What is the difference between a controlled demolition

[DoYouEverWonder]

and the collapse of the WTC?

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. 2nd Question - What is the difference between

the WTC collapse




and the explosion from this bomb test?

[Kai]

2. "Pancaking"

If the one hundred plus stories of the WTC towers collapsed due to progressive structural or failure or "pancaking" wouldn't the debris pile look more like this building which collapsed in the earthquake in Islamabad.




The debris from the WTC collapses reminds me of the dust left over from a magnesium road flare.

[petgoat]

3. Why do you hate america? nt

[Kai]

4. True Patriot

"I was authorized to do everything that I did."

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. The difference is in the dust and debris

In all the controlled demos I've looked at everything goes down. The smoke and dust may go up a little but it is mostly out and down.

In the WTC collapses some sort of accelerant is pushing smoke and debris up, as well as out and down.



See the big plume of black smoke going up from the middle of the building? Can anyone tell me what would have caused the kind of a plume to occur during the collapse? I would think that something that can output a lot of energy must of have gone off in order to counteract gravity and the weight of the whole building coming down, to create this plume? A bomb maybe? Maybe a nuke?

[Kai]

6. Bunker Buster type thermo nuclear devices

This might explain the vertical column of smoke.

It is from a Finnish website which displays a link for "What Really Happened", a website which has been banned from DU for directly or indirectly supporting holocaust revision. So be sure to regard the website with the greatest skepticism. The theory is in broken english and purportedly written by a "Finnish Military Expert" who remains anonymous so be sure to view it skeptically as well. I am posting it because it makes sense to me. It would explain why so much material was reduced to dust or pulverized including the 47 supporting columns in each tower. And it would explain the enormous explosions that were reported to be heard emanating from the base of the towers. It would also explain the molten steel found at ground zero. However, if nuclear devices were used where was the radioactivity that would be a cosequence of this type of device? If you can find a more reliable source for a theory postulating these types of devices in the destruction of the WTC buildings be sure to PM me.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

The Development of Bomb Technology Related to the 9/11 Operation

These outlines of developments in military bomb technology have been written to give the layman some idea, why bomb technology has developed into what it is.

A hollow charge made possible a small charge to make a hole in armour plate was invented in Switzerland in 1937. A cutting charge, used in the WTC in tens of thousands of pieces, was an evolunary model of the principles of a hollow charge from 1950's.

A Claymore threw steel balls towards the enemy, but was otherwise harmless even from 5 meters distance, was developed in the USA approximately in 1960.

A flank mine is able to direct a narrow pressure wave through AFV flanks from a distance of 20 meters and was more developed in Finland around 1970. Due to efficiency causes, growing part of military explosives deploy improvements utilizing directed explosion energy.

By controlling several layers of the explosion fronts the size of a nuclear bomb has been minimized during the 1960's (fission – implosion). After that, the control of explosion force in nuclear explosions was developed. Too strong an explosion is sometimes unusable, for example when the enemy have broken too close to friendly cities.

While looking for a bomb with a small size and a strong effect, a pure hydrogen bomb was an obvious solution. When no atomic device is needed for igniting, the size of the hydrogen bomb gets even smaller and the yield (effect) can be set within a wide range, for example between from 1 to 100. This succeeded in the 1980's, as well as the neutron bomb, which kills only living things and leaves most material untouched.

The former Soviet Union is said to have had more than 500 command centers durable for a small nuke. That led into the developing of different types of bunker busters. A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.



The Bombs in the WTC

Note: This drawing is schematic only. The actual towers were much taller and the observed arch of destruction of the energy-directed thermonuclear device was correspondingly more narrow.





The Ground Zero here is in the original sense of word, a nuclear blast site. The thermal energy may absorb heat at a rate of 10 E 23 ergs / cm2 sec and near the bomb all surfaces may heat to 4000 °C or 7200 °F igniting or vapourizing violently. Source: US Department of Defense & US Department of Energy, Glasstone – Dolan: 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons' (1980).

The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n. The ignition of this is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well).

[dailykoff]

8. I have a feeling Gulf War I

is where they first rolled out whatever they used in Manhattan.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. According to the dust analysis done by the USGS

there was a fair bit of uranium. At least 8 -10 ppm. That is a significant amount when you multiply it by the amount of debris the collapse created. 1.46 million tons of debris went to the Staten Island landfill. About 600,000 tons was small particle debris. 8 - 10 ppm is a lot of uranium. Especially in a watered down sampling.




http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html

[dailykoff]

11. Yes 10 ppm of 600,000 tons of dust = 6 tons of uranium.

Maybe Saddam was renting a locker?

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. That's a lot of URANIUM

Where did it all come from?

What levels of radiation were people exposed to?

