusion device the intense heat alone fuses matter together and makes compounds out of the atmosphere…this is what is caught on video, the concaving of the WTC, where atmospheric pressure drops and the entire concrete strucure is pulled inwards.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=210 (page 15)

Right, here’s a brilliant shot…

What you see is thousands of tonnes worth of matter being dragged inwards towards the WTC…its being sucked inwards…the shot is too high up to show the matter being ejected, however, what is captured is the implosion stage of one serious device…

VIDEO: Demolition waves

Dailymotion | Youtube

Old link: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi…c2_explodes.avi

From Wikipedia:

Implosion method – Nuclear Weapon Design

The more difficult, but in many ways superior, method of combination is referred to as the implosion method and uses conventional explosives surrounding the material to rapidly compress the mass to a supercritical state. This compression reduces the volume by a factor 2 to 3.

For Pu-239 assemblies a contamination of only 1% of Pu-240 produces so many spontaneous neutrons that a gun-type device would very likely begin fissioning before fully assembled, leading to very low efficiency. For this reason the more technically difficult implosion method must be used for plutonium bombs such as the test bomb used in the “Trinity” shot and the subsequent “Fat Man” weapon detonated over Nagasaki.

Weapons assembled with this method also tend to be generally more efficient than the weapons employing the gun method of combination even ignoring the problem of spontaneous neutrons. The reason that the implosion method is more efficient is because it not only combines the masses, but also increases the density of the mass, and thereby increases the neutron multiplication factor k of the fissionable assembly. Most modern weapons use a hollow plutonium core or pit with an implosion mechanism for detonation.

A two fold increase in the density of the atomic pit will tend to result in a 10-20 kiloton atomic explosion. A 3-fold compression may produce a 40-45 kiloton atomic yield, a four fold compression may produce a 60-80 kiloton atomic yield, and a five-fold compression of the pit which is very hard to get, may produce an 80-100 kiloton atomic yield. Getting a 5-fold compression of the pit requires a very strong, massive, and very efficient, lens implosion system.

This precision compression of the pit creates a need for very precise design and machining of the pit and explosive lenses. The milling machines used are so precise that they could cut the polished surfaces of eyeglass lenses. There are strong suggestions that modern implosion devices use non-spherical configurations as well, such as ovoid shapes (“watermelons”).

The primary of a thermonuclear weapon is thought to be a standard implosion method fission bomb, though likely with a core boosted by small amounts of fusion fuel for extra efficiency (see below and Teller-Ulam design).

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

SUB-BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS

Here are a number of statements from eye-witnesses that appear in Professor Jones’ paper.

This is from point 7 of the 17 points made by Professor Jones:

Quote:

7. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:

There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

And Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:

When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought — at that time I didn’t know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)

It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: “The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005) On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple explanation for the observed detonations. Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.

From William Rodriguez Hispanic Victims Group, 9/11 United Services Group, Lower Manhattan Family Advisory

Also this additional information from William Rodriguez:

QUOTE:

William Rodriguez has sent important information (private communications, November 2005) which I append in closing:

“Thank you so much for coming out with a report questioning the “official Story” of 9/11. I read with a lot of dedication your paper and I distributed it widely to all the Victims and survivors of that day (I am the leader of the families and the last person pull from the rubble from the North Tower).

You are just missing my experience. I told the 9/11 Commission about the explosions and the events on the sub-basement on that day. They did not put it in the final report. Please check the internet under “William Rodriguez 9/11″. I am trying to raise the same questions. Since I am a respected figure internationally, I noticed how my testimony has been presented unedited all over the world. But in the USA, I am edited and even though I have a lot of respect from the media, I am asked constantly about other subjects and issues but nothing about the explosions of that day. Congratulations from the side of the really affected on that day. Keep up your investigations.”

William Rodriguez Hispanic Victims Group, 9/11 United Services Group, Lower Manhattan Family Advisory Counsel

I thanked Mr. Rodriguez and asked him how he could say the explosion came from the sub-basement below him, rather than far above (where the plane hit), also regarding the timing of the explosions. He replied:

About my experience. My basis was, like I told the Commission, there was an explosion that came from under our feet, we were pushed upwards lightly by the effect, I was on basement level 1 and it sounded that it came from B2 and B3 level. Rapidly after that we heard the impact far away at the top. My assertions are [that] my 20 years experience there and witnessing prior to that many other noises [enable me] to conclude without any doubt where the sounds were coming from. 2ND- Some of the same people that I saved gave testimonies in interviews of the same experience prior to my actually being reunited with them after the event!!! Like I explained, some of these survivors stories were told in countless [interviews] of coverage, but in SPANISH!! I have the actual recordings available of some of the Television Specials that featured our stories.

Mr. Rodriguez worked for years in the building and his perception of sounds cannot be overlooked. He is a reliable witness. Above (and elsewhere) he records that the explosion in the sub-basement was followed “rapidly after that” by the sound of an impact far above. This assertion is remarkable for it strongly suggests that the colliding plane or its fuel could not have caused the (earlier) explosion in the sub-basement. William Rodriguez and other witnesses may shed additional light on the explosions in the Towers on 9/11/2001.

QUOTE

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)

One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002.)

MMC:

… it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existence of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices, watch the news report for yourself here:

Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11

Reports surfaced of truck parked in building

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet | December 5 2005

The report you’re watching and hearing was filed by an MSNBC news anchor Rick Sanchez on the morning of September 11th 2001. It can be downloaded here.

The details contained therein seem to have slipped under the radar amidst the huge body of evidence proving controlled demolition brought down both the twin towers and Building 7.

