Tower Hit 1st Falls Last Then Falls Wrong Way

[Christophera]

It is one thing that the tower hit hardest, burned worst falls last while the one hit second, hardly hit and hardly burned falls first, but then they BOTH fall the wrong way.

The basic possibility of planes bringing down the WTC towers is not there, and then, everything points to altogether separte forces controlling the descent in sequence and effect.

Here is the North Tower, WTC 1, falling to the South, it was hit hard on the North side

.

The South tower, WTC 2 falls West onto WTC 3, it was hit on the South east corner.

NOTE: The North Arrow on this site map is wrong. North is straight up the page.


Do we know when we've caught a liar?

[LARED]

1. After reading your post, I just have to tell you

you should open a forensic engineering group, Really, the logic and deductions used to develop your conclusion is absolutely amazing.

[Christophera]

4. Analysis Of 9-11 & WTC Is Basically A Forensic Engineering Problem

You are right on. Each aspect alone is basically fairly simple logic. There are so many that the official story has GOT TO GO! And any who cling to it, chastised as fearful, gullible children living in denial.

Really, we cannot continue to refer to ourselves as competent, responsible Americans if we cannot see the writing on the wall, via the simple forensics of construction and demolition with rudimentary physics concepts and logic.

I see the problem, after the photographic evidence is appropriately analysed, as mental. America has a behavorial problem and any adult who cannot admit it IS the first problem. The adults that can admit it must assemble and expose those with the problem whereupon those in denial lose their credibility and their denial is meaningless.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. I don't think he got your sarcasm

you fearful, gullible child you.

You obviously cant grasp simple forensics of construction and demolition with rudimentary physics concepts and logic.

:dunce:

[LARED]

17. Well, living in denial has it's advantages

Especially after spending all those years in school and actually performing failure investigations in the course of my duties.

It is comforting to know all that experiance counts for nought via the simple examination of a few images if I live in a state of denial.

Think of all the time, effort and money I could have saved by getting a google engineering degree rather than a real one.

[Christophera]

21. Cognitive Dissonance/Distortions, Denial & Dissociation

I've learned what I know from direct experience in the field. I am currently employed using that experience.

Primarily that experience has me optimizing operations for people. My experience in different areas of construction related skills makes it easy for me to organize jobs with different subcontractors, I act as a moderator, facilitator for a contractor or owner to evaluate the costs and benefits of construction sequencing and dealing with potential problems.

You can be sure that state run schools keep the different disciplines of academic knowledge separate to limit the publics ability to control the economy.

My experience extends to psychology, not in a professional capacity but a very practical one. I understand denial.

Denial is triggered by cognitive dissonance. The thought that someone has proven with evidence from photographs that a secrete government has blown up the WTC and killed 2,800 Americans, causes you cognitive dissonance because once that is proven, if you are to show you care as much as you say you do by sharing and supporting the concept, you must then work to create alliances between Americans to protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Meaning that you would have to go out and face the cognitive dissonance, the denial of other Americans and you are not psychologically prepared to do that. Your conditioning prevents it.

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/assimacc.htm>accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/referenc.htm#NEIGHBOUR>Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

*
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

* if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge*— they are likely to
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/resistan.htm>resist the new learning. Even
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/referenc.htm#ROGERS%20C%20R>Carl Rogersrecognized this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
*************

* if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".


You are employing cognitive distortions in your thinking to accomodate the reduction of the dissonance.

LARED wrote:

"Well, living in denial has it's advantages"

With the above a simple and general distortion is applied, "all or nothing thinking" has been coupled into the act of "labeling"

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

You've attempted to diminish all of my information and this is shown because not once in your message do you identify what you imply I deny.

All of this is done to attempt to create a "mental filter" for readers here.

3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

LARED wrote:

Especially after spending all those years in school and actually performing failure investigations in the course of my duties.

The above has elements of "entitlement"

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

You have implied that because you've gone to school you are entitled to credibility greater than others.

LARED wrote:

It is comforting to know all that experiance counts for nought via the simple examination of a few images if I live in a state of denial.
Think of all the time, effort and money I could have saved by getting a google engineering degree rather than a real one.

The above impliments aspects of "emotional reasoning"

8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.

Even though it is facetiously expressed, the "all or nothing" statement, a basic "over generalization, is intentded to reinforce the mental filtering of the reader by the use of an inverse method of "minimizing".

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

The direct goal of this unconscious activity is to create an environment of "dissociation" from the compelling elements of evidence coherently connected to explain the events of that tragic day.

[LARED]

31. Is that my chastisement ?

BTW, you may want to reread what you replied to, as you seem to be a tad bit mixed up.

[LARED]

32. A far more applicable definition of cognitive dissonance

when roaming around the 9/11 forum

cognitive dissonance


In brief, however, the theory makes two critical predictions. First, people will try to strengthen existing beliefs by rejecting contrary information and actively seeking out supportive information. Second, the energy believers put into doing this will increase as the boundaries between believers and others get stronger.

