The 9/11 Forum

Major_Tom wrote:OWE: Could this be the perimeter wall from the upper block, floors 97 to 102 or so? Look closely at the fire "stain" on the falling W side piece in the videos. Do you see what I mean?

I've got to metabolize last night's alcohol before I can even see straight, let alone think. Upon sobriety, I'll give this a go.

Upon careful review of the info available in my last post, I issue an interesting correction to the thread:


The large 5 story W perimeter piece visible in the video and linked photo is from the "upper block", not the 92 to 98 floor region.

The bottom of the piece is severed largely along a horizontal line. The piece is an intact perimeter sheet, unbent and unbuckled, from floors 98 to 102.

This means that the upper block perimeter fell outside of the lower block in this region.

A 5 story sheet of the upper block, not the lower one, leads all other objects in the fall on the west side.

The upper block west perimeter was totally destroyed over it's lowest 5 floors during the earliest moments of the collapse.

This is verifiable from the soot markings on the falling sheet seen in both photos and video.

It is quite obvious from all videos that part C, the assembly of columns and floors above floor 98, is destroyed prior to any destruction of the lower part A below floor 93. Thanks for your contribution.

Major_Tom wrote:Upon careful review of the info available in my last post, I issue an interesting correction to the thread:


The large 5 story W perimeter piece visible in the video and linked photo is from the "upper block", not the 92 to 98 floor region.

Fabulous work! This is pretty big.

Can't say I'm too surprised, I've suspected the upper block was rubble early on. Of course it would be good if another person could corroborate this finding. I was just about to say that, even post-hangover (I did try), I don't touch your skills in identifying and tracking things in images, so it won't be me unless you have a means of enhancing the view.

To think, I just replied to Daniel's post and said things were dull, nothing new. Wrong!

Thanks

Major_Tom --- Well done, once again.

This is in essential agreement with Bazant & Le; the majority of the collapse is crush-down.

The NE corner revisited.



I claimed this is from between floors 92 and 98 and I was wrong. It is from the spandrel plate holding the 99th floor upwards to floor 104.

The bottom is cut just under the 99th floor spandrel along a horizontal line. The top is broken along bolt connections.

The top break shows a bolt alignment that is repeated along the corner every 6 floors.




This is the NIST's rendition of the WTC1 N face perimeter layout.

This pattern repeats on every face of WTC1 and 2.

The red lines show the pattern of how bolted column-to-column connections are positioned. Notice the "V" pattern. Also notice how every 6 floors there are 8 bolted connections in a row at the corner (the 5 shown and three around the corner). These are represented by the horizontal blue lines.

The perimeter as a 3-d rendering can be seen at the following link

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_perimeter/6-8_wtc1-global-model.jpg


You can see how the perimeter layout of prefabricated sections is the same on all faces. The only difference in perimeter layout from one side to another are the two-column sections used at the very corners. These are staggered differently depending on which corner they are located, but all other perimeter sections are placed in the exact same arrangement.


If we try to fit the pattern seen along the top of the NE corner assembly into the perimeter layout we find...





This is the E face perimeter layout (just ignore the airplane hole).

I obtained the E face perimeter layout by taking the mirrored image of the N face. You can verify this relation between the N and E faces is correct by comparing it to the 3-D rendering linked above.


Of the 3 possible locations for where the NE corner assembly came from, the blue shape doesn't match the upper break in the columns at the very corner.

We also know from video that everything above floor 97 started to move downwards at the earliest moments of the collapse. The failure line would have gone right throught the middle of the blue shape, yet the falling object doesn't seem to be deformed at all through it's mid-section.


Only the red and the dark green positions match the length of column sections around the corner and wouldn't be ripped in half by the initial failure.



We notice that the entire bottom of the sheet seems severed along a straight line at the botton of a spandrel plate.

We know that the bottom of the red shape is floor 92, too low to have been seriously affected by prolonged exposure to fire and heat.

Therefore the assembly must have been where the dark green shape is marked.

My last post has been has been completely edited, updated.

The NE corner assembly sheet must have come from the upper block. How else could heat and fire have affected the metal along it's bottom edge?

Major_Tom wrote:My last post has been has been completely edited, updated.

The NE corner assembly sheet must have come from the upper block. How else could heat and fire have affected the metal along it's bottom edge?

Brilliant work there Major Tom.

So how does this find come into play when we considered the NIST/B&Z/official collapse theories?

When do we give up on the current NIST/B&Z/official collapse theories which do not explain your findings and start working on a model which explains this phenomenon?

I think it is a shame that the possibility of a controlled demolition being able to explain this part of the upper section breaking away above the impact zone, is really just too scary to think about for some.

stundie wrote:

Major_Tom wrote:My last post has been has been completely edited, updated.

The NE corner assembly sheet must have come from the upper block. How else could heat and fire have affected the metal along it's bottom edge?

Brilliant work there Major Tom.

So how does this find come into play when we considered the NIST/B&Z/official collapse theories?

When do we give up on the current NIST/B&Z/official collapse theories which do not explain your findings and start working on a model which explains this phenomenon?

I think it is a shame that the possibility of a controlled demolition being able to explain this part of the upper section breaking away above the impact zone, is really just too scary to think about for some.

