TO HOME PAGE

Ground Zero – Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center .

An improved English version of the scandalous article from the NEXUS German magazine.

“…If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

- Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

“…society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is “blackwhite”. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as “doublethink”. The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary…”.

- George Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

“…We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty…”

- Remarks by President G. W. Bush to the United Nations General Assembly U.N. Headquarters, New York, New York, November 10, 2001 9:38 A.M. EST

-

Yes. Agree. Let us do it, Mr. Bush. Let us stop tolerating those outrageous conspiracy theories right away…

Let’s begin with the most outrageous of all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories – with the one that states that aviation fuel (“kerosene”) could instantly “melt” huge amounts of structural steel into fluffy microscopic dust and that the location where such a spectacular feat occurred could possibly be known as “ground zero”…

11. September: Die dritte Wahrheit

September 11 - The Third Truth.

(English version with additional videos and photos)

Originally published in German by NEXUS magazine, October-November 2010:

http://www.nexus-magazin.de/ausgaben/nexus-magazin-31-oktober-november-2010

pages 2, 32-49;

This English translation of the article is published with the kind permission of the NEXUS’ editors and that of the author – Dimitri A. Khalezov.

Copyright notice:

Anyone is permitted to freely re-publish this article in any language, except in German, providing that no meaning of the article is modified in any way, and providing that the original source of the information, the author’s name, and the NEXUS magazine are duly mentioned, along with all additional links at the end of the article. Re-publishing in German is permitted on the same terms, but only beginning from December, 2010.

The third truth about September 11

The official story of September 11th is a bag of lies and this seems to be a proven fact within communities outside the mainstream. What really did happen? A new series of revelations by a former member of Soviet nuclear intelligence has shocked even those who believed they had a clear view behind the curtain.

Dimitri Khalezov

How exactly did the WTC buildings collapse? The analytical work of an expert on nuclear explosions leads us to a shocking conclusion.

When ordinary people saw how two planes struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and how the Twin Towers then collapsed into clouds of dust during the 9/11 events, they were too shocked by the incidents to subject the events to any level of scrutiny. Since then, the odd notion has been embedded into people’s minds: that hollow aluminum planes could supposedly penetrate thick steel buildings in their entirety and that aviation fuel (kerosene) could supposedly “melt” these steel buildings into fluffy microscopic dust…

Sooner or later, these ridiculous notions need to be discarded. The Twin Towers ’ collapses had absolutely nothing to do with neither planes nor the fires which resulted as a result of the “crashes”. This is an obvious fact that occupies the minds of millions of Americans who are unhappy with the official interpretation of the World Trade Center ’s destruction over the course of at least the last 6 years. After the initial shock caused by the 9/11 events had subsided, many people began to realize there were simply too many inconsistencies in the official version.

First off, what caught their attention was that the order in which the Twin Towers collapsed did not correspond to the order in which they were struck by planes. The South Tower , which was hit second, collapsed first, and the North Tower , which was hit first, collapsed second. This meant that it took the “fires” 1 hour and 42 minutes to “collapse” the first Tower and only 56 minutes to “collapse” the second Tower. Considering that the fires in both Towers were caused by approximately the same quantities of kerosene and considering that the Towers were Twins (i.e. they were absolutely identical in their strength), this became the first clear indication that their collapses had nothing to do with fire alone. The next realization came after 9/11 researchers began to consider that World Trade Center building #7 (an enormously strong modern steel-frame 47-story high skyscraper) had also collapsed in a similar manner later on that afternoon on that very same day, but without having been hit by a plane. If the collapse of the Twin Towers was to be officially blamed on kerosene carried by “planes”, then the collapse of WTC-7 was unexplainable to such an extent that the official Report of the 9/11 Commission preferred not to mention the collapse of WTC-7 at all – as if the collapse of a 47-story high modern skyscraper was not worthy of a single mention. Comparison of these three events and a lot of irregularities surrounding their collapses brought the first 9/11 researchers to the realization that they were being lied to by the authorities and that the destruction of the World Trade Center had nothing to do with kerosene or any “planes” because no planes were needed in the first place. The mere collapse of WTC-7 later on that same afternoon on September 11, 2001 proved that no actual terrorist planes were required in the first place and that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings would have occurred regardless– irrespective of any “planes”. Someone simply needed the World Trade Center buildings to collapse and that is why they collapsed. From this point on, the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” had begun.

People then began to accuse the US Government of having intentionally demolished the World Trade Center in an industrial process known as a “controlled demolition”. More and more people in America started to accuse their own government of having been the main culprit behind the 9/11 attacks and eventually more than 65% of the US population expressed their disbelief in the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks and of the World Trade Center ’s collapse. In fact, anybody who has watched contemporary 9/11 coverage closely enough can remember the following screenshots where a “third explosion” was mentioned:

Video - YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oZ1h8mYwbw

VIDEO 1:

Here it is – the seditious video footage by CNN where lines of text were shown that insisted it was a certain “third explosion” that first “shattered” and then – “collapsed” the South Tower of the World Trade Center . The North Tower (the one with an antenna) had not yet collapsed at that moment. It would fall later on – from a “fourth explosion”, but CNN by that time would receive a severe reprimand from the so-called “good guys” and would never again dare mention such seditious words as “explosions”. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center would be declared as “destroyed by kerosene”, while WTC building 7 (which was not hit by any plane from alleged “terrorists”) – “destroyed by diesel oil” (since the storing of diesel oil was indeed kept in WTC-7 for emergency power generators).

