Det Cord and Concrete Slab

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE – a reader’s comment has inspired me to put up earlier 3d models that I created to better illustrate how I believe the det cord was used (H/T BuelahMan) see below

In a recent interview with Tom Sullivan, Richard Gage asks him about Brent Blanchard’s comment that the Towers couldn’t have been demoed because there would be “miles and miles of det cord” lying around afterward.  Brent Blanchard knows all too well why this is a dishonest statement and Tom Sullivan did nothing to correct the misinformation.  Det cord is a high explosive, used in the demolition industry to link cutter charges and to simultaneously blow up various structural elements of the building being brought down.  In short, there would be no det cord lying around because the det cord itself is part of the demolition process… it blows up.

Watch this video for a good explanation of what det cord is and at the end they show it demo a concrete slab that is about 5″ thick.  It is my theory that det cord was used to pulverize the floor systems of the Twin Towers during the demolition process.  Hundreds of “electricians” were working in the Towers prior to Sept 11th on a project to rewire the security system.  Det cord looks like any other fiber optic or CAT 5 cable.

the video doesn’t allow embedding (damn corporate network pricks) so when you click on it, you will see a link to the Youtube channel)

In my “Demolition Theory Hypothesis” I show how the placement of the det cord under the floor pans and up inside the dropped ceilings would pulverize the 110 concrete floors of each tower, then I also detail how linear shaped “cutter charges” would then cut the 47 steel columns inside the core of the towers and how the “kicker” charges would have detonated pushing the cut columns out of the way of the remaining demolition (some ended up shooting some 600 ft into other buildings)

This next video shows how linear shaped cutter charges and kicker charges work.

This is an original drawing I did. it is of a cross-section of a typical section of the Twin Towers, to scale, and as you can see, I have labeled everything detailed in the videos above. It should be noted that I just found these videos and did not view them prior to publishing my hypothesis.

Update – It has been brought to my attention by BuelahMan (H/T) that the difference here is that the det cord in the video was actually embedded in the concrete by means of drilling long holes or channels through the 5″ slab and that would make it much more effective.  BuelahMan is absolutely correct.

The following images are taken from an article I wrote called Sneak Peak: Revised Demolition Theory Hypothesis .  The first image is taken from the NCSTAR investigation page 6.  It describes how the floor sections for the Twin Towers were actually constructed. They were put together and welded in a shop then shipped to the Twin Tower construction site where they were then set in place with other floor sections by crane (please see the Aug. 2009 article of mine called The 6,000 for more details and construction photos of these pre-made floor panels being installed in the Trade Center)

NCSTAR Page 6 illustration… (click on images for larger view)

NCSTAR Page 6 illustration

There at the bottom of the image you can see what it calls out as an “electric duct”.  That is an open channel covered by a metal plate set at the same level as the corrugated metal floor pan. Each of these pre-made floor sections had 3 (three) of these electric ducts roughly 6 (six) feet apart.  When the floor system was put in place and all the floor sections welded together, they would pour the concrete floors over top of all this and the electrical ducts would be actually up inside the 4″ of light-weight concrete.

The following image is of a 3d model I created based on the Twin Tower architectural drawings and the NCSTAR drawings.  It is to scale (click on image for a larger view)

As you can see, when the concrete was poured over the floor system it would have gone down into the lower channels of the corrugated metal floor-pan but not inside the electrical duct, thus if the demo team had used these ducts to run their det cord, it would have been UP INSIDE the concrete floors, much like the video above, and therefore been much more effective as a shattering agent in pulverizing the 100’s of thousands of tons of lightweight concrete in the Twin Towers.

Lastly, just for scale, I offer two images: the first is a scale 3d model (my own) of a pre-fab floor system ready for installation and an image of the installation process at the World Trade Center.

Pe-fab floor section as described by NCSTAR and WTC drawings

Setting the pre-fab sections in place at the Twin Towers

Setting the floor sections in place at the WTC

Advertisements

10 Responses

  1. I am not understanding how they could have been drilling all those holes without being noticed. We are tlaking millions of holes.
    Are you saying that the det cord did not have to be put inside the concrete? I am not sure how effective that would be.