I really doubt that anyone here thinks that "the possibility of a controlled demolition" is "too scary to think about". That's mythology from the truth movement. On the contrary, some simply have a different opinion and often a better scientific basis for that opinion.

Hambone wrote:I really doubt that anyone here thinks that "the possibility of a controlled demolition" is "too scary to think about".

Without derailing the thread too much, I have to say that the reasons for not looking at a controlled demolition theory is more of a psychological reason than a logical one. This is not just restricted to members of this forum and of course, this is not applicable to everyone single person who doesn't believe in CD theories.

As in our anomolies post, there are many things which the official collapse theories (NIST, Bazant et all) ignores or can't explain.

If the same time was spent looking and working on a controlled demolition theory, I can guarantee that we would not have as many anomalies unexplained.

I'm not a scientist, but I can offer no other explanation as to why those who are in the field of science, object to these alternative theories so strongly. That could be down to my lack of scientific knowledge, but from my limited understanding, the scientific arguments against a controlled demolition appear to be without little to no merit.

And no matter what is discovered with each new analysis, (Like Major Toms discovery) there are those who still strongly object to looking into a demolition theory.

Hambone wrote:That's mythology from the truth movement.

I wouldn't call it mythology from the truth movement, it is something of a reoccurring theme through those I would label as pseudo-skeptics, like those who call themselves debunkers at the JREF Forum. I have witnessed this 1st hand in posting on forums more times than I care to mention.

The implications of a conspiracy is too frighten for some people to even consider as a possibility to the point that they will lie to themselves and others, in order to hold onto the belief that the official story is true.

This is coming from my own personal experience and as that of an observer.

Hambone wrote:On the contrary, some simply have a different opinion and often a better scientific basis for that opinion.

I'm sure there are some who have a better scientific basis for their opinion, but not every single unexplained phenomenon is account for.

I would be interested in the scientific explanation for the chunk that Major Tom as discovered, but I get the feeling that this will be placed amongst the ever growing pile of unexplained things which the official collapse theory ignores for fear of what it possibly shows us.

Stundie,

I personally don't have a need to understand every strange phenomena of the collapses. The simple fact that physically, no CD assistance was necessary to cause the collapse is enough for me. Also, for every single physical phenomena (I stopped counting at 15) pointed out to me by CD supporters, I have found an alternative explanation that is equally or more plausible. So I do think that with enough effort the perimeter behavior could be explained.

I have thoroughly investigated CD in WTC1 + 2 with the starting point if leaning towards CD as an explanation. Nonetheless, the fall times, structural resistance and comminution of concrete are NEVER handled correctly by the truth movement (with the exception of Jim Hoffman's fall times). These are the pillars of the CD argument.

WTC7 is another story. It is VERY strange but I don't see a motive...and there is another thread for that.

/Greg

it's naive to think that you can base something on the total collapse times of the towers

the real proves of CD (WTC 1 and 2) are in the inward bowing and collapse of the core (which was indeed collapsing at freefall speed)

WTC1 large west perimeter piece location (for real this time).



You can see puffs form around the entire piece, top and bottom, during the earliest moments of collapse initiation in the video below

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-68536067411074880&hl=en

Though you may not recognize it, you can just see the detached piece emerge from the dust at the bottom of the screen.


You can see it in still photos (the evolution of puffs around the piece) in the second picture series at the link below.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=68&MMN_position=154:154

Pretty amazing how the puffs form all around the large piece just before it detaches from the building. Can you see how the piece is carved out in the still photos?


If I had the skill I would post a video of the following clip, played forwards and backwards at various speeds to show you that the large west face perimeter piece fell in a freefall trajectory from above floor 97, not below it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ8wlKK15JM&feature=channel_page


I can see it, but I don't have the video skills to show them to you as clearly as I would like.



Concerning the ejected puffs along the top of the piece: Very good view of the intensity of ejections along the top part of the piece. From the north, check out the subtle ejections at about fl 104, 105, west (right) face during the earliest detectable movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6VxxVdXuA&feature=related


(Not to digress, but these low level ejections along floor 104, 105, W face could be part of a pattern. Consider an interesting clip that studies ejections of similar intensity on WTC2, W face below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psh8kFMKRMk

This thread is trying to introduce too many ideas at once. It must be hard for the reader to keep track of all the falling perimeter pieces I am trying to describe.


I hope this is easier to understand.



SW corner segment, Fastest falling object, definition of freefall
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=96&MMN_position=230:230


West perimeter, falling sections
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=92&MMN_position=224:224


NW corner stands below fl 98
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ind ... on=228:228


North perimeter, falling sections
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=95&MMN_position=229:229


NE corner assembly pops out, leads fall
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ind ... on=223:223


East perimeter, falling sections
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=93&MMN_position=227:227



This covers each side and each corner separately.


I'd like to include the South side and the SE corner to complete the collection but none of us have been properly authorized to see those. That work is probably better left to the authorized experts at the NIST.

Excellent, very easy to follow in the last post.

You've done a lot of meticulous work. Thanks.

That work is probably better left to the authorized experts at the NIST.

They're part of an exclusive club now, like the Vatican and Smithsonian.