And, understandably enough, most people who disagree with the official “kerosene” theory accuse the US Government of having intentionally demolished the World Trade Center . However, they don’t actually have much understanding of demolition processes in general and more specifically of the World Trade Center ’s actual construction. That is why quite a few “conspiracy theories” have emerged that range from claims that the WTC was supposedly “wired with explosives” to claims that it was supposedly demolished by so-called “nano-thermite” (a mystic substance never heard of until now) which they claim was supposedly “used as a coating” on each and every steel piece of the Twin Towers’ bearing structures. There are even more bizarre conspiracy theories that pin the collapse of the Twin Towers ’ on supposed “high-tech weapons” – such as laser beams originating from space for example. Of course, none of these conspiracy theorists actually ever agree with one another and they focus their time not only on accusing the US Government of having been the main culprit behind 9/11, but they also accuse each other of “muddying the waters of the truth”. The problem with all these conspiracy theorists in general is that they do not really know what happened to the World Trade Center and, more importantly, they don’t know why it happened.

The author of this article will try to present his readers with something different. Instead of presenting just another “conspiracy theory”, he will instead present his expert opinion and eyewitness testimony along with his experience and knowledge from his former position in the Soviet Army. As a result of this approach, he hopes the reader will receive a far better explanation in regards to the demolition of the WTC that which he or she could never have received on any Internet forum dealing specifically with the WTC conspiracy.

Ground Zero and ground zero.

To begin with, I would like to remind everyone that the location of the former World Trade Center in New York is called “Ground Zero” in English. Many people don’t seem to realize what the term “ground zero” actually means and how important this is from an evidentiary point of view. Most of us just accepted “Ground Zero” as some sort of proper noun – as if it were the name of a city or the name of a ship. However, not many people today realize that the rather peculiar name “ground zero” was assigned to the location of the former WTC much too prematurely for it to have been an actual “Proper Noun” when referring to the WTC. Almost immediately after the collapse of the Twin Towers (and just a few hours before the collapse of the WTC-7) – i.e. by noon on September 11, 2001, almost every government official and even some news reporters had already begun referring to the location as “ground zero”. All news releases printed the next day even referred to the location of the former WTC as “ground zero” and this particular term continued to be spelled out in lower-case letters. The usage of the term “ground zero” in relation to the former WTC area continued even throughout September 12, 2001 and several news agencies even continued using the term “ground zero” in lower-case letters throughout September 13, 2001. Only then, as if someone had caught on, did this particular term immediately become elevated in status to “Ground Zero” with Capital Letters. As such, it, at last, became a Proper Noun. But what about the term “ground zero” in lower case letters – i.e. not in the status of a Proper Noun yet?

Why would officials have referred to the WTC almost immediately after its collapse by this particularly peculiar term? Was it a mistake caused by all the confusion going on in the midst of the unprecedented 9/11 events? I would answer “yes”. It was definitely a mistake that occurred during the overall confusion in that this particular term slipped out to the public. It was, however, not a mistake in the sense that the wrong term was being used to refer to the WTC as “ground zero” – simply because it was just too early at the moment to have chosen a Proper Name for the site where the WTC had just been destroyed. In fact, Civil Defense specialists were absolutely correct when they designated the area as “ground zero”. There was absolutely no mistake in making such a designation from a Civil Defense specialist’s perspective. It was definitely a “ground zero” in the sense which they understood it to be. It was, however, absolutely a mistake in the sense that the particular term “ground zero” had inadvertently been leaked to journalists and through them…to the general public. After that, it was simply too late to quash the Civil Defense designation of “ground zero” and desperate US officials had no choice but to “Capitalize” the seditious term by converting its correct Civil Defense’s designation of “ground zero” to its very own Proper Noun: “Ground Zero”.

To begin with, I would like to quote a statement concerning a hero from 9/11 – Detective John Walcott, a “Ground Zero” responder, who spent a considerable amount of time at the WTC site cleaning rubble from of the World Trade Center . He had spent enough time there to develop a very interesting disease: acute myelogenous leukemia in its terminal form. Just a mere two paragraphs taken out of a frightening article entitled “Death by Dust” managed to contain and reveal practically all the “unexplainable” things many had questions about concerning “Ground Zero”. The excerpts below will provide the reader with some key basic points which will allow you to better understand the main point of this article – that of dust and radiation:

“…Because Walcott was a detective, he ended up spending his five-month stint not just at Ground Zero, but also at Fresh Kills. As much as he choked on the Lower Manhattan air, he dreaded the Staten Island landfill. Walcott knew everything in the towers had fallen - desks, lights, and computers. But apart from the occasional steel beam, the detritus that he sifted through there consisted of tiny grains of dust - no furniture pieces, no light fixtures, not even a computer mouse.

