It is time to put an unambiguous bold point in the discussion of the events of “9/11“. But no, from time to time MASSMEDIA (the structures behind them) try again and again to impose on the world’s public an absurd version of a terrorist attack. Therefore, we will again analyze the situation of “9/11“…Based on the following studies, we can say with 1000% confidence: “9/11” is an operation, let’s call it “Seven in one strike“.

This is a banal demolition of buildings, for some Mercantile interests that have ceased to suit the owners of these buildings (“Owners of owners”). But such a “Grand show”, how could it not be used for other, global purposes. And they took advantage of it and even try to continue using the “effects”as time passes.

The fact that “9/11” is not a terrorist attack, but an industrial demolition of buildings, has long been no secret for experts in the field of architecture and construction. But for those who are far from these specialties, the question remains unclear to this day. Biased media – both Western and Russian-contribute to this. The price of truth in this case is too high – at stake is the legitimacy of all US foreign policy activities in recent years, not to mention the moral aspect.

Conspiracy practices: the 9/11 Nuclear demolition

The official story of September 11 is like a bag full of lies, and this seems to be a proven fact for the alternative community. So what really happened? A new series of revelations by a former Russian nuclear intelligence officer is shocking even those who believe they have a clear idea of what is going on behind the scenes.

When ordinary people saw how two planes hit the twin Towers of the world Trade Center in new York on September 11, and how the Twin Towers collapsed in clouds of dust, they were too shocked by these events to criticize the events themselves. And so since then, strange ideas have been imprinted in their heads: that hollow aluminum planes can allegedly punch through steel buildings, while completely disappearing into them, and that aviation fuel (kerosene) allegedly can “melt” these steel buildings into microscopic volatile steel powder…

Sooner or later, these ridiculous delusions had to be discarded. The destruction of the Twin Towers has absolutely nothing to do with” planes”, as well as with the fire allegedly caused by”planes”. This is an obvious fact that has occupied the minds of millions of Americans who are dissatisfied with the official interpretation of the destruction of the world Trade Center for the past 6 years, at least. When the initial shock caused by the events of September 11 passed, many people began to realize that there were simply too many inconsistencies in the official version.

The first thing that caught their attention was that the order of destruction of the Twin Buildings did not coincide with the order of their destruction by aircraft. The South Tower, which was hit by the second plane, collapsed first. While the North Tower, which was hit by the first plane, collapsed the second. This means that the “fires” took 1 hour and 42 minutes to destroy the first tower and only 56 minutes to destroy the second. Given that the fires in both Towers were caused by approximately the same amount of kerosene, and given that the towers were Twin (i.e. absolutely identical in strength), this discrepancy was the first clear indication that their destruction had nothing to do with the fire.

The next realization came when researchers on September 11 began to consider the fact that building 7 of the world Trade Center (an exceptionally strong modern 47-story skyscraper on a steel frame) also collapsed in a similar way in the early evening of the same day, but it did not hit any aircraft. If the destruction of the Twin Towers was officially blamed on kerosene, which was brought by “planes”, the destruction of WTC-7 was inexplicable to such an extent that the official Report Of the Commission of inquiry on September 11 preferred not to mention the destruction of building 7 at all – as if the fact of the destruction of a 47-story modern skyscraper did not deserve even mention.

A comparison of all these events and the many absurdities surrounding the destruction of the WTC led the first researchers on September 11 to realize that the authorities were just fooling them and that the destruction of the world Trade Center had nothing to do with kerosene or “planes”, because planes were simply not needed. The very fact that building 7 of the WTC collapsed in the early evening of September 11, 2001, successfully proved that the terrorist planes were unnecessary and that the destruction of the world Trade Center would have happened in any case – regardless of the “planes”. Someone just wanted the world Trade Center to collapse, and that’s why it collapsed. From this moment, the so-called “movement for the truth about September 11″was born.

People began to accuse the US government of deliberately destroying the world Trade Center in a method that is widely used in the construction industry and is known as “demolition.” More and more people in America are beginning to blame their own government for being the main culprit behind the September 11 attacks, and in the end, more than 65% of the US population expressed their disbelief at the official explanation for the September 11 attacks and the destruction of the world Trade Center.

In fact, anyone who watched the news videos of that time closely enough will be able to remember these freeze-frames where the “third explosion” is mentioned»:

Here it is-the same seditious video report by CNN, which showed lines of text claiming that there was a “third explosion” that first “shattered” and then “destroyed” the South Tower of the world Trade Center. The North Tower (the one with the antenna) had not fallen by then – it would fall a little later from the “fourth explosion” – but CNN would already have received a severe reprimand from “good people” by then and would no longer mention such seditious things as “explosions”. The twin towers of the world Trade Center will be declared “destroyed by kerosene”, and the building of the WTC number 7 (which did not hit any aircraft of the so – called “terrorists”) – “destroyed by diesel fuel” (the stock of which was stored in the building for emergency diesel generators).

For obvious reasons, most people who disagree with the official “kerosene” theory accuse the US government of deliberately demolishing the world Trade Center.

However, these people do not have a sufficient understanding of the industrial processes of demolition of buildings in General, and the actual demolition of the world Trade Center in particular. For this reason, a certain number of “conspiracy theories” have emerged, which range from claims that the WTC was allegedly “booby-trapped with conventional explosives”, to claims that it was allegedly demolished using the so-called “nano-termite” (some mystical and hitherto unheard-of substance), which was allegedly used in the form of “spraying” on every metal part of the supporting structures of the Twin Towers.

There are also more bizarre conspiracy theories – the theory of WTC demolition using laser beams from space, for example. Of course, the authors of these various conspiracy theories cannot yield to each other, and thus they spend precious time not only accusing the US government of being the main culprit of September 11, but also accusing each other of trying to “muddy the waters of truth”. The common problem with all these conspiracy theorists is that they simply don’t know what really happened to the world Trade Center, and most importantly, they don’t know why it happened.

The author of this article tried to present the reader with something different. Instead of offering another “conspiracy theory”, he offers his expert opinion, in addition to his testimony, which goes along with his personal experience and knowledge gained as a result of serving in the relevant post in the Soviet Army. I hope that as a result of this approach, the reader will get a much better explanation about the demolition of the WTC, compared to what he could get on some Internet forum specializing in conspiracy theories about September 11.

«Ground Zero» and «ground zero»

First, I would like to remind everyone that the site of the former world Trade Center in new York is called “Ground Zero” in English [“ground zero” or “epicenter” in the understanding of the Russian-speaking reader]. Many people don’t seem to realize exactly what the words “ground zero” mean or how important evidence they are.

Many people seem to think of” Ground Zero ” as a proper name – as if it were the name of a city or a ship. However, few people remember today that the strange name ” ground zero “was assigned to the site of the former WTC too quickly to be a”Proper Name”. Almost immediately after the Twin Towers collapsed (a few hours before the WTC building 7 collapsed)-that is, around noon on September 11, 2001 – almost all officials and some reporters already began calling the site of the former WTC the strange words “ground zero”. All the newscasts that were printed the next day also referred to the site of the former WTC as “ground zero”, and these strange words were still written in lowercase letters at the time.

This use of the term “ground zero” in reference to the area of the former WTC continued throughout September 12, 2001. And some news outlets continued to use the lowercase term “ground zero” throughout September 13, 2001. And only then, as if someone realized their mistake, the status of this strange name suddenly suddenly increased to “Ground Zero” with Capital Letters and as such, it finally turned into a Proper Name. But what did the words “ground zero” mean while they were still written in lowercase letters – that is, in English? at the moment when they have not yet acquired the status of a Proper Name?

Why, almost immediately after the destruction of the Twin Towers, were these strange words used to refer to the place of the WTC? Was this a mistake caused by the confusion in the midst of the unprecedented events of September 11? I would say Yes. This was undoubtedly a mistake caused by the General confusion and confusion.

However, this was not a mistake in the sense that an inappropriate name was chosen to mark the site of the WTC’s demolition – if only because it was too early at the time to choose a proper proper name at all. In fact, Civil Defense experts were absolutely right when they designated this zone with the words “ground zero”. There was absolutely no mistake about it. It was, in fact, “ground zero” in the very sense that civil Defense experts understand The term. However, this was a mistake in the sense that these strange words “ground zero” were inadvertently “leaked” to journalists, and through them – to the General public. After that, it was too late to try to hush up the widespread use of this strange designation for the Civil Defense service. And so desperate American officials simply had no other chance than to “Title” these seditious words and thus transform this own definition of the Civil Defense service into a Proper Name.

