IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
150kt Nukes Demolished Wtc Buildings?, debunking of Dimitri Khalezov's ridiculous claims

tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 16 2011, 12:50 PM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



In Prague on Saturday January 8 I attended the founding meeting of the Club of reformy.cz which is the Czech branch of Edward Griffin's The Freedom Force International.

The prominent quest there was "the hunter of the Bilderbergers" Daniel Estulin. He had the principal speech at the meeting and he also had been interviewed by the Czech state TV (27 minutes video in english here or at Youtube).

After the meeting we went for a dinner and then he directed me to his webpage. Among other interesting informations there were links to claims of certain Dimitri Khalezov, who besides believing there were no planes at WTC was confusing Uranium-235 with Depleted Uranium and at the same time asserting he's former soviet nuclear intelligence directorate man.

His major claim throughout his books, articles and videos is that:
The WTC was brought down by 3 (three) 150kt thermonuclear bombs, positioned exactly 77 meters below the three demolished buildings and when exploded they pulverized the steel&concrete most of the way up by shock-wave, so then the buildings fell with only resistance of the mere pile of dust below in exact shape of that buildings at freefall speed into a 100 meters in diameter cavity created by the nuclear blast vaporizing the granite there...and that the buildings were in fact so demolished by the US govt. operatives but not for sinister reasons but by the in seventies prepositioned devices our guy knew about already in 1984, because there were unexploded 500kt nuclear charges in the WTC high floors put there (and to Pentagon too) by the al-Qaeda or whatever and the US govt. intelligence heroes in charge pushed the buton and pulled and saved so the NY from the total destruction using the timely demolition by the almost unharmful underground nukes...and main and seems to me only his direct proof for all this is for him the definition in english dictionaries where the "ground zero" notion is explained as the place where a nuke exploded -so that the Americans though wouldn't call the WTC site after the attacks the "ground zero" if there in fact would not been exploded a nuke...

I was asking Daniel Estulin by email then, why he is linking this crazy ideas which could by association seriously undermine his credibility by the (imaginary) 150kt nukes, and he directed me to D. Khalezov's article "11th of September - the third truth".

So I took the article and made a commented version of its text, where I commented on the most scandalously false claims, and sent it then to Daniel Estulin.

Now I think the outcome of my effort should be shared with the 9/11 Truth community to help others to refute this disinformations. So I decided to briefly show, that D. Khalezov simply makes many of his figures up, his credibility is so negligible and he is either an utter moron or a paid disinfo guy.

I'll cite the excerpts from D. Khlaezov's article where the most scandalous false claims are made and comment on them:

When ordinary people saw how two planes struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and how the Twins Towers then collapsed in clouds of dust during 9/11 events, they were too shocked by the incidents to subject the events to any level of scrutiny. Since then, the strange notion has been embedded into the people’s minds: that hollow aluminum planes could allegedly penetrate thick steel buildings in their entirety, (page 2.)

Even a liquid water is able to penetrate steel when having a sufficient kinetic energy. See: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question553.htm ://http://science.howstuffworks.com/en...uestion553.htm ://http://science.howstuffworks.com/en...uestion553.htm

That is why quite a few “conspiracy theories” appeared that range from claims that the WTC was allegedly “wired with explosives” to claims that it was allegedly demolished by so-called “nano-thermite” (a mystic substance hitherto unheard of) (page 3.)

Nanothermite is of course existing military grade thermite, and what was scientifically proven to be extensively present in the WTC dust along with its residues in form of the iron rich microspheres was actually a substance called Superthermite – a nano-size particles thermite mixed into sol-gel with a hydrocarbone to enhance the explosive properties with released energy way above the conventional thermite an in some cases significantly higher than conventionl high explosives. See fig 30 here: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles...0001/7TOCPJ.SGM
So who tryiies to convince readers the nanothermite is „a mystic substance“ and that the scientific finds published in the peer-reviewed journal is a „conspiracy theory“ and the renowned scientists who published the finds are „conspiracy theorists“ clearly spreads a disinfo.