Sanchez states,

”Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion.”

“I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it.”

It would make sense that police would find at least some of the bombs that tore down the only steel buildings to collapse from fire damage in history at speeds that defied physics. There would have been so many devices involved in the demolition that stumbling across some was inevitable.

This report mirrors those that emerged in the hours following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, where bomb squads removed numerous unexploded secondary devices from the Alfred P. Murrah building.

The twin towers were wired to the brim with highly powerful explosives, some of which exploded before the collapse of the buildings and some during.

This is why people like construction worker Philip Morelli, working in the fourth sub-basement of the north tower, were thrown around like rag dolls in an earthquake.

With the sheer volume of evidence and basic straightforward common sense proving controlled demolition, the possibility still remains that the federal government, backed by FEMA, will come forward and announce that another Al-Qaeda cell placed the explosives days before the attack.

This of course is ridiculous, it takes highly trained explosives experts weeks and sometimes months to correctly rig buildings many times smaller than the twin towers, and with varying degrees of success. The towers imploded perfectly and fell down right in their own footsteps, as did Building 7 which wasn’t hit by a plane. Any building not owned by Larry Silverstein, despite having closer proximity to the towers, strangely stood its ground.

Larry Silverstein admitted that Building 7 was “pulled,” an industry term for demolition, in a September 2002 PBS documentary, but has failed to respond to a firestorm of subsequent questions.

Others argue that the powers that be will simply continue to ignore the evidence now being certified by such credible individuals as Professor Steven Jones and former chief economist for the US Department of Labor under George W. Bush, Morgan Reynolds.

To change such a major element of the official version of events would throw into question all the other pieces of the puzzle and the whole house of cards would come tumbling down.

Nevertheless, the report that police did find explosives in the World Trade Center before the collapse of the towers is another giant smoking gun to add to all the rest proving that the collapse of the buildings and 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem…5foundbombs.htm

(VIDEO: Photobucket – old link)

VIDEO: 051205explosives (“explosives subbasement”)

Dailymotion

URL: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/051205foundbombs.htm

HALLMARKS OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

This quote is from a complementary paper to Professor Jones’ paper, written by Prof. David Ray Griffin:

QUOTE:

Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle….

…Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials:

Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002).

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Firefighters note that what they witnessed was like controlled detonation (download the video):

VIDEO: Discussion in firehouse (discussion_in_firehouse)

Dailymotion

[http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
(wrong link)]

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg (correct link for above)

(VIDEO: Photobucket)

Some background information on explosive demolition…

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

QUOTE:

Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily. Next, blasters can start loading the columns with explosives. Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and determine the amount of explosives needed based on the thickness of the material. For concrete columns, blasters use traditional dynamite or a similar explosive material. Dynamite is just absorbent stuffing soaked in a highly combustible chemical or mixture of chemicals. When the chemical is ignited, it burns quickly, producing a large volume of hot gas in a short amount of time. This gas expands rapidly, applying immense outward pressure (up to 600 tons per square inch) on whatever is around it. Blasters cram this explosive material into narrow bore holes drilled in the concrete columns. When the explosives are ignited, the sudden outward pressure sends a powerful shock wave busting through the column at supersonic speed, shattering the concrete into tiny chunks.

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

Concrete columns (on the left) are blown apart with conventional dynamite or a similar sort of explosive. Steel columns (on the right) are sliced in half using a high-velocity explosive called RDX.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

Blasting caps are used as a catalyst to set off the explosives loaded in support columns.

…To further reduce flying debris, blasters may wrap chain-link fencing and geotextile fabric around each column. The fence keeps the large chunks of concrete from flying out

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion2.htm

1993 WTC ATTACK: BLAST TEST

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=150 (page 11)

MMC writes:

Another interesting note is that demolition requires a “blast test”:

QUOTE:

A test blast was undertaken on each tower to assess the strength of the concrete and the amount of explosives required for each supporting column.

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=30124&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=12898&EXPAND=12896 (dead link)

So, the February 26, 1993 bombing of the WTC could be viewed in a different manner, that it was a “blast test” to determine the exact yield required…again, this attack was attributed to “Islamic terrorists”, which the US government created to fight the Soviets in afghanistan…

Who would have access to the reports on the 1993 bombing that could be used as a “blast test”?

…certainly not Islamic terrorists…
MULTI-STAGE DETONATION OF WTC TWIN TOWERS

QUOTE:

Thursday, October 14th, 1999 marked another important milestone for the nation’s space program. At exactly 10:05 AM EST on a beautiful sunny Florida morning, Dykon, of Tulsa, OK detonated approximately 300 pounds of explosives to fell the seven million pound Umbilical and Mobile service .Towers at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) at NASA’s Cape Canaveral Space Station.

Olshan’s burners began cutting small windows in the supporting columns as laid out in the structural analysis. Once all the burning was completed, Dykon began the task of attaching the over 400 linear shape charges that would cut the steel support columns. The smaller UT tower was loaded first. Explosives would be used to remove the bottom four feet of that tower, allowing it to roll over.

http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/Archives/Titan/Titan.htm

The above demolition is a de-stabilising event, that causes the structure to topple over. To achieve a pancaking effect of the WTC, which had a floor size of almost an acre, around 300 pounds or more of high explosives would have been needed, per-floor.So, I feel that we can exclude the possiblity of conventional explosives, the practicality of planting such devices, the physics of detonation, the physical manifestation of the building collapse (concaving), and difficulty of maintaining a thermite reaction, all demonstrate that such a scenario is unlikely.