First, I would like to quote something about one of the heroes of September 11-police detective John Walcott (John Walcott), one of the volunteers of “Ground Zero”. He had spent a fair amount of time in that very spot, sorting through the wreckage of the world Trade Center. He spent enough time there to earn a strange disease: myeloma in the last stage. Just two paragraphs of his statements, published in an article with the frightening title “Death by Dust”, managed to contain and show us all these strange and” inexplicable ” things – which the reader will need as a basic prerequisite for understanding the main points of this article – both about dust and about radiation:

“…Due to the fact that Walcott was a detective, he spent five months of his life not only at Ground Zero, but also at Fresh Kills [new York city’s main landfill located on Staten island]. And as much as the air of Lower Manhattan suffocated him, he was terrified of the Staten island dump. Walcott knew that all the contents of the towers had collapsed with them – tables, lights, computers. But with the exception of occasional steel beams, the detritus he sifted consisted entirely of tiny particles of dust – it contained no pieces of furniture, no lighting fixtures, not even a computer mouse.

Sometimes detectives took shelter in wooden sheds, in an attempt to escape what Walcott calls “all that weird bad air.” One day, he was sitting in such a shed with his colleagues over a meal of cookies and soft drinks when some FBI agents entered. They were dressed in full chemical protection kits, complete with gas masks, which they also gave extra tightness by gluing them with adhesive tape to protect them from fumes. As Walcott surveyed the scene, comparing highly protected FBI agents to new York cops wearing respirator masks, the question flashed through his mind: what exactly was wrong with this picture?…”

Yes, Mr. Walcott, unfortunately, there was something really “wrong”, quite “wrong” in this strange picture…

The FBI agents, who did not hesitate to appear in full chemical protection kits, and even additionally taped, in the face of unprotected “plebs”, knew the truth. That is why they do not suffer from leukemia or any other type of cancer in the last stage. These FBI agents will clearly live a long and happy life, despite their brief visit to ” Ground Zero»…

If you had opened a modern dictionary and looked at what exactly this strange term meant then, you would not have needed to ask your question; you would have understood immediately what was “wrong” with this ” Ground Zero»:

All possible meanings of the term “ground zero ” described by Webster’s New international Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (encyclopedia Lux 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.

It should be noted that John Walcott finally managed to survive, unlike many of his colleagues who also worked on “Ground Zero”, but who were much less lucky… on December 17, 2007, a brief news flashed on the Internet that John Walcott had finally undergone a truly strange (and extremely painful) operation-a bone marrow transplant. From this point on, he can really live on (on immunosuppressants that will prevent rejection of the transplanted bone marrow; and without the ability to leave their home because their immune system has ceased to exist and the slightest infection can become fatal for them).

In case you don’t know what “bone marrow transplant” means, I have to explain

Bone marrow transplantation is required for patients who have suffered from heavy doses of penetrating or secondary radiation (or both) and whose bone marrow (the bone marrow responsible for blood regeneration) has been completely killed by this radiation. Radiation has a strange property – it always affects the bone marrow cells to the greatest extent in comparison with all other cells of the body. This is why the vast majority of radiation victims suffer from leukemia. The higher the dose of radiation that affected them, the more bone marrow cells were killed and the more severe their leukemia. John Walcott was clearly suffering from the most severe form of leukemia. Because until the moment when he was lucky enough to receive a bone marrow transplant, he lived solely on constant infusions of donor blood, due to the fact that his own blood was not regenerated completely.

In addition to the fact that radiation kills or very seriously damages the bone marrow, it also causes various forms of cancer that affect different organs or even several organs at the same time – especially in cases where the victim was exposed to radioactive dust that got into the respiratory or digestive organs. However, in the latter case, it is very easy for dishonest doctors and other health officials to find plausible “explanations” for these cancers. They can easily claim that this is allegedly the result of exposure to” asbestos dust”,” toxic fumes”,” toxic dust particles ” and the like. But when it comes to bone marrow damage, these liars are caught red-handed. Bone marrow damage can only be caused by radiation.

And that’s why those same FBI agents were given full chemical protection kits, along with gas masks, and additionally taped “to protect against fumes” during their visit to “Ground Zero”. Because they chose not to suffer later from leukemia and other cancers. And so when they also covered their outfits with duct tape, they didn’t do it to “protect themselves from fumes,” as John Walcott thought. They did this in order to protect themselves from flying radioactive dust and, especially, from radioactive vapor, which they did not intend to inhale or swallow.

Yes, I suspect that many readers will be shocked by this revelation and may not believe me – assuming that I am simply speculating on unproven facts. However, the above-mentioned story of John Walcott and the FBI agents dressed up in chemical protection during a visit to ground zero has nothing to do with me personally. They exist on the Internet as a fact, and they exist completely independently of the modest personality of the author of these lines. They exist as independently of it as the legal definition of the term “ground zero”, which in pre-9/11 dictionaries was as follows

Webster’s unabridged Encyclopedia of the English Language (1989 edition, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2).

Dictionary of Military Terms (Peter Collins publishing, 1999, ISBN 1-901659-24-0).

Advanced Dictionary of American English Longman (new, first published in 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0

“ground zero” noun 1 [a noun; usually singular] the exact location where the nuclear bomb exploded: the explosion was felt even 30 miles from ground zero. 2 [uncountable noun] the place where the world Trade Center stood in new York city, destroyed during the September 11, 2001 attacks.+

Cambridge advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition. (2nd Edition 2006, ISBN-13 978-0-521-60499-4 is the post-9/11 edition, widely available).

Above were full, unabridged interpretations of the term “ground zero”. This was the only definition and the only one that carried its true meaning…

However, if you do not believe your eyes and prefer to rush to the nearest bookstore to buy some English dictionary, then take your time. When you run into the store, you will be even more surprised, because it is no longer possible to find any dictionary containing the only and only correct interpretation of this strange term. Those dictionaries that were published before September 11, such as those mentioned above, and that contained a single definition of the term “ground zero”, were long ago removed from the bookshelves and replaced with new editions. Unfortunately, the English language itself was one of the earliest victims of September 11…

The six photos below were not in the original version of the article in Nexus, but for clarity, I decided to add them to the online version. These photos compare similar dictionaries of the same firms printed before and after the name “ground zero” was inadvertently assigned to the site of the nuclear demolition of the world Trade Center:

INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “GROUND ZERO” IN THE MICROSOFT ENCARTA DICTIONARY-1999 RELEASE

INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “GROUND ZERO” IN THE ENCARTA DICTIONARY OF MICROSOFT -2001

Above is the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, released in 1999 and 2001

INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “GROUND ZERO” IN THE ADVANCED DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH LONGMAN FIRST 2000 ISSUE

INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “GROUND ZERO” IN THE ADVANCED DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH LONGMAN FIRST 2007 ISSUE

Above-the Advanced Dictionary of American English Longman first and second editions (2000 and 2007) respectively

MERRIAM-WEBSTER STUDENT DICTIONARY 1999

MERRIAM-WEBSTER LEARNER’S DICTIONARY 2010

Above is the 1999 Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the 2010 Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary. (the first dictionary was not reissued, and the second dictionary was not published before the events of September 11, but the two dictionaries are approximately equal in status and in the number of words and pages).

So don’t be surprised that almost all new English dictionaries printed after September 11 have started to interpret “ground zero” as supposedly having more than one meaning. At least three to five new meanings have been assigned to this term, which range from the alleged “greatest destruction”, “great disorder”, and “fuss” to the alleged “base level” and “starting point”. Others preferred a different approach: the publishers of the new Dictionary of Modern English Longman, for example, describe ” ground zero “as” the place where the bomb exploded”, without specifying that the” bomb ” in this case would have to be exclusively nuclear or thermonuclear. In addition to all this, now almost all dictionaries – both large and small-have begun to include this (or rather “these”) interpretation. Previously, before September 11, the term “ground zero”, because of its specificity, existed only in very large dictionaries of English – such as Webster’s Unabridged, full of Collins, full of American Heritage, and the like (and in them it had a single definition). This term was not previously included in smaller dictionaries – such as those intended for students and advanced learners (the only exception was the Longman Dictionary of American English – mentioned above). For example, “ground zero” was not included in the Oxford advanced Learner’s Dictionary 4th, 5th, and 6th issues published before September 11, 2001. Even the special 4th “encyclopedia” edition of this dictionary, which was 50% larger than the regular edition, did not include a definition of the term “ground zero”. It was only the 7th edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, first published in 2005, that finally began to define the term.

After 9/11, the Macmillan Advanced English Dictionary and the Longman Modern English Dictionary, all kinds of new Meriam-Webster dictionaries, most of The new American Heritage dictionaries, the new Collins English dictionaries, the Microsoft encart dictionary, and many other new dictionaries, as well as encyclopedias – all of them, after the events of September 11, began to include the term “ground zero” and interpret it as if it had more than one meaning, trying their best to distract their readers from the former nuclear (and only nuclear) nature of this term.