At times, the detectives would take shelter in wooden sheds, in an attempt to get away from what Walcott likes to call "all that freaking bad air." One day, he was sitting in the shed with his colleagues, eating candy bars and drinking sodas, when some FBI agents entered. They were dressed in full haz-mat suits, complete with head masks, which they had sealed shut with duct tape to ward off the fumes. As Walcott took in the scene, contrasting the well-protected FBI agents with the New York cops wearing respirator masks, one thought entered his mind: What is wrong with this picture?...”

Yes, Mr. Walcott, unfortunately something was wrong. Something was very badly wrong with that picture…

Those FBI agents, who had no shame in showing up in full haz-mat suits, moreover sealed shut with duct tape, knew the truth, as they stood in front of the “commoners”. That is why today these guys don’t suffer from leukemia or from any other kinds of terminal cancer. The FBI agents will apparently live long and fulfilling lives, despite having briefly visited “Ground Zero”…

If you were to only open up a contemporary dictionary and look up the actual meaning of this peculiar term, you wouldn’t need to ask that question; you would immediately understand what was wrong with “Ground Zero”:

Above – all possible meanings of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.

It should be noted that Mr. John Walcott eventually managed to survive, unlike many of his colleagues who used to work at “Ground Zero” and who were not as lucky as him. On December 17, 2007, it was briefly mentioned in an Internet news article that John Walcott had at last undergone a truly advanced (and extremely painful) operation known as a bone marrow transplantation. From now on, he could continue to live, but only on special immuno-depressant drugs which prevent transplant rejection; and without ever leaving his home due to the fact his entire immune system no longer exists and any kind of infection can easily prove fatal.

For anyone who doesn’t know what “marrow transplantation” is, I am obliged to explain. A marrow transplantation is required in patients who have incurred heavy doses of either penetrating or residual ionizing radiation (or both) and whose own bone marrow (which is responsible for blood regeneration) has been completely killed off by heavy doses of radiation.

This is a particularly unique property of radiation – it strikes bone marrow cells more heavily than it does other cells in the human body. That is why the majority of victims of radiation suffer from leukemia. And, the heavier the dose of radiation, the more bone marrow is killed off, thus, the worse the case of leukemia the patient suffers from. John Walcott apparently suffered from the most severe possible condition – before obtaining his bone marrow transplantation, he was living exclusively on donors’ blood because his own blood was not regenerating at all.

In addition to killing off or severely damaging bone marrow, ionizing radiation, especially when someone inhales or ingests radioactive dust or radioactive vapor, causes various kinds of cancers that can affect virtually any part of the human body and even several parts all at once.

It is, however, not too difficult for dishonest doctors and health officials to provide plausible “explanations” as to what may have caused these cancers. They can just claim it was due to “asbestos”, “toxic fumes”, “toxic dust particles”, etc. However, when it comes to bone marrow damage, these deceivers are caught right in their tracks because bone marrow damage can only be caused by ionizing radiation .

That is precisely why the FBI agents showed up in full “haz-mat” suits and even had their head masks sealed shut with duct tape to “ward off fumes” while visiting “Ground Zero”. They didn’t want to suffer from leukemia nor from any other cancer, so they went as far as to seal their head masks shut with duct tape, not just to “ward off the fumes”, as John Walcott had believed, but because they needed to ward off airborne radioactive dust, and more specifically, radioactive vapor, which must not be inhaled or ingested at all costs.

Volunteers at “ground zero” amidst the Twin Towers ’ debris and amidst streams of radioactive vapor ascending from under the debris – the photo was taken approximately five weeks after the events.

Indeed, I can assume some readers may simply be just too shocked by this particular revelation and may not tend to believe me – thinking that I am merely speculating on uncertainties. However, the abovementioned story regarding John Walcott and those FBI agents wearing haz-mat suits at “ground zero” had nothing to do with me personally – it exists as a matter of fact independently of the humble author of this article. Also independent of the author of this article stands the actual legal definition of “ground zero” which before 9/11 used to be as follows:

“ground’ ze’ro” – the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.

Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2).

“ground zero” = point on the ground directly under the explosion of a nuclear weapon.

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

“ground ze-ro” /,.’../ n [U] the place where a NUCLEAR bomb explodes, where the most severe damage happens

Longman Advanced American Dictionary (new, first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).

“ground zero” noun 1 [C usually singular] the exact place where a nuclear bomb explodes: The blast was felt as far as 30 miles from ground zero. 2 [U] the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City, which was destroyed in an attack on September 11, 2001.

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

The above were complete, unabridged definitions of “ground zero”. It was the only definable and proper definition of its meaning. If you don’t believe your eyes and prefer to run to the nearest book store and buy an English dictionary, don’t be in too much of a hurry.

When you arrive at the shop you will be surprised even further because as of now it is no longer possible to even find a dictionary that contains the original, unedited definition of the term. All dictionaries printed before 9/11, like those which I mention above, containing the original correct meaning of “ground zero”, have been removed from book-shelves and replaced with newer ones. Unfortunately, the very English language itself was one of the first victims of the 9/11 perpetration…

The dictionaries’ photos below were not present in the original version of this article in NEXUS magazine; however, I decided to add them to this Internet-version, since they are very illustrative.

