Monday, June 18, 2007


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: Jun 17, 2007 1:52 PM


very interesting..if you have a Bible, go to the Old Testiment,read the first few chapters of the book of Joshua,the whole story is about bringing down a building. I thought that was funny , so just for your info on how the Joshua story tied into this artcle.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Taylor
Date: Jun 17, 2007 10:32 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
interesting,Thankyou: FREE FALL (Space Beam)

Maybe... we all know that the WTC was built specifically FOR the 911 attacks down the road... right?

9/11 was actuallly planned back in 1939 to unify Brittain and America as one again

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Posted By: Jedediah_Smith
Date: Tuesday, 29 October 2002, 9:43 p.m.

Agent 86 Prevents Kaos' Destruction of D.C. Government Buildings
How the WTC Was Really Demolished

I almost spat my morning cereal across the room at the TV. I knew all along it had explosives! But what I had just seen and heard actually told how they did it! Ever since I first saw pictures of the WTC catastrophe, it was obvious that explosives had been detonated in the collapse, similar to a controlled demolition. There were too many unanswered questions, too many "coincidences," too many inconsistencies between the evidence and "expert" opinions, and even among their own explanations. But what clinched it for me was, of all things, an episode of the 1960s television comedy "Get Smart." Before you dismiss me as insane, recall the old intelligence rule, "If you want to hide something, put it out in the open," which was never more true than in this case.

I was still half-asleep munching my breakfast, watching "Get Smart." This show was supposed to have been a "spoof" of James Bond movies, featuring Don Adams as Maxwell Smart (Agent 86), but in actuality it was closer to reality than one might think. For starters, the show was a fight between the good guys, "CONTROL," and the bad guys, "KAOS." This was a perfect portrayal of the Hegelian dialectic, the creation of a problem, i.e. Kaos, to provide the opportunity for a solution, Control. The "solution" of course is continual, creeping enslavement of the populace as our liberties are eroded.

The show also featured high-tech gadgetry as gags that sometimes didn't seem quite so laughable, if you paused to think. Even the producers of the show publicly admitted that the CIA called them and wanted to know where they were getting some of their ideas. And because "truth is stranger than fiction," when you want to introduce the truth to the public, sometimes you have to do so by mixing truth and fiction.

It is also an axiom of criminal psychology that, upon completing his crime, a criminal will be so proud of his "accomplishment" that he must brag about his feat. He will either leave clues and/or purposely tell people, because he perceives his evil behavior as being intelligent and can't keep his mouth shut.

In the case of the WTC, the criminals spilled the beans in episode 52 of "Get Smart," entitled "Smart Fit the Battle of Jericho" (whatever that means) which was initially aired on Saturday, February 18, 1967 at 8:30 P.M. on NBC. In this episode, a Kaos front, the Joshua Construction Company, is run by Kaos agent Frank Lloyd Joshua. Their buildings have a bad habit of blowing up. The Chief, head of Control, gives Smart his orders to infiltrate the company and find out how they were hiding nitroglycerine used to blow up the buildings. I was still half-asleep and had failed to grasp the episode's significance until the point where Smart infiltrates a construction site and picks up a brick, only to discover it is hollow. He then realizes that they were hiding the nitroglycerine in the hollow bricks. After seeing this, it hit me like a ton of (nitro-filled) bricks, "Of course, they blew up the WTC by putting explosives in during construction!"

Furthermore, as part of their plot, Kaos was constructing government office buildings in Washington, D.C., and waiting until the office buildings were fully occupied to detonate the explosives with all the workers inside. They were purposely underbidding all the other contractors because Kaos was subsidizing the company so that they could get the government contracts, even at a loss. A German Baron who owned an explosives company that supplied the Germans in WWI and WWIII was supplying the explosives. Joshua told Smart that all Kaos had to do was shoot a bullet at the bricks to initiate a chain reaction detonation of the explosives to bring down the whole building (a miniature version of 9/11). At the end of the episode, the Chief and Max are at the site and the Chief asks, "Where did you put the nitroglycerin?" Smart replies, "Oh, don't worry, Chief, I put it in a safe place. I put it in the cement." The workers were just mixing the cement then. I could swear that the first time I saw the episode, the show then closed with a big explosion. But the second time I saw it several months later, the show ended less dramatically, with Smart and the Chief realizing that the building would still blow up when occupied.

