Hi folks, I did a little web page today on the subject of the last steel column standing in the pit of WTC2.

There are a few articles written on this item and in one the writer states that its a South Tower SE corner perimeter column. I did some homework, and determined it is more likely to be a core column due to its width (5' +) and size (60 tons) and the location.

Why is location important? My opinion is that its virtually impossible to have 1 million tons plus of debris fall, starting at 1360 ft above grade (add 70ft sub-grade elevation) and land on this steel column at the core, with the result we see in the photos.

What do you think?

Now we get to the real interesting question... why is only one column FOUND left in tact. I have a pretty good guess why, but i'll leave it alone for now.

Cheers!

Jim

Lunk, i consider that post to be like spray painting graffiti - you did not consider the content. You got your message out. Please refrain from obfuscating my thoughts.

Thanks,

Jim

I read your web page, but I still haven't figured out what you are getting at.

Why is the remaining column still standing after the tower fell on it?

When Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nuked, the only parts of the cities which remained standing were right underneath the explosions.

I thought that this was what you were on about.
Sorry.

(edit) pluralizations

Ok, i'm going to apologize for my mouth. Sorry to snap at you. Nearly every time I post on structural elements here, you bring up the nukes and I find that very disconcerting. If i counter, then it will become a nuke-debate.

As one of your posts on this subject stated (paraphrasing) that there were no architectural plans released/available i thought you might shown some interest that there are indeed a full set of drawings available.

The intent of the web page, was to illustrate what did not happen, (as opposed to what happened). The collection of photo's and their interpretation show that a pancake-like collapse, with a pile-driver like force (as the N.I.S.T. theory supports), would not have suddenly ceased crushing beams and columns at some elevation. The fact that the sub-levels are below grade makes no difference. In one close-up photo alone, there are nine columns observed to be still intact, standing. The towers did not collapse, end of story.

As for the nuke business, it belongs in the debate forum IMHO. The significance of the WTC demolition cannot be overstated. Its the one phenomena, of all the many hundreds of 9/11 contentious 'facts' that can be demonstratively proven. By introducing nukes the entire matter instantly suffers credibility. That's all i'm going to say on the nuke issue.

BTW, (lunk) i was hoping to generate some back and forth positive discussion with this page. There is a lot of meat on the bone here. I'll give you just one example: In one photo we have the famous diagonal cut on the core column. In the drawings (bottom page detail), we see that the columns were solidly fire bricked all the way up to some level. What's wrong with this picture? In otherwords, how do we suppose they got thru the firebrick layer to cut the steel? Well, explosives would work. How many beams did they cut? Count the explosions. This could explain why they timed the explosions to coincide with the aircraft impact. It masked the explosions AND it gave someone enough time to then set the cutter charges in place, and get the hell out of there. Its a only theory, but it makes sense to me at least.

Jim,

It is surely even more amazing that people on the 6th floor of the North Tower survived the tower's collapse because they were protected by a stairwell.

http://www.werismyki.com/artcls/fdny_chief...tc_experie.html

Just a thought,

KP

Thanks for the link KP. Here's another, http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/NYT9-1...txt/9110211.txt ,

Quite an interesting interview transcript. Here he says that he was on about the 5th, or 6th, or maybe 7th floor (he wasn't sure) in the stairwell when the WTC1 tower came down. He thinks they ended on the pile of rubble that was about 3rd level. He mentions elsewhere that the South Tower had left a three story pile of rubble. It seems that the section of stairwell they were in dropped intact, forming a kind of protective shell around them and it landed on the debris pile. After about 90 minutes, the smoke and dust settled, and they saw a tiny ray of light shining thru, from there they made it out. Quite a story.

There is a 3 part video on youtube where he tells a remarkable story about yanking a guy off a computer on the 37th floor. The man was typing furiously and refused to leave his keyboard, because he was 'doing something important'. He was indignant about being told what to do, so Chief Richard Piciotto grabbed him, ripping his shirt, manhandled him out of his chair and forced him toward the stairs, threatening to throw him down the stairs, if he didn't go on his own. The man went. This was about 10 min before WTC1 came down. The vid is worth listening to also to hear his view of how everything was turned to dust. (his rationalization behind it). I wonder what he thinks today, and if he's heard about Niels Harrit.

Hi Jimmy Mac!