What is clear, is either the use of at least 6 separate devices, or a multi-stage device, in the first few seconds of collapse. This induced an implosion event, of such force, that it distorted the entire WTC building into a concave shape and that the main force was coming from underneath the collapse.

What sort of event could concave a 500,000 tonne building at least 6 times in under 2 seconds?”

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

PROBLEMS WITH CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES THEORY

MMC makes these observations about this video:

VIDEO: WTC2 Exploding top

Dailymotion | Youtube

(Old link: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_explodes.avi)

“The fact that only 6 or more concaving events can be seen, with equal force throughout the building, would mean that the entire building would have needed to have been rigged with explosives. That would require a team, working for months, undetected, drilling bore holes and planting radio controlled detonators. The major problem is that within rubble, radio signals drop by over 1000 orders of magnitude and even professional demolition squads are reduced to using cables or command wires.

As shown above, it would require at least two forms of explosive, the first type is explosives such as dynamite, this is used to pulverise the concrete. The second type, is something like RDX, which is then used to cut the steel. The two cannot be used together, a dynamite explosion would destroy the RDX before it had a chance to cut through the steel framework. This is why demolition experts cut away the concrete first in order to plant the RDX next to the steel colum. Dynamite is then used to remove supporting and non-supporting walls that could arrest the collapse.

Such detonations would have to occur to expose the steel framework to the thermite…which by that stage would be blown completely to hell and would be entirely useless.”

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225

“In terms of pre-planting conventional explosives, this would give a rough idea of the scale of the task which would need to be undetected:

QUOTE:

Thursday, October 14th, 1999 marked another important milestone for the nation’s space program. At exactly 10:05 AM EST on a beautiful sunny Florida morning, Dykon, of Tulsa, OK detonated approximately 300 pounds of explosives to fell the seven million pound Umbilical and Mobile service Towers at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) at NASA’s Cape Canaveral Space Station.

Olshan’s burners began cutting small windows in the supporting columns as laid out in the structural analysis. Once all the burning was completed, Dykon began the task of attaching the over 400 linear shape charges that would cut the steel support columns. The smaller UT tower was loaded first. Explosives would be used to remove the bottom four feet of that tower, allowing it to roll over.

http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/Archives/Titan/Titan.htm

The above demolition is a de-stabilising event, that causes the structure to topple over. To achieve a pancaking effect of the WTC, which had a floor size of almost an acre, around 300 pounds or more of high explosives would have been needed, per-floor.

So, I feel that we can exclude the possiblity of conventional explosives, the practicality of planting such devices, the physics of detonation, the physical manifestation of the building collapse (concaving), and difficulty of maintaining a thermite reaction, all demonstrate that such a scenario is unlikely.”

END QUOTE

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

PROBLEMS WITH THERMITE THEORY

MMC writes:

In the second video, we once again see evidence of this implosion event, it has enough force not only to arrest the ejected matter, but to actually pull every last particle towards the building and downwards with it. In a gravity collapse, there is no sudden acceleration and matter would be pulled inwards at an equal rate at all times throughout the collapse. A sudden and high energy acceleration is clearly seen in the video.The fact that only 6 or more concaving events can be seen, with equal force throughout the building, would mean that the entire building would have needed to have been rigged with explosives. That would require a team, working for months, undetected, drilling bore holes and planting radio controlled detonators. The major problem is that within rubble, radio signals drop by over 1000 orders of magnitude and even professional demolition squads are reduced to using cables or command wires.

As shown above, it would require at least two forms of explosive, the first type is explosives such as dynamite, this is used to pulverise the concrete. The second type, is something like RDX, which is then used to cut the steel. The two cannot be used together, a dynamite explosion would destroy the RDX before it had a chance to cut through the steel framework. This is why demolition experts cut away the concrete first in order to plant the RDX next to the steel colum. Dynamite is then used to remove supporting and non-supporting walls that could arrest the collapse.

Such detonations would have to occur to expose the steel framework to the thermite…which by that stage would be blown completely to hell and would be entirely useless.

I was wondering how do you get that must thermite into a building undetected?

I came across this report which shows that thermite can be incorporated into paint…the problem with a thermite reaction is that it takes intense heat to begin the reaction…another problem is that the steel would have needed to been covered in this form of paint at the time of construction…a possibility is that the walls had such paint, however, the ignition temperature of hydrogen is around 585 degrees C and jet fuel is not much above that…it requires magnesium to start the reaction.

QUOTE:

In the thermite reaction, iron oxide supplies oxygen to burn aluminum. The reaction is 2Al + Fe 2 O 3 ? Al 2 O 3 + 2Fe. The reaction is hot (3000 C), and the reaction products are molten iron and molten aluminum oxide. However, in the Hindenburg paint, the ratio of iron oxide and aluminum powders are wrong for thermite.

To obtain a thermite reaction, a mixture of 75% iron oxide and 25% aluminum powders (a 3 to 1 ratio by weight, with iron oxide being the principal constituent) must be thoroughly mixed.

One fundamental hypothesis of the IPT is how the paint was ignited without the aid of burning hydrogen.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:lUVtjzT…ngth+burn&hl=en (dead link)

QUOTE:

WATER WILL NOT EXTINGUISH A THERMITE REACTION. IT WILL CAUSE A STEAM EXPLOSION AND POSSIBLE PERSONAL INJURY.