I'm sure when this episode aired originally in 1968, American viewers all got a big laugh out of it. Who would ever believe, a foreign-owned construction firm putting explosives inside government office buildings and blowing them up? The groundbreaking for the WTC was August 5, 1966. This episode aired only 197 days after the WTC groundbreaking. The steel construction didn't even begin until August 1968, and the ribbon cutting wasn't until April 4, 1973. This whole thing was just wayyyyyy too coincidental for me to accept.

No, it was beyond coincidental; it actually told how they did it.

I was always suspicious of the construction of the WTC, thinking that would have been a perfect time to sabotage it. It was designed by a foreigner, Minoru Yamasaki. But the closing comedic moment, when Smart puts the nitro in the cement, was a telling clue. Previously I had only considered the possibility of explosives being placed at strategic locations, but, what if they had actually mixed the explosives in the concrete used in the WTC?

According to Eagar and Musso (2001), the construction of the WTC consisted of a center core, which held up the entire structure, and an outer series of steel columns designed to laterally stabilize the WTC. The inner core and outer columns were connected by steel joists covered by concrete to form the floors. There were no bricks in which to hide explosives, however, concrete would be the perfect medium.

But, given the circumstances of the revelation of this clue, I next decided to briefly research the background of the "Get Smart" producers.


It is very difficult to get much information about those involved with the creation of the "Get Smart" TV series. It turns out it was produced by a company called Talent Associates, which was formed in 1948 by David Susskind. Previous to this, he was a talent scout for MCA. According to Dr. John Coleman (1996) MCA has always been an arm of British intelligence, MI6, and the Committee of 300. Their long-term goal (stress on "long-term") has been to destroy America since our revolt in 1776. Some of their methods included exporting social change, such as British rock and roll along with drugs, free love, homosexuality, etc. Television was one of their favorite mediums, using companies like MCA and seemingly innocuous TV programs like the Ed Sullivan show, to introduce social change by pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior. This might seem laughable compared to today's TV fare, but recall that Sullivan was the first to show Elvis, and was allowed only a waist-up view. They have also attempted to disrupt our culture through "talk" shows, which is really evidenced by their vulgarity today.

In 1958 Susskind hosted a local New York talk show called "Open End." It started at 11 p.m. and would not end until all participants were exhausted. Susskind's talk shows were noted for their controversial and confrontational nature. His most notorious interview was with Soviet head Nikita Kruschev. He interviewed many famous people over his career. On October 10, 1971, Susskind established a first on American television when he hosted seven lesbians. This is a perfect example of how the Committee of 300 would destroy the social fabric of America through the public discussion of such despicable behavior. Later on March 2, 1974, Susskind again hosted gay and lesbian activists.

By the time of "Get Smart," Talent Associates consisted of Dan Melnick and Leonard Stern, in addition to founder Susskind. The story goes that it was Melnick who wanted to spoof Bond (yet another MI6 creation, designed to glorify spying for the British monarchy, etc.). The above mentioned episode 52 was written by a man named Arne Sultan. Being the writer of this episode, some aspects of his life could really provide some more clues, but he is really covered up well and I can't find out anything about him.

One is impressed by the knowledge the creators of the show had concerning certain details of intelligence, which suggests that they had inside information. For example, in one episode, various U.S. intelligence agencies try to infiltrate what they think is an enemy front organization. In a hilarious twist, it finally turns out that all the members of the "front" are actually the members of the various American agencies, and there are no legitimate or enemy employees. I have a problem believing that the average comedy writer of the 60s would have ever thought of this.

It's also interesting that Kaos is not confined to just one country, but is a conglomeration of countries such as Russia, China, etc. with their spies in the U.S., all joining forces to destroy America. While during the Cold War these countries obviously cooperated with one another against us, it was not to the extent of the situation America faces today. The scenario depicted in the TV series more closely resembles our current state of affairs, not that of the '60s. Now we face an evil, sinister force, which transcends national boundaries and has sent its terrorist agents right to the heart of our nation's capitol. Exactly what did the producers of "Get Smart" know?