BTW: Have you noticed that now that we've found the data, it seems the trolls don't want to touch it?

[Make7]

34. What isotope of uranium was it? ( n/t )

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. Who knows?

Seems the USGS didn't both to find out or if they did, they decided not to release that information.

Edit: However here's some more USGS tables that I just found. Maybe someone whose better at chemistry then I am can make sense of them?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html

[Make7]

40. I could venture a guess.

Based on the fact the the average amount of uranium in those samples is 3.29 ppm as outlined in the table you posted, and taking into consideration that uranium is a commonly found element - I would guess it is U-238.

Uranium "occurs in most rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 parts per million and is as common in the earth's crust as tin, tungsten and molybdenum. It occurs in seawater, and could be recovered from the oceans if prices rose significantly.   ...'Natural' uranium as found in the earth's crust is a mixture largely of two isotopes: uranium-238 (U-238), accounting for 99.3% and U-235 about 0.7%." (source)

Since the level of uranium found it the dust samples is within the range of normal levels of 'natural' uranium, and that is 99.3% U-238 - I think unless evidence to the contrary is produced, an assumption that this was 'natural' occurring uranium is likely to be correct.

Of course, as I am sure you are well aware, U-235 is the 'fissile' isotope that is used in nuclear power generation (low enriched uranium) and can also be used for nuclear weapons (high enriched uranium). If it can be shown that there are elevated levels of U-235, then we can move the discussion on to the problems associated with that additional amount of U-235 actually being the result of nuclear weapons detonated at ground zero on 9/11.

- Make7

[dailykoff]

41. Six tons of uranium over Manhattan is not "natural"

but I was wondering when somebody was going to get around to making that idiotic claim.

Next up: acid rain caused all that steel to disappear.

[TheWraith]

46. Are you deliberately being an idiot?

Let's try this again: uranium is a naturally occurring element, the same as iron or gold or lead. When you mine rock to make concrete, you're going to get some uranium. In this case, roughly 3 parts uranium per million. That's the case pretty much anywhere. More in some places, less in others.

So, somewhere in that 600KT of powdered debris, you're going to get a certain amount of pulverized raw uranium. You'll also find gold, lead, and dozens of other trace elements.

Which is pretty irrelevant, when you come right down to it. U238 doesn't have much radioactivity, and even powderized it would be only one more ingredient in the toxic stew that was the WTC in the early days after the attack. If you're driving towards some kind of nuclear bomb theory, don't even bother. A nuclear detonation does not produce uranium. Moreover, it would produce many many other highly noticible compounds and effects, not the least of which being the complete vapoization of downtown Manhattan.

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. Whose being an idiot?

A nuclear detonation would cause the complete vaporization of downtown Manhattan? Oh please, give me a break. It all depends on the size of the weapon and many other factors.

However, I believe that a some sort of weapon (possibly nuclear) did bring the WTC down and I think it would have been a hell of lot easier to do then setting cutting charges or wrapping support columns with explosives. Especially, if it was an inside job. Especially, if the President's brother happened to be the head of the company in charge of security? All you've got to do is load up a couple of trucks with the weapons, drive them into the freight elevators which were designed to carry trucks, send the elevator down to the basement and shut the elevator(s) down for 'repairs'. There were enough elevators in that building that no one would notice one or two not running for a couple of days. Now of course, all this is just speculation but what else do you have, when the official story is a pack of lies? You certainly don't believe that two 767's could completely vaporize three major buildings?

As far as where 6 tons of uranium came from in the dust samples, it seems we don't have enough information (can't imagine why) to make any judgements on what kind of uranium it was and where it came from.

[TheWraith]

55. The very smallest nuclear bomb ever designed was capable of wiping out

All human life within a quarter mile of its point of detonation. It also supplied the explosive effect of over ten tons of TNT, which is over 40 gigajoules of energy. Or put more simply, roughly 4x the power of the bomb which was used against the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. An explosion of that magnitude would have completely destroyed the lowest 8-10 levels of the tower. That would be rather conspicuous.

The next smallest nuke was designed to vaporize entire harbors and everything in them. Then you start getting into the kiloton range, which are mass killers.

"You certainly don't believe that two 767's could completely vaporize three major buildings?"

Do you seriously believe that you could set off two nuclear bombs, irradiate a half a square mile of one of the largest cities in the world, and nobody would notice the radiation, the sickness, or the massive explosions which percipitated the whole thing?

Compared to that theory, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that having a jetliner rammed into it could cause a skyscraper to collapse.

And you say "three major buildings." You're probably referring to the WTC number 7. That was hardly the only other building lost that day. The entire World Trade Center Plaza, almost ten buildings, I believe, was destroyed or damaged beyond repair. The Towers collapsed, and destroyed pretty much everything around them by a combination of fire, falling debris, and the massive impact tremor of the collapse itself.