These photos compare similar dictionaries produced by the very same publishers that had previously printed them - and after the name “ground zero” was inadvertently awarded to the location of the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center :

Above – “Encarta” dictionary by the Microsoft – the 1999 and the 2001 editions.

Above – The Chambers Dictionary – the 1998 (reprinted in 2001) and the 2003 editions.

Above – The Macquarie Dictionary (of the Australian English) – the 2001 and the 2005 editions.

Above – The Macmillan Dictionary of 1987 and the Macmillan Essential Dictionary of Learners of English of 2003 (the second dictionary of 2003 is much smaller in grade and contains lesser words and definitions than the first one – of 1987; nonetheless, “ground zero” has a much “broader” definition in the second one dictionary).

Above – Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of 1983 and the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the infamous “September 11, 2001 edition” (the ISBN for the second dictionary - 0-375-42566-7 – was indeed reserved on the very day – the eleventh day of September, 2001 – and thus the date of 9/11 became is the official date of the publication of that infamous dictionary…)

Above – Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language of 1994 edition and Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, New Deluxe Edition of 2001 (the Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language is a carbon-copy of the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary – that is why the two sets of photos above look identical).

Above – the Collins English Dictionary– the 2001 and the 2003 editions.

Above – The New Penguin English Dictionary – the 2000 and the 2003 editions.

Above – Longman Advanced American Dictionary – the 2000 and the 2007 editions.

Above – The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary – the 1995 and the 2006 editions.

Above – The American Heritage Desk Dictionary of 2001 and 2013 editions.

Above – Merriam-Webster’s biggest dictionary - Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged of 1986 and 2002 editions.

Above – Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of 1999 and Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary of 2010 (the first dictionary has never been re-issued, while the second one was not even published before the 9/11 events, however, these two dictionaries are approximately equal in their status and are equal when it comes to the number of pages and numbers of words and definitions).

Don’t be surprised that almost every new English dictionary printed after 9/11 has begun to describe “ground zero” as having more than one sense. Now, at least 3-5 new meanings have been ascribed to this particular term, ranging from some supposed “great devastation”, “great disorder” and “busy activities” to some supposed “basic level” and “starting point” definitions. Some preferred another approach: editors of the new Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, for example, defined “ground zero” as a “place where a bomb explodes” without mentioning anything at all that such “bomb” is supposed to be nuclear or thermo-nuclear in nature. In addition to all of this, these days almost every dictionary – whether big or small – has begun to include this (to be exact “these”) definitions.

The term “ground zero”, obviously due to being such a specialized term prior to 9/11, existed only in really big English dictionaries – such as Webster’s Unabridged, full Collins, full American Heritage, and other similar large dictionaries (and even in those it contained only the single correct meaning of the term). It didn’t exist in smaller dictionaries – such as those intended for students and for advanced learners (with the only exception being the Longman Advanced American Dictionary – which is mentioned above). For example, “ground zero” was absent in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries in their 4th, 5th and 6th Editions published before September 11, 2001. Even Oxford ’s 4th special “Encyclopedic” version (which was about 50% larger compared to the regular one) did not contain any reference to the term “ground zero”. Only Oxford ’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 7th Edition first published in 2005 began describing this term at last.

Post-9/11 editions of the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners and the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, all kinds of new Merriam-Webster’s Dictionaries, the majority of new American Heritage Dictionaries, the new Collins English, the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary and many other new dictionaries and encyclopedias after the September 11 affair have all begun to include “ground zero” and to define it in such a sense that it might supposedly have more than one meaning, all trying their best to divert attention away from the former nuclear (and only nuclear) nature of this term. By the way, editors of the last mentioned above Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary should be praised for not having deceived their readers: they were brave enough not to include any misleading definitions of the term “ground zero” in their post-9/11 dictionary, which is in sharp contrast to every other dictionary that was edited at the behest of the 9/11 cover-up. It was reported there had even been attempts to prove that the WTC was already referred to as “ground zero” even before September 11, 2001. All these post-9/11 linguistic efforts in attempting to obscure the term “ground zero” are understandable indeed. That obviously revealing name, rashly awarded by Civil Defense specialists to the demolition grounds of the former New York World Trade Center, was obviously too revealing to just leave this particular term in future editions of dictionaries with only its former sense alone…

Nuclear demolition of the WTC.

The author of this article used to be a commissioned officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, otherwise known as the "Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR ". The 12th Chief Directorate itself was an organization responsible in the Soviet Union for the safe-keeping, the production control, the technical maintenance etc. of the entire nuclear arsenal of the state. The Special Control Service was responsible for detecting nuclear explosions and was responsible for the observance of all international treaties related to nuclear testing. It is especially important to note the existence of the so-called “Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty” of 1976 between the USSR and the United States of America . In accordance with this Treaty, all parties were obliged to inform one another about all nuclear explosions intended for non-military purposes.

