Another question I have is WHY was this 'spire' still standing momentarily after the collapse while there should be much stronger elements from the core still standing?

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
My main question is what kicked all the dust (fireproofing?) off while it was falling? Did some sort of shockwave travel through the spire right before/as it fell?

That dust is not fireproofing. Look at the hi-res image I posted. I think the spire ultimately just fell, too, but there is way too much dark dust rolling off of those few core columns (over time, even) for me to think anything other than the steel to have been the source of it.

When something is broken up into dust and then it comes off, it'll just linger in the air, but this stuff is just rolling off in great quantities and expanding upwards as if heated. Also, all fireproofing I've ever seen is white/light gray.


gottago,

I think the video you're talking about is 9/11 Eyewitness taken from Hoboken by Rick Siegel. Look that up and see if it's the video you're talking about.

bsbry,

Thanks that was indeed the video but the replacement offers a better view of the base; Siegel's view was obscured by low buildings.

Looking at all the visuals brought to the thread, I do agree with your analysis that the spire does not completely disintegrate but is rather disintegrating and shedding enormous quantities of dark dust as it falls.

That alone is remarkable, as is the spire itself, since it is really the only structural element we can isolate and examine during the collapse.

Gotcha Brey..

Can I say that my brain is now totally warped.

bsbray11

I think the spire ultimately just fell, too, but there is way too much dark dust rolling off of those few core columns (over time, even) for me to think anything other than the steel to have been the source of it.

Just hard to get my head around but I understand what you are saying and I agree, at least from what I can see by what I have looked at so far. If the steel itself was being transformed some how.. whaat? .... If that's not dust or fireproofing then I'm totally out in left field here. I believe that there some freaky technology that the general public doesn't know about so I'm open minded but I'll just have to say this is definitely one of the more peculiar oddities of the collapses.


[edit on 12-3-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Another question I have is WHY was this 'spire' still standing momentarily after the collapse while there should be much stronger elements from the core still standing?

VFTS,

Considering the strength of the core it's absurd to even think the towers should have fallen from aircraft impacts in the first place, but even if you're going to accept that much, the tops only should have fallen off where the planes hit. There's no logic to complete collapse--the buildings were shedding weight and stresses were being relieved. And even if you're going to accept a total pancaking collapse, you still should have had most of the core standing at the end. And even if you don't accept that, at least the spire--the nub of the core.

What is amazing to my eye indeed is that the spire is still standing after what must have been a mini-nuke detonation in the sub-basement.

If you go back through the thread to the photo Cameron Fox provided, you'll see that much of the the spire is simply disintegrating, frying and spalling off enormous amounts of smoke as it falls.

That it did stand as long as it did only proves how massive and well-built the core truly was.

My main question right now is what exactly is that 'stuff' coming off the spire as it falls?

Gottago

One further thought. You have to be amazed at the incredible strength and integrity of the structure, to stand intact as long as it did while the top is exploding, if you consider the basement core has just been mini-nuked.

Absolutely. I'm just about 100% convinced that it was the sheer strength of the exterior 'perimeter' that allowed the building to collapse the way it did, even with the footing knocked out first. The interior falling within the very strong exterior perimeter explains alot for me. When you watch the building collapse.. it like the interior is 'peeling' the exterior inwards and exploding at the same time.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Have you considered that the Demolition was so good that the building nearly fell at gravity speed and the removal of oxigen fron the vacuum created by the collapse left a shadow or ghost of smoke of similar size and proportions on the building?

That for me is a proof of demolition, there is no way that much energy was contained by just a collapse, the added explosives and it shows....

Check the previous video is a very good example...

Great post!, my pint is that black smoke and of course a huge cloud of pulverized matter goes out as the WTC falls at incredible speed...if the fire was on the upper levels how do we account the destruction, smoke and energy of ...mmm lets say 45 floor ..down?...

Even my wife who is no demolition expert since that dreadful day , said, those buildings where demolished....

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Akareyon
The question remains: why did virtually all vertical steel components on that day follow gravity, i.e. straight down, instead of toppling?

Answer: No resistance. There are only a few ways that I can think of to achieve this. And structural damage and fire aren't them.

Thats the problem with the WTC aspect of 911, nothing even close to this has ever happened, it is all theory. One of the only parts of the puzzle that isnt theory is exactly what has been stated, newtons 3rd law. The path of least resistance could not have been the lower floors under normal circumstances, or even the extenuating circumstances of jets striking + burning fuel/environmental variables.

Which brings me to the second bigest problem with 911, burden of proof. The burden of proof is not on the CT'ers, it is on the government. They needed to be able to PROVE that it was brought down solely by the hijackers/plotters.

The lack of this proof certainly implies conspiracy. Thats our problem, that is the implication. Circumstantial evidence doesent convict.