Because of the high temperature necessary to ignite the thermite, a magnesium strip is needed.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chemical_synthesis:Thermite_synthesis
(dead link)

The problem then comes down to proper ratios, if the Iron oxide or similar substance is restricted from binding with the aluminium, there is no way for the reaction the reaction to progress, it will occur in isolated instances…only in temperatures exceeding 2500K (2200 °C, 4000 °F).

Whilst thermite may appear to be the most logical choice, the basic requirements needed to achieve the effect are not present.

In terms of pre-planting conventional explosives, this would give a rough idea of the scale of the task which would need to be undetected:

QUOTE:

Thursday, October 14th, 1999 marked another important milestone for the nation’s space program. At exactly 10:05 AM EST on a beautiful sunny Florida morning, Dykon, of Tulsa, OK detonated approximately 300 pounds of explosives to fell the seven million pound Umbilical and Mobile service Towers at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) at NASA’s Cape Canaveral Space Station.

Olshan’s burners began cutting small windows in the supporting columns as laid out in the structural analysis. Once all the burning was completed, Dykon began the task of attaching the over 400 linear shape charges that would cut the steel support columns. The smaller UT tower was loaded first. Explosives would be used to remove the bottom four feet of that tower, allowing it to roll over.

http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/Archives/Titan/Titan.htm

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

QUOTE:

Thermite has been proposed as a chemical reactant that is capable of achieving the collapse of the central cores of the WTC towers. The thermite reaction produces great heat, capable of melting steel, and since it does not produce reactant gases, there would not be the high explosive signature of a massive shock wave.

Shockwaves are present…another indicator that thermite is not the source.

Watch the video…frame by frame…observe the building concave…:

VIDEO: Demolition Waves (Also: wtc2_demolition_waves)

Dailymotion | Youtube (Old link: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi…ition_waves.mpg)

Thus, this statement still stands:

QUOTE

To achieve a pancaking effect of the WTC, which had a floor size of almost an acre, around 300 pounds or more of high explosives would have been needed, per-floor.

So, I feel that we can exclude the possiblity of conventional explosives, the practicality of planting such devices, the physics of detonation, the physical manifestation of the building collapse (concaving), and difficulty of maintaining a thermite reaction, all demonstrate that such a scenario is unlikely.

What is clear, is either the use of at least 6 separate devices, or a multi-stage device, in the first few seconds of collapse. This induced an implosion event, of such force, that it distorted the entire WTC building into a concave shape and that the main force was coming from underneath the collapse.

What sort of event could concave a 500,000 tonne building at least 6 times in under 2 seconds?

End of quote

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

PROBLEM WITH JET-FUEL THEORY

Below is from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

Professor Jones writes:

“12. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:

QUOTE:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002)

Correct – jet collisions did not cause collapses – we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).

We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

QUOTE

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179.)

QUOTE:

NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)

QUOTE:

Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true.” (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5)

QUOTE:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140.)

QUOTE:

As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team… I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests… indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)

QUOTE:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. ( article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) )

QUOTE:

Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by a physicist.

QUOTE:

This [“official”] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans…. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan, 2004.)”

Above quotes are from:

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
(dead link)

QUOTE from MMC:

“It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated:

QUOTE:

“The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005)

On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple explanation for the observed detonations. Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.”

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

LOW-LEVEL FLASHING OF TOWERS

Steven Jones writes:

Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

And Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:

When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought — at that time I didn’t know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=225 (page 16)

MOLTEN STEEL AND HOTSPOTS

Below is from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15# (page 2)

MMC posts:

QUOTE:

1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7

Now, if you remember Chernobyl and the fire that ensued afterwards, creating the now infamous “Elephant’s foot”, the following will sound familiar:

QUOTE:

4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)

Jet fuel burns at around 800 degrees C, whereas, the melting point of steel is above 1500 degrees C. The fires caused by the jet fuel were also out within the structure.

Here is a statement from Time magazine on the Chernobyl fire:

QUOTE:

Fueled by the white-hot graphite core of one of Chernobyl’s four reactors, the runaway blaze burned at temperatures of up to 5000 degrees , or twice that of molten steel. The crippled reactor itself was unapproachable–too hot from the fire ravaging it, too dangerous radioactively. ”No one knows how to stop it,” said one U.S. expert. ”It could take weeks to burn itself out.”

http://www.time.com/time/daily/chernobyl/860512.cover.html

Here is a link to a mainstream media source confirming the event of the longterm fires:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml


Here is a link to US government thermal imaging showing a number of “hotspots” around the WTC in the days after the attack, of around 800C to well over 1000C


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

QUOTE:

AVIRIS data collected on September 16, 2001, revealed a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF) . Over 3 dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature were present in the core zone of the WTC. By September 23, most of these fires that were observable from an aircraft had been eliminated or reduced in intensity.”

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Steven Jones writes:

“The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams — then where did the molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

“The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true…. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame…. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types… The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C — hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio… This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke…. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse… The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable… Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire.” (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)”

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html (dead link)

End quote

NIST AND UNDERWRITERS LABS INC TESTING CONTRADICT CLAIMS

Steven Jones from “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

QUOTE: 

We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

QUOTE: 

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added)

QUOTE: 

NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

QUOTE:

Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true.” (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)

QUOTE:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)

QUOTE:

As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team… I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests… indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)

QUOTE:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. ( article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) )

QUOTE:

Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by a physicist.

QUOTE:

This [“official”] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans…. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan, 2004; emphasis added.)

All the quotes above are from:

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
(dead link)

DISPOSAL OF THE EVIDENCE

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=210 (page. 15)

Foreign Firms Charged With Disposing of WTC Evidence

Why did a foreign company-headed by a knight of the British Empire-manage the controversial “clean-up” of the rubble at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

By Christopher Bollyn

Although the terror attacks of Sept. 11 were clearly criminal acts of mass murder, no effort was made to preserve the integrity of the crime scenes and the essential evidence was disposed of like garbage.

The editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, WiIliam A. Manning, issued an urgent “call to action” to America’s firefighters at the end of 2001, calling for a forensic investigation and demanding that the steel from the site be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse.

“Such destruction of evidence,” Manning said, “shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.”

“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall,” Manning said. “Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident’s magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative.”

Three months later, the Science Committee of the House of Representatives reported that the WTC investigation was “hampered” by the destruction of crucial evidence. The committee report of March 6 says, “Some of the critical pieces of steel . . . were gone before the first [investigator] ever reached the site.”

The investigation Manning called for never happened and never will, because the essential evidence is now destroyed.

“The [FEMA-sponsored] building performance assessment currently being conducted of the World Trade Center is just that: an assessment, not an investigation,” Prof. Glenn Corbett of John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City told the Science Committee in March. Corbett had previously called the FEMA-led investigation “uncoordinated” and “superficial.”

“You would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong,” Corbett wrote. “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”

Who’s in charge?

The New York Times was unable to find out who was behind the destruction of evidence.

On Dec. 25, 2001, the Times reported, “Officials in the mayor’s office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.”

“I must say that the current investigation-some would argue that ‘review’ is the more appropriate word -seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy,” said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.).

“There are no clear lines of authority,” he said. “No one is in charge.”

Before the dust had settled on Sept. 11, the mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, and Kenneth Holden, of the city’s Dept. of Design and Construction (DDC), contracted 4 major construction management companies to begin the removal of the debris from the World Trade Center. Three of the four major companies involved in the clean-up were foreign owned: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease, both headquartered in London; and Turner, which is a subsidiary of Germany’s Hochtief.

Only Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., is a truly American-owned company.

Peter Tully, president of the company, was, notably, the only person willing to speak openly with AFP about his work at the WTC site.

“I was there every day,” Tully said. “The mayor’s office and DDC called us on Sept. 11 . . . on the site we had at least three meetings a day with Ken Holden and Mike Burton.”

The WTC site was initially divided into four quadrants and Tully Construction was assigned to Quadrant 3.

Tully told AFP that his company had worked on the South Tower, WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground retail mall.

‘Everything was pulverized’

“Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers-I never saw one-every thing was pulverized,” Tully said. “Everything that was above grade-above the 6th and 7th floor-disintegrated . . . it was like an explosion.”

Tully Construction specializes in concrete. AFP asked Tully if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC.

“No-never,” he said.

Tully said that there were hot spots where he observed “literally molten steel.” Asked about what could have caused such intense heat, Tully said, “Think about the jet fuel.”

British management

The London-based firm AMEC, ranked by Engineering News Record magazine as “the world’s largest firm,” oversaw the actual management of the debris removal at both the Pentagon and the WTC.

“AMEC was the only construction company working at both disaster sites,” the company’s web site says. “AMEC is managing Hudson River barging operations to transport the rubble from the entire WTC site to a landfill on Staten Island and to steel recycling operations in New Jersey.”

AMEC had just finished the renovation at the Pentagon when it was called to manage the removal of debris there and at the World Trade Center.

“AMEC was placed in charge [by the City of New York] of organizing and engineering the around-the-clock clean up operation in the northwest sector,” the web site says, which included the North Tower and 6 WTC (U.S. Customs House). The company also cleaned up the 47-story WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed late in the afternoon of 9-11.

AMEC co-managed the WTC site with another London-based firm, Bovis Lend Lease, from January 2002. Bovis was a somewhat troubled construction subsidiary of Britain’s P&O. Bovis was acquired by Australia’s Lend Lease Corp in 1999.

Bovis is headed by Sir Frank Lampl, a Czechoslovakian who emigrated to England at age 42. Lampl, who claims to have been imprisoned in Auschwitz and Dachau during the Nazi era, is also a British knight.

Mary Costello, spokesperson for Bovis in New York, told AFP that the company had assumed “overall responsibility” for the WTC site on Jan. 4.

She didn’t want to discuss what buildings Bovis had worked on and said, “You should not be contacting us. You should be speaking to DDC,” Costello said.

Calls to DDC public affairs department are neither answered nor returned.

Turner Construction, the third foreign firm, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hochtief AG, headquartered in Essen, Germany.

Turner was unwilling to discuss its role at the WTC site.

AMEC & the Pentagon

AMEC is an “informal acronym” for Asset Management and Engineering Consultancy, according to the firm’s communications director David Paterson.

Paterson told AFP that oil and gas extraction provides 25 percent of the company’s revenue. AMEC operates the North Sea oil rigs for Shell and British Petroleum, Paterson said.

AMEC had just completed a project to strengthen and renovate a section of the Pentagon, Wedge 1, when the building was attacked. The damaged area is between Wedges 1 and 2. Marcella Diaz, communication director for the firm’s U.S. subsidiary, AMEC Construction Management, told AFP that the company’s work on the Pentagon had been completed on the Friday before Sept. 11.

Paterson told AFP that AMEC is the “prime contractor for the U.S. Dept. of Defense on environmental work.”

The firm was paid some $752 million for its 2-year renovation and clean-up at the Pentagon, according to Rachel Decker, spokesperson for the Pentagon’s renovation entity known as PENREN.

The fact that a British firm had been given the contract to renovate the Pentagon was “not a problem,” Decker said.