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. The bombs didn't necessarily have to be nuclear

or they could have been low-yield. Another possibility would be a fuel type weapon? Isn't that what they use for those MOABS the DOD likes to blow up for show?

All you have to do is turn the elevator shafts into chimneys. Launch straight up the shaft and set to go off above the 50 the floor. Kind of like a volcano, which other then a wmd, is the only other thing I know of that can create this effect.




The technology is not that difficult.

Putting the things in the elevators is the key though. Like I said, they had elevators that you could ride a truck in to the top of the building. I've been above the 90th floor in them. 2 or 3 elevators out of service wouldn't get much notice, even for a couple of days.

[Kai]

59. Like Thermobaric Devices

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm
Global Security.Org

Excerpt;
BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon

The BLU-118/B nomenclature was first reported on 21 December 2001, and this weapon is clearly unrelated to the BLU-118 500 lb. napalm canister used during the Vietnam war.

The BLU-118/B is a penetrating warhead filled with an advanced thermobaric explosive that, when detonated, generates higher sustained blast pressures in confined spaces such as tunnels and underground facilities. The BLU-118/B uses the same penetrator body as the standard BLU-109 weapon. The significant difference is the replacement of the high explosive fill with a new thermobaric explosive that provides increased lethality in confined spaces.

The BLU-118/B warhead uses a Fuze Munition Unit (FMU)-143J/B to initiate the explosive. The FMU-143 fuze has been modified with a new booster and a 120-millisecond delay. All weapon guidance systems and employment options currently used with the BLU-109 warhead are compatible with the new BLU-118/B warhead.

BLU-118/B payload candidates included PBXIH-135 , HAS-13, or SFAE loaded into existing BLU-109 Weapon Bodies. Conventional high explosives (CHE) are characterized by a sensitivity to mechanical or thermal energy. Insensitive high explosives (IHE), on the other hand, require extraordinarily high stimuli before violent reaction occurs. Insensitive explosives reliably fulfil their performance, readiness and operational requirements on demand, but the violence of response to unplanned hazardous stimuli is restricted to an acceptable level. This means that when a munition is in a fire, hit by a fragment, bullet or high velocity projectile or subject to some other hazard the result will not be a detonation or a violent reaction of the explosive and propellant; no more than severe burning will ocur . Some insensitive explosives are known to react in a different way to conventional explosives. For instance, detonation reactions are slower but more energy is released in a way that has the potential to produce a lot more damage.

<snip>

The BLU-118B was successfully tested at the Nevada Test Site on 14 December 2001. During that test, a Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-24 laser-guided weapon using the BLU-118B warhead was dropped from an F-15E attack aircraft. The laser-guided bomb was "skipped" into a tunnel and exploded with a delayed fuze, which produced a significant growth in overpressure and temperature in the tunnel. When compared to the standard BLU-109 explosive, results showed the new thermobaric weapon generated a significant improvement in overpressure and pressure-impulse in the tunnel complex. The test culminated a two-month accelerated effort to rapidly transition a developmental explosive to improve lethality against underground facilities. DTRA weaponized and delivered (within 60 days) 10 thermobaric-filled air delivered munitions (BLU-118B) designed to enhance lethality in tunnel environments.

[DoYouEverWonder]

60. Here's some info about the elevators

If each elevator in the vertical transportation system of the tower buildings had to be located in separate hoistways, excessive floor space in the structures would be devoted to hoistways alone. By using the sky lobby principle, however, space is saved since “shuttle-express” elevators (10,000 pounds, or 4,500 kilograms, at 1,600 feet per minute, or 8 meters per second) will speed passengers to sky lobbies on the 44th and 78th floors, while local elevators will operate using a sky lobby as their lower terminal, enabling the “stacking” of the local elevators one above another in a common hoistway. To further facilitate traffic at the sky lobby on the 44th and 78th floors escalators will provide two-way service between the floors immediately above and below. In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor. It will rise 1,387 feet (422.8 meters) – 400 feet (122 meters) more than the former record rise in the Empire State Building. Ten elevators swill travel from street level to five basement levels below the plaza.

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

So it turns out in addition to the regular freight elevators, each tower had one elevator that went from the basement to the top. Makes for a nice missile silo.

[TheWraith]

86. Those ARE low-yield bombs I was talking about.

Fuel bombs wouldn't be substantially different from ramming a fully loaded jetliner into the building, save that the bomb would have maybe 1% of the fuel load of the jetliner.

A MOAB, besides being so large that you need a C130 to move the thing, wouldn't be much better than a small nuke. You would still end up vaporizing a huge chunk of the tower, which would be rather conspicuous from the ground.

