Other questions I can't let go of

[TomClash]

My printer at the time told me that part of the fuselage from Flight 175 came through his office window on the other side of Liberty Street. People who saw the plane go by their window say it was following a path down Liberty Street. But unlke the impact in 1 it apparently did not hit squarely and I suspect some of it wound up near where my printer was in the Deuschebank Building, which has since been closed for almost 4 years. Maybe that's one reason the fires in 2 were not raging as much as in 1.

Now why does 2 fall before 1, when 1 was hit squarely and 2 was not? Because it hit lower floors? At the beginning of 2's collapse it sounded like the steel was crying, so maybe that's right, but it is hard to get past the comparative impacts and fires.

Here's another question: why was a fire raging in 5 long before the collapse of either 1 or 2? 5 was further away from 1 or 2 than many other buildings (including 7, the Deuschebank Building or the Millenium Hotel) and the entire building was in a blaze by at least 9:45 a.m.

Here's another question: when 2 began to collapse the top looked like it was going to fall horizontally west but in fact fell mostly straight down. How did that happen?

[LARED]

1. Answer to question 2

The top section of WTC 2 could not maintain it's integrity as it started to fall over. It was designed to be vertical, when tilting over there is no way for the floor joists to stay perpendicular to the perimeter and core columns. In fact the floor joists were designed to rotate slightly as the building swayed in the wind. One side of the joist was a pivot point and the other side was a pivot point with a dampener.

See page 8 at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf for the floor joist detail.

In short, once the building tills more than 'X' degrees it will collapse.

[TomClash]

2. FEMA Report

The "Initiation of Collapse" Section at 2-35 pretty much matches what I saw from the street. The "Progression of Collapse" section seems to indicate that the lower parts of the building went west. They screwed up the location of the Banker's Trust Building (Deuschebank Building), though. It was directly south of 2 not "south and east." Not much damage went east as it turns out - the buldings directly east of 2 are open, structurally sound and occupied and have been for quite a long time.

[spooked911]

3. But how did the top of the building disintegrate in midair?

You seem to indicate that the upper stories pulled away from the core. Is this right?

But the upper chunk of 30 stories came off in big piece as if the core were severed where it broke off. It is not as though the upper chunk came apart as it tilted. It tilted, broke off started to fall, and then the whole building just progressively disintegrated. So where was the tension pulling the joists if the core was severed?

[demodewd]

4. concrete

It not only disintegrated in mid air but the concrete was pulverized in mid air.

[TomClash]

8. Concrete was pulverized in mid-air

doesn't that happen in demolitions?

[demodewd]

11. pulverization of the top section

The concrete began pulverizing at the lowest part of the top section of WTC2 before the top section fell into the base section.I'll do a google sometime tonight to illustrate.

[TomClash]

14. But it took a long time for that cloud of pulverized concrete to move

[demodewd]

16. what do you mean?

You mean the top section?

[TomClash]

19. No, I mean from the beginning of the collapse

until the cloud moved westward.

[demodewd]

24. meaning?

It was suspended in air for a second or two before it began to move. Is that what you mean?

[LARED]

20. It's called story drift

http://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/bp1b.pdf Page 3

But the upper chunk of 30 stories came off in big piece as if the core were severed where it broke off.

Yes, I agree, although I would say the core and perimeter failed

It is not as though the upper chunk came apart as it tilted.

That is exactly what happened. Allowable story drift was exceeded quickly as the section rotated, and the top section just came apart floor by floor. A building is simply not going to stay in one piece as it rotates. It is design to stand vertical with gravity load and a foundation keeping everything together

[demodewd]

22. doesn't explain

Drift doesn't explain why the lower floors of the top section are immediately pulverized into dust clouds before they have a chance to fall into the rest of the building..

[LARED]

27. What are you talking about????

In the initial stages of the collapse, where do you think the friable and dusty materials goes? There is somewhere around 30,000 to 35,000 square feet of ceiling tiles, fireproofing on the steel girders, acres of wallboard. Lets not forget the lightweight concrete floors.

As a building starts to collapse there is going to be lots and lots of small particulate matter created and blown out of the building becuase the air is going to vent.

Did it ever occur to you that the particulate size distribution is not going to be linear as you move away from the collapse center. IE smaller particles move further away that larger ones do.

[demodewd]

28. what are you talking about?

Do you have any pictorial examples of what you are talking about other than the WTC2?

What physical phenomenon other than air venting would create this phenomenon? IMHO,floors and wall boarding aren't going to pulverize themselves and create massive contiguous lines of dust flurries in a matter of a few seconds solely due to "air venting".

Why aren't the flurries of dust expelled initially from the lower half containing the darkened smoke from the fires? What the sharp delineation between what ones sees in the top section dust clouds and the lower section dust clouds in respect to coloration?
The top section IS falling into the lower section is it not?

[LARED]

32. I Agree

IMHO,floors and wall boarding aren't going to pulverize themselves and create massive contiguous lines of dust flurries in a matter of a few seconds solely due to "air venting".

They did not pulverized themselves. As the floors pancaked or collapsed, the walls, ceilings, fireproofing, and concrete got crushed by the concrete floors falling from above.

Wallboard, ceiling tiles, fireproofing is all very friable and immediately created large volumes of debris and dust. The air in these spaces MUST go somewhere. Out the building in nice looking dust flurries (whatever they are)

The different coloration is simply due to the change in areas where there is/was a fire (soot) and areas that did not see fire. (no soot)

[demodewd]

33. So...

So when the top section begins plummeting through the lower section smoke is not disspelled through the dust clouds of the lower sections floors?

