The 9/11 Forum

Oh,yes!!!

Why would somebody cut 1000 and (maybe) 900 row columns at floor 83 and 86?

Maybe the answer lies in nanothermite and the core columns.



Those numbers present floors in which the columns create "tables", these tables make the cutting process far more efficient.............

note that the 1004 has transition at floor 86, as well as the 105 and 905.....these columns were opposite to the IB maximum

what's more: the out of service elevator shaft 6A/7A (for one month) was in that same area (in the NT case).........................

note: the initial east perimeter collapse was located at floor 83, 18m from the SE corner

Maybe this illustration is easier to understand.



This demonstrates the action of a smaller, second pivot within the upper block tilt.


The orange line is the NE corner section seen in the femr gif between the 80th floor and the kink/flash.

It's bottom edge (the red ball) pivots along the red curve. The shape of the red curve shows the radius of curvature.


Please compare the rate at which this corner section rotates inward with the stated radius of curvature in the diagram above.



Consider the angle this corner segment makes with a vertical line at any moment of time as "theta" (can't do greek letters with this keyboard, sorry).



Notice how "theta" changes with time (it is not a linear).

We see theta increasing rapidly to a certain point, and then theta becomes somewhat stationary.

I'm sure the reader notices how rapidly the segment rotates inwards. The rapid change in theta is very consistent with a pivot with a relatively short radius of curvature (like a 60' floor attached to column row 1000).

And then theta becomes somewhat constant (because the pivot arm breaks?). If you look carefully at the gif you can see the moment something like a pivot arm breaks: Rotation suddenly ceases.


These posts are just alternative ways of viewing inward pulling and rotation. I don't claim to prove anything here.

A skeptical mind would have serious doubts about something I wrote a few posts ago:

Which brings us to a great question: Did we not see the east perimeter bend inwards and buckle just a few floors above? Why is there such a clean, unbuckled cut along bolt lines in the GIF animation above?


To this I answer: Yes, you saw the perimeter beld inwards but, no, you did not see the columns buckle.

This is what we actually see...

1) The perimeter bends inwards
2) If you look carefully you can see the bending slow down as if reversing itself just before being covered by smoke. The bending doesn't intensify, it slows down.
3) The scene becomes covered with smoke as forceful ejections shoot outwards

The truth is the inward bending not only slows down but the lower columns actually straighten up again after "snapping" away from the upper sheet.


The series of photos at the link below show the process quite clearly.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=121&MMN_position=260:260



Yeah, we all saw the east perimeter being pulled inwards, but it separated into upper and lower sheets totally along bolt lines. Even though the photos show the bending was substantial, the columns never reached their elastic limits and became straight again after tension was released.

We have rather exact information where a horizontal zig-zag seam broke the east face into an upper and lower section.

Perhaps the reader is not aware of how exact this information is because I have given it in separate photo presentations.

Maybe a few of you were able to "connect the dots" before now, which would put you ahead of me on this learning curve.


I feel confident that the individual bits of information fit together so well it is pretty shocking.


Why shocking? Because I did not anticipate that publicly available photos and video contained so much detail about the individual seam lines that must have failed (been cut) to produce the observed phenomena. The scattered info fits together pretty damn well.




For example...


It is quite certain that the colored lines in the following two photos are along the exact same bolt seams.






There can be no dispute that the standing piece in the latter photo is the section outlined by red and blue on the right half of the building below.




Therefore, we know with certainty that the north half of the east face collapse initiation seam broke totally along bolt lines along floors 80, 79 and 78 and did not buckle the columns on the lower edge of the pull-in.




Let's use this knowledge to see how close this zig-zag bolt seam was to the observed inward bending.


At the beginning of the pull-in the bolt lines are located as shown.




As shown in the last post, the columns are pulled in under tension and then the columns "snap", releasing the tension while the lower columns straighten up again.

Please observe how columns in groups of 6 regain their shape.



If you compare the color groups with the previous images, you will see how the ovals mark the 78th floor bolt lines. The group of 6 straight columns in each color code are the columns broken along the 79th and 80th floors.

And again moments later...




The conclusions we must draw are that

1) The inward bowing resulted in no observed buckling along the columns along the bottom edge of the bow.