In other words, opposition strengthens belief and the more people believe in something, the harder they'll fight to keep that belief no matter how obvious the increasing absurdity of their beliefs and actions might be to the uninvolved.

Unfortunately I can't properly cite this definition.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. And with this thread

the appropriation of every major JFK conspiracy talking point is complete.

By the way, North on that map is precisely the direction that the arrow indicates.

[Christophera]

3. Can't Make Sense Of Your Post

I don't talk JFK or know what you talk about.

If the North is correct on the map, the North tower which was aligned in cardinal directions, is wrong.

No wonder they demolished it!

Or ................ perhaps .........

[RedSock]

5. the map is right

that is where north is. look at any map out there -- manhattan does not line up strictly north-south. sorry.

[Christophera]

8. Architect-topozone-mapquest: Map is Wrong.

Methinks you are a waste of time and space. Note the arrow in the bottom right corner.



Topozone

http://topozone.com/map.asp?lat=40.7246&lon=-74.0057&s=25&size=l&symshow=n&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25

Mapquest.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=7&mapdata=qNCyos1mfP7RV9HUNDDFmKNpRFgQHPAtZhX5mMRg2x%2bBsT1VrjwctAMHgGoQDhdJoz2s0fyLckxnsyMxnywb%2bmSpfvn3QESpmQQT1vrQb%2bqNITgXQtcburZnfsceMAeBHhuhBO3o2KxW7HX%2fwrzXFtEuF229pXh9JjJN4FRg9vryf2dEwMJiPVMI4CEdkOA0qHLU0pHbhY8WrsGRCOBf3T9%2fJDkkeQkMaiHWk9OYmrKUIrRye9esaLDNXBefremGlWKKerGCLe4nM1tiZ8tqk0ef0gPP0rLHDHvE%2fTTCCkO8ORV25cDOHZupALHiVAJFNQ60egDPIg7yq%2fcv2wGfWG%2fAHAWP4Ixxrdqd%2fMlhC6ArX61Lh4MQ5Xc0AREE8wV5oe9H0ak6aH6CPJphSVaqkaoLORxc7IsSB%2f08IzuLZJg8S1i2nyupxnTUeADH%2bFxDOBC823rOLWB75WG34kYPeqR1w%2fG9vmadFBcxu%2bsf3%2felWTdbxsmEhw%3d%3d

How about some accountability?

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Wow

Let's try this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=Vesey+St,+New+York,+NY

Now use the handy little zoom bar to zoom in. You will see that the arrow on the original map is absolutely correct.

Oh, no arrow to show that the Google map is aligned north up? No problem:

http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ed=78wek.p_0TpM6TM.FE.p7RI-&csz=New+York+NY&country=us&cat=&trf=0

See where the N is?

[Christophera]

11. Yahoo Not Map Specialists.

Yahoo had bush as man of the year a year or so back. Shows what they know. They probably twisted it on purpose just for us.

Well we certainly have proven that finding North at the WTC can be difficult.

If I hadn't read in at least 2 places that the towers were aligned exactly north and south, I pay attention to those things, I'm a surveyor by trade, I might be confused.

The architects drawing clinches it for good. Yahoo won't overule. It is a large scale indicator that the east and west sides of the buildings were North and south exactly. I lay out structures often and we can count on the buildings being aligned within 30 arc seconds of true North.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Dude.

It's not just Yahoo. It's Google. It's Mapquest. Good God, man. The map links you yourself provide have Vesey Street tilted exactly the same way.

Here's one from the site where you probably scored that architect's drawing:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/special/manhattan_lower_map_wtc.html

Again, Vesey is at an angle, and if you matched the original map to this picure, the arrow in the original picture would be going straight up.

[Christophera]

13. I Saw The Variety-Large Scale Architects Plan+*

I saw the variety and none are rotated as far clock wise as the site map in my post. They are all messed up, yahoos the worst next to the one in my post. The large scale architects site plan is the best by many times.

A stubby little arrow like that paralleling a building line, directly up the page is absolute. Naw, I ain't usin' yer map when I got that and I've read twice the buildings were aligned in cardinal directions.

Hey, at least you are comin' back with evidence. We've learned something here, you've got accountability and maps on the web suck.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. This is my last try.

http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/

At this site, there are maps of the New York transit system. One of these maps is Lower Manhattan. It's a PDF file.

At first glance, Vesey Street is almost perpendicular to the sides of the map, just as in the map you provided but claimed was wrong. But the map isn't oriented to true north. There's a small gray circle in the water just off of Battery Lane, close to South Cove. It's a compass. North is indicated in precisely the same direction as your original map.

[Christophera]

15. Notoriously Crude

I see your point and can only say that architects of skyscrapers tend to put more care into the production of construction documents and their buildings orientation than the producers of bus schedules which are notoriously crude in those ways.

Like I said, we've learned a lot about maps on the web today. I've also learned you are very persistent and don't like to be wrong or are willing to go to considerable effort to avoid it. A comendable trait. And you are not altogether wrong here because the authorities you cite do show variety enough to excuse a difference of some sort.

