The 9/11 Forum

As with WTC 1 core remnant, the WTC 2 core remnant descends almost vertically. (Bottom-up 'collapse')

I've rooted out all the WTC 2 core clips I can find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4WXfSaVsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv8PtmVpPY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgW85Ew_Npw

Should we expect similarities between WTC 1 and WTC 2 core behaviour ?

And where exactly did the cap go ? (Second clip is priceless for that question)

All 3 clips show that a group of core columns, probably the whole remaining visible core, fell downwards together.


When discussing the WTC1 visible part of the surviving core femr questioned the downward movement. That could have been caused by several actions, but now we see the same bulk downward motion again.

Not proof of anything but worth noting.


I think that basic identification of the WTC2 columns may be possible using the first clip.

My first guess is they are a group about 5 columns wide from near the center of the building. The columns are not swaying like the WTC1 case and they appear as a more fixed rectangular grid.

With the highest resolution it may be possible to distinguish between 900-1000 and 700-800 column rows. The unique layout and spacing of the 700-800 columns and the smaller spacing between 1004 and 1005 may help us identify them.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are the 1000-900 columns and if the whole row of 8 were still standing (but not visible).

Major_Tom wrote:All 3 clips show that a gorup of core columns, probably the whole remaining visible core, fell downwards together.

We can also determine the rough upper elevation...

Hard to decide which rows but the amazing thing is, it looks like all the remaining columns independently stood up again after being bended in all directions.

For further analysis: this seems to be shot from 40°42'32.66"N / 74° 0'5.29"W

achimspok wrote:Hard to decide which rows but the amazing thing is, it looks like all the remaining columns independently stood up again after being bended in all directions.

I think we can make some initial assumptions from what we have learned from the WTC1 remnant.
The appearance of the NE column edge is very similar to that seen for WTC1.501 and I think it would be interesting to see how well a rotoscope with that assumption fits.

We also know that WTC1.core descended in at least 2 sections (east and west) although I imagine it may actually have been 4 (SW, SE, NE, NW).

If we assume similar for WTC2, we could be looking at a little of half the core width.

The width to length ratio of the remnant suggests it's not the full core width to me.

All speculation though. Will need to rotoscope to WTC1 in the images, and include relative location of WTC2 by reference. Won't be spot-on, but should be enough to place the core width on the image with reasonable accuracy.

Could you link to the original images please ?

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WUFEJCSY

Here are the images.

Location 40°42'32.66"N / 74° 0'5.29"W
So it's north+103°.



Btw I'm pretty sure that the NE corner was gone but the SE corner is still there. The layering of the Zamfar images looks exactly like that.

My first guess is that the nearest column is 1008, the ne corner. the closest column seems to have too much of a discontinuity to the north not to have been a corner column.


How could a process strip the next colum to the right so cleanly, leaving such a striking discontinuity in structure?


Just a guess, but it seems column 1008 with 1007, 1006 and 1005 also visible.

If the NE corner (1008) is there then we would have just the 1000 row. In the view from NE it looks like more rows are present. If so then 1008 (NE corner) isn't included.

On the other hand the NE view shows on the left edge to very close columns. Maybe 1001 is the only one of the 1000 row and we see the 900 row in the front.

That right side, right corner just seems too perfect and clean to not have been connected to OOS flooring.

It is hard to believe more columns further right were stripped from that right corner so cleanly.


That is what my instincts tell me, and my instincts were right about the indentification of CC 501 for WTC1 for the same reason.


Such a clean stripping suggests a CC to OOS flooring transition.


In these images I am very interested in that perimeter shell seen falling away. It that a large corner section of the perimeter we see falling outwards?


And what about the core swaying as a single unit?

Is that what the lines on your gif represent? Maximum observed swaying?

WTC 1 is visible. It shouldn't be too hard to rotoscope WTC 2 in there.

Given the subsequent vertical drop of this remnant, and what has been learned from WTC1 core movement, a significant horizontal movement prior to these images must be assumed *possible*.

I agree that the linearity of the RHS (and it's depth) is far to clean to be anything other than the most northerly core column (not sure of the numbering )

Seems there is no way for a NE corner even if considering a lateral movement.

achimspok wrote:Seems there is no way for a NE corner even if considering a lateral movement.

I need to upload the source video, but...

Hmm, for me it looks like the same result. It's about the Tina Cart / Wolfgang Staehle view seen from NE of the towers. The NE corner of the core should be approximately aligned with the NE corner of the tower. No problem to check it.

This is the Tina Cart view. The view of the core appears to be a little more from the north.

achimspok wrote:

Hard to decide which rows but the amazing thing is, it looks like all the remaining columns independently stood up again after being bended in all directions.

For further analysis: this seems to be shot from 40°42'32.66"N / 74° 0'5.29"W

Achimspok,

In the first visible picture of that gif file, we can see two distant columns in the right side, and two very close columns in the left side of the remaining core. The left ones are so close each to other and they are parallel and too much straight. That means they are at their initial position. As they are close each to other, that makes me thinking that they could be the pairs of 504-505, or 604-605, or 904-905 or 1004-1005. But you show other numbers. Could you tell me how did you identified them?

That Gif isn't up to date anymore.

That's what I think:


You can use the 3D overlays. These should be much better than the Gif you mentioned. But from the outdated Gif you know that some of the upright columns were extreme deflected and stood up again. We can just hope that they don't leaning in all directions.