The actual nuclear demolition scheme was based on huge thermo-nuclear charges about 150 kiloton in TNT yield) that were positioned about 50 meters below the lowest underground foundations of each of the Towers. (page 8)

Such multiple 150kt charges on lower Manhattan is absolutely ridiculous claim, because such charges so shalowly positioned and so inevitably resulting in uncontained nuclear explosion of such a yield would inevitably destroy vast surroundings of the buildings (– for comparison see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagan_%28nuclear_test%29) and create long lasting radiation hazzard.

Here is one more picture (from the NIST report) showing the Twin Towers perimeter columns during their construction: (a picture of the perimeter columns in the original article) These steel columns were incredibly thick - each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm). (page 11-12)

The steel thickness of the core columns varied largely floor-by-floor – see: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data. The steel of the columns was really considerably thinner at the upper floors – like 0.7 inch at last floor of e.g. CC1001, but some lower floor columns had the wall as much as 6,75 inches thick. Considering the perimeter columns Khalezov is writing about the steel thickness was 0.25 inch at upper floors and 0.875 inch at lower floors. See:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
The Khalezov's „information“ again shows his lack of knowledge about the WTC structure, he clearly simply makes the numbers up – this his numbers above prove it and they are clearly no „typos“ - so this confirms behind reasonable doubt his credibility is zero.

You can have an idea on how much rock could disappear during an underground nuclear explosion from the below table - where quantities of evaporated and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on "per kiloton of yield" basis:
Rock type | Specific mass of vaporized material | Specific mass of the melted material

Dry granite | 69 | 300 (±100)
Moist tuff (18-20% of water) | 72 | 500 (± 150)
Dry tuff | 73 | 200 - 300
Alluvium | 107 | 650 (±50)
Rock salt | 150 | 800

Just as an example: detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in
granite rock would result in creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter
(page 13)

This is completely ridiculous claim which shows Khalezov is not even able to interpret the above table he cites.
- the numbers in the table clearly show 1kt of yield can evaporate 69 ton of granite – this means the 150 kt can evaporate 150x69=10350 ton of granite according to the table. Granite has the density of <2800 g/dm3 so the volume of the 10350 ton of granite is 10350/2.8 means 3696m3 of granite, which if it would be in a shape of ball would have the diameter of ~19.1 meters. The ball of 100 meters diameter would have the volume of 523598 m3 (five hundred twenty three thousand five hundred ninety eight cubic meters!!). So the claim about the 100 meter in diameter cavity in granite created by 150kt nuke is in terms of the cavity volume more than 2! orders of magnitude out of the actual physical possibility -just acording the above by Khalezov cited table. This alone shows Khalezov is unable even of a basic math or to read the table and it again shows clearly his „nuclear intelligence“ is a mere idiocy.

"Damaged" and "crushed" zones will not be exactly round in the latter case. They would be rather elliptic - with their longer ends directed upwards - comparable with an egg facing upwards (emphasis added) with its sharper end, or possibly even more ellipsoidal and sharper upwards (emphasis added) than a typical egg. (page 15)

Yeah, but actually the egg shape would be upside down, because the cavity after the blast will expand almost only upwards, because a rock – either solid or liquid - is almost incompressible and only way where the cavity could expand - if we respect the laws of physics - is in the direction of the lowest resistance – so the cavity will expand upwards/sidewards, eventually reaching the surface and blow all the rock in its way aside. I made a sketch:

The picture Khalezov is drawing by the „egg shape facing upwards with its sharper end' defies basic physics. Every shallow underground blast -either conventional or nuclear, big or small - shows the same. And this again shows clearly the Khalezov doesn't have a slightest understanding of a basic physics...

The picture above shows an example of that fine microscopic dust that covered all over Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was allegedly "concrete dust". No, it was not. It was "complete" dust – but mainly pulverized steel. (page 17)

To my knowledge no „pulverized steel“ was found in the WTC dust. There was found only almost pure iron which went through the boiling point - in form of microspheres - which is consistent with the use of vast amounts of thermite, and definitely not with a "pulverized steel". Again, Khalezov is inventing the stuff up.

Despite common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floors slabs in the Twin Towers construction. (page 17)

This is ridiculous, in fact there were vast amounts of concrete in WTC towers, mainly in the floor slabs, which were indeed relatively thin but still 10 inch=25cm thick (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html) which means only in this floor slabs there was an amount of concrete in order of many tens of thousands cubic meters of concrete in each of the towers.