    The sketch is good. It explains the how of pulverized concrete and explains the 45 degree “cuts” on the steel that was seen after the demolition.

    I can not believe that someone hasn’t tested this dust for regular explosives. That is the first test to be conducted, isn’t it (in normal logical thinking)?

  2. I am going to add these two images to the article above so people can understand better what I am talking about…

    You are right Buelahman… the det cord would have needed to be up inside the concrete to get the most effective result yield from the detonation and it was…

    and they didn’t have to drill anything.

    This image comes from the NCSTAR study, Page 6…

    what you see is a typical pre-made WTC Tower floor section. These things were welded up outside the area and then shipped to New York as a premade floor section panel.

    Notice on the bottom there where it says “electric duct”

    what that is, is a channel, accessable from the underneath, which rests on the same level as the corrugated metal floor pan. The concrete would have been poured over the decking once the entire floor was put in place and the concrete would therefore have been “around” the electrical duct.

    So I think, all the demolition teams would have to have done, is to run det cord in these electric ducts.

    Like this… this is my own personal 3d model drawing of how I think the det cord would have been used…

    and yes, that should have been the first test run by NIST, FEMA… AND Steven Jones and Neils Harrit

  3. Brilliant comment on electrical ducting being built into floor structure. One consideration is that any partially tamped explosive will vector a majority of the explosive energy along the path of least resistance. It seems det cord inside ducts would have blown out the bottom side of the ducting that was untamped by concrete. Other things I would consider: gauge of steel used in the floor pan and in the ducting, and strength of the floor pan concrete.

    I worked at a ready mix concrete company a few years. Lightweight concrete (normally used in high-rise floors) can attain the same psi as regular concrete. It is the aggregate – pumice – that gives the weight differential. The psi of the concrete would be spec’d to meet a specific need. If the flooring concrete was structural, rather than just soundproofing and fireproofing, it would require more strength. It might be beneficial to find out the strength of the concrete used in the floor pans. If the concrete was nonstructural, than the likelihood of det cord doing the job increases.

    In a light hearted vein, I knew someone who had an innovative way to clean out readymix trucks which had a load set up in the bowl. He drilled a hole into the concrete, and planted a quarter stick of dynamite. Worked fine, until he blew a blew a bowl apart! That’s what I mean about tamping.

  4. Det cord explosive doesn’t account for the high temperatures that melted steel around the 79th and 82nd floors. High rise buildings are primed with explosive when under construction for demolition at their end of life.
    I sent an e-mail to Richard .D.Hall of richplanet.net and he reckons it was a high energy weapon, look at the pictures of people with hardly any clothing on and one with his pants around his ankles, they were being microwaved. ufoworldcentral.blogspot.com for my post on 9/11

    • the most common high explosive used in det cord is PETN. When it explodes it burns at over 8,000 deg f. Structural steel melts at around 2,750 deg f. The surface temperature of the sun is around 9,500 deg f. which means that PETN burns at nearly the surface temperature of the sun. I would say that is more than enough to vaporize metal elements in the buildings as the RJ Lee Report and the USGS report both reported.

      The idea that buildings are built with high explosives pre-loaded for it’s eventual demolition is silly. Sorry, but it is. Aside from the obvious problems with that theory, high explosives have a short shelf-life after which they become highly unstable.

  5. Look I don’t refer to other peoples comments as silly ! I spent plenty of time studying the reasons why this building came down, your entitled to your opinion.It has been speculated that Thermite had been the explosive used and this could have been as a thin layer within a tile, apparently the US forces have these made as well as many other products.
    Cutter charges would certainly seem to have been used as well it shows in the pictures of some of the steelwork.I also studied many investigators comments and findings on the reason why the towers came down and these are much respected men and women.The type of charges you are talking about might have a short life however it has been suggested that it is normal for these explosives to be placed in the building at construction.I don’t know whether you are an explosive expert or not, perhaps you purport to be one, just don’t knock other peoples theories.