During my military service in the abovementioned organization at the end of the ‘80s, it came to my knowledge that there was a so-called “emergency nuclear demolition schema” built into the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York . The actual nuclear demolition schema was based on huge thermo-nuclear charges (about 150 kilotons in TNT yield) which were positioned about 50 meters below the lowest underground foundations of each of the Towers. It was strange to me by then and, to be honest; it was hard to believe that US authorities would be crazy enough to demolish buildings in the middle of a populated city using underground nuclear explosions.

However, as I understood it correctly, nobody had ever actually planned to demolish the World Trade Center in such a way. It was merely a means to get around the bureaucracy: such a nuclear demolition schema had to be built into the Twin Towers not to get them demolished, but to get permission to build them in the first place. The problem was that the then building code of New York (as well as that of Chicago) didn’t allow the Department of Buildings to issue permits to build a skyscraper unless its constructor could provide a satisfactory means by which he could demolish the building either in future, or in the case of emergency. Since the late ‘60s (when the Twin Towers were first proposed) this type of steel-framed buildings was a totally new concept and nobody knew how to deal with them in the sense of demolition. Given that traditional (“conventional”) controlled demolition methods were applicable purely to older-style buildings, they had to come up with something new for the incredibly strong steel Twin Towers that would convince the Department of Buildings to issue permission for their actual construction. And the solution was indeed created: nuclear demolition.

A brief history of the atomic and nuclear demolition concept.

The initial idea of using nuclear devices to demolish various constructions was born almost immediately after the emergence of actual nuclear weapons in the beginning of the 50s. At first, nuclear munitions were not called "nuclear", but "atomic", so the concept of demolition using these munitions was accordingly called "atomic demolition". These terms managed to survive, and despite having renamed “atomic weapons” to "nuclear weapons”, the term "atomic demolition" is still used to this day with respect to special engineering devices – such as SADM and MADM. The first term stands for "Special Atomic Demolition Munitions", the second tern stands for "Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions", while many people mistakenly believe that SADM means "Small Atomic Demolition Munitions", rather than "Special".

In fact, it’s not a mistake to call them "small" instead of "special" because SADM are indeed "small" - their nuclear explosive yields usually don’t exceed 1 kiloton in TNT equivalent. Considering that all modern SADM have variable yields which can be set to as low as 0.1 kiloton, and sometimes even set to as low as 0.01 kiloton (equivalents to 100 and 10 metric tons of TNT respectively), they deserve to be called "small" munitions. Other popular names for these Small Atomic Demolition Munitions are "mini-nuke" and "suitcase nuke", though the second one is probably not logically correct. In reality, most SADM resemble big pots weighing between 50 to 70 kilograms that can be carried as back-packs - so it is very unlikely that they would fit into a suitcase. However, there are also modern "mini-nukes" which are made of Plutonium-239 rather than Uranium-235, and due to the much lower critical mass of Plutonium, their size can be significantly decreased - some of the newer Plutonium-based "mini-nukes" can indeed fit into even a case as small as a handbag. Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions (MADM) are bigger in both a) their size and b) their TNT yield. They can range up to 15 kilotons in TNT yield, weigh up to 200 kg and be as big as any large regular gas-cylinder you’d find in your home.

Either of the abovementioned atomic demolition munitions can be successfully used in demolishing large objects which otherwise could not be demolished by any reasonable amount of conventional explosives - especially in times of emergency, when there is neither the time nor the means to plan for their "regular" demolition using conventional means. For example, they can demolish bridges, dams, tunnels, reinforced underground structures, large reinforced buildings, etc., however, the efficiency factor of using such nuclear demolitions as SADM or MADM isn’t quite that high. As it is publicly known, the main goal of the controlled demolition of buildings through implosion is not to actually eliminate the buildings by blowing them up and ejecting their debris everywhere, but to bring them down neatly while at the same time minimizing damage to surrounding buildings.

For precisely this reason, engineers who prepare controlled demolitions have to first figure out the exact points within a building’s bearing structure to cut and attach charges of conventional explosives to those spots - in order to break the bearing structures.

In almost every case, there is more than one spot to attach explosives since it is unlikely that any structure would have a single supporting girder or a single supporting column to cut; at best there would be at least several, if not many. In the case of atomic demolition, however, using the abovementioned atomic demolition munitions is quite different.

People who work in the planning of the usage of atomic munitions for emergency purposes require neither the time nor the training to make the precise calculations which are needed in conventional controlled demolition. What these people would have at the very most is a basic knowledge of field-engineering and a basic understanding of nuclear demolitions. Thus, atomic demolition munitions are not used to “neatly” bring down a structure, but rather as a means to bring down a structure by any means necessary and at any cost no matter what the toll is . This is why the explosive yield of the atomic munitions used to demolish such a structure in the case of emergency would be excessive. This is because the majority of the explosive energy from atomic munitions would be spent in vain. So, the majority of energy released by the nuclear explosion of an atomic demolition device would be spent on the well-known factors of an atomic blast: thermal radiation, air-blast wave, ionizing radiation, electro-magnetic pulse – all of which have nothing to do with the actual demolition task at hand and would not contribute much to the end goal of neatly demolishing the building. The destructive factors of an atomic explosion would greatly damage the surroundings - and this damage itself is rather extreme and definitely comes at a much higher toll than the actual cost of a demolition itself.