Yes, intuitively, it seems that a large fast moving aircraft represents a lot of energy, and one would think it reasonable for an aircraft to do a lot of damage to a building on impact. But what do you think would happen - hypothetically - if the aircraft were stationary in the air, and someone picked up one of the enormously massive WTC Tower, swung it violently, and hit the aircraft at an impact speed of 500 mph ? Would it flatten the aircraft do you think, or would the aircraft go clean through the moving building without even the slightest part of the aircraft remaining outside of the outer skin of the Tower (that was twice as thick as the front armor of a tank)? (page 20)


No, it definitely wasn't thick as "the front armor of the tank". Actually throughout the floors where the planes have hit the towers the thickness of the walls of the steel perimeter columns facing outwards was just a quarter of inch and even in the lowest parts of the towers it was just 0,875 inch. See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
If a tank would be armored by quarter inch thick structural steel it would be penetrable by a sniper rifle....
This again shows Khalezov has no clue about the actual facts about the WTC structure.

Does anyone seriously believe that the aluminum-made “Boeing” could really break in its entirety (including its tail, wings and large turbofan engines) through the above-shown steel perimeter columns? (page 21 and the picture shows clearly not the perimeter, but the core columns)

There actually are not shown the perimeter columns, but the core columns from below 30th floor of the WTC. See: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data. And t again shows how Khalezov is playing with the reader showing him picture of the core columns and drawing the conclusions about much thinner perimeter columns..

Along with the old English dictionaries for the same reason could also be used these photographs showing molten rock after the underground cavities left by the nuclear explosions under the three buildings of the World Trade Center eventually cooled down and were, at last, cleared of all remaining radioactive materials (page 24)

This is ultimately ridiculous. I don't see a "molten rock after the underground cavities left by the nuclear explosions". The photos in fact show intact, unpulverized rock in the depth which is clearly much more shallower than the Khalezov's “77 meters below the ground” (like ~30 meters below the street level), so the photos - if we consider the actual result of the 140kt Chagan experiment - not confirm, but directly disprove all his claims about the 150kt nuclear explosions under the WTC.

EDIT: Some numbers I corrected after allerted about error, but it doesn't significantly affect the conclusions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jan 17 2011, 09:32 AM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



so, what if the dude misplaced a decimal point and it was a 1.5kT instead?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 17 2011, 09:46 AM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Jan 17 2011, 01:32 AM) *
so, what if the dude misplaced a decimal point and it was a 1.5kT instead?

Most probably not, because this 150kt claim is repeated in numerous his publications and videos and he is even "discussing" why not a mininuke, but 150kt. But even if he would just made a mistake, then the claim about the 100 meters in diameter cavity would be even more ridiculous than it is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jan 17 2011, 10:34 AM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



then he is off his nut...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 17 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Jan 17 2011, 02:34 AM) *
then he is off his nut...

Yeah rolleyes.gif
I would not give f... to this bunk if only the people like D. Estulin with loads of influence wouldn't promote it on their webpages - Link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 17 2011, 11:10 AM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I don't think that the actual link between what was found in the dust - red gray chips - to nano thermite "explosives" has been made. Niels Haritt told me this past September in NYC that he has no idea how nano thermite could have been used to demolish the towers. The iron micro spheres signify a very high temperature was present which caused iron in a liquid form to be dispersed by air. This could be from a highly energetic explosive event... or perhaps from a very high temperature condition which melted iron which then was dispersed when the towers collapsed. The iron micro spheres were collected, I believe from dust sample which were found in location beyond the debris plume seen as the towers came down. This would seem to indicated that some of the iron micro spheres were carried aloft and dispersed by wind outside the debris plume. It would be interesting to see what the density of the iron micro spheres was up wind (to the north west) and how far up wind they were found.

The initiation of the collapse likely involved some energetic event. This may have dismantled already heat weakened steel. The eutectic burning of some of the steel seems to indicate a high temp chemical attack of some of the steel in the top section. The steel in the lower section seems to have fractured and broken at the connections of one steel element to another. The trusses seems to have been crushed and ripped apart.

One would think that an underground blast directly below the core which could send a shock wave through the entire core - destroying it would not have stopped at the wound on the 93rd floor, but gone right to the top. What we say was the top section breaking apart first then the lower section collapsing down. I don't think the underground blast makes much sense and does not fit the observations.