Asked about who was in charge of the clean-up at the WTC, Paterson said, “The City of New York was the project manager.” The director of DDC, Kenneth Holden, was named as the person in charge at the site according to Paterson.

AMEC is in line for further construction work at both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center according to The Daily Mail, a British newspaper.

The company’s London-based chief executive, Sir Peter Mason, said about the Pentagon clean-up: “The target is to have it reopened for business by Sept. 11, 2003, as a point of principle.”

Mason is a knight of the British Empire.

The former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, who gave the management of the WTC site to the two British firms, AMEC and Bovis Lend Lease, received an honorary knighthood in the Order of the British Empire from Queen Elizabeth II on Feb. 13, 2002.

When Giuliani was made a knight of the British Empire he joined an exclusive club which includes George Bush the elder, Ronald Reagan, Colin Powell, Wesley Clark, Norman Schwartzkopf, and Steven Spielberg.

Bush and Reagan are both knighted in the Order of the Bath.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_16_02/…s_charged_.html (dead link)

QUOTE from MMC:

As a final note, the area was filled in with cement, instead of continuing the exploration, such measures are consistent with procedures in nuclear incidents:

QUOTE:

“AMEC Construction Management, a subsidiary of the British engineering firm AMEC, renovated Wedge One of the Pentagon before 9-11 and cleaned it up afterward.

AMEC had also renovated Silverstein’s WTC 7, which collapsed mysteriously on 9-11, and then headed the cleanup of the WTC site afterward. The AMEC construction firm is currently in the process of closing all its offices in the United States.”

http://www.total911.info/2004/10/radiation-at-pentagon-on-911.html (dead link)

ELEVATED LEVEL OF TRITIUM

Below from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15 (page 2)

QUOTE below from MMC:

OK, here is an area that most members should be able to assist in…statistics and concentration levels…I have taken some time to study the report on elevated tritium levels and I have come up with this basic assessment.

The idea here is to expand upon this very basic analysis and provide one or more scenarios…

If you want to prove this theory wrong or right, this is how to approach it…become a member and begin work on the facts…

…wild comments, without any supporting basis, are completely useless and only undermine those trying to debunk the Finnish military expert’s claims.

Only by explaining each aspect, with proper supporting physics, would you be able to achieve that.

This is a physics site…you will need to use physics.

Let the games begin….

QUOTE:

The modeling suggests that the contribution from the aircraft would imply the HTO deposition fraction of [3]%, a value which is judged somewhat too high. Therefore, the source term from the airplanes alone is insufficient to explain the measurements and modeling.

Several weapons were present and destroyed at [the] WTC. The modeling is also consistent with the second tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches) where tritium was slowly released from the debris in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Such a limiting case would require a minimum of 115 weapons and a quantitative capturing of tritium. Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient, which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.

QUOTE:

A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively.

The fact is most of those source would be close to, if not older than the 12.4 year half-life. Tritium loses about 5% of it mass every year.

The concentration is too high, you are asking me to believe that every source of tritium gathered in the same place and that the basement, sealed from the building, saturated in water which would dilute the concentration, managed to gather 5 times the amount, over a week later. [MISTAKE: …gather 16 times the amount ….]

No, that would indicate that more leached downwards over time, indicating that the source of the tritium was midway up the building…

QUOTE:

It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs.

QUOTE:

Tritium is rare in nature because of its 12.4-year half-life. It is produced by cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere where it combines with oxygen to form water. It then falls to earth as rain, but the concentration is too low to be useful in a nuclear weapons program. Most tritium is produced by bombarding 6Li [ 6 Li(n, a) 3 H] with neutrons in a reactor; it is also produced as a byproduct of the operation of a heavy-water-moderated reactor when neutrons are captured on the deuterons present. It has been suggested that it may be feasible to produce tritium in an accelerator (electronuclear breeder) in which protons bombard an appropriate target.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/tritium.htm

The tritium was diluted by 200,000+ gallons of water, from each tower, not to mention the amount of water afterwards and the uneven distribution of such material would make samples vary widely.

QUOTE:

nanocurie (nCi)
a common unit of radioactivity. The nanocurie equals 10-9 curie or 37 becquerels; this corresponds to a radioactivity of 37 atomic disintegrations per second.

QUOTE:

curie (Ci)

a unit of radioactivity. One curie was originally defined as the radioactivity of one gram of pure radium. In 1953 scientists agreed that the curie would represent exactly 3.7 x 1010 atomic disintegrations per second, or 37 gigabecquerels (GBq), this being the best estimate of the activity of a gram of radium. See also becquerel. The unit is named for Pierre and Marie Curie, the discoverers of radium.

A sample is around 10ml, that means the concentration over the entire site would have been thousands times more. That would place the origional amount somewhere in the region of around…wait for it…

QUOTE:

Several environmental measurements were made to confirm or disprove this hypothesis. Water was distilled once from the environmental stationary water samples, and twice from the vegetation samples. 10 ml of such distillate was mixed with 13 ml of Instagel XF cocktail (Packard) in a borosilicate glass vial and measured on an ultralow-background liquid scintillation counter TRI-CARB, model 3170TR/SL by Packard.