I happen to have been through a series of estimations of view angle for photos and encountered this difference in the site map about 6 months ago. After doing considerable research, and finding the description of the building orientation, which I recognized as having seen before, I realized that Vesey ST. is not exactly east west and West HWY is not exactly north south, but the trade center towers are oriented precisely to cardinal directions and that maps and photos having crisp lines of the towers could be oriented by using the tower faces as meridians.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Sir, you are completely and utterly wrong

The trade center towers were NOT oriented precisely to cardinal directions. They simply were not.

However, I feel no further need to talk you down from this, since my every attempt is only serving to entrench you further in this mistake.

[gbwarming]

18. You should let the USGS know they've got it wrong

But first, can you explain what clobbered wtc4 if the south tower fell to the west.

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/addressimage.aspx?t=1&s=12&lon=-74.01383547&lat=40.7137297

[spooked911]

25. that map is not very helpful as the shadows point

southeast. At that latitude in April, shouldn't the shadows point west or even slightly northwest?

[Make7]

30. The argument about which way the shadows point is silly.

The shadows don't disprove that the top of that picture is north. (Although they might be used to rule out what direction north could be. Based only on the picture and knowing the location.)

But, to continue with the argument, I believe the direction of shadows will differ throughout the day. I also believe this to be caused by the rotation of the planet. This also would appear to cause the cycle of day and night.

To continue further with the shadow discussion - unless my eyes, brain, or both have stopped working properly - the shadows in the picture do fall in a West-Northwest direction from the objects that are casting the shadows. (Check out the shadows on the water to the left of the picture. See the shadow of the North tower's antenna?)

-Make7

[AZCat]

34. The arrow on an architectural drawing...

doesn't necessarily point to north. Sometimes they will put a "reference arrow" on the drawings to indicate a common direction between drawings. North may sometimes be noted on the same drawing by a separate arrow (as it was on several I looked at today). It will state clearly on the drawing that this is the case, and I suspect that this is true of the drawing of which you have posted a section.

[AngryAmish]

24. Which way is north?

[Make7]

23. accountability?

Mapquest

-Make7

edit to add:

compare these two:

TopoZone

Mapquest

[spooked911]

27. I can't tell anything from the topozone map

How about a link that says the WTC towers were aligned in cardinal directions? Maybe that would settle this better.

(I tried googling for WTC and cardinal orientation but couldn't get anything)

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYdemocrat089]

7. I'm just wondering is wind could have had anything to do with it?

(I am in no way trying to say your wrong. Please don't take it that way.You really did bring up a point I had never thought of.)

With a structure as big as the WTC would wind have had any effect on how they fell?

[Christophera]

9. Wind: To Effect Tower, Must Be Strong

In the photo of my original post, it can be see there is a slight breeze, probably 3-4 MPH. Wind loading of the tower was present over perhaps 15 MPH, but was confined to the lower regions bearing huge weight.

One of the great things about the towers was the tubular concrete core each had which gave them torsional rigidity and the resistence needed to survive up to 140 MPH winds.

[NYdemocrat089]

37. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

n/t

[spooked911]

19. The argument about which way is true north is silly. Why don't we

address the theory of the post, which is that the towers started collapsing in the opposite way from where they were hit.

I am fairly sure that for the South tower, it did start bending over initially on the side that was hit. Once the debris starts falling down, it is not too surprising that some might go the wrong way.

A better argument about the tilting can be made for the North tower, where it seems that it does start collapsing the wrong way, and that makes me wonder about what caused the collapse.

The problem I have had with the North tower is that the hit was very high up, if there was a floor collapse, why didn't the collapse just stay localized to the affected floors? With the south tower, there was a larger piece of building that lost some of its support and this could cause instability in the structure. The weight of the 30 or so upper floors would be significant with the South tower where as the North tower had only about 10 floors that lost support. I could imagine a partial collapse of the North tower but not the wholesale progressive and extremely rapid collapse that occurred.

And certainly for the North tower, if it started tilting the wrong way, the question is why? This fact raises serious questions about the how the collapse occurred.

[Make7]

22. Actually it is indicative of a larger issue.

The argument about which way is true north points out a problem when people try to discuss anything based on verifiable facts. If the participants in the discussion cannot agree on facts and/or acceptable logic to be used then each side will continue to believe they are correct and the other side just won't listen to reason.

The legend in the original map indicating north is correct. If someone doesn't believe it, that's fine - but many people will not be inclined to discuss matters in more depth with someone that can't agree on a fact that can be so easily verified.

Is there even the possibility for a reasonable discussion about issues like the complex physics involved in the collapse of very large man-made structures when something as simple as what direction north is can't even be agreed upon?

-Make7

[Christophera]

26. A Larger Issue To Be Sure.

Absolutely Make7,

You've hit the nail on the head. It is a general psyops tactic of disinformation.

Make7

Is there even the possibility for a reasonable discussion about issues like the complex physics involved in the collapse of very large man-made structures when something as simple as what direction north is can't even be agreed upon?

-Make7

Thanks for your reasonable focus.