By the way, the publishers of the last Cambridge advanced Learner’s Dictionary mentioned above deserve praise for not deceiving their readers. They had the courage not to include the confusing definitions of “ground zero” in their post-9/11 dictionary. This is in sharp contrast to the behavior of publishers of all other dictionaries who have entered the service of those who lie to the people about September 11. There were even attempts to “prove” that the name “ground zero” was allegedly used to describe the area [where the WTC stood] even before the events of September 11. All these linguistic attempts concerning “ground zero” are actually easy to explain. This strangely transparent name, which was hastily given to the site of the demolition of the former world Trade Center in new York, was too transparent to leave its former only interpretation directly “as is” in the new English dictionaries…

Nuclear demolition of the WTC

The author of these lines was a career officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, which was also known as the”Special Control Service of the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR”. The 12th General Directorate, in turn, was the organization that was responsible in the USSR for the safe storage, production control, routine maintenance, etc.of the entire nuclear Arsenal of the country. While the Special Control Service was responsible for detecting nuclear explosions. It was also responsible for monitoring compliance with international treaties related to nuclear testing. This is particularly important in light of the existence of the so-called “Treaty on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions” of 1976 between the USSR and the United States of America [known in the USSR as the “Treaty between the USSR and the United States on Underground Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes of 1976”]. In accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the parties were obliged to inform each other of all nuclear explosions for non-military purposes.

During my service with the aforementioned organization in the late ‘ 80s, I learned of the existence of a so-called “nuclear emergency demolition system” built into the twin Towers of the world Trade Center in new York. The actual “nuclear demolition system” was based on powerful thermonuclear charges (about 150 kilotons in TNT equivalent), which were located at a depth of 50 meters below the lowest point of the Foundation of each of the Towers. At the time, it seemed strange to me, to be honest, because it was hard to believe that the US authorities could be crazy enough to demolish buildings in the middle of a populated city using underground nuclear explosions. However, if I understood this correctly, no one was actually going to demolish the world Trade Center. It was just a way to avoid certain bureaucratic obstacles. The terrifying imaginative nuclear demolition system was built into the Twin Towers not to demolish them in reality, but simply to get permission to build them at all.

The problem was that the new York city building code at the time (as well as the Chicago building code) did not allow the Department of Buildings to issue permits for any skyscraper until the designer also provided the Department with a satisfactory way to demolish such a structure, both for future demolition and for demolition in the event of an emergency. Since in the late 60s (when the construction of the Twin Towers was first proposed), this type of steel-framed building was a fundamentally new concept, no one knew how to demolish such buildings. Traditional (“normal”) demolition methods were only applicable to buildings of the old type. Something new was needed for the incredibly strong steel Twin Towers, Something new that could convince officials From the Department of Buildings to grant permission for their construction. And this “something new” was finally found: nuclear demolition.

Brief history of the concept of nuclear and nuclear demolition

The initial idea of using nuclear charges to demolish various structures was born almost simultaneously with the appearance of nuclear weapons themselves in the early 50s. In the beginning, nuclear weapons were not called “nuclear”, but “atomic”, and therefore the concept of demolishing buildings using these weapons received the appropriate name – “atomic demolition”. These words managed to survive half a century and, despite the renaming of the former atomic weapons to “nuclear weapons”, these words have remained in the language to this day. They are still found in the names of special engineering devices – “SADM” and “MADM”. [That there are portable nuclear charges, also known in the USSR as “nuclear suitcases”, “nuclear mines” and”nuclear satchels”.] The first of the two stands for “Special Atomic Demolition Munitions” (“Special Atomic demolition Munition”), the second – as “Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions” (can be translated into Russian as “medium-Caliber Atomic Demolition Munition”). Many people mistakenly believe that the first of them is the so – called “new world”. “SADM” – allegedly means “Small Atomic Demolition Munitions”, not “Special…” (that is, “Small Atomic demolition Munition”, not “Special…”).

In fact, this is not a particularly big mistake – to call this device “small” instead of” special”, since the so – called” SADM ” is really very small-its explosive power does not exceed 1 kiloton in TNT equivalent. Given that all modern portable nuclear devices have a variable power, which can be set to the lowest level of 0.1 kilotons, and in some products even 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 100 and 10 tons of TNT, respectively), they really have every right to be called “small” ammunition.

Other popular names for these “Special Atomic Demolition Munitions” are: “mini-nuke “(it is difficult to translate it into Russian verbatim, but let’s translate it as” nuclear mini-charge”) and” suite-case nuke “(“nuclear suitcase”), although the second is probably a logical misnomer. In reality, most of these weapons are similar to large pots that weigh about 50-70 kilograms, and are designed to be carried on your back – like satchels. Therefore, it is unlikely that such devices will fit in a suitcase. However, there are also modern portable nuclear weapons that are made from plutonium-239 instead of uranium-235. As a result of a much smaller critical mass of plutonium, their dimensions can be significantly reduced – some of the later portable nuclear charges based on plutonium can actually fit in a “briefcase”.

“Medium-caliber Nuclear Demolition munitions” (“MNDM”) are much larger in both size and explosive power. Their power can reach up to 15 kilotons in TNT equivalent [translator’s note: 15 kilotons is the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima], weight – up to 200 kilograms, and size – approximately the size of a large gas cylinder used in a household.

Any of the above-mentioned “atomic demolition munitions” can be successfully used to destroy large objects that cannot be destroyed with a reasonable amount of conventional explosives – especially in the event of an emergency, when there is neither time nor opportunity to carefully prepare a” normal ” demolition procedure using conventional means. For example, it can be bridges, dams, tunnels, underground structures, large buildings of high strength, and so on.

However, the Efficiency (efficiency coefficient) of such demolition using “SADM” and “MADM” is very low. As you probably know, the main purpose of demolition (controlled destruction) of buildings by the “implosion” method is not just to destroy these buildings with explosions so that their fragments fly around, but to collapse them as clearly and accurately as possible, and with the minimum possible damage to extraneous structures.

[Translator’s note: “implosion” – as opposed to” explosion ” – is when the explosive energy is directed inwards, not outwards. To make it clearer, the grenade explodes because it is torn apart by the explosives inside it. While a typical plutonium-based nuclear charge contains a plutonium core, around which conventional explosive charges are located, which, when simultaneously detonated, “compress” this core from all sides, transferring plutonium by increasing the density of the material from a sub-critical state to a super-critical one at the same mass of plutonium. If in the case of a grenade we are dealing with an” explosive charge”, then in the case of the atomic bomb described above, we are dealing with an”implosive charge”. In the West, the word “implosion” is used not only to describe the construction of an atomic bomb, but also in the construction industry: demolition explosives is so that the debris of the buildings are not scattered in different directions, and Vice versa, as if they “evolved” into the building so that the building collapsed vertically and to mount the debris would take less space.]

Therefore, engineers who calculate the demolition of buildings must clearly identify the points of load-bearing structures on which to place explosive charges – in order to break these load-bearing structures in the right places. In almost all cases, explosives are attached at more than one point, since it is almost impossible that such structures have only one load-bearing beam or a single load-bearing column.

Demolition workers who are supposed to use nuclear weapons to demolish structures in an emergency cannot have sufficient time or engineering training to perform such complex calculations as in the case of conventional demolition of buildings with explosives. The maximum that such bombers can have is basic sapper training and basic skills in the use of nuclear weapons in General. The use of nuclear weapons in such cases is not intended to destroy the structure as carefully as possible, but to destroy it at all, and to destroy it at any cost.

The explosive power of an atomic munition used for such purposes will in any case be superfluous, and most of its explosive energy will be wasted – as in the case of any other nuclear explosion. Therefore, most of the energy released by a nuclear explosion of such an “atomic demolition device” will be spent on well-known factors of the nuclear explosion, such as light radiation, shock wave, penetrating radiation, and electromagnetic pulse.

As you can probably guess, none of these known damaging factors of an aerial nuclear explosion has the slightest relation to the actual task of demolition and can not contribute to it in the slightest way. However, all these destructive factors of a nuclear explosion will certainly contribute to the destruction of the surrounding area of the building being demolished – and the damage they will cause to the surrounding area can be very significant, most likely exceeding the cost of the actual demolition procedure.

Therefore, it is safe to say that nuclear demolition in the above sense will have a significantly lower Efficiency Compared to a well-calculated demolition using conventional explosives. Since in the case of the latter, almost all the energy of the explosion will be spent on interrupting the supporting structures, and not on creating a shock wave or light radiation.

In addition, an atomic demolition munition is quite expensive in itself. The cost of such a mini-device based on uranium is at least a couple of million us dollars, if not more (a similar device based on plutonium will cost much more). It is obvious that a thousand tons of TNT will cost less than a kiloton of nuclear ammunition. And at the same time, it is possible to use this thousand tons of TNT to demolish at least several buildings, while using a nuclear mini-charge can destroy a single building (and at the same time damage many others around).

Given all this, it can be concluded that it is not a reasonable solution to use small – or medium-caliber nuclear weapons to demolish any civilian infrastructure in peacetime, that is, in conditions where there is enough time to prepare for their demolition by conventional means. And in any case, “normal” demolition of buildings will cost less than nuclear. Nuclear charges can only be used to demolish structures in extreme circumstances.