Furthermore, the occasional appearance of the Admiral, who gives orders to the Chief, shows an inside knowledge of how things work. Few people even today are aware of the existence, much less the importance, of the Office of Naval Intelligence. Rayelan Allan's husband, Gunther Russbacher, was a high-ranking ONI intelligence officer and she tells of the times when Admirals used to sit around her dinner table talking about high-level government affairs. Also of interest, Rayelan says that generally the Admirals and the Navy officers are highly intelligent and against the New World Order (NWO), whereas the "Get Smart" Admiral character is a senile old man. The creators of the show seem to be poking fun at the Navy. Besides the stunning revelations of episode 52, even a cursory investigation into the background of "Get Smart" reveals that whoever created and wrote it exhibited an inside knowledge of government intelligence activities.


Before I proceed with the explosives investigation, I want to touch on some problems with the official explanation, which is that the steel weakened or melted from the heat, couldn't support some of the floors, and they fell down neatly on top of one another in a domino effect. There have been many good reports refuting this on the Internet and I won't go into them in detail.

But a few things have direct relation to the theory I will discuss. Throughout this report I will quote and dissect the paper written by Eagar and Musso (2001) because Dr. Eagar is the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT, and there are some serious inconsistencies in some of his statements. MIT has a strong relationship with the government, so it is naturally going to spout the government line.

First, it seems obvious that explosives were used. The collapse looked just like a normal controlled demolition, and even Van Romero, VP for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology said so publicly (Uyttebrouck, 2001). Witnesses such as firefighters said they heard bombs going off inside the buildings. I think I'll go with the eyewitness testimony rather than the government propaganda.

Second, according to Eagar and Musso (2001), the building essentially fell into its own footprint. Consider the more extreme case of the second tower hit, which was way off the mark and almost missed the building. There is no way the building could have received equal heating on all sides. Therefore, the obvious, more likely scenario would have been that, if the building materials did indeed reach a melting temperature, those on the struck side of the building would have fallen first due to the greater heat of the fire. As these joists, chunks of concrete, etc. fell, they would have fallen floor upon floor only on the struck side. This would have lead to the exact opposite result of what we saw, that of an organized collapse of each floor completely around the building.

Furthermore, with all the heat concentrated on one side of the building, this would have melted the steel on that side before the other. Logically, this should have lead to a situation whereby the building would have leaned to the weaker side, and eventually fallen over onto surrounding buildings, yet this did not occur.

A third problem is that, supposedly, the angle clips supporting the outer end of the joists gave way first and allowed the floors to fall down on top of one another. OK, so why didn't the center core remaining standing, like the spindle on a phonograph player with a stack of record sitting on the turntable? In fact, both ends of the joists were supported with angle clips, so they should have fallen and left the center core relatively intact.


I want to discuss briefly some "inconsistencies," to say the least, that I found in preparing this paper. In particular I want to address the opinions of Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT, who has become one of the major apologists for the official explanation, which document the lengths to which the government will go to hide the truth.

Dr. Eagar Can't Remember How High the Rubble Is (Where Did All the Debris Go?)

Eagar and Musso (2001) state that, "In essence, the building is...about 95% air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high." I was disappointed that officials from MIT would make such an inaccurate statement. In actuality, the building is 89.5% air. This can be calculated as follows:

Each building was 208' square and 1353' tall. The area of both buildings totalled 86,528 ft2. The total volume of the buildings was 117,072,384 ft3.

The total volume of concrete used was 425,000 yds3. There were 200,000 tons of steel used. I used the standard density of steel which is 8.0 kg/dm3.