Understanding begins with accurate observations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 17 2011, 11:51 AM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 17 2011, 03:10 AM) *
I don't think that the actual link between what was found in the dust - red gray chips - to nano thermite "explosives" has been made. Niels Haritt told me this past September in NYC that he has no idea how nano thermite could have been used to demolish the towers.

Some ideas how the towers could be demolished here by ordinary thermite:

QUOTE
The iron micro spheres signify a very high temperature was present which caused iron in a liquid form to be dispersed by air. This could be from a highly energetic explosive event... or perhaps from a very high temperature condition which melted iron which then was dispersed when the towers collapsed.

"Melted iron"? The microspheres look very much like they went through boiling point of iron and the composition signature is inconsistent with structural steel composition, but consistent with the thermite residues.
indeed, understanding begins with accurate observations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 17 2011, 12:33 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I don't know the temperature that iron turns to gas, but I don't think it has to be a gas to produce micro spheres... just a liquid which can be "atomized" and dispersed and then from surface tension form tiny "droplets" which "freeze" and are dispersed.

Jon Cole shows what is already known - thermite can cut and melt steel. It has been used to weld railroad ties and cut steel for decades.

Jon Cole, however, does not show how or what steel was cut in order to produce the destruction seen. In fact many at AE911T maintain that the buildings' concrete was turned to dust in "mid air". This claim has never been associated with any mechanism especially thermite or nano thermite.

It's also not clear how a very thin layer (equal to paint as the red gray chips are) contains enough thermitic material to cut through thick steel sections. Kindly explain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 17 2011, 01:12 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 17 2011, 11:33 AM) *
I don't know the temperature that iron turns to gas, but I don't think it has to be a gas to produce micro spheres... just a liquid which can be "atomized" and dispersed and then from surface tension form tiny "droplets" which "freeze" and are dispersed.

Jon Cole shows what is already known - thermite can cut and melt steel. It has been used to weld railroad ties and cut steel for decades.

Jon Cole, however, does not show how or what steel was cut in order to produce the destruction seen. In fact many at AE911T maintain that the buildings' concrete was turned to dust in "mid air". This claim has never been associated with any mechanism especially thermite or nano thermite.

It's also not clear how a very thin layer (equal to paint as the red gray chips are) contains enough thermitic material to cut through thick steel sections. Kindly explain.

The military has also used thermite for decades and use it to make bombs.
QUOTE
Thermite is used in a wide variety of industrial applications, usually in welding or ore purifying. Thermite also has military applications: As well as being the primary component of incendiary bombs in the WWII, it is also used in thermite grenades, typically used to disable heavy equipment that could not be moved easily. Because thermite contains its own oxygen supply, it cannot be smothered like a regular fire, nor can it be extinguished with water. Compounds similar to thermite are used in fireworks displays.

Thermite
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 17 2011, 07:38 PM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 17 2011, 04:33 AM) *
Jon Cole, however, does not show how or what steel was cut in order to produce the destruction seen. In fact many at AE911T maintain that the buildings' concrete was turned to dust in "mid air". This claim has never been associated with any mechanism especially thermite or nano thermite.

It's also not clear how a very thin layer (equal to paint as the red gray chips are) contains enough thermitic material to cut through thick steel sections. Kindly explain.

One thing Jon Cole shows - which I didn't noticed before - is the red glow of the outer columns at 13:36 into the video.

I think the "concrete turned to dust in mid-air" is a bit misconception, it was layed on the trusses, there were 110 stories one above each other. The floor assembly was 5' 9" = 83 cm thick which means the distance of floor to ceiling was ~3,1 meters The floors were like this:

SOURCE
To my knowledge there was no rebar reinforcement inside the lightweight (special low density) concrete. The fall of the towers lasted ~14-15 seconds, which is almost twice than it would last for freefall - so the upper floor assemblies inevitably somewhere during the fall striked the ones below. I think this would be enough to crush the relatively thin concrete. Especially when it was supported by the grid of trusses which if striking the floor below would facilitate the brakage of the concrete between them by reaction. I would like to see experiment, where the copy of the floor assembly would just fall from 3 meters to another assembly, I think there would be loads of crushed concrete.
But not just this.
My opinion is about the possible scenario is that the destruction of the towers was mainly made by gradual and then sudden complete elimination of the supporting function of the core, because it would explain the observed inward bowing of the outer wall just before the onset of the "collapse" - for the principle watch here:

If the bearing function of the core would be floor-by-floor destructed by conventional explosives or superthermite (the nanosize particles thermite mixed into sol-gel with a hydrocarbone enhancing its energy release above conventional high explosives as TNT or even HMX - see fig. 30 here - and burning orders of magnitude quicker than normal thermite - several hundreds of meters per second and burning the core columns through in splits of seconds) then the weight of the remaining parts of the core would literally draw the floor panes down with the weight of the core remains hanging on it connected by hundreds of connections on each floor, bow and stretch the floor panes like a coil, pull through them the outer walls even more in, compromise so their bearing function to the point of breakage and then the coil would strike back when the outer walls would break on each floor, panes waving, and the unarmored lightweight concrete would be even more crushed by the recoils in the trusses.

Just my .02 based on long lasting study of the by observations probable possibilities and eliminating the crazy concepts like the 150kt nukes and like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 17 2011, 08:37 PM
Post #11





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Tume,

You have some facts incorrect. The concrete slabs for the tenant floors were poured over corrugated metal decking to a max thickness of 4" and most of it was only 2.5". Most had no rebar, but there were some places were it seems to have been used. it did contained wire mesh fabric and it had no aggregate or very lightweight aggregate.

Understanding begins with accurate observations. The destruction had several phases with distinct attributes which blended one into the other but there were some threshold events.

The process began with the plane impact or explosions which destroyed a number of core and perimeter columns, some local areas of the floors and started fires which rapidly spread. Unburnt fuel may have entered and poured down some of the shafts... #50 is the most likely culprit in the center which went down to the sub basements and up to the 110th floor. Shafts were interconnected so atomized fuel... could have migrated to other shafts and could have exploded from electric arcs in the shafts.

Most of the core columns actually stood after the floor collapse and are seen as the spire which in tower 1 had col 501 standing 70+ stories - over 840 feet and all the columns in rows 500 and 600 survived up to the 50th story. Obviously none of these were destroyed below that and the floor collapse is not associated with the core columns on the row 500 side of the tower. The spire's columns came down from what's called "euler" buckling which tells us that very tall and slender columns will buckle from their own weight and these columns were a stack of 16 - 36' long columns one atop the other... with the aspect ratio of a pencil! Doesn't take must to understand how a stack of 16 pencils on end with no lateral support is too unstable to stand.

The collapse of the floors did accelerate from 0 mph to about 60+ over several seconds and then it remained at that speed which is about 100 feet per second or about 8 floors per second for the 1100 feet of the section below the plane strike.

After 1.5 hours the top of the north tower began to break up and descend down upon the section below the plane strike. This likely was the result of weakening of the connections at the beam stubs or outlookers which supported a "belt channel" around the core which in turn carried the core side of floor trusses. The beam stubs may have been attacked with incendiaries. But once they were severed from the core the inboard side of the floors dropped and likely pulled at the facade severing areas of the facade column connections.

There is some who claim that they see the upper part of tower 1 fracture at floor 98 and began to tilt to the south. The effect is that that upper portion rotates into the floors below it in a mutual destruction. The hat truss breaks apart and the upper part of the antenna goes over the side, the lower heavier sections plunge down through the tower destroying floors. Of course the heavy machinery from the 108 and 109 mechanical floors also came crashing down along with the heavy slabs which supported them and the steel beams and columns which carried those slabs. The destruction which took about 4 seconds was random and chaotic and delivered about 17 floor masses to the top floor of the section from 92 down. That floor.. the areas which were assaulted by the falling debris were quickly overcome and this began a rapid progressive destruction right down to the ground of all the floor areas. The collapse sped past the columns and as its mass accumulated it pushed out at the facade which parted into huge sheets and they toppled away from the tower. At the crush from air was forcibly ejected through glass areas and carried light weight building contents with it.