So why was this most ancient concept of nuclear demolition, despite its low Efficiency compared to demolition with conventional explosives, and despite its high cost, finally brought back to life and used in the World Trade Center nuclear demolition system?

This was due to the emergence of a new generation of buildings that appeared in the late 60s. Namely, buildings on a steel frame. Despite the widespread misconception, there has never been a single case of a steel-framed skyscraper being demolished by a conventional “implosion” anywhere in the world. At least, before the destruction of the WTC Towers. Because almost all skyscrapers are relatively new buildings and their time to be demolished for uselessness has not yet come.

The tallest building ever demolished was the singer building in new York city, which was built in 1908 and demolished in 1968. This building was very stunted compared to the improbably strong modern skyscrapers, which used hollow steel beams in their supporting structure.

Therefore, despite the widespread misconception, it is actually impossible to destroy such a building on a steel frame using typical demolition methods. In the past, when buildings were brick or panel, their supporting structures were concrete pillars and concrete supporting beams. Sometimes these concrete supporting structures were reinforced by inserts of metal reinforcement, sometimes they were purely concrete. But in any case, it was possible to calculate the necessary amount of explosives that should be attached to these supporting structures in the right places (or explosives that should be placed inside holes drilled in such structures) in order to ensure that all these carriers are interrupted simultaneously, and thus ensure the collapse of the building exactly down and within the outline of its perimeter.

However, all this is no longer possible when it comes to modern buildings on a steel frame – such as, for example, the Twin Towers of the world Trade Center in new York, or the building number 7 WTC, or the Sears tower in Chicago.

Here is what the steel structure of one of the WTC Twin Towers looked like, for example:

There are no “load-bearing structures” in the former sense of the word – the tower Itself, as such, is a “load-bearing structure”. The steel frame in the shopping center consisted of exceptionally thick double-walled steel columns located in the center and around the perimeters. This so-called “hollow beam pattern” was a fundamentally new approach in construction, which allowed for spacious floors in which the ceilings were no longer supported by internal columns, traditionally used in previous structures. The Twin towers consisted of supporting hollow steel columns (square in cross-section) located on all four facades at a distance of one meter from each other and thus forming an exceptionally strong structure that also withstood all horizontal loads (for example, due to winds) and which took part in maintaining the weight of the Towers themselves on a par with the Central columns.

The structure of the Towers perimeters consisted of 59 such columns on each of the four facades. The Central core of the Towers consisted of 47 rectangular steel columns, which were a single unit from the granite base of Manhattan to the tops of the Towers. What all these columns looked like, you can see in the photo below, which shows the remains of such columns found on “ground zero” after the demolition of the WTC, following the September 11 attacks:

Note that these Central (rectangular in cross-section) and external (square in cross-section) columns clearly did not belong to the lower parts of the Twin Towers, but to the upper parts. So they were spared the strange process of pulverizing the steel into a powder, which was subjected to the lower parts of the structure of the Towers, of which nothing remained but microscopic steel dust.

And here is another photo-this is from the published report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) – about September 11. This photo clearly shows how the steel columns of The towers perimeters looked during their construction:

These steel columns were improbably thick-walled – each wall was 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) thick, so the total thickness of each of the columns was 5 inches (12.7 cm).

To imagine how much this is, here is a good example for comparison: the frontal armor of the best of the world War II tanks – the T-34-was only 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) and it was single-wall.

However, at that time there was practically no artillery armor-piercing projectile that could penetrate this armor. Of course, no explosive will ever be able to break through the front armor of a tank (with the exception of only shaped charges; but even shaped charges will not be able to break through such armor in the sense in which we are considering it here – such charges will only be able to burn a narrow hole in the armor plate).

Taking into account that the steel frames of the Twin Towers consisted of double-walled columns that were almost three times thicker than the frontal armor of the T-34 tank, it is safe to say that it was impossible to find any way to simultaneously break such columns in many places to ensure the effect of “implosion” – which is the main goal of controlled destruction of buildings (demolition).

Of course, it was technically possible to destroy some of these columns in certain places, using exceptionally large shaped charges attached to each column, but even this improbable solution would never have led to the desired result. The towers were simply too tall and too strong – their steel frames would have to be broken in too many places on each of their floors – a solution that no one could afford. And even if someone could afford it, there would be no guarantee that such a high-rise structure would collapse right within the outline of its perimeter. Its wreckage could easily have been scattered for half a mile in the vicinity, given the sheer height of the buildings themselves [415 meters]. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible to demolish these buildings using traditional methods of demolition.

The same can be said of the WTC building 7 and the Sears tower in Chicago

Both buildings were constructed using similar thick double-walled steel frames, which were impossible to break at the same time in many places for the reasons discussed above. However, according to US laws governing the construction of skyscrapers, their architects must submit a satisfactory demolition project in order for the construction project to be approved by the Department of Buildings at all. No one can be allowed to build a skyscraper that cannot be demolished in the future. This is the main reason why such nuclear demolition systems are generally built into skyscrapers. This may sound ironic, but such systems of nuclear demolition of skyscrapers were not designed to demolish these very skyscrapers in fact, especially given that no one yet has practical experience in such an industry. The nuclear demolition systems were designed simply to persuade the Buildings Department to allow the construction itself. Apparently, the developers and apologists of such systems sincerely hope that their bold plans will not be put into practice during their own lives.

Как это работает?

First of all, the modern nuclear demolition system has nothing in common with the former idea of atomic demolition, which uses the “SADM” and “MADM” devices described above. This is a fundamentally new concept. In the process of modern nuclear demolition, a charge designed to destroy a building does not produce an atmospheric nuclear explosion – with its well-known atomic mushroom, light radiation, shock wave, and electromagnetic pulse. It explodes quite deep underground – almost exactly like a nuclear charge explodes during a typical underground nuclear test. Therefore, its explosion produces no shock wave, no light radiation, no penetrating radiation, no electromagnetic pulse. It can only cause relatively small damage to the environment due to subsequent radioactive contamination, which, however, the developers of such projects consider an insignificant factor that can be ignored.

What is the main difference between atmospheric and underground nuclear explosions?

At the initial stage of any nuclear (as well as thermonuclear) explosion, all its energy is released in the form of so – called “primary radiation”, which for the most part (almost 99%) is in the x – ray spectrum (and its remaining part-about 1% – is represented by gamma radiation, which causes radiation damage, plus radiation in the visible part of the spectrum, which produces a white flash).

Therefore, almost all the energy of a nuclear explosion, represented by x-rays, is spent on heating the air within a radius of tens of meters around the epicenter of the nuclear explosion. This is because x-rays cannot travel far in the air, due to the fact that they are quickly absorbed by the air.

Heating such a relatively small area of air around the epicenter leads to the fact that there is a known fireball, which is nothing but hot air. This luminous ball is the cause of the main striking factors of a nuclear explosion-light radiation and shock waves, since both of these factors occur exclusively due to high temperatures around its epicenter.

When it comes to an underground nuclear explosion, the picture is completely different. Since there is no air around the “end box”, all the energy instantly released at the moment of a nuclear explosion in the form of x-rays will be spent on heating the surrounding rock.

As a result, the rock will overheat, melt, and evaporate. The disappearance of the vaporized rock will cause the appearance of an underground cavity, the size of which directly depends on the explosive power of the nuclear munition used.

You can get an idea of how much rock can evaporate in an underground nuclear explosion from the table below, where the amounts of evaporable and molten rock of different types are represented by the principle of “tons of rock per kiloton of explosive power»:

Example: an explosion of a 150-kiloton thermonuclear charge placed deep enough in a granite rock will cause an underground cavity about 100 meters in diameter – similar to the one shown in the figure below

All skyscrapers have a Foundation, the lower point of which is located at a depth of 20-30 meters below the surface of the earth. Therefore, it is possible to calculate the position of the “end box” so that the nuclear explosion creates an underground cavity, the upper border of which would not reach the surface of the earth, but would reach the lower border of the Foundation of the skyscraper that is to be demolished.

For example, In the specific case of the twin Towers of the world Trade Center in new York, their foundations were located at a depth of 27 meters. While the 150-kiloton thermonuclear charges intended for their demolition were located at a depth of 77 meters (counting from the surface of the earth), or 50 meters below the underground bases of the Towers.

Such a thermonuclear explosion at a depth of 77 meters will create an exceptionally super heated underground cavity, the upper border of which will just reach the bottom point of the base of the Tower to be demolished. However, it will not reach the surface of the earth, which is still 27 meters away – so the surrounding buildings will not be exposed to the known damaging factors of a nuclear explosion (with the possible exception of only radioactive contamination). The demolished tower should lose its support point due to the disappearance of the Foundation, and sink into an overheated cavity, the temperatures inside of which should be high enough to melt the Tower building completely. The nuclear demolition systems for building 7 of the world Trade Center and the Sears tower in Chicago were also designed in a similar way.However, there is another factor that must be taken into account when calculating the system of nuclear demolition of skyscrapers

This is actually evaporated rock (in this case, granite), which is located inside the underground cavity. Where should all this former rock, converted to a gaseous state, go? The picture of physical processes in an underground nuclear explosion is very interesting. Let’s look at it.