To show the original large scale architects site plan is correct with consistency I provide these links.

http://www.thaicons.com/hotnews/wtc-eng.htm

The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west; the core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west; the core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/whatcores.html

The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south.

[spooked911]

28. It seems to me the maps all differ on where north is but even these

links you give may be simplying the orientation of the cores-- clearly the towers were oriented roughly along the cardinal directions, but were they exactly in those directions? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not clear why this is such a critical point, given the thesis of the post. We're not talking 10 degrees of direction here, we're talking 180 degrees.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Okay, one more try.

First, for your quotes, I refer you to the interstate system here in America. All highways are considered to be oriented either east to west (even numbered) or north to south (odd numbered), but their actual orientation to the cardinal directions isn't implied. The same applies to these service cores.

Secondly, here's a jpg of that "notoriously crude" NYC transit map:



I see what you mean - it looks like some third grader fingerpainted it. :eyes:

[Christophera]

29. Yes, Orientation Common Knowledge; Falling Wrong Way Isn't

spooked911

I am fairly sure that for the South tower, it did start bending over initially on the side that was hit. Once the debris starts falling down, it is not too surprising that some might go the wrong way.

Here is the entire top of WTC 2 falling onto WTC 3



I would like to see evidence of the tower tilting to the south east where the damage was. From what I can see the corner steel was totally intact and most of the impact, except for one engine avoided the core.

Here is animated .gif that accurately shows the south tower impact.

[spooked911]

36. Nice animation. But the tilting of the top of the south tower is very

well documented by pictures and videos. Surely you can tell which way the top 30 stories tilts from those. Unfortunately I don't have time to look it up right now.

I had scanned the NIST report and I thought they said the tilting started where on the same side as the damage.

This ought to be easy to verify.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Evidence of the tower tilting to the south east where the damage was

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/so_tower_slow-mo.mpeg

See the tower.

See the top of the tower tilting to the southeast (NYC colloquial).

Any questions?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Yo! Up Here! Evidence!

The link above shows WTC 2 falling exactly the way you say it should.

Let's have some accountability here...

[Bolo Boffin]

49. He---llo!! We got some evidence over here being ignored...

[Christophera]

50. Yes, In The Beginning The Top falls To The South

Then the top most piece falls to the west onto WTC 3.



The fall should have continued to the south and east, but it did not. Explosions are clearly seen below the impact area by quite a few floors. Interesting video.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Okay...

Your only evidence that WTC 1 "falls in the wrong direction" is that the antenna in the beginning tilts to the south, not the north...

...and yet when WTC 2 falls to the SE in the beginning, you simply dismiss it as irrelevant?

The fall, you say, should have continued to the south and east. Why is that? In the video, it's clear that the tilting of the top part stops. Once it's broken free from the rest of the structure that's causing it to tilt and twist, it simply proceeds down. At that point, the direction of falling debris at ground impact is up to chance and fate, not initial direction of the fall.

Think about this: WTC 3 was a 22 story thin building, and WTC 2 was 110 floors, 208' square. The top section of WTC 2 that plowed through the rest of the building was broken off from about floor 78 - in other words, it was 32 stories high, and probably twice the entire mass of WTC 3. Here's a graphic to get a idea of the scale we're talking about:



Now take another look at your picture, Christophera. Are you seriously suggesting that your tiny picture is showing us the entire top section of WTC 2 falling on top of WTC 3? As you can see from the scale drawing, WTC 3 was so close to 2 that some debris would have to have fallen on it. It would have been a miracle if no debris had fallen onto WTC 3.

So what your picture comes down to, Christophera, is a picture of some debris (and I don't even concede it's from the top section, that's something you have yet to prove) hitting WTC 3. What we have so far is:

1. The tower in the beginning fell just the way you thought it should - nothing mysterious there whatsoever.

2. A picture of some debris from 2 hitting 3 - again, nothing mysterious at all.

I'm simply going to ignore your suggestion that we discuss "explosions" in the video. Let's try to stay on topic, okay?

[Christophera]

56. Top Portion Falls South, Not SE. Cube Shape Of Top Easily Seen.

boloboffin wrote:

...and yet when WTC 2 falls to the SE in the beginning, you simply dismiss it as irrelevant?

Dismiss and irrelevant are your words, distortions.

You are distorting what is seen as being South East. It is not a South East direction. The upper portion falls directly south.

boloboffin wrote:

in other words, it was 32 stories high, and probably twice the entire mass of WTC 3. Now take another look at your picture, Christophera. Are you seriously suggesting that your tiny picture is showing us the entire top section of WTC 2 falling on top of WTC 3?

I did not suggest that the image below is the entire top portion and it is obvious that it is only 4 or so floors. You suggest I am distorting but it is you that is distorting and I am locating the specific distortions you use and making them clear.



The thin red line is the approximate outline of the top edge of the tower.

The pink arrow points to the steel reinforced cast top of the core. The dark lines across it in the photo are the shadows of perimeter box columns made by sun light along the approximate pink line. This is important because it shows a cube like shape which can only occur at the top.

The thin green line is the corner of the building and edge of where the perimeter columns were that have rotated counter clockwise around an attachment point that would have been located at the lower left of the standing building in that panel face. The heavy green arrow points to the edge of the building face, corner point.

The core is so heavy the outer wall segments are catching air and putting drag on the core which is tearing the outer column panel away with the speed of its descent.

boloboffin wrote:

I'm simply going to ignore your suggestion that we discuss "explosions" in the video. Let's try to stay on topic, okay?

Again, because I mention explosions you distort and imply I've suggested we talk about explosions, another distortion. Actually a double distortion, you imply with your distortion that it would be improper to discuss explosions show in the video, it is totally proper as causal to the tops falling in the directions they did.

The top of WTC 2 hit the center of WTC 3, very Westward of WTC 2's footprint.

[k-robjoe]

61. I would say

that is all perimeter walls in that picture. That´s how it looks. And it doesn´t make sense at all that there´s a portion of the top of the tower in there. What the pink arrow is pointing to looks just like a portion of perimeter wall.

On edit : If the green arrow is supposed to be the corner of a cube shape, then the colums in the perimeter wall portion would have to go horizontally, not? Which they didn´t.

[Christophera]

63. READ CAREFULLY: Image Explained Fully. Top Falls To West

that is all perimeter walls in that picture. That´s how it looks. And it doesn´t make sense at all that there´s a portion of the top of the tower in there.

The top of the concrete CORE is inside the perimeter walls and is seen as a brown/grey cube.

What the pink arrow is pointing to looks just like a portion of perimeter wall.

The below, which was posted, shows that the black lines having the dimensions of the perimeer wall are the SHADOWS of the wall on the roof surface. Which was explained in my post, I repeat.

The pink arrow points to the steel reinforced cast top of the concrete core. The dark lines across it in the photo are the shadows of perimeter box columns made by sun light along the approximate pink line. This is important because it shows a cube like shape which can only occur at the top.

If the green arrow is supposed to be the corner of a cube shape, then the colums in the perimeter wall portion would have to go horizontally, not? Which they didn´t.

I repeat and bold what I said explaining what is seen. The rotated panels of perimeter box columns have exposed the top of the tubular concrete core. The green arrow points to the what WAS the corner of the building (thin green line) after rotation.

The thin red line is the approximate outline of the top edge of the tower. The thin green line is the corner of the building and edge of where the perimeter columns were that have rotated counter clockwise around an attachment point that would have been located at the lower left of the standing building in that panel face. The heavy green arrow points to the edge of the building face, corner point.

Very careful reading and analysis of my posts is necessary as they deal with dynamically changing spatial relationships in the WTC photos. A knowledge of building materials and techniques of steel and concrete construction are required to properly analyse these images. I watched a 2 hour documentary in 1990 compiling 16mm original construction footage detailing the constrcution of WTC 1. Nearly all of my analysis comes from larger base of knowlege from that video than most people have. I have met numerous people who have seen the same video.

Those with construction/demolition experience see very close to what I describe in the photos and have done so from the beginning when I first posted this possibility in 2,002 on 911pi.com.

[k-robjoe]

67. I ought to be

very biased in your direction, seeing sense in your thinking and not in Boloboffins. But actually it´s the other way around.

I´m not going to go into further discussion though. Too time consuming, and too little to gain from it.

[Christophera]

68. Logic Not Always Most Critical

factor. Unconscious aspects can control us.

Boloboffin does quite well actually, once he gets down to evidence analysis.

I have information most others do not have that makes me sure of demolition. Being sure of demolition means that if things do not make sense from a collapse perspective, I know how the demo can make perfect sense from it.

Our unconscious belief systems often control our critical thinking and we are not aware of it. Something just stops us from going any further with a line of reason. The more I argue 9-11 issues and get more and more conclusive to proving a demolition, the more this abandonment of reason becomes obvious.

The benefits, yes. What do we have to gain? What are the risks?

The more we know about the world from our own investigations of the many improper things happening, the more we see the benefits. The information world that media provides does not give an indication of exactly what might change if we actually used the truth to make decisions, what the benefits might be.

[k-robjoe]

69. Of interest

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/

The first videoclip, and the second (/third)

[Bolo Boffin]

62. The top of WTC 2 did not, could not, never did hit WTC 3.

It's just not possible.

Look at this screen grab from the video I linked to:



Let's be clear here: the northeast corners are the ones closest to us in this picture. The north is to the right of the corner and the east is to the left. You can see the impact hole of Flight 11 in the North tower, which hit on the north face of WTC 1. That's the north face, and the east face is the other face visible here.

Clearly the top section of WTC 2 is tilting mostly to the east of the building. Your statement that the building is going south but not east is not correct - the building is mostly going to the east. The southward movement is only perceptible when watching the film, and it's subtle, I'll grant you. But east is the direction that section is tilting.

Which means, among the many things that did happen that day, the top of WTC 2 hitting 3 is simply impossible. It's much too far to the east to ever get back over there. Ever.

I'm glad to know that you don't think that's the entire top section of WTC 2. But it's clear that you do believe the entire surface area of WTC 2's roof is in this picture.

The square you've drawn is much too small to be the entire roof of WTC 2. Go look at the scale graphic again - the cube you've drawn looks to me to be less than a quarter of the size it needs to be. Furthermore, the cube you've drawn has no correspondance with any part of the picture. It's not there. I mean, at least with the pod pictures, I can see what they're talking about (I think they're misinterpreting it, of course, but I see what they're talking about). Your WTC 2 tower top is NOT THERE.

Finally, explosions don't enter into this discussion, as of yet. You stated some premises at the beginning of this thread. Right now, we're working over the factual basis of those statements. After you prove your premise (the direction that the towers fell), then we'll talk about what your premise implies (explosions or no). Until then, talk of the explosions is a distraction from what we're discussing.

[Christophera]

66. Must Be WTC 2 'Cause WTC 1 Is Too Far North

Oops!

Thanks for the correction. That is the East face, I forgot that step in my hurried analysis was flawed, that video is new to me, However, the top of WTC 2 did hit WTC 3 because the top of WTC 1 was too far North, see below. One of the reasons I posted this thread was to gather data on the fall patterns of the towers, all I had was the top of 2 hitting WTC 3 and 1 tilting south.

boloboffin wrote:

Let's be clear here: the northeast corners are the ones closest to us in this picture. The north is to the right of the corner and the east is to the left. You can see the impact hole of Flight 11 in the North tower, which hit on the north face of WTC 1. That's the north face, and the east face is the other face visible here.
Clearly the top section of WTC 2 is tilting mostly to the east of the building. Your statement that the building is going south but not east is not correct - the building is mostly going to the east. The southward movement is only perceptible when watching the film, and it's subtle, I'll grant you. But east is the direction that section is tilting.

Here is the image of the top of WTC 2 nearly connecting with WTC 3 just south of the angle point in the building.



boloboffin wrote:

Which means, among the many things that did happen that day, the top of WTC 2 hitting 3 is simply impossible. It's much too far to the east to ever get back over there. Ever.

I certainly accept that analysis if this were a study of a collapse.

In this case think you are making a point about controlled demolition's and exactly what is possible when optimum placement and distribution of explosives is utilized.

Evidence the top of WTC 2 hit WTC 3.

And the location of WTC 3 at that point is too far south for it to be the top of WTC 1 falling.

Here is the site map.



I want to thank you for your efforts at finding that video and correcting me. What is explained here for me is my assumption that the main part of WTC 2 fell East while the top hit WTC 3. The official story is that WTC 6 was destroyed by debris from the North tower. I now accept that part of the official story and no longer can state I have any evidence that 6 was destroyed by an explosion at plane impact with WTC 2.

Below is WTC 3 afterwards



boloboffin wrote:

I'm glad to know that you don't think that's the entire top section of WTC 2. But it's clear that you do believe the entire surface area of WTC 2's roof is in this picture. The square you've drawn is much too small to be the entire roof of WTC 2. Go look at the scale graphic again - the cube you've drawn looks to me to be less than a quarter of the size it needs to be.

I did not state that it was the entire roof although I did not specify it was not. I do not believe the entire surface of the roof is in the picture a little more that half of the core roof is shown and the overall roof top.

boloboffin wrote:

Furthermore, the cube you've drawn has no correspondence with any part of the picture. It's not there. I mean, at least with the pod pictures, I can see what they're talking about (I think they're misinterpreting it, of course, but I see what they're talking about). Your WTC 2 tower top is NOT THERE.

I've only traced the corners of the cube like shape which is obliquely viewed.



The thin red line above and to the right of the core corresponds to the stucture by being parralel with the top edge of the core. The tops of the perimeter box columns traced that cast a shadow onto the core roof show the top edge of the building face. There is quite a bit of debri and dust obscuring the view of the face of perimeter columns on that side casting the shadow but the squarish corner and its great strength, still attached to the core, cannot be anything else. I suspect that floors on that side of the top did not detonate because of severed detonation paths so the walls are still connected. There appears to be a large amount of particulate breaking away from the surface of the concrete core as well obscuring the surface some.

boloboffin wrote:

Finally, explosions don't enter into this discussion, as of yet. You stated some premises at the beginning of this thread. Right now, we're working over the factual basis of those statements. After you prove your premise (the direction that the towers fell), then we'll talk about what your premise implies (explosions or no). Until then, talk of the explosions is a distraction from what we're discussing.

Since the visable top of a tower recognizable by its structural elements it must be the top of WTC 2 because WTC 1 is too far north. Also, note the trajectory of other column assemblies travelling further West that are below the top of WTC 3 in the photo as well as the dust trails above and left. The photo is taken in a SE direction making left East ward. If they were from WTC 1 the dust trails would roughly parallel the face of WTC 3 and the pieces would be doing the same thing travelling South not West.

If you were to say that in a collapse the position of the top section falling East could not possibly result in the top 50 feet falling West, you would be correct but that premise is inadeqaute to assume that the fall of the tower was not caused by explosives. Since I argue this is a demolition and the planes had almost nothing to do with the structural failures, the use of explosives is needed to explain what HAS happenned because the top of WTC 3 did fall west and a simple collapse would not allow that.

That was a good post boloboffin. Sincere argument well made with evidence and your point about the face East was right on. There are no losers here if the arguments are made sincerly with evidence and logic is allowed to rule, we all win; life, freedom, justice, liberty and the right to pursue happpiness when we use free speech with our skills of communication in this way.

[Christophera]

33. North Non Issue: Here, Dust Of WTC 2 & Remnants Of WTC 3

Below is the dust cloud of the collapse of WTC 2. Some have said the billowing cloud is WTC 6 blowing up but it's been shown that this cloud is east of the North tower and WTC 6 was north of it.



Here is WTC 3 after the top of WTC 2 smashed into it.



Consider:
Impact on a SE corner about 3/4 of the way up. Only one engine impacts the concrete core. The top falls west, then the base of the tower falls east?????

If WTC 6 was destroyed by the fall of debris, 'because it wasn't the top of the tower, WTC 1 lost the top to the south then collapsed to the north.

The pattern of demolition appears to use the tops of the towers to smash the area of WTC 3 but secondarily place the mass of the tower on the opposite side of the top as if to avoid spillling too much mass in one area or collateral damage to property.

[HamdenRice]

38. Forget the North argument already! A New Yorker's perspective

Your have gotten totally off track in your argument about whether the arrow should point directly up or to slightly to the left. That's because for New Yorkers, there are two concepts of North-South and East-West.

Manhattan is a long narrow island with a grid street system. The island lies roughly in north south direction, but is slightly oriented to the east.

When New Yorkers talk of north and south they mean uptown and downtown along the grid and the length of the island. When they say east or west they mean toward the East River or toward the Hudson River.

The original map is correct in a GPS way; the other map is correct in the colloquial NYC way.

That is a distraction from your basic disagreement about which way the towers should have fallen.

My own take on it is that the towers were so massive that it would have taken a force far greater than the airplan to "tip" the towers. They were so massive they had to fall generally straight down.

The really interesting question is what happened to WTC7.

[Christophera]

39. Yes, Planes Can't Cause Enough Damage & 7 Not Hit!

HamdenRice wrote:

Your have gotten totally off track in your argument about whether the arrow should point directly up or to slightly to the left.
........

That is a distraction from your basic disagreement about which way the towers should have fallen.

Yes, and it went on so long that we can be sure that was the intent rather than there being a real issue with the map arrow.

HamdenRice wrote:

That's because for New Yorkers, there are two concepts of North-South and East-West.
Manhattan is a long narrow island with a grid street system. The island lies roughly in north south direction, but is slightly oriented to the east.
When New Yorkers talk of north and south they mean uptown and downtown along the grid and the length of the island. When they say east or west they mean toward the East River or toward the Hudson River.
The original map is correct in a GPS way; the other map is correct in the colloquial NYC way.

I know how that works. I did find multiple web site that confirmed the cores of both towers were aligned WTC 1Eas West, WTC 2 North South. Of course exterior walls are parallel.

HamdenRice wrote:

My own take on it is that the towers were so massive that it would have taken a force far greater than the airplan to "tip" the towers. They were so massive they had to fall generally straight down.
The really interesting question is what happened to WTC7.

I agree totally with that. With structures as intrinsically strong as the twin towers were, you could probably fly 3 to 4 plane into them before a major failure of load bearing elements would occur, unless they all hit close to the same spot.

The only way i can see that WTC 7 could have came down is with thermite. It was an all steel skyscraper.

By placing thermite against the load bearing columns on one side of every vertical support of the building and doing this every other floor, then setting the thermite off slightly faster than a freefall rate for the vertical distance between thermite charges, the falling building never hits anything that actually resists the descent.

If 3 foot vertical on every column were plated with 1 inch of thermite, every other floor to the 40th floor and a free fallrate delay were used from the bottom up, we would get a result very much like we saw.

The towers, they had concrete cores. The only part of a 500 mph plane that is going to get through the core wall at that hieght, probably about 4 feet thick, are the engines. They are only 9 feet in diameter. The core inside dimension was 80 x 120 feet.

Aside from that, regarding which direction the top of a WTC tower WOULD fall IF a plane could cause enough damage; the top of the structure will always fall towards the damage because the load bearing elements are only damaged on that side; would be North. Fron what I can tell, the lower part of the North tower did fall north. The exact opposite of what should happen, as if the plane was supposed to hit the other side. In both cases.

[LARED]

40. You have some issues to deal with.

By placing thermite against the load bearing columns on one side of every vertical support of the building and doing this every other floor, then setting the thermite off slightly faster than a freefall rate for the vertical distance between thermite charges, the falling building never hits anything that actually resists the descent.

Pardon my interruption but thermite is a reaction that generate heats. It is not an explosion that can be detonated or timed for free fall.

http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/

The towers, they had concrete cores. The only part of a 500 mph plane that is going to get through the core wall at that hieght, probably about 4 feet thick, are the engines. They are only 9 feet in diameter. The core inside dimension was 80 x 120 feet.