"That effect" is called high temperature smoke and ash. In the case of the WTC, it was high temperature smoke, ash, and concrete dust. The specific visual effect is caused by hot, actively moving air being forced into cooler, less roiled air. You can find it in plenty of intense fires.

[petgoat]

96. How do you know a tower chunk wasn't vaporized?

Did anybody inventory the steel before it was hastily shipped off to Asia?

[dailykoff]

58. You're living in the 90s.

We've got tactical nukes up the wazoo, the Pentagon has been using them since Gulf War I, they recently announced plans to use them in Iran, and as for radiation, frankly they don't give a damn.

[TheWraith]

68. What planet are you on?

Nobody has used nuclear weapons in a combat role since 1945. Period. I defy you to show otherwise. Sure, there are tactical nukes now, and there have ALWAYS been tactical nukes, dating back to the 1950s. The smallest tactical warhead ever created was a 50 pound artillery-launched bomb created in the late 50s. The existence of tactical nukes doesn't change the realities about the smallest practicable nuclear detonation, nor does it explain how people would fail to notice the quarter-mile radioactive kill zone surrounding ground zero.

[DoYouEverWonder]

74. They didn't need nukes

to take down these buildings. It could have been done with more 'conventional' weapons. Possibly even a bomb made of jet fuel?

[LARED]

78. Or possibly even a jet plane loaded with fuel

I mean really, who would think of that as a weapon?

[DoYouEverWonder]

80. The jets were for show

They couldn't possible deliver enough fuel into the center of the buildings to bring those buildings down. The only way for those buildings to come down the way they did and to pulverize everything that wasn't steel, was to blow them up from the inside out.

[TheWraith]

87. 100,000 pounds of fuel isn't enough?

It seems like quite enough to me, particularly when delivered by an airplane with a combined weight of nearly a quarter million pounds.

[DoYouEverWonder]

88. ROFLMAO

What plane carried 100,000 lbs of fuel? Certainly, not the ones that carry passengers from coast to coast.

[Make7]

89. According to FEMA's estimates....

.... the planes had 67,000 lbs of fuel onboard when they hit the Towers.

Also of note: the information from Boeing regarding the 767-200 series gives the maxium fuel load as 111,890 lbs.

- Make7

[DoYouEverWonder]

90. My apologies

I miss read your post and 'saw' gallons instead of pounds. People don't usually describe fuel in terms of pounds but your estimate is probably close to correct since liquid is fairly heavy.

Neither here nor there in regards to what caused the building to collapse. Two planes could not have possibly delivered enough fuel to the core to cause the failure of the buildings.

[TheWraith]

95. Pounds is fairly standard in high-capacity jets

In jet aviation, fuel is usually referred to in pounds instead of gallons.

In any event, have you ever personally seen 130,000 pounds of aviation fuel (going by the FEMA estimates) dumped into two skyscrapers? I haven't, but I do know that jet fuel is considerably more potent than any kind of civilian fuel available: it burns hotter, longer, and can do a lot more damage when it's spilled. A jet fuel fire can burn at 2000 degrees, even in less than optimal conditions. Even the best structural engineering available, used for the construction of US air-launched nuclear warheads, can only resist a jet fuel fire for a few hours. The containers used to transport nuclear waste are only rated up to 1500 degrees for 30 minutes. It wouldn't have taken even that long for 67,000 pounds of burning jet fuel to heat the support columns enough to structurally compromise them. They wouldn't have even had to melt--just heat enough to reduce their tensile strength, and the weight of the rest of the building would have taken them out.

67,000 pounds of fuel is a massive amount of energy, much more than you could deliver with any fuel bomb, or most conventional bombs. If that couldn't cause the central supports to fail, neither could anything else short of an act of God.

[petgoat]

97. Most of the fuel burned up in the fireballs.

Think about it: the fuel tanks were shredded when they went through the perimeter columns. Fuel
moving 450 mph kept on going and exited the building in 1/3 of a second. There was nothing to stop it.

[Make7]

81. LOL! ( n/t )

[petgoat]

82. That says it all, but not what you think it says. nt

[Make7]

83. LOL! ( n/t )

[dailykoff]

77. I should have said 50s.

We spend a trillion a year on the military and a quarter of that on nuclear weapons, and you think we haven't used them since 1945.

Sure we haven't. :crazy:

[TheWraith]

85. PROVE IT.

If you think that you know better than every other human being in the world, if you think I'M the crazy one for not wearing a tin foil hat and rejecting the most obvious facts of world history, PROVE IT. Show me exactly where the US, or anyone, has use nuclear weapons in combat since 1945. If it's so painfully obvious, then it should be easy for you to present evidence, right?