Typical physical processes during a perfectly deep underground nuclear explosion:

1) a Nuclear explosion begins to heat the rock around the epicenter.

2) the Rock evaporates. As a result of the disappearance of the evaporated rock, a so-called “primary cavity” appears, filled with former rock that has passed into a gaseous state. Exceptionally high gas pressure inside the cavity tends to expand it. The expansion of the cavity is due to the surrounding layer of still solid rock.

3) the Cavity reaches the final “secondary” size due to the fact that high gas pressure expands the cavity from its primary size (shown by the dotted line) to its secondary size. Since the expansion was due to the surrounding rock layer, this surrounding rock layer is very tightly compressed.

4) the Final picture: white shows the cavity (its secondary size); blue – the so – called “crumple zone” – i.e., the rock completely turned into a microscopic powder with a particle size of about 100 microns [comparable to the diameter of a human hair]; green – the so-called “crushing zone” – i.e., the zone of partially or completely crushed rock.

The diagram above shows all the important physical processes in a perfectly deep (i.e. located at a sufficient distance from the earth’s surface) underground nuclear explosion. It shows that the exceptionally high pressure of the vaporized rock inside the cavity does at least two important things. 1) it expands the cavity itself from the “primary” size to the “secondary” size. 2) because the expansion is due to the surrounding layers of solid rock, it produces two damage zones around the cavity; each of these two zones represents a different degree of damage to this rock.

The area immediately adjacent to the cavity is called the “crumple zone” in nuclear jargon. The thickness of this zone can be compared to the diameter of the cavity, and this zone itself is filled with a very strange material: rock completely crushed into powder. The powder is microscopic, with an average particle size of about 100 microns [slightly less than the thickness of a human hair]. Moreover, this state of matter inside the “crumple zone” is unique – it is not found anywhere in nature except after underground nuclear explosions.

If you pick up a stone from this area, but do it very carefully, it will still stick together as a whole and will resemble a stone in shape and color. However, it is only necessary to squeeze this “stone” with your fingers and it will immediately crumble into the microscopic powder that it consists of. The area next to the “crumple zone” is called the “crushing zone” in professional jargon. This zone is filled with rock, broken into various pieces-from very small (the size of millimeters), to relatively large fragments. The closer to the border of the “crumple zone”, the smaller such pieces will be, and the further away from the epicenter – the larger. Finally, there is almost no visible damage to the surrounding rock beyond the boundaries of the “crushing zone”.

However, above we have considered the physical processes that are true for a “perfectly deep” underground nuclear explosion. When the nuclear charge is not buried deep enough, the picture will be slightly different. The zones of “crushing” and “crumpling” will no longer be perfectly round, as in the previous case. They will be more elliptical – that is, comparable in shape to an egg, the sharp end of which is aimed up, or even more elongated up in comparison with the egg. This is due to the fact that the pressure of the vaporized gases meets less resistance towards the earth’s surface (because in this case the surface is too close), and therefore both the “crumple zone” and the “crushing zone” extend upwards much further than in any other direction.

The figure above is an illustration of the resistance of the surrounding rock when the cavity is at a shallow depth. It is obvious that the resistance of materials from the surface of the earth will be less than the resistance of materials in any other direction. And since everything always spreads only along the path of least resistance, it becomes clear why such a cavity extends mainly towards the earth’s surface and why it will never be perfectly round. The shape of such a cavity will always be elliptical.

When the upper boundaries of the “crushing zone” and “crumple zone” extending upwards meet the Foundation of the demolished Tower, the picture will differ even more. Because the materials that make up the Tower differ from the surrounding granite rock in terms of material resistance. In addition, there is a lot of empty space inside the Tower itself, while the granite rock in any other direction (to the sides and down) is solid. Therefore, the distribution of the upper boundaries of the zones of “crushing” and “crumpling” on the body of the Tower will be the greatest. In the case of the Twin Towers and the Sears tower ,the ” crushing zone “may well extend to a height of 350-370 meters, while the” crumple zone”, which moves immediately after, may reach 290-310 meters. However, in the case of the shorter building # 7 of the WTC, it completely falls into the” crumple zone ” – that is, it turns into powder completely. The ability of a nuclear explosion to pulverize steel and concrete is equally one of its unique features.

The photo above shows an example of this same microscopic powder that covered all of Manhattan after the WTC was demolished. Many mistakenly believed that it was supposedly “concrete powder”. No, it wasn’t concrete powder. It was the “powder of everything” – mostly represented by steel powder. Despite a common misconception, concrete was almost never used in the construction of the WTC. Concrete was used in very limited quantities in the very thin concrete slabs of the floors of the Twin Towers and nowhere else. The WTC Twin towers were mostly steel, not concrete.

And that’s why this tiny powder was mostly made of steel. Although, of course, it was not purely “steel powder” – there was also “furniture powder”, “wood powder”, “carpet powder”, “computer parts powder” and even “human powder”, since the people who remained in the Towers were just as much reduced to powder as steel, concrete and furniture.

Many people wonder why building 7 collapsed straight down quite neatly and completely, while each of the Twin Towers collapsed, scattering not only powder, but also quite large debris in a significant radius around. This question is quite easy to answer – if you look at the distribution of zones of “crumpling” and “crushing” on the buildings of the Twin Towers and building 7, the answer is obvious:

The figure above shows the approximate distribution of damage zones in the case of a nuclear demolition of a skyscraper using a 150-kiloton thermonuclear charge located 50 meters below the base of the Foundation. Don’t forget that the demolition charges in this particular case were buried not “ideally deep”, and therefore form zones of “crushing” and “crushing” would not “perfectly round” – they are elliptic, with a sharp point directed upwards, i.e. in the direction of least resistance of materials. From this it is easy to understand why building 7 fell completely into the “crumple zone” and why in the case of the demolition of building 7 there was no heavy intact top, which could cause an effect similar to what we see in the case of the fall of the Twins.

The distribution of damage to the buildings of demolished skyscrapers can be understood much better if you view the details of the destruction of Gemini and WTC-7 on the corresponding video clips, which are available in a variety of YouTube.

The North Tower started falling a moment ago

These two photos show how the North Tower fell (it fell the second in a row). It is clearly visible that the Tower has turned into the smallest dust. At the bottom right, you can clearly see that building 7 (a beautiful brown glossy edition) was not damaged in the least. In the photo above, it seems that the WTC-7 is “shorter” than the one in the photo below, but this is not because the building was allegedly destroyed, but simply because the helicopter with the photographer was in motion, and the second photo was taken from a different angle and from a greater distance. The building of WTC-7 in reality will fall only 7 hours after this moment.

VIDEO:

Video (taken from three different points) of the fall of the North Tower of the world Trade Center. In this video, it is very clear that the intact top of the tower suddenly began to fall down, almost without encountering any resistance in its path – as if there were no fragments of steel structures under it, but a fine powder that could not resist more than just air. In fact, it was – the top of the tower here falls at a speed equal to the speed of free fall.

Video of the fall of the South Tower of the world Trade Center. This video also clearly shows the details of the fall – the intact top of the tower falls down at the speed of free fall, not meeting any fragments of structures in its path, but meeting only fine steel powder, which it throws on all sides as it falls.

This is a video of the fall of the North Tower. Here it is very interesting to notice a strong earthquake exactly 12 seconds before the start of the fall of the tower, which consisted of one main shock and one “aftershock”. According to the degree of concussion, it is clearly visible that the magnitude of the earthquake clearly exceeded five and a half points on the Richter scale – which indicates that this earthquake itself was caused by at least a 100-kiloton underground explosion. In fact, the magnitude of this earthquake was much higher – it was close to 5.8 on the Richter scale, since the earthquake was caused by the explosion of a 150-kiloton nuclear charge. In addition, after the fall of the Tower on the right side of it (after passing the truck) it is clearly visible as one of the surviving peripheral load-bearing assemblies (which looks like a steel “peak”) is crumbling into powder, which was missed by the falling top of the Tower

And this is a well-known video recording of the fall of the North Tower made by Etienne Sauret, which, if you look closely, clearly shows the shaking of the top of the Tower exactly 12 seconds before the start of its fall. This is the same earthquake caused by the explosion of a 150-kiloton nuclear charge deep underground, which is seen in the previous video. These 12 seconds were needed for a nuclear explosion deep underground to vaporize enough rock and create the necessary gas pressure in the cavity, which eventually overcame the “ultimate strength” of the materials surrounding the cavity, and created a “wave of crumpling” that spread with supersonic speed through the body of the tower, turning it into a powdery structure.