It is to be said then that nuclear demolition in the abovementioned sense would have a rather poor performance index when compared to carrying out a precisely-calculated conventional controlled demolition. This is due to the fact that the latter directs its almost entire explosive energy on breaking the bearing structures, rather than on creating an air-blast wave and thermal radiation.

Regardless, the use of an atomic demolition device alone is just far too costly. At the bare minimum, a Uranium-based "mini-nuke" costs a few million US dollars if not more and a Plutonium-based one costs much more than that. Apparently, a thousand tons of TNT would cost cheaper than 1 kiloton of atomic munitions. However, it is possible to demolish most buildings using 1000 tons of TNT while it is possible to demolish only a single building using a "mini-nuke" (but while damaging many other buildings in the surrounding area).

Considering all of this, it is to be concluded that it is not a viable option whatsoever to use atomic demolition munitions, whether small or medium, for the demolition of civil infrastructure in times of peace, especially when we have sufficient time on our hands to prepare for their demolition using professional conventional controlled demolition methods. And, in any case, a conventional controlled demolition is much cheaper than a nuclear demolition. Mini-nukes can only be used for a demolition job in the case of a real emergency.

How then did it come to be that this old atomic demolition concept, despite being known to be too costly and having such a poor performance index when compared to conventional controlled demolition by implosion, came to be eventually revived and even implemented in the World Trade Center nuclear demolition schema?

It just so happens to be because a newer generation of buildings came into existence at the end of 60’s, namely steel-framed buildings.

Despite the common misconception, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever been demolished by implosion anywhere in the world prior to the WTC towers. This is primarily due to the fact that most skyscrapers are newer buildings and the need to demolish them has yet to come. Even the tallest building ever demolished by implosion was only 47-strories high - it was the Singer Building in New York City which was built in 1908 and demolished in 1968 due to it being so obsolete. This building was much weaker in structure when compared to the incredibly strong hollow-tube type steel-frame skyscrapers which are built today. So, despite this common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building using any conventional controlled demolition (implosion) schema.

In older times, when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-panelled, their bearing structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders. Sometimes these concrete bearing structures were reinforced by the insertion of metal bars and even sometimes just by concrete alone. In any case, it was always possible to calculate the right amount of conventional explosives that was needed to attach to these bearing structures and in the correct spots (or to be placed into holes drilled into the bearing structures) in order to break them all at once and cause the building to collapse into its own footprint. However, with modern steel-framed buildings this is simply no longer possible. Examples of modern steel-framed buildings include the former Twin Towers of the World Trade Center , World Trade Center building # 7 and the Sears Tower in Chicago .



Here is an example of the steel structure of the WTC Twin Towers :



There was no "bearing structure" in the older sense of the meaning - the entire Tower was essentially a "bearing structure" in of itself.

The steel-frame of the WTC consisted of exceptionally thick double-walled steel perimeter columns and core columns.

This co-called "tube-frame design" was a totally new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior in order to support the loads like it had traditionally been implemented in older structures.

The Twin Towers featured load-bearing steel perimeter columns (square in cross-section) which were positioned one meter apart from each other on the Towers' facades which formed an exceptionally rigid structure that in turn supported virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and even shared the gravity load with the core columns.

The perimeter structure contained 59 of such columns per side. The core structure of the Tower consisted of 47 rectangular steel columns that ran from the bedrock all the way up to the tops of the Towers.

In the following picture, you can see steel perimeter and core column remnants that remained at “Ground Zero”:

Here is one more picture (from the NIST report) showing the Twin Tower perimeter columns during their construction:

Perimeter columns are being inspected at “ground zero”.

These steel columns were incredibly thick - each wall measuring 2.5 inches (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of each column was 5 inches (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare to: imagine the front armor of the best tank from the WWII period - the T-34 – whose steel was only 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) thick and was just single-walled. The T-34 tank and its armor are in the pictures below:

Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shells available at the time capable of penetrating such front armor.

Of course, no explosives whatsoever could ever tear through the front armor of a tank (except for hollow-charge shells which would still not even be able to tear through the armor completely, but would merely just burn a narrow hole through the armor plate).

Considering that the Twin Towers' steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost three times as thick as the front armor of a T-34 tank, it would not be possible to come up with a solution to break these columns simultaneously and do so in many spots simultaneously in order to achieve the "implosion" effect – which is, of course, the basic goal of controlled demolition.

It was, of course, technically possible to break some of these columns in certain spots, using exceptionally huge amounts of hollow-charges attached to each individual column, but even such an incredible amount of explosives wouldn’t be enough to achieve the desired "implosion effect". The Towers were simply too high and too rigid - their steel cores would have been simultaneously broken in too many spots on every floor, which no one could afford, and even if they could, still, such a solution would not lead to the desired effect - there would not be any guarantee that such a high-rise structure would fall straight down into to its foot print. It would most likely just scatter its debris over the course of a quarter mile given its mere height alone. So, it was impossible to bring the WTC Towers down by any form of traditional controlled demolition.