200,000 tons x 907.2 kg/ton = 181,440,000 kg of steel

181,440,000 kg x dm3/8.0 kg = 22,680,000 dm3 of steel

22,680,000 dm3 x m3/1000 dm3 = 22,680 m3 of steel

22,680 m3 x yd3/0.765 m3 = 29,647.1 yds3 of steel

Therefore the total volume of the construction materials should have been approximately:

425,000 yd3 + 29,647.1 yd3 = 454,647.1 yd3

454,647.1 yd3 x 27 ft3/yd3 = 12,275,471.7 ft3

[100 - (volume of construction materials/volume of building)] x 100 = percent air

[100 - (12,275,471.7 ft3/117,072,384 ft3)] x 100 = 89.5%

An engineering professor should not be 5% off on such an easy calculation. Now we can calculate what the height of the debris pile should have been:

volume of construction materials/surface area of building [i.e. debris pile] = height of debris

12,275,471.7 ft3/86,528 ft2 = 141.9' high

This is approximately 14 stories of debris, not the "several stories" quoted by Eagar and Musso (2001). It appears that they are trying to underestimate the debris height on purpose. What are they trying to hide? Actually, this figure is a minimum for the debris height and should have been higher. Air would have been mixed with debris and there would have been voids, etc. which would have inflated the height. Furthermore, this figure is as if all the steel was melted down in a block, when in actually the outer columns were hollow and had a greater volume.

In another printed statement, an interview by NOVA, Eagar changed his story and said: "The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95% of it's're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls." Dr. Eagar can't even consistently state the height of the debris pile.

Discrepancies in Steel Temperature

Two MIT professors (Buyukozturk and Ulm, 2001) said that "Some 60 tons or more of jet fuel could have easily caused sustained high temperatures of 1,500 F [816oC] and higher."

But Eagar and Musso (2001) stated that "it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750-800oC range."

Then in the very same journal issue, Barnett et al. (2001) report that: "A section of...beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined...[Analysis] strongly suggests that the temperatures...approached ~1,000oC...

So even the MIT experts cannot agree on the WTC temperature. And how could a building adjacent to the WTC towers have experienced a higher temperature?

Eagar Changes His Mind About Skyscrapers Tipping Over

Bollyn writes that: "Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges."

In the NOVA interview, Eagar says, "I once asked demolition experts, 'How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?' They said, 'Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives.' I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself...The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big."

I like that scientific answer: "They're too big." Would you accept this from one of your students on an exam at MIT, Dr. Eagar? Exactly what happened to make you change your mind?

What's the Temperature, Doc?

Eagar and Musso (2001) said "It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425oC..." Then in the NOVA interview, Eagar said, "You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300oF [149oC]."

So what is the right temperature to affect steel? And if steel distorts at only 300oF, why aren't there more WTC-type collapses of buildings on fire?

He goes on to say in the interview, "But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100oF to 1,300oF...Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor." Elsewhere in the interview Eagar says, "the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds."

How could he possibly know this if the entire building was obliterated? And if it is true, then why wasn't an equal amount of smoke seen emerging from the entire perimeter of the building?

The Angle Clips Did It

Eagar also says in the interview, "But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100oF to 1,300oF. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength...Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds."

This scenario is virtually impossible. According to Eagar and Musso (2001) the floor joists extend from the outer columns to the inner column, which bears the weight of the entire structure. The joists only serve to tie the inner and outer "tubes" together, and to support the weight of their own floor. They are supported at either end by angle clips. At these temperatures the concrete would have been burned away, leaving the exposed steel. At that point each joist supported no weight whatsoever, and the angle clips only supported the weight of the joist. If the angle clips did fail, the end result would be that the joist simply fell on the next floor. There was nothing at all to make anything become "unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds."

Nova and Eagar Tell a Baldfaced Lie

While reading the NOVA interview of Dr. Eagar, I saw something that at first glance shot holes in any explosive theory, which requires explosives in the weight-bearing inner core (and location of the stairs and elevators). The following exchange took place:

"NOVA: "Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads--their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?"

Eagar goes on to supply some cock-and-bull explanation for this supposedly truthful event. I thought, I don't remember hearing this story, and it seems impossible. I later searched on the Internet and could find no other references to the alleged "miracle." Then I realized that it had to be a lie concocted to throw people off the trail. Since the inner core supported the buildings, it had to have explosives to drop the structures, but "survivors" there would preclude this possibility.

The following facts totally disprove this fabrication. Tower One, the North Tower and site of the supposed miracle, collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 39 minutes after the South Tower collapsed. David J. Prezant, MD, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) is a highly credible witness who was there when the twin towers collapsed. From Zucker (2001):

"...[Dr. Prezant] described the conditions immediately following the first tower's collapse: 'The particulate matter was so thick that the sky was literally black,' adding that it was 'dark as midnight, with incredible dust, particulate matter all around me that was suffocating [and] difficult to swallow.'"