Now you're up to four foot thick imaginary concrete core column. You realize there is absolutely no evidence to back this up?????

Don't you??????

[Christophera]

43. I Have Not Said It Was An Explosion; Where is your Evidence?

LARED wrote:

Pardon my interruption but thermite is a reaction that generate heats. It is not an explosion that can be detonated or timed for free fall.

I have not said it was an explosion.

It burns at 30,000 foot per second, definetly a material that can facilitate freefall.


LARED wrote:

Now you're up to four foot thick imaginary concrete core column. You realize there is absolutely no evidence to back this up?????

I know you've seen this page and its evidence. Look again.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Now it is your turn to produce some evidence.

[LARED]

45. Let me see if I understand

Thermite was placed every other floor at critical load bearing columns (I can assume some of these are column with 4 feet of concrete around them). Then thermiteis ignited at a predetermined sequence to facilitate free fall speeds.

Okee doKee????

So free fall is around 10 seconds. There are at least 100 floors. So a thermite 'charge' would be set off every 0.2 seconds. Or the thermite 'charge' would be set off in a sequence that allows for it to burn through the steel and concrete in an exact seqence that takes into consideration the burn time at each column.

That makes some wild assumptions.

[Christophera]

46. You Have Not Stated Which Building You Refer To

meaning you are confused and your posts are irrelevant.

[LARED]

48. Why would it make a difference which tower?

There's no way thermite is going to melt through the steel columns in 0.2 or 0.5 or 1.5 seconds.

The theory is irrelevant.

[seatnineb]

51. And there is no way .........

......that steel is going to sag at temperatures that allowed human life to exist right up until the collapse........

[LARED]

52. Fascinating, I'm speechless.

Truly, your methods of deduction are amazing. It's just not possible to reply in a coherent manner when faced with such dauntless sophistry.

[seatnineb]

53. Re-interpreted as you have no substantive rebuttal........

[LARED]

55. There is a very good reason for that

There is nothing to rebut. The notion that people looking out of windows precludes the possibility that heat from the fires could not be part of the faiure is well...silly.

[seatnineb]

57. Is that it........

Come on LARED........

Is that the best you got?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seatnineb]

59. Seems like you are still struggling to me...........

[LARED]

60. Tell me seatnineb

Why do the people hanging out the window preclude the possibility that heat effected the steel?

[Christophera]

64. Thermite WIll Do It AND Is The Only Way To Do it

Thermite burns at 30,000 foot per second and 3,000 degrees F.

There is no other way to create that much molten steel in the periods of time available.

[LARED]

65. Thermite burns at 30,000 foot per second ???

Link please, so I can understand what you are talking about. Also the speed (why that is important is bewildering) is not doing any thing to melt the columns. And don't point me to your web page. There is no useful information there about 30,000 feet per second thermite.

I've no doubt thermite burns at 3,000 degrees F. So what? You need to generate massive levels of energy converted into heat to melt the columns (especially those special columns that have four feet of concrete over them).

So how much thermite was used. How did it get there? How did they manage to get it to heat up those massive steel and 'concrete' columns to the melting point in a few hundredths of a second?

Those are questions you need to answer

[Christophera]

70. I Was Referring To Thermite At WTC 7

and you seemed to be applying it to the twin towers.

The rate of burn varies quite a bit depending on the mix.

High explosives expand at a speed greaer than 25, 000 FPS as a rule. Thermite can be mixed to slow down but the figure I learned from a seal diver was 30,000 FP, what he used in calculations for demolitions

[Christophera]

71. You Do Not Understand: Wrong Building

You read what I said about WTC 7 and applied it to the twin towers.

You did not interpret the twin towers cast concrete core dimensions properly.

The core had perhaps a 17 foot thick core wall at the bottom and 2 foot at the top, at the height I was describing it would at least 4 foot thick.

You posting is very confused you are not reading.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. I protest

The north thing was only meant to be a quick correction. When I'm wrong, I like to be shown that I'm wrong, and will quickly admit it once I see it. I drew it out as long as I did because I was amazed to see such stubborn denial in the face of clear facts.

But, hey! This is the September 11th forum, isn't it?

All the maps are correct; the only thing at question in the north argument is Christophera's erroneous interpretation of the maps, which was part of the initial post, and so on-topic. And it's not like discussion on any other part of the subject was inhibited by the north argument, either. Nothing at any time prevented any other person from continuing the thread and talking about the main part of the initial post. The north argument was only a distraction for people who want to see distractions.

And just to be clear - the other map is correct in an architectural convention way. The arrow is meant to help align various blueprints to each other, not indicate north. That direction may have been chosen because of the colloquial NYC way, but that arrow serves a specific function in its context.

Anyhow: his premise that buildings should fall in the direction that they are initially damaged is completely off base. There are plenty of other factors in play here - the buildings in question are complicated and innovative designs to solve the problems their construction occasioned. Thankfully, a much more complete solution is coming up in the next few days from NIST, and we won't have to worry with JFK's-head-didn't-fall-the-way-I-think-it-should-fall arguments.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.