The same thing could be said about WTC building # 7 and the Sears Tower in Chicago . Both of them were constructed using similarly thick double-walled steel frames which were impossible to break at once due to the same reasons described above.

However, in accordance with US laws governing the construction of skyscrapers, designers had to submit a satisfactory demolition schema before construction would be approved by the Department of Buildings. No one would be allowed to build a skyscraper that could not be demolished in future.

This is the main reason for having a built-in nuclear demolition feature. Ironically, the nuclear demolition schema of a skyscraper is not actually meant to demolish the skyscraper, especially considering that no one has any practical experience in demolishing skyscrapers by such means - it is merely intended to convince the Department of Buildings to give permission to build the skyscraper.

It appears that all designers and proponents of such nuclear demolition schemas sincerely hope their ideas not be put to use during their life-time.

How does this work?

First off, such a modern nuclear demolition has nothing to do with the previously discussed atomic demolition using SADM or MADM as described above. It is an entirely new concept.

During the modern nuclear demolition process, a demolition charge does not produce any atmospheric nuclear explosion - with its trade-mark atomic mushroom cloud, thermal radiation, air-blast wave and electro-magnetic pulse. It explodes quite deep underground - much in the same sense as any nuclear charge explodes during a typical nuclear test. So, it produces neither air-blast wave, nor any thermal radiation, nor any penetrating ionizing radiation, nor any electro-magnetic pulse. It causes only relatively minor harm to surroundings by its ensuing radioactive contamination, which, nonetheless, is considered to be a negligible factor by the designers of such projects.



What is the basic difference then between an atmospheric and an underground nuclear explosion?

The basic difference is as follows. During the initial stage of a nuclear (as well as a thermo-nuclear) explosion, its entire explosive energy is being released in the form of "primary radiation" which in its main part (almost 99%) falls within an X-ray spectrum (and the remaining portion is represented by a gamma-ray spectrum which causes radiation injuries and a visible spectrum which produces a visible flash). So, the almost entire explosive energy represented by X-rays is spent on heating the surrounding air within a few hundred feet around the explosion’s hypocenter.

This occurs because X-rays can’t travel very far as they are consumed by the surrounding air. The heating of the relatively small area around the hypocenter of a nuclear explosion results in the appearance of "nuclear fireballs" which is physically nothing more than extremely overheated air.

These nuclear fireballs are responsible for the two main destructive factors of an atmospheric nuclear explosion –

1) thermal radiation

and

2) an air-blast wave since both factors result exclusively from the high temperatures of air around the nuclear explosion.

When it comes to an underground nuclear explosion, the picture is entirely different.

There is no air around the tiny "zero-box" which the nuclear charge is placed into, so the entire amount of energy instantly released by the nuclear explosion in the form of X-rays is spent on heating the surrounding rock instead.

It results in the overheating, melting and then vaporizing of the rock. The disappearance of the vaporized rock results in the creation of an underground cavity whose size depends directly on the explosive yield of nuclear munitions used.

You can get the idea on how much rock would disappear during an underground nuclear explosion based on the table below - whereby the quantities of vaporized and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on a "per kiloton of yield" basis:







Just as an example: the detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in granite rock would result in the creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter - such as the one shown in this picture:

All skyscrapers have their lowest foundations approximately 20-30 meters beneath the surface of the Earth. So therefore it is easy to calculate the position under the skyscraper where you would need to position the "zero-box”. This is the precise location from where it will expand its upper cavity which is in the direction of the lowest subbasement of the building.







For example, in the case of the Twin Towers , their lowest underground foundation was 27 meters beneath surface. A 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charge was positioned at a depth of 77 meters below surface (or 50 meters below the underground foundation). A thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely overheated cavity whose upper sphere would expand to the lowest underground foundations of the tower it intended to demolish. However, it would still be short of reaching the surface of the Earth by 27 meters - so the surrounding structures would not to be affected by the destructive factors of the underground nuclear explosion, with the possible exception of radioactive contamination. The Tower being demolished then loses its foundations completely and is sucked into the overheated cavity whose internal temperatures are hot enough to melt the entire Tower. The nuclear demolition schema of WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the exact same way.

However, there is one additional factor that needs to be taken into consideration during the calculation of the nuclear demolition of any skyscraper. This is the actual vaporized granite rock inside the cavity. How is all that former granite rock, which now exists in a gaseous state, supposed to escape from the cavity? In fact, a picture of the physical events after an underground nuclear explosion is quite interesting. Let's consider it.

Typical physical processes during an ideally deep underground nuclear explosion.







1) Nuclear explosion starts to heat the rock around its hypocenter.

2) Rock is vaporized. As a result of the disappearance of the vaporized rock, a “primary cavity” appears and is filled with the former rock which now exists in gaseous form. The extremely high pressures from the gases in the cavity now begin to expand the actual primary cavity at the expense of neighboring areas of the still solid rock.

3) The actual cavity reaches its final “secondary” size because of the extremely high pressure from the gases inside of it and as such expands from its original size (shown by the dotted line) to an even bigger size (shown by the firm line). Given that this expansion occurs at the expense of the neighboring areas, these neighboring areas of rock become tightly compressed.