[dailykoff]

91. Do it yourself in three easy steps:

1) Google "depleted uranium" and read a few links.

2) Google "Gulf War Syndrome" and read a few links.

3) Think about it.

WARNING: reading the New York Times while thinking may produce an adverse reaction.

[dailykoff]

92. Extra Credit

U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan
By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times
April 6, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke6apr06,0,5989419.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Pentagon Studies Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes
By DAVID S. CLOUD
The New York Times
September 11, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/politics/11nukes.html?ex=1284091200&en=e2e0062d9c87b726&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html


...and that's just what they're telling us about.

[TheWraith]

93. Depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.

If you think that it is, try using your brain for a couple of minutes. The fact that heavy metals are used in weapons components doesn't equate to combat use of nuclear warheads. Depleted uranium is "depleted" because it's had all of its useful radioactive elements removed for other use. It's dangerous if you get exposed to it, but any type of heavy metal is.

Once again: if you're so sure that we've used nuclear weaponry in combat, prove it. You were talking so confidantly just a couple of messages back about how we'd used nukes--surely you have more evidence than an erroneous assumption about DU-based projectile rounds.

[dailykoff]

94. No kidding.

The point is that if we're tossing out d.u. like it was confetti, what else are we using?

And thanks in advance for your absolute confidence that any use of nuclear weapons would have been reported on Fox News.

[TheWraith]

45. Pseudo-science.

You really think that you could set off a nuclear bomb in Manhattan and nobody notice it? One of those bunker busting nukes that the military likes to talk up so much (despite the fact that they don't really work) would have the disturbing side effect of vaporizing not just the WTC, but most of downtown Manhattan. You can't channel a nuke quite the way this implies. Which is not to mention the fact that nuclear detonations are highly distinctive.

A neutron bomb does NOT leave non-living materials untouched. This is a myth, and something that would be known by someone who really knew what they were talking about. While neutron bombs do have enhanced radiation properties, they also have a considerable explosive effect, damaging or destroying almost anything within their radiation sphere.

Pure hydrogen bombs are as yet entirely theoretical. Nobody's seriously been able to build one, in part because there wouldn't be any way to set it off. An antimatter trigger? Sheesh.

The plume of dust and smoke that came out of the towers is really quite simple. As the towers collapsed, their floors were rapidly compacted, forcing out the air. This sudden expulsion of air carried smoke, pulverized concrete, paper, anthing that could be carried on the wind.

I'll never understand why people seek out the most convoluted theories to account for events when logic shows that the simplest answer is also correct. The thing being covered up about 9/11 is how grossly incompetant and unprepared the people in charge were to handle something of this nature. Talking about hydrogen bombs and anti-matter triggers just gets you written off as a kook, and rightfully so.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Nobody noticed?

Millions of people watched it on TV.

[TheWraith]

53. PRECISELY.

A nuclear detonation, ANY nuclear detonation, produces a high-intensity electromagnetic pulse wave, which shuts down unshielded electronics for as much as ten miles in all directions. Even the smallest bomb would have easily taken down every video camera, transmitter, cell phone, and microphone within line-of-sight to the towers.

Which is to say nothing of the fact which you conveniently ignored, i.e. that a nuclear detonation looks nothing like a conventional explosion or a building collapsing naturally. If such a bomb were used, as you contend (ignoring the facts about its strength and destructive power) the collapse would have started at the BOTTOM of the building, not the upper levels.

[Duer 157099]

23. Is the big black plume from the South tower?

It looks like it's behind the one that's collapsing, but I don't know.

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. No the South Tower had already collapsed

I believe the black plume is coming from directly in the center of the tower that is in collapse.

Here's another shot.



See the small mushroom cloud shooting up from the center. That's coming up from the center of the collapse.

[Duer 157099]

26. Right, I know it had already collapsed, but

presumably it was still on fire right? The collapse cloud is definitely in the foreground, with the black plume basically staying stationary in the background

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Here's a pic of just the North Tower

after the South Tower had collapsed.



There are no plumes of black smoke going up from the South Tower and the air about the roof lines had cleared. The only thing creating smoke at this point is the North Tower which is still on fire.

[SidDithers]

32. Was the plume of black smoke there before the collapse?...

If it was, I'd say it was smoke from the fires burning in the building.



Sid

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. These multi colored plumes going up

especially the dark black ones only appear during the collapse.

Besides, I would imagine the oxygen would get sucked out along with the dust and debris, so that the collapse would smother the fires not increase them?

[dailykoff]

7. Exactly.

Half a mile of steel and concrete doesn't "pancake" into a ten-foot heap of ash.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Not just steel and concrete

http://911digitalarchive.org/images/files/2804.500px.pjpeg

This is a sample of the material used to make the floors of the building. About half of it is stone. Where did all the stones go?