There is no evidence that I have seen in the debris photos of exploded or burnt columns from the steel coming from the 92nd floor and below. Most of it broke apart at the joints and was mangled by dropping and the weight of the debris dropping on it. Everything that was "crushable" succumbed to pressures which reached 100,000 psi by the time the collapse reached the ground level. A fair amount of the concrete was pulverized and carried aloft and dispersed for acres around the collapse.

The collapse all produced a rapidly expanding cloud of hot gas and pulverized contents which propagated away from the collapse. The towers facades peeled off and landed as far as 430 feet away. WTC 7 seemed to collapse in on itself after it core was "taken out".. while the twins cores survived the floor collapse. The eutetic burnt steel seems to have come from the floors above or at the crash zone. The towers weight 500,000 tons and packed enormous potential energy which was released and crushed the concrete, the contents and broke apart virtually all the bolted and welded connections. Gravity did the overwhelming amount of the destruction. The initiation appears to have been "helped along" by some engineered interventions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 17 2011, 11:10 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 17 2011, 12:37 PM) *
You have some facts incorrect. The concrete slabs for the tenant floors were poured over corrugated metal decking to a max thickness of 4" and most of it was only 2.5". Most had no rebar, but there were some places were it seems to have been used. it did contained wire mesh fabric and it had no aggregate or very lightweight aggregate.

Yeah, you're right, I checked it and I must agree I confused inches with centimeters (my source) although I'm not a rocket scientist sending the probes to Mars... rolleyes.gif So it means to crush it would be even easier?

QUOTE
The process began with the plane impact or explosions which destroyed a number of core and perimeter columns,


Yes, a number, but not a significant number if we consider the overall redundancy of the structure. The buildings would not fall from it and from the subsequent office fires also not - the temperature of the supporting steel would be still way too low.

QUOTE
some local areas of the floors and started fires which rapidly spread. Unburnt fuel may have entered and poured down some of the shafts... #50 is the most likely culprit in the center which went down to the sub basements and up to the 110th floor. Shafts were interconnected so atomized fuel... could have migrated to other shafts and could have exploded from electric arcs in the shafts.


Quite unlikely it would be significant even if it would happen. Jetfuel chaotically dispersed is not a good explosive and the explosive mixture with air has a quite narrow margin. If we consider the amount of the fuel in the plane and compare it with the area and volume of the WTC floors then only relatively very small amount of the jetfuel would actually enter the shafts. Considering the speed of the aircraft 500+ mph then absolute majority of it would be dispersed in the air as aerosol, heated to ignition point by the compression shock and burnt almost instantaneously after the plane's impact - which is consistent with the observed fireballs.

QUOTE
Most of the core columns actually stood after the floor collapse

"Most"? You must be kidding me. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
all the columns in rows 500 and 600 survived up to the 50th story.

Yeah but at that point the kinetic energy of the falling floors was already so high, nothing could stop it at this point. Impotant is the completely missing core above after the collapse progressed to below 70th floor, it was not there, was it? Then it didn't much matter.
When I speak about the core destruction - to avoid misunderstanding - I speak about the initiation and a second max. two immediately after, there the almost freefall speed was apparently observed and so most of the support must be removed at that point to achieve something like that. The rest would be done by gravity anyway - the momentum then was too high for the structure below to withstand the forces of the falling debris. The perimeter was just a bolted folder, whenever too bowed it would give up without much resistance.

QUOTE
After 1.5 hours the top of the north tower began to break up and descend down upon the section below the plane strike.

Apparently, first it was the mast in the center of the roof, supported by the hat truss standing on the core, then the edge of the perimeter started to move - the core apparently gave up first and inevitably then took the floor pans with, first crushing the perimeter at the most weakened floors where the plane impacted (or maybe the perimeter was also compromised by the thermite, as the Jon Cole's photograph of the glowing columns, or the pouring molten metal from the south tower seem to suggest), then the top of the building rapidly disintegrated. I would bet the weight of the completely severed (just below the impact zone) core stub with hat truss on the top transfering it to the perimeter was the culprit.

QUOTE
WTC 7 seemed to collapse in on itself after it core was "taken out".. while the twins cores survived the floor collapse.

I would say from the observation: some parts of the lower half of the core.

QUOTE
Gravity did the overwhelming amount of the destruction. The initiation appears to have been "helped along" by some engineered interventions.

I absolutely agree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd February 2020 - 04:38 PM