    • Thermite is a low explosive and incapable of being used to demolish buildings in a explosive controlled demolition. It’s characterized by what is called deflagration, or subsonic combustion, and therefore does not create the supersonic demolition wave needed to break-up structural components of buildings.

      It is absolutely NOT “normal” for these types of materials to be included in buildings when they are built. Anyone telling you that is definitely NOT “much respected” in my book. Your mention of microwaves leads me to believe that one of these “much respected” investigators you are talking about may be Judy Wood. I will leave that to speak for itself.

      As to your “theories”; I run an anti-globalization and Truth advocacy website. I’m not here to blow smoke up anyone’s ass about the relative validity of their “theories”. You come here talking about “thermite layers in between tiles” (Jim Hoffman, 1.8 million ceiling tile bombs), microwaves (Judy Wood, ray beams from space), and pre-positioned demolition systems (Dimitri whatshisname, 3 150 kiloton nukes under the twin towers)… everything BUT conventional high explosive demolition…

      Personally I don’t care about your theories. I have already addressed them over the years and found them to be baseless and lacking in not only clear evidence, but in logic and reason. About as lacking in logic and reason as the official conspiracy theory.

  6. So from the moment the building started to deteriorate, and the time it came down, I suppose someone got into the building and laced it with explosives !
    Truth movement or not you appear to have a very narrow minded view of what actually happened that day and appear to set yourself up as an authority, really !!
    Perhaps you should find something else to do with your time, because you have an intolerant attitude towards discussion and Blogging just doesn’t seem to be your forte. No , I am not that narrow minded that I would believe just two peoples reports, don’t bother responding you clearly think you are right and everyone else is wrong..

    • “So from the moment the building started to deteriorate, and the time it came down, I suppose someone got into the building and laced it with explosives !”

      You’re kidding, right? I did not say that. Ever. Is that what you do? Reshape someone’s argument into something that you think you can win?

      No Mr. Wall… the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 was planned well in advance. Did you know that according to an expert who provided assistance to NIST on their report on Building 7, there were 3 separate controlled demolition teams on site, at Ground Zero, by the time those buildings came down and according to another expert one of those teams was there just after the first plane hit? That expert was the same one who was in charge of the clean-up (his company worked at Ground Zero for 9 months after 9/11) and he contributed to the Building 7 report as well.

      I’m not saying “everyone” is wrong, Mr. Wall, I’m saying you are. Not completely that is… cutter charges were used as they are used in every explosive controlled demolition. When you made the claim that det cord could not produce the heat needed to melt steel, that was wrong and I showed you that in fact it could produce the amount of heat needed to do just that. Could you have simply acknowledged that and moved on? Of course. Did you? No. When you claimed that high explosives are pre-planted in buildings when they are built, that was also wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it is neither economically nor scientifically feasible. Did you think about it, research it, and acknowledge it? No. When I explained to you the difference between low and high explosives and the fact that thermite could not have been used to “blow up” the buildings, did you ask questions, look to confirm my information, ask for follow-up details and maybe links? No. Then of course you oversimplified my statement about rigging the buildings for demolition by falsely claiming that I said someone rigged the buildings after the first plane hit, an attempt to reshape the argument into something you could win. Do I expect you to reasonably respond to this comment? No.

      It’s not me who is intolerant of other people’s input Mr. Wall, it’s you.

  7. Are you serious Mr. Wall?

    Did you actually email my mother and try to tell her I was a paid “destabilization agent”?

    Now that’s funny. In the years I have run this site I have been called all kinds of things. One day I was called a Nazi and a Mossad agent, on the same thread, by the same guy in two different comments.

    I can’t sleep at night unless someone during the day calls me “disinfo”, an “infiltrator”, or some other Cass Sunsteinesque type of insult. And it’s always because I don’t happen to agree with their pet theory which usually involves ray beams from space or massive nuclear weapons planted under the towers back in 1967.

    but honestly, and I have to give you credit for this one, no one has ever emailed my Mommy and told her I was disinfo. That’s like the teacher sending a letter home with a kid when he’s bad. God knows the poor woman got enough of those letters.

    That’s funny. That’s got to be some kind of record or something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: