New Analysis of WTC2's Standing Core

I came across this on the forum of the new Scholars group (the Steve Jones branch-off) and thought I would share, since the forum isn't really open publicly. I don't guess I'm breaking any rules.


Pretty much, to-scale diagrams of the structure were overlaid onto a photo showing WTC2's standing core section.




The scaled diagrams overlaid mathematically:




This shows that the outer portion of the core has been removed, and what you're looking at is the core with its outermost, or perimeter (of the core, not the whole building! could get confusing) set of columns stripped.

For demolition theories, this would suggest that blasts were coming from just inside the core structure ripping outward.

For the now-defunct pancake theories (no longer supported by NIST), this would suggest that the truss connections to the core columns were stronger than the core columns themselves, which is absolutely absurd.

Just thought I would throw this out there for anyone interested.


Edit to add: The image was not adjusted for its slight upward angle in the images above, which may change the angles probably by a degree or two at most.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by bsbray11]

Ohh a branch..can we call them the Branch Jonesenians?

Sorry, no offense I just couldn't resist.

I think this post applies to this as well.


In 1996 Nova on PBS did a show on Controlled Demolitions:

They interviewed Stacey Loizeaux, a demolition expert, about her trade. I am going to take a couple of excerpts from the transcript.

NOVA: What kind of analysis goes into figuring out how to demolish a building?

SL: Well, we've got what we refer to as our historic database, which is largely in my father and my uncle's brain. Ninety-five percent of our knowledge has come from hands-on experience—learning, watching different structures, watching the way they move. A lot of times my father and my uncle will walk in a building and they'll say, "Oh, this is just like the such and such building. This is what we're going to do." So, there really isn't a class you can take. There's no book you can read that's going to teach you how to do this. It's really a practical physical understanding of how buildings work. You know, just because an engineer designed a building to work one way, it doesn't mean that, when they built it, that that's actually how it's working. We have to go in and decide what is load bearing, what is not—what is safe to remove, what isn't. So there's quite a bit of in-the-field analysis that goes on.

NOVA: Do you tend to look at blueprints?

SL: Well, 90 percent of the time we don't have them. A lot of times those plans have been misplaced or have disintegrated into dust. But when we do have them, yeah, we use them but we don't rely on them. There's a difference between 'as drawn' and 'as built'. And you never trust the drawings. That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns.

NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?

SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.

NOVA: How did they describe it?

SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams. The whole building was basically full of, you know, classified information. So we actually had a contract with them to remove any classified materials from the building that we could locate—thousands and thousands of pieces of paper. But, it was just very heart wrenching, you know, because they were still recovering bodies right up until days before we actually brought down the building. My uncle and my father worked quite a bit in Mexico City in '85 following the earthquake and they had helped pull bodies out there. So, it's not like it's ever old hat, but they'd been there before.

I encourage EVERYONE to go read this whole article. It was from 1996 so we don't have to think it was anyway biased by 9/11 stuff.

LINK: www.pbs.org...

[edit on 18-2-2007 by GwionX]

Originally posted by bsbray11

WOW Look how far the top of the tower fell away from the core. Like it just collapsed or something..

Originally posted by GwionX
WOW Look how far the top of the tower fell away from the core. Like it just collapsed or something..

All the trusses and perimeter columns were separated from the core and "fell" (read: were ejected with significant lateral force) down around it. Then the cores came straight down from their bases.

Any way we look at it the guy who demolished those buildings, really knew its job ( I am assuming he is dead now)... BTW I wonder how many New Yorkers had their lungs filled with asbestos and what not on that fateful day...

Originally posted by GwionX
Ohh a branch..can we call them the Branch Jonesenians?

Sorry, no offense I just couldn't resist.

I think this post applies to this as well.

Click! I knew that ignore button was there for something...


Hey Gwion, you were my first!!!

I cant stand obnoxious [expletive deleted]!!!

Sorry ...it is just this stuff operates so much like a cult.

I really think Alex Jones is some kind of mix between Rush Limbaugh and Jim Jones.

Talks like Rush.

Thinks like Jim.

If you take the blinders off for a second..you should look into it.

Originally posted by GwionX
If you take the blinders off for a second..you should look into it.

Thats funny comming from someone who seems to be brainwashed by the media and has not done research.

No, that's comming from somebody that doesn't agree with you.

... because he's been brainwashed and hasn't done any research.

Give me a break! I have a single word "perspective". Look it up and use the definition that applies in art and photographs.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by JIMC5499]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Give me a break! I have a single word "perspective". Look it up and use the definition that applies in art and photographs.

Too bad we already know the relative positions of the buildings to each other, and the ratios between their perimeters and the length of the core section, etc.

It's not like we're looking at two planes flying through the air, and trying to analyze their sizes without knowing exactly where they are in the 3D. There is enough info here for this analysis and then some.

That is not conclusive proof that the perimeter core columns are missing in that picture. That's the same sort of math that led Jones to believe that only 5000lbs of explosives would be needed.

Guestimating is not going to prove this.

However, please elaborate on this theory you are presenting. Are you saying that every floor had charges placed in the core?

I certainly don't wish to comment on whether this "evidence" means anything or not. But i think that you can rule out perspective as being an eliminator of this info. Even given that the tower shown collapsed in that photo was further away from the point of the photograph, it would not explain the difference.

Anyone who was there when the towers were still in operation knows that they were quite close to each other, and at the distance of the photograph, the distance would be indistinguishable.

Perspective is only an issue if you have missing info on the objects you're looking at. For the towers, we know exactly how wide they were, how wide the core was on any side, how far the towers were from each other, the angles they were from each other, etc.

We know exactly where the towers were in 3D space. So in any photograph, you take the ratios of the sides (how they appear to an observer located in some position) and you can get the angles at which the photographer is offset. That simple. That is what someone has now done, and the result is posted above.

If one of the towers was actually 1 mile behind itself, and enlarged accordingly to LOOK like it was to-scale and in its normal place, then you'd have a problem. No such trickery is done here unless you believe some really out-there stuff, like teleporting towers.

And no one is guessing at anything.

Originally posted by sp00n1
... because he's been brainwashed and hasn't done any research.

Or having looked at the evidence, came to different conclusions.

Hey look, it's the Nasdaq building behind the smoke... COME ON!