[hack89]

13. If the WTC was a concrete building and not a steel framed one,

perhaps it might look just like that picture. But it wasn't, was it?

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. That is a picture of the material used to make the floor

Since over half the building turned to dust/small particles, the other half was mostly steel and aluminum. So?

[hack89]

15. The WTC floors were only 6 inches thick ..

and there were no concrete beams. Your picture is of a reinforced concrete building - completely irrelevant to the WTC.

[dailykoff]

16. 220 acres of 6" concrete slab

would probably make a heap a lot higher than that. And then of course there's the steel.

[hack89]

18. How big a heap would you expect? nt

[dailykoff]

61. Without explosives? About 1,368 feet

give or take an antenna.

[Christophera]

39. The Sand & Gravel Ended Up At The Bottom, Typical

Here is the upper level where the removal of steel debris has progressed inside the core area near the bottom of the steel debris looking like it was run through a compactor,


ringed with what columns were not cut below street level by thermite, not yet down to



SAND & GRAVEL.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. The image is from the 9-11 Digital Archive

I think we can assume that the picture is legitimate.



http://911digitalarchive.org/images/files/2804.500px.pjpeg

This is a piece of the 20th floor of WTC2. I worked at the WTC from 1975 to 1979 and acquired this core of the 20th floor in the summer of 1975. All utilities were in metal raceways embedded in the concrete floors. To gain access to electric and phone lines, a hole was bored in the floor. Since we were the first tenants of the 19th and 20th floors, this action was repeated many times to add work stations. I saved one of these cores - all were routinely discarded.

Cite as: James Rogers, Image #2804, The September 11 Digital Archive, 6 September 2005

http://911digitalarchive.org/images/details/2804


The September 11 Digital Archive was funded by a major grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and organized by the American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning at the City University of New York Graduate Center and the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

[hack89]

19. And the point of this is what? nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. You think that the stone got pulverized into small particles

like the concrete did?

I would think it takes a lot more energy to pulverize stone? Where did the energy come from?

[hack89]

22. Where did you get the idea that all that was left

was a fine dust?

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. I didn't say fine dust

I said small particles.

However according to this article about a lower Manhattan Community Board meeting there was 1.46 million tons of debris and of that 600,000 was FINE PARTICLE DUST and that is just what got sent to Fresh Kills.

C.B. 1 lashes out at state bill to move 9/11 material from Fresh Kills

By Ronda Kaysen

Community Board 1 voiced its opposition to a bill in Albany to move World Trade Center debris buried in Fresh Kills that some family members say contains human remains.

The 1.46 million tons of Trade Center debris dumped in the Staten Island landfill have been at the center of a dispute between the city and a family group, W.T.C. Families for Proper Burial, since 2002. The family members contend that remnants of their loved ones are intermingled with the 600,000 tons of fine particle dust there. The city insists the human remains were removed.

The New York State Legislature is now considering legislation to move Trade Center debris to another location. The bill does not specify how much debris should be moved or where it should be placed, but if it is signed into law, it will join a New Jersey law ordering the Port Authority to return the debris to the World Trade Center site. The Port Authority, an interstate agency, can act only if both states enact similar legislation.

Fearing the return of the 92,000 truckloads of dust and debris, C.B. 1 passed a resolution opposing “any effort to re-introduce the W.T.C. debris… back to the W.T.C. site or anywhere else.”

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_146/cb1lashesoutatstate.html

[libertypirate]

42. I will raise you "pulverized concrete dust powder"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9%2F11


Starting @7:50 and run for 54 seconds...

Pataki "pulverized" comments describing the post collapse state of WTC concrete

"all of lower Manhattan, not just this site here, but from river to river dust, powder 2 to 3 inches thick"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x79168

[hack89]

20. What would that pile look like if there was no rebar? nt

[Kai]

29. If I had to hazard a guess

I would say that it would look like one hundred plus floors, 220 acres of fragmented six inch thick concrete slabs without any rebar in it and not the smoking pile of cinders and twisted and melted metal you can see in these photos taken 9/13, 2001:






It certainly resembles the burned out cars I've seen but I'm sure someone will show up with some calculations demonstrating the surprising effects that kinetic energy can have.

Lamborghini Diablo:

[hack89]

36. So unreinforced, lightweight concrete ..

would just be lying there in neat slabs after falling hundreds of feet and being smashed by ten of thousands of tons of steel? Okaaay, if you say so! :eyes:

[Kai]

43. If it walks like

a duck and looks like a duck...



I'm still waiting for the Department of Fish and Game to issue their final report on what this is. Until I see an impartial scientific analysis, I'm not even going to assume that it is an animal.