2) The bowing resulted in columns breaking along only column and spandrel bolt connections in a zig-zag pattern over 3 floors along the bottom edge of the bow.

3) Columns at the bottom of the bow were not bent beyond their elastic limit. They sprung back to their original straight condition after the seam broke.


And as for the break at the bottom of pull-in on the left side of the east face? You are watching it go by in the gif below (connected to the right side).



No buckling. Broken totally along zig-zag bolt connections.

With no buckling of the perimeter columns, is this confirmation that the inward lateral force was caused by deformation of the central core ?

With no buckling of the perimeter columns, is this confirmation that the inward lateral force was caused by deformation of the central core ?

The "no buckling" idea is confirmation of an intentionally engineered event. The "pivot arm" idea is new and was just thrown out as a thought.

In other threads I have shown details of large falling perimeter sections leading all other objects in freefall by assembling publicly available photos.

I've shown details of all visible pieces falling from..

WTC1, north side
WTC1, east side
WTC1, west side

WTC2, west side
WTC2 east side above

And I can easily show you the N, S sides of WTC2 which lead the fall. Will soon.


Folks,

In all the perimeter sheets studied, we have yet to see our first buckled column

I've shown you over 20 individual falling column sections leading the fall and we've yet to see one freakin' buckle.


But what really taught me the obvious is when WTC2 east face, THE MOTHER OF ALL BUCKLES[, shows a completely unbuckled lower edge, separated with mathematical precision and symmetry along floors 80, 79 and 78, the lower edge of the inward pull.

But there is one more thing. For the last few years I have been collecting and studying photos of the rubble and I know that the total number of perimeter columns that show substantial bending or any damage that can be considered a "buckle" is so small as a percent of the whole that it can be proven that natural buckling could not possibly have been the initial perimeter failure action on any of the 8 faces.


From WTC1 nobody has shown evidence of a single buckled column during collapse initiation. We only a bunch of smoke and 2 sheets start to move relative to one another. For some strange reason the smoke always obscures the initial perimeter buckling.

On WTC2 we see early perimeter column twisting only along a central portion of the N and S faces.

On the E face we see pull in, smoke and the entire perimeter from corner to corner along the lower half of the pull-in falls outward broken entirely along bolt seams spanning 3 floors without a single buckle (and with perfect symmetry).


The demo planners used perimeter seam cuts and lateral sheet displacement on all observable sides. The "natural buckling" was faked, but they could not fake the existence of buckled perimeter sections within the rubble, of which there are practically none.

Major_Tom wrote:

With no buckling of the perimeter columns, is this confirmation that the inward lateral force was caused by deformation of the central core ?

The "no buckling" idea is confirmation of an intentionally engineered event. The "pivot arm" idea is new and was just thrown out as a thought.

One 'output' from the 3D motion studies I'm doing (which will include WTC2) will be quite precise pivot-point extraction.

I'm fully with you on the "perimeter seam cuts and lateral sheet displacement on all observable sides". I want to determine a more correct explanation for the inward pull for completeness.

The "natural buckling" was faked, but they could not fake the existence of buckled perimeter sections within the rubble, of which there are practically none.

Could you clarify what you mean by faked ?

Well here is a fairly startling observation...


http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=01BAAF042C8CD757

The separation of the perimeter into the base perimeter sections highlighted in this animation...



....looks like it occurred during the impact explosions !


Now then.

1) Exactly how was each perimeter panel attached to it's adjacent panels ?
and
2) How would an explosion from an impacting aircraft cause the specific damage highlighted ?

Wow.

Another place to look is just around the NE corner on the north and just around the SE corner on the south.

Cutting a wedge. Just like chopping down a tree.

Notice how nicely this fits with the way NIST incorrectly states the angle of the initial impact.

They needed to justify the NE corner damage and couldn't do it with the proper angle.

But you and Achimspok caught them. You guys are smoooooth.

Major_Tom wrote:Cutting a wedge. Just like chopping down a tree.

If you scrub through the Myers footage quickly, you can see the 'wedge' behaviour much more clearly.

It needed the higher resolution versions I've managed to locate and process, but it's definitely visible.