4) Final picture. White: the underground cavity (the secondary size); blue: the “crushed zone” – totally pulverized rock (crushed into complete microscopic dust ~100 micron particle size); green: the “damaged zone” – partly crushed rock.

This pictorial rendition schematically outlines all the important physical processes of an ideally deep (meaning that it occurs sufficiently far from the Earth surface) underground nuclear explosion. So, now it should be clear that the extreme pressures from the vaporized rock inside the cavity takes on at least two important tasks: 1) it expands the actual cavity from its "primary" size to its "secondary" size; and 2) because it does this expansion at the expense of the neighboring areas of the rock, it produces two damaged zones around itself, each representing a different degree of damage.

The zone immediately adjacent to the cavity in nuclear jargon is called the "crushed zone". This zone can be as thick as the diameter of the cavity itself and is filled with a very interesting matter. It is filled with rock that is now completely pulverized. It is reduced into a fine microscopic dust, an approximate particle of which is about 100 microns in size. Moreover, the particular state of material within this "crushed zone" is in a very interesting state – nothing in the world can produce the following phenomenon other than an underground nuclear explosion:

If you were to pick up a stone from this zone, but do so very gently, it might still stick together and resemble a stone by its form and its color. However, it you just squeeze the stone a little bit with your fingers, this "stone" will immediately be crushed into complete microscopic dust which it actually now consists of. The second zone – just outside of and surrounding the "crushed zone" is called the "damaged zone" in professional nuclear jargon. This "damaged zone" is filled with rock crushed to various pieces - from very small (millimeters in size), to some relatively larger fragments. The closer to the border of the "crushed zone" you get, the smaller the debris becomes, and the further away from hypocenter you go - the larger the debris. Finally, outside the "damaged zone’s" border, there would be virtually no damage inflicted to the surrounding rock.

However, the physical processes we discussed above are true in an "ideally deep" underground nuclear blast. When a nuclear charge is not buried deep enough, the picture will be slightly different. The "damaged" and "crushed" zones will not appear as round as in the prior example. They will be rather elliptic – whereby the longer end is directed upward – like the shape of an egg. This happens because the pressure from the gases encounters less resistance in the direction of the Earth’s surface (given that it is so close), and both the "crushed zone" and "damaged zone" will expand upwards as well in the same fashion.

The drawing above is an illustration of the resistance of the surrounding rock when a cavity is located not very deep below the Earth’s surface. Evidently, the resistance of the rock towards the Earth’s surface will be much less than in any other direction. Given that everything goes in the way of least resistance, it is understandable to note that the cavity will expand more towards the Earth’s surface and won’t look so “round”. It will look more like an egg. In other words, it will be ellipsoidal in shape.

When the pressure propagates upwards, the upper boundaries of the "damaged zone" and the "crushed zone" eventually reach the underground foundations of the Tower they are about to demolish, the picture is even more different. This is because the actual materials the Tower is built of differ from the surrounding granite rock in the sense of their resistance. Besides, there is a lot of empty space inside the Tower, while the remaining granite rock in all other directions (to the sides and below the cavity) is solid. So, the expansion of the upper boundaries of the "damaged" and "crushed" zones by the Tower's structure will be the furthest. In the case of the WTC Twin Towers and the Sears Tower, the "damaged zone" could likely reach up to 350-370 meters, while the "crushed zone" which follows immediately, will likely reach up to 290-310 meters. However, in the case of the much shorter WTC-7, its entire length was well within the "crushed zone" - so it was pulverized completely from bottom to top. The ability of a nuclear demolition to pulverize steel and concrete alike is one of its unique features.

The picture above shows an example of the fine microscopic dust that covered all of Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was "concrete dust". No, it was not. It was dust – but mainly pulverized steel. Despite the common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete at all. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floor slabs at most. It was not used anywhere else. The majority of the WTC Twin Towers was steel, not concrete. So accordingly, the majority of this ultra-fine dust is represented by steel dust. However, it was not only "steel dust" alone - it was also "furniture dust", "wood dust", "paper dust", "carpet dust", "computer parts dust" and even "human dust", given that human beings were left to be pulverized in the Towers the same manner in which the steel, concrete and furniture were.

Some may wonder how WTC-7 collapsed so neatly into its own footprint, and in its entirety, while the Twin Towers came down not only scattering dust, but even larger debris and ejecting them to such far distances. This question is very easy to answer – you just have to look at the distribution of the "crushed" and "damaged" zones within the Twin Towers structures and the answer will become obvious.

The picture above represents the approximate distribution of the damaged zones in the scenario of a nuclear demolition of a skyscraper using a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge positioned 50 meters deeper than the lowest underground foundations of the building. Don't forget that the demolition charges in this particular case were buried not "ideally deep", which is why the formations of the "crushed" and "damaged" zones were not "ideally round" either - they were elliptic, with their sharper ends facing upwards – like an egg – in the way of least resistance. It is easy to understand that the entire length of the WTC-7 fit well into the “crushed zone” alone so there were not any undamaged areas on top of it that might produce the effect of an undamaged top falling down like we saw during the collapse of the North and South Towers.