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. What happened to all the corrugated steel pans

that made up the first layer of all the floors, that the concrete was poured into?

Did they disintegrate too?

[hack89]

50. Most likely twisted and smashed

like the rest of the steel

[Christophera]

52. Floor Pans, Crumpled, Visable In Early Ground Zero Images

They are blackened and folded up. Corrugations can be seen.

[Christophera]

37. C4 Coating On Concrete Core Rebar Causes Complete Fracturing

not to mention free fall along with C4 in the corrugations of the floor panels that pulverizes the entire contents of every floor.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

I've done the math on the basic delays. 75 milliseconds delay (generally) for the floor detonation sequence and 300 milliseconds for the concrete core core per every 4 floors.

At the above link, free fall, pulverization, backwards fall sequence and flight 93 are explained.

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. I agree that some sort of explosives or a weapon

had to have been used to bring down the buildings.

However, I don't think that the explosives were planted when the building was built or even that a team went in to wrap the columns and/or places cutter charges all over the building.

I do believe, that the core had to fail first. That the building fell apart from the inside out. Not the other way around, which BushCo wanted people to believe with their story about failing trusses.

The easiest, quickest and least likely to get noticed way to deliver enough explosives to bring down the building was to use the elevator shafts. Now a terrorist living in a cave is not going to ever have access to the WMD required to obtain this result. It had to be an inside job, just like the anthrax attack that followed shortly after. Then once you got the WMD's you need how do you get them into the building. Easy, if your brother happens to be in charge of security. Again, it had to be an inside job. The easy part, a few days before, shut parts of the buildings down for 'maintenance'. Drive you vehicles with the WMD's into the freight elevators. Send them to the basement and leave them shut down for 'repairs' and walk away. No fuss, no muss and hardly anyone will even notice.

[TheWraith]

44. The dust.

"The debris from the WTC collapses reminds me of the dust left over from a magnesium road flare."

That's powdered concrete. You don't get much of it in smaller building collapses, because there isn't enough mass. But drop a megaton of concrete, steel, and glass together, and it's going to pulverize some of its more brittle mass. That's the dust that you always see.

[Christophera]

51. Proximate Exposure To High Pressure From HE Makes Dust & More

The C4 inside the concrete caused large quantities of concrete to be exposed to high pressures which ripped the concrete apart making large quantities of very fine dust.

[TheWraith]

54. Right, because it couldn't possibly be the LOGICAL explanation.

It has to be explosives, because god knows when massive quantities of concrete smash into other massive quantities of concrete at freefall velocity from a thousand feet up, they bounce off of each other like rubber. Only explosives could EVER cause concrete to become pulverized.

By the way, care to explain exactly how you go about embedding C4 INSIDE concrete without anyone noticing?

[Christophera]

62. Concrete Will Fracture But A Ball Crusher Is Needed To Turn It Into Sand

and gravel.

This is how the C4 got into the concrete.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1152901


Hypothetically. You are hired to make a renactment of the WTC on 9-11

An opportunity to make millions of dollars gaining fame and fortune. An unlimited budget, to build a 1,300 foot tower W/204 square footprint just to demolish, is provided. The only criteria is that the event must look exactly like the towers we know stood and the tower you build must be as like it as you might make it.

How do you make free fall? How do you pulverize everything?

[TheWraith]

72. No, it's not.

Go get a couple of cement blocks and start whacking and grinding them together. You will soon begin to get dust, gravel, and particulate debris. Now imagine a little less than a megaton of concrete grinding and impacting against other pieces on a thousand-foot freefall.

Do you really think that a method the military uses for creating self-destructing bases has any relevance to the WTC? Do you think they decided "Gee, let's cover all of our supports with C4, just in case we ever want to covertly blow this place up?" That's reaching, even for a conspiracy theory.

Are you trying to exact some kind of admission from me that I'd use explosives to reenact the damage? If so, your premise is off. We know far more about the science of explosives than we do about the science of planes flying into buildings. If the requirement were to precisely duplicate the external visual effect, one would be an idiot not to use explosives. Even then, though, you couldn't guarantee a perfect reproduction, because we don't know what support columns were destroyed or structurally compromised at what points. If you wanted a reproduction--not neccessarily identical, but close enough--to the actual event, I'd use planes.

[petgoat]

66. The concrete was under carpets and vinyl. How does air

pressure make it dust?

[DoYouEverWonder]

67. You left out the pans of corrugated steel

that the concrete floors were poured into.

[petgoat]

70. I don't see how the floor pans are germane. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

73. The floors were not just concrete

First pans of corrugated steel were laid down. Then the concrete or concrete aggregate was poured in. The WTC was a strong building. The construction of the center core is usually ignored by the folks who believe flying airplanes into buildings turns them into dust.