In other words, when the supposed firefighters were allegedly gazing up at the blue sky above the North WTC Tower, credible witnesses testify that the sky was "dark as midnight."

Why on earth would NOVA and Eagar spout such an outright lie, which totally destroys their credibility? Was it to draw the public's attention away from something, like the inner core perhaps? Such lies document the lengths to which the conspirators will go to obfuscate the truth.


As incredible as it seems, the N.Y. Port Authority, the quasi-governmental agency in charge of the WTC, refused to hand over the blueprints to the WTC. The city impeded the investigation to the point where the cause of the collapse can likely ever be determined. From Shin (2002):

"An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit...may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday.

"About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert..."

"...'The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse,' said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation...

"The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers-crucial for evaluating the wreckage-until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.

"'This is the first time I have signed something like that,' Corley said...'"

And from Lipton (2002):

"...The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating...

"None of the investigators...had subpoena power, meaning that they could not order the city to stop sending the steel off for recycling or demand a copy of the building blueprints."


Now I will list some questions that have gone unanswered in my mind from the beginning. You undoubtedly have some of your own, but these are some I had that only the explosive concrete theory can answer thus far. I will attempt to explain them later in the paper.

Why did the second building that was hit end up being the first one to fall?

Why so little debris? As already proven, it should have been a lot higher than "a few stories."

Why no chunks of concrete found? Eyewitnesses and photos document that no significant-sized pieces of concrete were remaining.

Why so much dust? A normal building collapse, even with controlled explosives, does not generate such tremendous quantities of dust. Experienced witnesses said there was "incredible" amounts of dust (see description below).

Why were remains of survivors so vaporized? This should not have happened if the building simply collapsed from a fire.

What is the cause of the "WTC cough?" Doctors still have no clue as to what caused it. Dr. Prezant says, "It's a persistent cough,...a sore throat, and interestingly enough, accompanying GI irritation." (Zucker, 2001)


The theory of the mixing of explosives in the concrete answered every one of the above questions. Because of this, there was no doubt in my mind that the theory was correct. If explosives were simply placed in key locations by terrorists, to be detonated when the planes hit, then why did the second tower fall first? If the culprits wanted the American public to accept the lie that the planes alone caused the towers to collapse, then they would have ensured that everything was orchestrated in a consistent manner, i.e. that the first tower struck fell first, and that approximately the same amount of time elapsed between impact and collapse for each tower.

If explosives were merely placed in key locations, they would have had to have been remotely detonated through some fashion, with radio waves, satellites, etc. They wouldn't have left things to chance and hoped that the planes hit the exact place needed and detonated properly.

For the same reason, disinformation on the Internet that some type of electromagnetic space weapon was used to vaporize the towers could not have been the case. Otherwise they would have destroyed the buildings in the proper sequence.

The greatly reduced pile of rubble is explained if the explosives were mixed in with the concrete. This would have reduced the concrete to dust and/or vapor, spread for blocks around and into the atmosphere, and explains the tremendous quantity of dust and lack of significant pieces of concrete. Most of the debris left would be chunks of steel.

Also, the sparse human remains that were found is explained by explosives mixed in the concrete, which would have vaporized humans when exploded. Normal cremation temperatures range from 1400-2100oF (760-1149oC), requires about 2 hours, and still leaves 4-8 pounds of bone fragments and particles. Blast temperatures of the propagation wave can range from 3,000 to 7,000oC (Atlas Powder Co., 1987), which would explain the lack of human remains. None of these would be explained by the theory that explosives were placed in key locations and detonated.

The "WTC cough" provided some of the strongest evidence that explosives were placed in the concrete. No medical or health professionals could figure out what was causing this condition. Speculation ranged from biowarfare materials the terrorists either had on the plane or placed in the building beforehand (and if so, why not explosives?) to asbestos and other contaminants. Obviously, there was a wide spectrum of dangerous materials mixed in the dust from building materials such as asbestos, burning furniture and upholstery, etc. But I knew there was one hazardous material which would have been present in overwhelming quantities compared to these toxins.