200,000 gallons = 757,082,400 ml [757,082.36 L or 757,082,400 ml]

Divide that amount into 10ml…
/ 10 = 7,570,824 samples      [MISTAKE: should be 75,708,240 samples]

If 10ml samples were used, the origonal amount of tritium was in the order of:   [3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L]
7570824 * 3.53 = 26725008.72 nCi/L of HTO    [267,250,087.2 nCi of tritium]
7570824 * 0.174 = 1317323.376 nCi/L of HTO    [
13,173,233.76 nCi of tritium]

That’s per tower, so we must double those figures. [534,500,174.4 nCi of tritium or 0.5 Ci of tritium and 26,346,467.52 nCi of tritium or 0.02634646752 Ci of tritium]  The next major factor is that only a fraction of oxidized tritium would be converted to HTO, the rest would excape as a gas…tritium has the same properties as hydrogen.

Next up, is the physical area that is covered and the absorbtion by surrounding materials and the flow of water away from the site…we are only left with residue.

The authors of the report noted this and came to this conclusion:

QUOTE:

Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient, which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.

I agree, however, I have additional considerations:

If we now add the additional water sources noted by the report and run the calculation:

QUOTE:

Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 (the day of the reported measurement).

4,000,000 Gallons = 15,141,648,000ml

/10 = 1,514,164,800 samples
/100 = 151,416,480 samples

If 10ml samples were used:
1,514,164,800 * 3.53 = 5,345,001,744 nCi/L of tritium [MISTAKE: 5,345,001,744 nCi of tritium]
1,514,164,800 * 0.174 = 263,464,675.2 nCi/L of tritium

Now from here we can see that the first sample would provide a value of 5.35Ci/L of HTO…  [MISTAKE: 5.35 Ci of tritium]

The plane had “34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact”…the first result ALONE would have accounted for 1/6 of the ENTIRE plane’s content of tritium. [MISTAKE: The first 100 liter sample would have accounted for 1/6 of the ENTIRE plane’s content of tritium.]

When you add this fact on top:

QUOTE:

Th[is] water met and combine[d] with the estimated 26 million gallons of water that leaked from the Hudson River, as well as broken mains, during the same period of 10 days after the attack. The combined 30 million gallons of water {were} collect[ed] in the PATH train tunnel and [were] continuously {being} pumped out to prevent flooding.

[New calculation with 30,400,000 gallons of water figure: 4.06×10^11 nCi or 406 Ci]

and even account for the tritium contained in the exit signs:

QUOTE:

Taking into consideration 2 Twin Towers, 110 floors each, and assuming 5 EXIT signs per floor, 10 Ci of 3H each, would result in a total of 1.1×10^4Ci [11,000 Ci]

Then you can see we have a scenario were vast amounts of tritium would have been present.

Therefore, the simple answer is this, yes, it is plausible that after 2 days (9/13/01) and 8 days later (9/21/01) the majority of the HTO was:

pumped out,
drained out,
absorbed by material,
absorbed by the ground,
escape as a gas

and that the residual amounts left represented around 1% of the total volume. [If the residual amount was 1% of the total volume, then the original amount of tritium is 40,600 Ci.]

It must be remembered that the evaluation was on health grounds only and further tests were not made:

QUOTE:

Thus tritium was detected in these limited samples at ground zero, but the concentrations are very low. In fact, 3 nCi/L is about 7 times less than the EPA limit in drinking water of 20 nCi/L (CFR, 141.66). No health implications are known or expected at such low concentrations (Hill and Johnson, 1993). As a consequence no additional ground-zero samples were judged necessary.

End of quote

ELEVATED LEVELS OF RADIONUCLIDES

BELOW FROM: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=210 (page 15)

Radionuclides Found in NY Harbour Sedimentary Analysis after 9/11:

“…This conclusion is further supported by the unexpected detection of the short-lived, anthropogenically-produced radionuclide I (t=8.04 d) in the surface (0 – 1cm) sediments at both cores sites at activities of 5.5 = 0.8 Bq/kg, corresponding to a total ‘I’ inventory of about 2mBq/cm3. Although ‘I’ is a product of nuclear fission, the Indian Point Nuclear Facility, located approximately 65 km upstream from the sampling site, was ruled out.”

http://www.wellesley.edu/Geology/Dan/Oktay%20et%20al,%202002%20(EOS).pdf

FALLOUT AND CLEAN BOMBS

Below from MMC http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=120 (page 9)

The Bulletin:

“But perhaps the greatest uncertainty arises from the recent development of the so-called “clean” bomb. A “clean” bomb is a nuclear weapon in which most of the explosive power is derived from thermonuclear reactions. It has been stated that a 96 per cent clean bomb has already been produced; the remaining 4 per cent of the explosive power is presumably due to the fission core needed to trigger the fusion reaction. In the future it might be possible to develop a weapon in which the explosion is initiated directly by a thermonuclear reaction.

… In such a case, however, the bombs used would be in the kiloton rather than in the megaton range, and the question of large-scale radioactive contamination would not have arisen even with fission bombs. Another case is the defensive use of large nuclear weapons; for example, the explosion of hydrogen bombs high in the air above one’s own territory for the purpose of destroying in flight enemy missiles whose trajectories have been determined.

…Whatever the actual construction of the hydrogen bomb may be, it appears that it requires a “tamper” or an inert material to contain the fusion substances long enough for the reaction to develop. In a clean bomb such a tamper would be made of a material which would not contribute to the explosive power. In a dirty bomb, however, the tamper is made of natural uranium; in this case a considerable increase in explosive power can be obtained, without any extra weight, due to the fission of the uranium produced by the neutrons released in the fusion reactions.

A larger explosive power means a greater range of destruction; thus, for the same weight of the missile, a fission bomb presents a much more effective military weapon.