This is probably the easiest view to see it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmSGpcrpVV8

Good work and a great thread.

Have you guys seen the Kurt Sonnenfeld photos that were just recently posted? There is an archive that you can download which was just posted on 911blogger.

femr, I think I am able to place the seam as shown below with precision.




The zig-zag uses floors 80, 79, 78.

I see a very similar ejection pattern in your airplane impact gif a few posts ago, but I am unable to verify the specific floors on which the ejections occur because I am unable to use the mechanical room floor as a reference line.

The same zig-zag pattern will repeat itself 3 floors above this using floors 83, 82, 81.

I'll keep trying to locate the floors showing the ejections to see if there is a match.

Any help pinpointing those specific floors would be appreciated.




Near the beginning of this thread I tried to show that the top of a small temporarily surviving piece of perimeter just around the NE corner on the north face is also floor 80.




This is the same floor of the top of the east face zig-zag seam (80, 79, 78).

(femr, looks just like the WTC1 piece, no?)


Words cannot express my amazement as to how that little piece could just hang there considering

1) All the corner spandrel bolts were just ripped floor by floor along it's left side right down the NE corner vertical seam moments ago but the ripping wasn't strong enough to drag it down.

2) We all saw the huge WTC2 upper block just one story above tilt and fall right past this little piece, yet the piece was not dragged down by this action.

3) The molten something we all witnessed falling from the NE corner of WTC2 was coming out of the building less than 12 feet above the top of this little piece



Strong little bugger.

Major_Tom wrote:femr, I think I am able to place the seam as shown below with precision.




The zig-zag uses floors 80, 79, 78.

I see a very similar ejection pattern in your airplane impact gif a few posts ago, but I am unable to verify the specific floors on which the ejections occur because I am unable to use the mechanical room floor as a reference line.

The same zig-zag pattern will repeat itself 3 floors above this using floors 83, 82, 81.

I'll keep trying to locate the floors showing the ejections to see if there is a match.

Any help pinpointing those specific floors would be appreciated.

By comparing against a view slightly later, you can see the resultant damage, which gives you the reference points:

Near the beginning of this thread I tried to show that the top of a small temporarily surviving piece of perimeter just around the NE corner on the north face is also floor 80.

(femr, looks just like the WTC1 piece, no?)

Very similar behaviour, yes. Further improving the quality of MIHOP probabilities...
Same perimeter behaviour from two very different initiation processes, from two very different 'damage' distributions. A factor that I feel is important to highlight is the orientation of each impact (North and South), in conjunction with the orientation of each core, and the subsequent direction of 'tipping'...putting these factors together makes sense of the behaviours when viewed from a planning perspective IMO.

The actual vertical ejecta should also be discussed in more detail. As far as I'm concerned, if it can be proven that this multi-floor vertical ejecta at the seam point between the perimeter panels cannot be explained by explosion of the aircraft, and the sequential nature of the ejecta (centre of facade outwards) cannot be explained by explosion of the aircraft, and the multi-floor symmetry of the ejecta cannot be explained by explosion of the aircraft...

We can then add in the implications of the correct aircraft impact orientation on the possibility of damage to the NE corner, the trajectory of the engine, a few other factors, and we have...

Sequential charges synchronised to impact....unless someone can explain it satisfactorily otherwise.

How do you prepare for simultaneous inward bending (IB) and tilting during airplane impact without knocking the tower down too soon?

Some ideas:

You blow the spandrel plate connections in the IB zone but you leave the column-to-column bolts still connected.

when you start the IB process about an hour later you allow the column-to-column bolts to break by themselves and, with no spandrel connections left, you get the fold-in and snapping of columns in groups of three just as I had shown about 10 posts ago.


Like this:



When I was preparing those photos it struck me as strange how spandrel connections seem to play no role in resistance. The column-to-column bolts must still exist or IB is not possible and the building may have tilted and fallen long ago.

But notice in the series of photos how columns easily separate into groups of 3 as if the spandrel bolts do not keep the sheet in a continuous single piece. How could the columns so easily separate into groups of 3 or 6 if the horizontal spandrels did what they were designed to do??

And now folding and breaking is possible without buckling.


Yipes!