Concrete is produced by the following steps: limestone, or calcium carbonate (CaCO3), is mined from a quarry. The limestone is heated up to approximately 900oC to convert the limestone to quicklime, or calcium oxide (CaO). The formula is as follows:

CaCO3 => CaO + CO2

The quicklime is used to make cement, to which you add water when you are ready to mix and pour the cement. The mixture produces slaked lime or calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2]. The formula is as follows:

CaO + H2O => Ca(OH)2

This mixture becomes hard as the water dries and the slaked lime reacts with atmospheric CO2. This partially returns the mixture back to the original CaCO3 through the following reaction:

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 => CaCO3 + H2O

The above reaction is incomplete and over time, as the concrete structure sets, it is continually absorbing atmospheric CO2 so that more of the material is converting back to CaCO3. The Romans invented concrete, which is merely the addition of stones and/or other materials to the cement for strength. They also added volcanic ash to produce a very strong pozzolan cement. This is because the ash contains silicates (based on SiO2) that react with slaked lime to produce a hydrated gel called tobermorite. Portland cement is formed by adding aluminum silicates (Al2O3 2SiO2), e.g. clay.

I don't know exactly what type of cement was used in the concrete mixture of the WTC (and it is doubtful one could find out the real mixture, anyway) but since calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is the primary constituent of concrete, we'll confine our examination to that for now. Bear in mind that additives to make concrete such as stone would probably be silicates and would not significantly alter our conclusions. Suppose for the sake of argument that either the building collapsed according to the generally accepted theory or from strategically-located bombs. This would have produced quantities of calcium carbonate dust from the concrete. But the materials safety data sheet lists no major health hazards for calcium carbonate, other than as a simple mechanical irritant.

The extremely important point about calcium carbonate is that it can be converted back to calcium oxide when exposed to temperatures of 900oC, reversing the reaction discussed above. And calcium oxide is an very hazardous material which causes symptoms exactly like the "WTC cough." Calcium oxide is an extremely caustic substance because of its high alkalinity; this is why you should always wear gloves when mixing cement. The symptoms of calcium oxide exposure are as follows (from a materials safety data sheet):


"Inhalation of dust is highly irritating and possibly corrosive to the upper respiratory tract. May cause coughing, sneezing, labored breathing, and possibly burns with perforation of the nasal septum.


"Corrosive. May attack the esophagus. Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting may result. May cause serious alkali burns in mouth and throat.

"Skin Contact:

"Irritant; may cause severe corrosive damage.

"Eye Contact

"Severe irritant, may damage eye tissues. Causes redness, tearing, blurred vision, pain."

Compare the above with the following quotes from the a paper produced by Mt. Sinai Hospital (Szeinuk et al. 2002):

"Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, there has been concern about the impact of environmental contaminants generated by the fires and building collapses on the health of workers at and near the site as well as of residents of the surrounding communities and workers returning to work at or near the site. Potential environmental exposures related to the WTC disaster include: cement and glass dust, asbestos, fiberglass, PM2.5 and PM10 (small particulate matter), larger particulate matter, lead and other heavy metals, PCBs, dibenzoflurans, volatile organic compounds and other products of combustion. While concern has been primarily about inhalational exposures, there have been a number of reports of dermal irritation and rashes on exposed areas of the skin. In addition, those escaping the area on September 11th and those working without appropriate respiratory [equipment] early after the disaster, experienced ingestional exposures. Primary short-term health effects of exposure to airborne contaminants may include asthma/reactive airways disease (RADS), chemical irritation of the eyes, nasal passages, throat, and upper airways, sinusitis, and persistent cough, and pneumonitis. Additionally, ingestional exposures may result in digestive symptoms such as irritation of the upper gastrointestinal tract with gastro-esophageal reflux (GERD)...

"In general, measured levels of exposure to individual airborne contaminants have been relatively low....

"Conditions that have been seen in adults who have been at or near the site for as little as 24 to 36 hours, include...RADS, sinusitis, irritant rhinitis, persistent cough, and diffuse irritation of nasal mucosal surfaces. There has also been an increase in GERD symptoms, especially among first-responders or individuals who where (sic) hit by the cloud of dust and debris released from the collapse of the towers...Given the extremely high temperatures of the fires...combined with the tremendous range of is likely that we will never fully know the precise nature of exposures..."