To see the moment when the tower is shaken, try to fix your gaze fixedly on the tower itself and not be distracted, otherwise you may not pay attention to this shake

And these are the details of turning the South Tower into powder (it fell first in a row, despite the fact that it was hit by the second “plane” of the so-called “terrorists” and the fire in it lasted for a much shorter period of time).

It should be added that, despite the obvious insufficiency of a 150-kiloton charge to pulverize the tallest skyscrapers to the top (as can be seen from the drawings and photos above, the Twin Towers were pulverized only at 80% of their full height, and their tops were intact and heavy), nuclear charges of greater power cannot be used in the nuclear demolition industry for purely legal reasons. The problem is that according to the “Soviet-American Treaty on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions of 1976”, the power of nuclear charges used for non-military purposes is limited to 150 kilotons for each individual explosion and one and a half megatons [1500 kilotons] of aggregate power for group explosions.

Therefore, the nuclear demolition industry had to fit into this legal framework: in the case of the world Trade Center demolition, as many charges as necessary could be used, but each of the charges should not exceed 150 kilotons. Therefore, the WTC nuclear demolition system consisted of three such charges – with an aggregate capacity of 450 kilotons. Those readers who have a hard time imagining how powerful a 150-kiloton charge is, may be reminded that the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was less than 20 kilotons.

«Planes»

Now, since I think the reader has already realized how strong the Twin Towers were, which could not be demolished by conventional explosives, but only by an underground thermonuclear explosion of high power, it seems to me that it will be very interesting to consider another question. Could aluminum passenger planes have pierced through these Twin Towers, as shown to us on TV?

VIDEO:

This is one of the most famous videos showing the ease with which an aluminum plane breaks into a steel tower – without slowing down and without the slightest detail of the plane falling back into the street

The most telling thing about this particular video is that a person who accidentally gets caught in the frame does not react to the sound of an alleged “approaching plane” or to the sound of an [aluminum] “plane” breaking through the [armor] of the South Tower [like a knife through butter]. This person begins to react only to the explosion itself inside the Tower.

By the way, in this video, although not as clearly as in the last video at the end of this article, but we still see the same external aluminium cladding, blown out and flying off to the outside, just ahead of the fireball, and flying off in the direction diametrically opposite the direction of motion struck Tower “plane”.

First of all, to make it easier to understand, let’s briefly return to what I started this article with: since the Twins did not fall due to “kerosene”, but due to high-power thermonuclear explosions, and, moreover, fell in the “wrong sequence”, and, in addition to everything, building 7, which did not get “terrorist planes”, also collapsed for some reason, we can assume that the planes were simply not needed. They were redundant. Since they could not add anything to the actual demolition of the WTC [kerosene for the fire could be imported in barrels]. And since the planes were redundant, we can safely assume that the crime of September 11 could have been committed without planes at all: the Twin Towers and WTC-7 had to go into oblivion, because someone wanted it and their departure into oblivion had nothing to do with “planes”.

Therefore, many thinking researchers on September 11 began to question the claims of the US government that there were any “planes” that allegedly hit the Twin Towers. Many of their works are available on the Internet (in particular, the popular series ” September clues “and” FOXED OUT “available on YouTube), which contain detailed analysis of various videos for September 11, showing”planes”. These works more than satisfactorily prove that “planes” were digital.
The author of these lines, however, prefers a different approach. Instead of criticizing the absurdities of the videos mentioned above (since the very attempt at such an analysis will undoubtedly cause a lot of criticism), the author of these lines prefers to immediately take the bull by the horns: aluminum can not break through steel. Point.

To believe that aluminum Boeing 767s could actually break through the thick double-wall steel perimeters shown in the photos above is the same as to believe that the laws of physics decided for no reason to take a day off on the eleventh day of the month of September, two thousand and one of the year of Christ…

Some might think that because aircraft, even if they are made of aluminum, fly at almost 500 mph [~805 km/h], because of their huge mass and speed, they have enough kinetic energy to punch through the Twin Towers, even though the latter are made of steel.

However, this is an illegal approach. Yes, purely intuitively, it seems that a huge fast-moving plane carries a huge amount of energy, and someone may think that the plane can actually cause damage to the building it crashes into. But what do you think will happen – hypothetically-if the plane is stationary in the air, while some giant takes an exceptionally massive steel tower of the WTC swings it properly and hits it with a swing at 500 mph on such a stationary [aluminum] plane? Will such a blow flatten this very plane? Or do you think that the plane will pass completely through the building – so that not a single detail of this aircraft will remain outside the shell of the Tower (which is twice as thick as the frontal armor of the tank)?

To make it even easier for you, imagine that you are hitting a stationary fly with a fly swatter at a speed of 1 meter per second, then 10 meters per second, and then 100 and 200 meters per second. Can you achieve such a” necessary ” speed at which the fly, instead of flattening out, suddenly passes unharmed through the fly swatter, leaving a hole in the latter corresponding to its silhouette? No? And now imagine all the same, but a stationary fly swatter, which crashes into a flying fly consistently at speeds-1 meter per second, 10 meters per second, and finally – 100 and even 200 meters per second. Can it happen that a fly will break through the fly swatter?

Think about this hypothetical question, because whether it is a moving plane crashing into a stationary Tower, or, conversely, someone crashes a Tower into a stationary plane, the physics of this event remains identical. Therefore ,the” purely intuitive “opinion about the alleged armor-piercing capabilities of a” fast-moving aircraft “is not so “intuitive” in the light of the above example.

The photo above shows the damage caused by peripheral Assembly from the upper floors of the collapsed North tower of the WTC to the outer wall of the neighboring Verizon skyscraper (”Verizon-building”). Please note that the damaged wall of the neighboring skyscraper was not “decorative” at all.

Look at the photo above and imagine that this steel peripheral Assembly would collapse from above onto a Boeing-type plane parked under the building. What happened to this plane? Correctly. It would have flattened. There is no doubt about it. You will lose all doubts about how passenger planes are flattened.

Many of those who at first did not pay due attention to the actual design of the Twin Towers and initially believed that the outer facades of the Towers were made of only window glass (which, of course, would allow aircraft to break in), later learned, to their great dismay, that the Twins were actually made of thick steel columns-which did not differ from the inner steel columns, and were located in a palisade around the perimeters of the Towers. And as soon as it became obvious, something else became obvious. That no plane could ever crash its entire body (including even the tips of its wings and tail, let alone the huge turbines under the wings) through such a steel palisade and disappear completely inside the Towers so that not a single part of the plane would remain outside and fall back into the street.

Those readers who are older in age will probably be able to recall the effect of Japanese kamikazes hitting American battleships, if such an aircraft hit the battleship in the side: the plane simply broke apart (without breaking through the side of the battleship) and fell down. And in the case of an unarmored ship, the maximum that could get inside was the steel engine of the aircraft, but never any other part of it – whether it was the wings, tail, or fuselage.

Note that the armored side of a typical battleship could not be penetrated by an aircraft at all.

Well, now make up your own opinion by looking at these columns of the WTC:

Profiles of the preserved Central columns of the WTC found on “Ground Zero”; their thickness can be easily estimated: they were 2.5 inches [6.35 cm] in thickness. Such thick-walled columns made of steel were used both in the construction of cores and in the construction of the perimeters of Towers. Although, be sure to mention (to avoid confusion and attacks decoy ducks of the American FBI) that in those places, anywhere planes, the profiles of the peripheral steel columns were not “square”, and H-shaped so that one side (the crossbar of the H) was perpendicular to the course “aircraft”, but two walls (stand H) – just as in the case of “square” cross-section of the column was parallel to the flight path of aircraft. The thickness of all the walls of these H-shaped steel columns in the places of explosions was still 2.5 inches (6.35 centimeters) – as in the case of the Central columns at the same height (closer to the ground, the walls of both the peripheral and Central steel columns were thicker

In this official diagram, you can see how these thick steel columns were located in reality – not only in the middle of the Towers, but also along their perimeters.

Are there those who are ready to seriously believe that an aluminum Boeing can actually break through the entire (along with the tail, wings and engines) through the steel columns shown below? Located a meter apart on the facades of the Towers?

It may seem difficult for some to understand that aluminum can’t break through steel. Therefore, just to understand this, here is a small hint – as a basic premise: it is known that artillery armor-piercing shells are made of materials that are stronger than the armor they are designed to penetrate. Usually they are made of tungsten (the Americans, instead of expensive tungsten, also use depleted uranium-238, which is a useless material, although it is quite capable of piercing armor due to its large specific gravity and density, which exceeds the density of steel).+

Armor-piercing projectiles made of aluminum do not exist – this is obvious. Just as there are no aluminum sabers, as well as other piercing and cutting objects made of this metal. The idea that an aluminum tool can supposedly cut steel is somewhat “strange”, if not crazy.

It should also be noted that armor-piercing projectiles fired at armored targets fly towards them at a speed at least three times the speed of sound. Because the fact that they are made of tungsten is not enough to ensure their armor-piercing ability – high speed is also required as a second factor.