Even foregoing the advantages of the use of dirty bombs, resulting from driving the enemy population into shelters and underground retreats for many weeks after the explosion, and even with all the good will with which we credit our leaders, can they afford to give up the advantages of fission bombs without being sure that the enemy will do the same? It has been suggested such assurance might be obtained by giving the secret of making clean bombs to the enemy.

The above considerations, which indicate that in a future war fission bombs would be employed for strategic bombing, lead also to the conclusion that these bombs would be exploded in such a way as to produce the maximum damage by heat and blast.”

http://www.thebulletin.org/pdf/rotblat/014_001_020.pdf (page not found)

MMC:

“I understand that, however, the WTC building was composed of a lot of substances that could absorb neutrons, with a properly positioned low-yield device, there is a possibility that the majority of the dense radio-active material was absorbed within a short distance of the device…only to be scrapped later. The remaining energy could be directed into the structure itself.”

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15 (page 2)

BOMBS WERE INSIDE THE TOWERS

QUOTE from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=270 (page 19)

“Have you ever seen a bomb go off?

I mean a real one.

I have, numrous times.

Funny thing about them is this, windows in the local area are not blown inwards, from the force of the explosion, they are blown outwards, from the loss of atmospheric pressure and the initial super-sonic shockwave.

In other words, if you were sitting inside the house and the bomb was outside, the window convexes and breaks…and falls into the street.

If the bomb is inside the building…the windows concaves…and falls inside the building unless caught in the blast wave.

If the window is open, or there is sufficent air gap within the structure, the pressure equalizes rapidly and the glass fails to break…

(In the case of the WTC, the glass was designed to flex with building.)

Just like the video of the WTC…the windows concave …. an interior detonation…

VIDEO: Demolition Waves (Also: wtc2_demolition_waves)

Dailymotion | Youtube

Empirical evidence, caught on video, of multiple interior explosions consistent with the hallmarks of explosives …”

THEFT OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL

QUOTE:

“From 1993 through 2000, the U.N. agency, which monitors nuclear security, confirmed 153 cases of theft of nuclear materials. The thefts included plutonium and highly enriched uranium that could be used immediately as fuel for a nuclear weapon, as well as less volatile nuclear material, such as uranium fuel and wastes from nuclear power reactors, that would need high-tech processing before it could trigger a nuclear blast.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/29/nukethreat-usatcov.htm

and:

“U.S. concern centers on small, portable nuclear weapons called “suitcase bombs.” Russian officials insist that fewer than 100 of the devices were ever constructed and all have been destroyed or put under impregnable security. U.S. officials fear however that the Russians can’t account for all of them.

Even if some portable devices were stolen, the sophisticated hand-held units would need expert maintenance — such as replacement of fast-decaying tritium used in triggering mechanisms — to retain their effectiveness.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/29/nukethreat-usatcov.htm

Above from: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15# (page 2)

BROWN SHADES OF COLOR IN THE AIR

From: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=15
(page 2)

QUOTE (by MMC):

MMC QUOTE:

3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitric acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease, becoming ordinary clouds with some water.

‘So, let’s look at nitric acid:’

MMC QUOTE:

At room temperature it gives off red or yellow fumes in moist air. Commonly used as a laboratory reagent, it is used in the manufacture of explosives such as nitroglycerin and trinitrotoluene (TNT), and as well as of fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate. It has additional uses in metallurgy and refining as it reacts with most metals, and in organic syntheses. When combined with hydrochloric acid it forms aqua regia, one of the few reagents capable of dissolving gold and platinum. Nitric acid is also a component of acid rain.

‘As you will see, we are coming back to conventional explosives also … this allows two scenarios, a small hydrogen device, or an acetone and conventional explosives mix.

As I said before, both would result in increased levels of tritium.’

MMC QUOTE:

Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.

‘200,000+ gallons of water, hitting an acetone or small hydrogen bomb, would result in a massive steam explosion, similar to Chernobyl … this would provide the energy to push massive amounts of material skywards. A delay would be expected, as it would take some time to convert that water to steam and for the falling material to act as a source of resistance.’

MMC QUOTE:

“Finally, sampling of the cloud of a 1976 atmospheric Chinese megaton range test showed confirmed that there was no ozone depleting nitrogen dioxide: it reacts with water vapour to form nitric acid, instead of destroying ozone! Anyway, nitrogen dioxide is only formed in high pressure shock waves from low altitude detonations, not from high altitude bursts, which produce an excess of ozone. This debunks the claims of ozone depletion by nuclear warfare made in the 1977 edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.

Nitric acid (HNO3) production from the mixing with nitrogen dioxide and water vapour in the fireball is described by the reaction:

3NO2 + H2O -> 2HNO3 + NO

then the nitrogen oxide, NO, itself gets oxidized into nitric acid by the reaction:

4NO + 3O2 + 2H2O -> 4HNO3

It was a bigger hoax than Piltdown Man to suggest that nitrogen oxides from nuclear bomb tests could break down ozone; they instead get oxidised into nitric acid by atmospheric moisture and oxygen before they can reach the ozone layer.”

URL: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/samuel-glasstone-and-philip-j-dolan.html

End of quote

Color of nitrating acid

Nitrating acid, mixture, (with <= 50% nitric acid) is a colorless to yellow or red liquid sometimes fuming reddish brown vapors (of nitrogen dioxide). Has a suffocating odor. Density 10.4 lb / gal. Typically contains 36% nitric acid and 61% sulfuric acid by mass (the rest is water). Corrosive to metals or tissue. Used for nitration reactions (in the manufacture of explosives and plastics).

Above from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/nitric_acid#section=Top

 

________________________________________________________________

concrete-05-image-sml.jpg