The core itself was half the building and it had lots of steel structure. It had to fail from the inside out in order for the building to explode and collapse the way it did.

There were over 200 elevators in each building. An elevator is the perfect place to load up explosives. Send it to whatever floor you like and shut the power down. Sorry, out of service.

[petgoat]

75. "An elevator is the perfect place" Great Point! nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

76. I've been in those elevators

I had a SO who did deliveries and had a client up on the 90 something floor. We got to use the big freight elevator that goes all the way to the top. You were allowed to drive your whole truck into it.

Plus with over 200 elevators in each building, having a few elevators out of service for 'maintenance' would be normal.

[TheWraith]

69. Who said anything about air pressure? Or carpeting? NT.

[petgoat]

71. I did, because you suggested that there was some explanation

other than explosives to explain the complete pulverization of the concrete.

The only explanation I've seen offered is that air pumped pumped out by collapsing floors produced the
volcano-like pyroclastic mushroom cloud at the WTC. This is obviously absurd because by the time the
collapsing floors would be able to pulverize the concrete on the floor below, the air would already be
ejected.

What is your explanation for the ejection of the concrete as dust?

[TheWraith]

84. You're making no sense.

"The only explanation I've seen offered is that air pumped pumped out by collapsing floors produced the volcano-like pyroclastic mushroom cloud at the WTC."

One, you're misusing words like "pyroclastic" and "mushroom cloud," both of which have specific meanings that are completely unrelated to what you're talking about.

Two, have you ever actually seen a building collapse? It's not nearly as cut and dried as you seem to think. The collapsed sections would have been throwing off debris all the way down to the ground, including fragmented and powdered concrete.

"What is your explanation for the ejection of the concrete as dust?"

It's fairly simple: the building was collapsing. In that sort of situation, debris from the building still gets ejected even if it doesn't neccessarily get carried off on the breeze.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Here's another good shot of the collapse

Again an lot of big plumes going up, not down. It takes a lot of energy to make stuff go UP under these circumstances.

[gbwarming]

28. The plume isn't going up, It's left behind as the building falls

Watch the video.

http://www.usdisaster2001.com/movies/tower_collapsing4web.mov

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. The video starts part way into the collapse

However, if you watch it notice the mushroom type cloud going UP in the center. There are other images where plumes of material are clearly going up before they fail down. That's how you get that nice cascading effect. Believe me, I have looked at 1000's of images and 100's of videos and I've posted enough examples here to make my point.

[Christophera]

63. My Point Is Stop Calling It A Collapse. It Was A DEMOLITION, Say It Like

it is.

And you are correct. There are thosands of tons of mostly heavy particulate, sand and gravel going up perhaps 150 feet and out 100 throughout the descent of the "top down" demolition. At a point, the bottom photo from my page,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html

material seems to go up maybe 300 feet.

This means that all distance travelled up must be added to the tower heights to calculate the fall rate accurately. This makes it faster than free fall and, it really is. We just aren't used to things at rest, coming apart, going up, then down, so we tend to think of where it was and how far down it has to go.

[DoYouEverWonder]

65. Ok

I'll try.

[Christophera]

79. THX. Media Had Us All Programmed To Use The Word GOV. Wanted

From the first second I saw it I knew it was a demolition.

I have experience working with blasters. Studied the handbook and picked the brains of anybody I ever met that handled high explosives.

We shot rock formations building roads. No matter what we did we could never get over 40% breakage of material. The explosive must be perfectly centered to get that effect from a mineral based material.

The WTC towers had cast concrete cores that were reduced to sand, gravel and cement, for perhaps 85% of them, the rest was like 6 inches. Astounding, totally astounding.

[Christophera]

38. Can I Suggest That "Collapse" Is The Wrong Word (nt)

[Kai]

56. D P Grimmer, Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite

Have you read this paper?

http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite
to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns

by D. P. Grimmer

Version 1.1, June 20th 2004

excerpt;
The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. (The articles at http://members.fortunecity.com/911 are a valuable resource for presenting and then challenging the "official" explanation for WTC collapses). Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air . The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail . The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pancaked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).

Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.

The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. Certainly that is the conclusion of J. Hoffman in his thorough discussion of the north WTC tower dust cloud . By calculating the major sources and sinks observed, particularly the sink of the pyroclastic cloud expansion, Hoffman establishes that a large amount of energy had to be available to drive that expansion, in a (minimum) range of 2,706,000 kWh to 11,724,000 kWh (see his Summary table). Hoffman does not propose an energy source to balance that sink. In Appendix B, an estimate, for discussion purposes only, of the amount of thermite-equivalent to provide this energy source is discussed. It is large, but physically possible.