The speed of a typical armor-piercing shell fired from an anti – tank gun is at least three times the speed of sound-it is at least 1000 meters per second, and usually much more. While the speed of a passenger Boeing is subsonic-less than 250 meters per second, at best.

It will be useful to take another look at these columns. And imagine that to break through the thick double walls of these columns will be quite a difficult task for an armor-piercing shell fired at point-blank range from a long-barrelled anti-tank gun.

But the most interesting thing is that such an example (the concept of a “double-walled column” that needs to be pierced through) is true for an armor-piercing projectile. Since the task of a tungsten armor-piercing projectile is to break through two walls of armor one after the other, located perpendicular to the direction of flight of this projectile. However, the aluminum plane faces a much more difficult task. In addition to the two walls of armor that are located perpendicular to the course of its flight, the aircraft also needs to break [or “cut” their aluminum wings] two more walls of armor-located parallel to the course of its flight. We somehow forgot that the steel columns of the WTC actually had four walls, not two. And these two walls, which are located parallel to the plane’s flight path, will obviously have a much greater “thickness” than two and a half inches.

The image above shows official diagrams showing the profiles of the two types of peripheral columns of the Twin Towers and the thickness of their walls at altitudes corresponding to the hit of the alleged “planes”, with arrows added by me illustrating the thickness of the pierced/cut steel by the aluminum wing of the aircraft and the armor-piercing shell for comparison.

Now, it seems to me that the reader will be somewhat easier to reflect on the notorious armor-piercing capabilities of aluminum Boeing-767 – after comparing the latter with artillery armor-piercing shells.

We can only wonder why the infamous “Commission of inquiry on September 11” or those “engineers” from the aforementioned “National Institute of Standards and Technology”, do not want to put such an armor-piercing experiment using a decommissioned passenger Boeing-767 and several similar steel columns? Such an experiment would be a great way to convince some doubters that these were indeed “terrorist planes” that destroyed the world Trade Center.

The realization of all this has led many people to believe that if the aluminum type of aircraft could not have been involved in such a feat, then it must have been a digital type of aircraft that managed to break through the very steel double-wall perimeters of the now-deceased Twin Towers…

A detailed view of the damage caused allegedly by a “passenger Boeing-767” to the steel columns of the perimeter of the Northern Tower of the WTC.

Here it is very clear that the outer columns were cut by several absurdly straight lines, moreover, parallel to each other, so that the shape of the “hole punched by the plane” does not even remotely correspond to the silhouette of the plane.

In principle, the explanation for this ridiculous phenomenon is very simple. As you can see in this photo, the perimeters of the Twins did not consist solely of steel columns. They consisted, in addition to them, of an aluminum coating that was attached to the outer sides of the columns. But unlike the steel columns themselves (which were one from the granite base of Manhattan to the tops of the towers), these aluminum linings consisted of much shorter vertical segments.

If you look closely, then in the photo above you will see some horizontal lines parallel to each other, which are repeated at regular intervals. These lines are visible on undamaged parts of the Tower’s facade. These lines are nothing more than the joints of aluminum linings. They show us the actual size of the vertical segments of these very aluminum linings.

The problem with September 11 criminals was that they needed to place shaped charges (designed to simulate holes from aircraft hits – i.e., silhouettes of planes) OUTSIDE of the Towers, rather than inside them. That is, the shaped charges had to be positioned so that their explosive energy was directed inside the buildings – so that the very idea looked plausible. Because if they placed the charges inside the buildings, then the entire section of the Tower, “knocked out by the plane”, would fall not inside the building, but outside. It would have been blown out from the inside and so, instead of those “landing gear” and “airplane engines”, the dupes would have found parts of the facades of the Towers themselves lying on the streets of Manhattan.

Of course, this could not be allowed. It was also impossible to attach charges to the outside of The tower facades – they would be visible. Therefore, the clever organizers of September 11 placed shaped charges between the outer aluminum coating and the actual steel columns. Their explosive energy was directed inward to cut through the steel columns in exactly the right places. And it really worked.

Of course, this could not be allowed. It was also impossible to attach charges to the outside of The tower facades – they would be visible. Therefore, the clever organizers of September 11 placed shaped charges between the outer aluminum coating and the actual steel columns. Their explosive energy was directed inward to cut through the steel columns in exactly the right places. And it really worked.

You can see it for yourself-the internal steel columns (which seem “rusty” in color as opposed to the shiny bluish aluminum linings) were actually cut in the right places so that the hole exactly matches the silhouette of the aircraft. Moreover, the cut ends of these steel columns are slightly bent inward – that is, exactly as it should be logically. But, unfortunately, the organizers of September 11 did not calculate something. Although most of the explosive energy of these shaped charges was directed inward-toward the steel, a small portion of the energy of the explosion was directed in the opposite direction-creating the effect of “recoil”. And it was this recoil that tore out the aluminum cladding. However, instead of carefully cutting the aluminum linings in the right places, the uncontrolled explosion simply tore out solid pieces of aluminum along the length of the vertical segments and threw them out into the streets.

P.S. (this insert was not in the original magazine article in the “Nexus” – and two photos of flying aluminum linings below with explanations were added only for its online version). You can see in detail how these aluminum linings fly out in the most recent video, which is located at the end of this article and aims to demonstrate the absence of turbulence from aircraft turbines – at the very beginning of that video, you can clearly see these numerous aluminum linings that fly out, slightly ahead of the fire cloud from the explosion caused by the alleged “hit of the plane” in the North Tower of the WTC. Here is a freeze-frame from the same video, which shows flying off aluminum pads of the same length:

In addition, on July 16, 2011, I accidentally came across an issue of the English-language magazine “Life” called “Brought to JUSTICE” (“Appeared before JUSTICE”), entirely dedicated to the infamous propaganda “operation” for the alleged “murder” of Osama bin Laden. In addition to several high-quality portraits of Osama himself and several openly propagandistic photos, pages 8-9 of this magazine contained a remarkable high-quality image of the explosion in the South Tower of the WTC, belonging to a certain Naomi Stock. I can’t deny myself the pleasure of putting here a color scan from the pages of this magazine, because this unique picture is much better than all the others shows in detail the same flying aluminum plates of the same length. Some of these overlays can be seen on it in great detail. It is also interesting that the pads here fly off in both directions – both to the right (i.e. according to the direction of the flight course of the “plane”, which allegedly hit the Tower “at an angle”), and to the left – i.e. directly towards the direction of approach of the “plane”. Note that if the first photo (freeze frame from the video) showed the flying pads in the case of the North Tower, then here we are talking about the second steel tower of the WTC – the South – the one that entered like a knife into oil [and without even slowing down] the “second” aluminum plane of the so-called “terrorists”. Here’s a photo

In this photo, by the way, you can also clearly see the same parallel lines on the undamaged parts of the perimeter of the Tower, repeated at the same intervals – they are especially noticeable in the shadow fall zone. These lines show the length of vertical segments aluminum plates – those already flying away from the explosion that you see on the foreground, where they have much larger because it is closer to the camera lens.

Let’s go back to the first photo above, which shows a detailed view of the damage and a hole punched by an alleged aluminum plane in the North Tower of the WTC, showing a strange “stepped” structure and even “slits” punched by the tips of aluminum wings. Or even here is another photo of the same place, even clearer:

Since we have already understood all about the aluminum linings (arranged in segments of the same length) and the solid steel columns under them, we can now clearly understand what really happened. Depending on the vertical position of the shaped charges (located between the aluminum and steel, but directed towards the steel), in some places one vertical length of the segments of the aluminum plates was torn out, in other places-two such lengths, in other parts-three such lengths, etc. That is why the “holes punched by planes” look so idiotic because of their stepped shape instead of the ideal profile of the “plane”, which could have turned out if there were no aluminum linings, and there would only be one steel column:

In addition, this photo clearly shows a woman holding on to one of the protruding columns in desperation. She was later identified as Ms. Edna Cintron. The woman clearly hoped to be saved at this very last moment before the building collapsed. Unfortunately, she was killed when the North Tower fell. However, in these last moments of her life, she demonstrated to the whole world (by the very fact of being in a supposedly ” hot ” spot – where steel was supposed to “melt”) that the American government was blatantly lying to the people.

Of course, many innocent people reading these lines will ask a reasonable question: but what about the witnesses who saw “planes” with their own eyes? The answer is: that the number of witnesses who did not SEE any PLANES is approximately equal to the number of witnesses who allegedly “saw” these “planes”.

Note: On my personal YouTube channel, there are several “seditious” news videos related to the very first minutes of the 9/11 tragedy. These videos show that none of the earliest witnesses saw or heard any planes, and only saw and heard explosions on the upper floors of the Twin Towers. Here are direct links to these videos (all of them in English, of course):

However, the media preferred to include in their reports for the most part only those “witnesses” who allegedly saw “planes”.