[LARED]

34. Please clarify

smoke is not disspelled through the dust clouds

Huh?

[JackRiddler]

5. Five, Four, Three, Six

These four buildings were the squat, black, 8-story cornered structures that framed the Towers like brackets.

There is little mystery in their failure to collapse from fire. Even if the frame is engulfed in flames in any one of them, it's not like it's also holding up 30-40 additional stories.

There is also little mystery in the destruction visited upon them. Large chunks of the Towers hit them (especially Six, causing the deep hole).

These buildings are irrelevant to the arguments about demolition vs. collapse.

[demodewd]

6. re: hole in six

The hole in six may very well have been caused by an underground explosion.

[JackRiddler]

9. okay, you convinced me

"may very well"

Sure.

Six is the center of speculation on "the plume," the tentacle of the South Tower collapse cloud that scamsters like Mr. Von Kleist and Phil Jayhan have turned into a fictitious explosion of WTC 6.

The hole visible in Six is clearly the result of Tower debris. Six is just eight stories high and right at the foot of the North Tower.

All this talk about Three through Six is based on never having seen the complex and realizing (like almost every ahem, sane New Yorker) that these were the little rinky-dink buildings at the bottom.

[demodewd]

12. putting your sarcasm aside...

Six looks like it was blown out to me. It looks too scooped out to be a result of random debris falling. That's my opinion. I don't hold it up as fact.

[demodewd]

13. have a looksee at the crater

[JackRiddler]

23. Seen it, thanks.

The point in physical evidence presentations is not what it looks like or what we believe it shows or what may or may not be likely.

The only thing that matters in PE is what can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (and is contrary to the official story).

The corner buildings were below the Towers and had maybe 10 percent of their mass. It's easy to imagine massive destruction by way of relatively light chunks falling on them (i.e., light as a pct. of the Towers).

[demodewd]

25. close up

It would be interesting to get a good close up of the debris at the edges of the hole on the roof to see if it apparently was pushed from the inside outward. I find it a bit odd that there is such a concentration of debris in the circumferance of the hole area but so little deris penetrating the rest of the building or even amassing on top of it.

[TomClash]

7. Who's talking about six?

5 was far from 1 and the other buildings were not completely ablaze at 9:30 a.m. But 5 was.

No one said it was relevant to demolition v. collapse.

I was only asking. So take your arrogant attitude someplace else.

[JackRiddler]

10. I'll keep my attitude right here.

I just threw in Six since like five it happens to be one of the four mini buildings at the foot of the Towers.

Please establish a source for this claim:

"Here's another question: why was a fire raging in 5 long before the collapse of either 1 or 2? 5 was further away from 1 or 2 than many other buildings (including 7, the Deuschebank Building or the Millenium Hotel) and the entire building was in a blaze by at least 9:45 a.m."

How do you know a fire was raging in 5 by 9:45 a.m.?

[TomClash]

15. The source is

me. I was standing at the corner of Fulton and Broadway watching it.

[demodewd]

17. re: source

Good source! ;)

[TomClash]

18. Thanks

:-)

[JackRiddler]

21. Okay, tell us more...

I've read dozens of accounts and many people have told me their eyewitness stories (I was out of the country at the time). This is the first time I've ever heard that Building 5 was blazing in advance of the building collapses.

I respect your experience as a survivor, but given this extraordinary claim you owe it to those whom you would convince to tell more of the story as you remember it. Thanks.

[TomClash]

26. Really? No one else has mentioned this?

That's odd - there must be hundreds of people who could testify to seeing 5 burn. I watched it near the southeast corner of Fulton and Broadway across from 195 Broadway.

But it was also odd at the time because I don't recall any other building burning except the two towers. All of Building 5 was on fire. Building 5 contained Borders bookstore and I assumed some fire from the impacts at 1 or 2 hit 5 and the books kindled the fire. I don't remember seeing 4 or 6 burning at all before the collapse.

[JackRiddler]

29. Could be...

Have you seen other accounts of this? Have you spoken with people who also saw this? Have you seen any news reports?

However, I think your original assumption on the day was reasonable. Fires need not automatically catch in the buildings nearest the explosion. 5 may have been hit by a heavier piece of plane debris, or in just the right spot to set off a fire. Why do you now find it suspicious?

Again, if the plan was to blow up the whole complex, why bother with a fire in 5 or an explosion in 6 or whatever in advance of the main event?

[philb]

30. How did they know where the holes in the U.S. radar system were?

I saw the following question raised by someone on another site:

Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas
with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no
primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no
primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no
primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight
93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a
non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175
(not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked)
Question 1: How did the "hijackers" know exactly where these huge
breaches
in air defence were located?

Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from
nearby airports (Dulles/Newark), hijack the plane and crash it straight away?

http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/radar.htm

[philb]

31. Some say there's evidence some on the 9/11 planes aren't dead?

This is just one of several sites like this offering circumstantial evidence,etc. that some on the 9/11 planes might not be dead- Beamer, Olsen, etc.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/316532.shtml

Many families never collected the big bucks offered to survivors and they are an interesting group.

and there are aslo sites with evidence some of the 9/11 planes are still flying.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316595.shtml

The Strange Appearance, Disappearance and Reappearance of N612UA
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/306111.shtml

flight 93 (or was it) backtracking tail #'s the 2 591's
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300590.shtml