Although the above lengthy paper acknowledged that many toxic chemicals were produced by the high heat of the fire burning materials present, there was absolutely no mention of calcium oxide. This should have been one of the most obvious because it was undoubtedly one of the most prevalent compounds. Another paper sheds some more light on the symptoms (from Zucker, 2001):

"'The World Trade Center fire probably represents the single greatest exposure in recent history to respirable particulates in an urban environment,' David J. Prezant, MD, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) told Pulmonary Reviews. Dr. Prezant, who is also a pulmonologist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City, was present when the twin towers collapsed.

"...[He] described the conditions immediately following the first tower's collapse: 'The particulate matter was so thick that the sky was literally black,' adding that it was 'dark as midnight, with incredible dust, particulate matter all around me that was suffocating [and] difficult to swallow.' He stressed 'That's what people were inhaling during the first hours after the collapse.'

"Dr. Prezant's patients nicknamed the most prevalent effect on firefighters and paramedics the 'WTC cough': 'It's a persistent cough,...a sore throat, and interestingly enough, accompanying GI irritation,' he said. The reflux-like symptoms, which may worsen cough, might have been triggered by swallowed particulates, Dr. Prezant speculated. Roughly two thirds of the group had a dry cough and some degree of GI irritation. Most cough symptoms arose within the first week after exposure, and they were the most severe at the end of week 1 through week 2, said Dr. Prezant...

"Relative to the very real risk presented by particulate matter, there has been an 'inordinate amount of attention' given by the media to exposure to airborne toxic substances, such as heavy metals, asbestos, and silica, Dr. Prezant argued. Preliminary results showed no elevations in the levels of these substances in the vicinity of Ground Zero, he added..."

Dr. Prezant notes that there is an unusual presence of gastrointestinal irritation, and argues that swallowed particulate matter may be the cause. This is an exact symptom of calcium oxide poisoning because of its caustic nature. Yet no doctors have mentioned the formation of vast quantities of this material in the catastrophe. This is even more unfathomable when one considers that this chemical reaction is on the warnings of the materials safety data sheet for calcium carbonate which reads:

"Hazardous Decomposition or By-Products: When heated at temperatures above 900oC (1652oF) carbon dioxide is liberated thereby forming calcium oxide."

The media has instead focused on other materials which have been documented not to have been in sufficient quantities to explain this condition.


The conversion of concrete (CaCO3) into vast quantities of calcium oxide (CaO) dust perfectly explains the prevalent "WTC cough" and the lack of debris. The conversion of the entire buildings' concrete would require temperatures of 900oC throughout the buildings. This could only have occured if explosives were mixed into the concrete during construction. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, blast temperatures in the propagation wave (i.e. inside the concrete) can reach temperatures of ranging from 1649-3871oC [3,000 to 7,000oF] (Atlas Powder Co., 1987). The boiling point of calcium oxide is 2850oC (5162oF), well below the temperatures of the propagation wave. This means that the victims of WTC cough were probably not only breathing calcium oxide dust, but vapor as well. Imagine pouring lye on your skin, which causes a burn and leaves a permanent scar. This is what the calcium oxide would have done to the victims' lungs, leaving permanent scarring. The vapor would have been worse than the dust, immediately intruding into the entire lung like air, and scarring it completely.

The government's official explanation, of the towers collapsing from weight, would not have generated sufficient heat to convert concrete to calcium oxide. Even Eagar and Musso (2001) admit that "it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750-800oC range." Maybe this explains why no doctors have thought of calcium oxide formation, because they have swallowed the official theory. It is also doubtful that strategically-located explosives would have produced such heat, because this does not happen during normal controlled demolition of buildings.

The production of calcium oxide from calcium carbonate would cause a drastic reduction in volume of material due to the release of carbon dioxide gas. We can estimate the volume produced, percent reduction and calculate how high the debris should be.

We must first calculate the weight of the concrete. We need to know the density to do this. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) specifies a maximum density of 1,840 kg/m3 for structural lightweight concrete in Chapter 2 of ACI 318 "Standard Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete" and also defined in the "Guide for Structural Lightweight Concrete" prepared by ACI Committee 213.

One thing to consider is that the steel skeleton, not the concrete, was load-bearing (besides the concrete floors bearing the weight of their contents), thus the density could have been less than this maximum. Eagar and Musso (2001) state, "Prior to the World Trade Center...most tall buildings contained huge columns...and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure..."

From previous information we were told that 425,000 yd3 of concrete were used:

425,000 yd3 x 0.765 m3/yd3 = 325,125 m3

325,125 m3 x 1,840 kg/m3 = 598,230,000 kg of concrete

Let's assume, for ease in calculations, that the concrete in the WTC was pure CaCO3. It was an old structure and CO2 had been absorbed over time, increasing the conversion of Ca(OH)2 into CaCO3, as discussed previously. There were obviously other additives for strength, such as stone, but we are trying to keep the calculations simple. If we had to, we could refine our calculations if we knew the materials and proportions mixed in the original concrete, but that information is probably unattainable, and at any rate, unnecessary. We also need to use the chemical concept of a mole, which is defined as the amount of an element or substance that contains the same number of atoms as exactly 12 g of 12C, which has been determined experimentally to be 6.022 x 1023. This number is named Avogadro's number after its discoverer. One mole of a substance equals the sum of its molecular weights (derived from a periodic table of the elements), which can be expressed in grams. Thus one mole of CaCO3 equals:

40.08 (MW for calcium) + 12.01115 (MW for carbon) + 3[15.9994 (MW for oxygen)] = 100.08935 grams

From the above, we take the weight of the concrete and calculate how many moles of CaCO3 would have been present prior to the blast:

598,230,000 kg x 1000 g/kg x mole/100.08935 g = 5,976,959,587 moles CaCO3

From our equation CaCO3 => CaO + CO2:

one mole of CaCO3 = one mole of CaO + one mole of CO2

Therefore, when the 5,976,959,587 moles of CaCO3 were heated in the intense explosion of the WTC collapse, assuming a 100% conversion rate, they produced 5,976,959,587 moles of CaO, along with 5,976,959,587 moles of CO2 released into the atmosphere. We can now calculate the weight of the calcium oxide produced. One mole of CaO equals:

40.08 (MW for calcium) + 15.9994 (MW for oxygen) = 56.0794 grams


5,976,959,587 moles CaO x 56.0794 g/mole x kg/1000 g = 335,184,307.5 kg CaO

This represents a reduction in weight of 335,184,307.5 kg/598,230,000 kg = 56%

of original concrete volume.

In other words, the weight of the WTC concrete was reduced almost by half, which helps explain why the debris pile was so small. We can now calculate the volume of CaO. Calcium oxide has a specific gravity of 3.37, which is relative to water with a specific gravity of 1.00 g/cm3. Changing this ratio into more meaningful terms for our tremendous quantities:

3.37 g/cm3 x kg/1000 g x 1,000,000 cm3/m3 = 3370 kg/m3

Therefore the volume of calcium oxide produced equals:

335,184,307.5 kg x m3/3370 kg = 99,461.2 m3

As we well know there was a tremendous quantity of airborne dust produced by the collapse, but let's suppose that the entire volume of this was piled up in a square shape over the site of the buildings. We can now calculate how high the pile would be:

Dimensions of each building equals:

63.40 m (208') x 63.40 m (208') = 4019.6 m2

Total building area = 2 x 4019.6 m2 = 8039.1 m2

Total height of dust pile = 99,461.2 m3/8039.1 m2 = 12.4 m or 40.4' high

From above we calculated a volume of 22,680 m3 of steel. Calculating this additional height:

22,680 m3 = 2.8 m or 9.2' additional height.

The total height would be 40.4' + 9.2' = 49.6' or almost 5 stories. Thus, the total height of the debris pile would have been almost a third of the 141.9' minimum height which one would have predicted had the WTC merely collapsed according to the official explanation. This compares more favorably with the "several stories" of debris quoted by Eagar and Musso (2001) and we still have further reductions in volume to consider.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Labels: , ,

eXTReMe Tracker