It should be realized that the presentation of September 11 was the greatest deception. And if someone managed to create video images of “planes” cutting the steel perimeters of the Twin Towers with the same ease as if the planes were made of steel and the Towers were made of oil, and even managed to feed these videos to all the media, would it not be reasonable to assume that he also took care in advance and that a sufficient number of ” witnesses “declared that they” saw “these” planes ” with their own eyes? Of course, we must assume that this “someone” did just that. All these “witnesses” who saw with their own eyes how aluminum planes pierced the double-walled steel columns of the Twin Towers were just ordinary actors hired by the organizers of September 11, in order to deceive the media and the public.

How numerous aluminum linings of the same length fly out during an explosion in the North Tower of the WTC (and these linings fly off in the direction diametrically opposite to the direction of movement of the “plane”). We were talking about these very external aluminum linings a little higher – when we were analyzing the strange “stepped” structure of holes from “aircraft hits” and a freeze frame was also given there.

The laws of physics did not take a day off on September 11, 2001. However, it seems that the common sense of people who somehow trust the TV decided to take the same day off…

However, the old English dictionaries printed before September 11 that defined the strange nuclear term “ground zero” may serve as the best means to overcome the illusory nature of September 11 and recall common sense from an illegally taken vacation…

Along with old English dictionaries, these photos can be used for the same purpose, showing how and where the molten granite flowed. The photos were taken after the underground cavities left by nuclear explosions under the three buildings of the world Trade Center finally cooled down, and were finally cleared of the remaining radioactive materials

The picture of September 11 that I have drawn in this article is likely to be incomplete without mandatory formal testimony. Probably, the testimony of at least one witness is really needed. There are many testimonies available, but I have chosen the most important and most convincing ones available.

There is a notable article called ” Rudy Tuesday “published by the new York times magazine. This article is notable not so much for the fact that the term ground zero in relation to the Manhattan “Ground Zero” is used in it without any quotation marks and without capital letters – that is, exactly as it would be used in a textbook on civil defense, but thanks to the statement of former new York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

It seems to me that this is such a valuable copy of the September 11 evidence, and such important witness testimony, that I must quote this part of this article in its entirety, without omitting anything.

The most important points that should never escape your attention are highlighted in bold. Be sure to note that immediately after the unprecedented “kerosene-pancake collapse” of the world Trade Center, the mayor of new York city, for no apparent reason, fell into nuclear speculation and began his speech with feeble-minded comments about nuclear reactors and continued it with claims that he KNEW WHAT EXACTLY the ground zero volunteers were standing on top of (which he himself sent to clear ground zero, forgetting to give them full sets of chemical protection):

The picture of September 11 that I have drawn in this article is likely to be incomplete without mandatory formal testimony. Probably, the testimony of at least one witness is really needed. There are many testimonies available, but I have chosen the most important and most convincing ones available.

“…Yes, 9/11. In the dining room, after the salads are served, Delaware Congressman Mike castle takes the microphone. He talks about Rudy and the cleaners. The black Barry [a type of phone with scrolling and a mini keyboard often used by journalists] continues to beep. But then castle started talking about the ground-zero tour that the mayor had arranged for him and other congressmen a few days after the terrorist attacks. The people are beginning to listen. ”He was present at almost all funerals; he was there, which was just in time,” says castle. “I don’t think we can Express enough gratitude for what he did.”And here comes Rudy on the podium. The audience rises. Jackets at cheap tables stand up, and a man who looks like a banker puts his fingers in his mouth and lets out a loud whistle. At first, Giuliani wastes the goodwill with which he is greeted. First he talks nonsense about immigration. He notes that China has built more than 30 nuclear reactors, while we have built just one. “We should probably emulate China.”What? You can already see bubbles of perplexity over the heads of listeners: could this be the same guy we see on TV? The guy who looked so much like the President when our real President went missing? But, finally, Rudy begins to feel at ease…… And here he States this: Iraq led to September 11, which, in turn, led to a sacred picture – construction workers raising the flag over ground zero. “I know what they were standing on top of,” Giuliani says. “They were standing on top of the cauldron. They were standing on top of a 2,000-degree fire that had raged for a hundred days. And they risked their lives raising that flag.”The hall fell silent. Not a single fork clattered on the plate, not a single gold bracelet rattled. “They raised this flag to say, ’You can’t beat us because we are Americans.'” The mayor paused and, as if on purpose, a woman sniffed. He continues. “And we don’t say it arrogantly, or rattling our weapons, we say it spiritually: Our ideas are better than yours.”»

I am not sure, of course, about whether “their ideas” are “better than ours”, because I am not sure that it was at all smart to demolish skyscrapers in the center of the city with thermonuclear explosions, each of which exceeded the power of the Hiroshima bomb by 8 times, but, in principle, I agree with Mr. Giuliani. The poor ground zero volunteers were actually standing on top of the cauldron, and they were actually risking their lives – as you might have guessed, this may be the case when trusting people visit the epicenter of a recent nuclear explosion without wearing personal protective equipment.

From this point on, I think the reader has a more or less complete picture of events – what actually happened on the Manhattan “Ground Zero”, and what exactly the term” ground zero ” meant in English before September 11, and this is now confirmed by the testimony of an important witness.

I think many readers will have a lot of questions. What got into the Pentagon? If the planes didn’t hit the Twin Towers, where did the planes go? What happened to their passengers? What happened to the alleged “hijackers”? What happened to Flight 93? Why was the so-called “doomsday Plane” in the air on September 11? Why couldn’t the North tower be demolished before the South Tower? Why did American officials demolish the Twins and building 7 in the first place? Why were there not so many cases of acute radiation sickness among ground zero employees? Who sent the anthrax letters and why? Why did the monitoring services of other countries – for example, Russia, India, or China-choose not to “notice” that the US government demolished the world Trade Center with three thermonuclear 150-kiloton explosions and this action has nothing to do with either Afghanistan or Iraq? Why did the IAEA choose to remain silent? And, most importantly, who organized September 11 and why?

As you can probably guess, September 11 was such a complex operation, and its various aspects are so intertwined, that it is simply impossible to describe the whole thing “in brief”, paying a little attention to each of the aspects. I did not have the slightest chance to fit a more or less lucid explanation of the entire September 11 scenario into such a small volume as this article offers.

In September 2009, I created a video presentation that runs for more than four hours and explains all the events of September 11 as a whole, and makes it very clear. This video presentation can be found on the Internet by searching for the keywords “Dimitri Khalezov video”. In addition, I have written a book that is more than 500 pages in A4 format. I explain all this just to make it clear that it is really impossible to explain in a clear manner everything that happened on September 11 in such a small article. It is likely that explaining the technical details of the missile attack on the Pentagon and all the circumstances of this attack will require about the same length of the article. However, I hope that this story can be continued in the pages of this magazine.

And of all the potential questions listed above, I will answer only the most recent: September 11 was organized by those who wanted to plunge the United States, along with other countries, into an absurd war against Afghanistan and Iraq. And those who wanted to deprive the citizens of all these States of their last remaining civil liberties and human rights. It should be remembered that neither al-Qaeda nor any other Muslim organization could afford to feed falsified videos of  “planes” to the American media, and even hire false witnesses who “saw” how aluminum planes pierce through steel, and simultaneously demolish the world Trade Center with three 150-kiloton thermonuclear explosions, each of which was 8 times more powerful than the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

AFTERWORD

The diagram you see below was not in the original article published in nexus magazine. Still, I can’t deny myself the pleasure of putting this stupid diagram here for the last time. There is nothing particularly “secret” in it – it is publicly available on the Internet, because it was used by the authors of the article about nuclear tests in Wikipedia.

What you see below is the most common diagram of the early 70s-i.e., the time when nuclear explosions were not yet declared so-called “evil” and it was considered quite acceptable to use them for both military and industrial purposes.

Here you can see (if you look clockwise): typical air nuclear explosion (1), high-altitude nuclear explosion in the stratosphere (3), an underwater nuclear explosion (4)… and an underground nuclear explosion (2). The uniqueness of this chart is that in the 70s the system of nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was a secret as of now and therefore, in the case of (2) underground nuclear explosion depicted sending some waves in the surrounding rock, and directly above the epicenter on the surface (aka “ground zero”) is shown, Oh, the horror, the skyscraper.

Author: Dmitry Alekseevich Khalezov, former citizen of the USSR, former career officer of the so-called “military unit 46179”, also known as “Special Control Service of the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR”. The Special Control service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later “nuclear”) intelligence service , is a secret military unit designed to detect nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various opponents of the former USSR, as well as to monitor compliance with various international treaties in the field of nuclear tests and nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. After the events of September 11, Khalezov conducted an extensive 9/11 study and proved that the Twin Towers of the world Trade Center, as well as its building #7, were demolished by three underground thermonuclear explosions – which, in fact, earned the name “ground zero” for the WTC demolition site. Moreover, he testifies that he knew about the existence of the so-called “nuclear emergency demolition system” of the Twin Towers long ago – back in the 80’s, i.e., when he was a soldier of the Soviet Special Control Service.