And a belated Welcome to PFT Forums. I really enjoyed your introductory post about how the controlled demolition became clear to you and the philosophical and psychological implications. Although I've been here a while, I just posted the briefest of introductions because my priority was learning. Your intro inspired me to compose my story of how I ended up here. Although different from yours, it has implications sounding in the same areas as I thought yours did. It's a bit long but if you don't mind I''ll finish it up and post on the thread you started.

After researching and investigating all aspects of the matter here and elsewhere. I regard the controlled demolition of the WTCs 1,2, and 7 as a "done deal". You said in No. 5 "Its the one phenomena, of all the many hundreds of 9/11 contentious 'facts' that can be demonstratively proven."
I agree and that is one of the core principles of my certainty about the CD. I think the best evidence is the Internet Archive that has little movies that play all of the network broadcasts from 911 and show the towers fall. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, BBC. I've watched them all and a CD is what you see. Period. Your not a man if you don't rely on what your senses tell you, and less of a non-man if you sink deeper by letting someone else tell you what you are watching.

Despite what think I know, you've made some good detailed and knowledgeable Posts that opened some new things for me.

In response to my post about a "compromise" position on whether the buildings were designed with demolition in mind, you posted some info about the the history of the remedial problems at WTC. I'm fully familiar with that, that the highest estimate was I think $4,000,000,000 plus headaches, and the interests of the owners and other players. The "two insurable events" proceeds were $5,000,000,000. One hell of a potential swing. I figure the minimum still has the word "billion" in it. It might be possible to construct some model (with assumptions like forced sell, un-remediated net liability because they can't sell and there's a fixed cost to demolish them, no willing buyer at your price, short current time frame, and/or maximum remediation cost of $4,000,000,000) the maximum potential swing might be $9,000,000,000. That number commands respect in any company! You also said that no architect would design into his creation its destruction. I kind of had that in mind when I said assuming designing with demolition in mind it was "feasible and desirable", intending "desirable" to cover whatever unknown and contrary political or emotional forces were at work. That said, I agree with you that this is far-fetched and my Post proposing a middle ground was mostly an intellectual exercise.

As to the "nuke" thing, I agree with you, and not just on its specific merits. You touched on a broader theme that I think is behind my own pet peeve - No Planes and its corollary that the Networks were feeding fake videos. I don't want the integrity of my best evidence of a CD undermined!

I wonder what you think of this principle or strategy, which I use for pragmatic reasons, not because it reflects all of what I really think. "Start close to the "Official Story" and be judicious when you depart from it." Make sure you are satisfied with the evidence for the departure and make sure that the scope of the departure fits the evidence. I figure that the perpetrators of something this monstrous would not just cover their tracks but do everything possible to avoid making tracks at all, and would avoid altering the terrain and normal course of events as much as possible (for example, a "nuke" would be much more than needed to do the job and leave tracks). It also makes it easier to get new people to listen or understand.

EDIT - corrections in italics to say what I meant instead of the opposite

The CD is a pretty big departure and shows that this principle has a lot of flex. As an example of something I keep from the OTC, I believe the terrorists hijacked the two WTC planes with the stated passengers and crew and intending to fly them into the WTC and did so, killing everybody. An example of a departure that I believe is true but won't make because there is no proof is that the terrorists some type of assistance with their flying such as a remote control autopilot. That will sharpen their skills real quick and fortify their courage too! It might also explain why no CVR's were recovered because they might record "Allah guide me! I turn left and the plane goes right." EDIT TO ADD: Unlike WTC, I think there's good evidence that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon - another departure.

Now to your question posed on this thread about why the one column was still standing after 1,000,000 tons (concrete subtracted) fell on it. I'll take a stab consistent with minimum departure principle. ----- It was just a random event. The CD collapse was a chaotic event involving a zillion pieces moving a long distance through disturbed air. Anything could happen so there is nothing inherently unusual about any particular thing that occurred.

From what I've seen, the core went down first, and the demolition began in the top third, and went down from there. I think the demolition wave traveled faster than gravity and was followed by the building, down.

Has anyone found anything about the total amount of steel taken away from the site, in the cleanup?

Whew...that was a good read. I would certainly be honoured to receive your story in my intro thread, thank you.

You raise a number of good points above. A special hat-tip on this one: " You're not a man if you don't rely on what your senses tell you, and less of a non-man if you sink deeper by letting someone else tell you what you are watching."

I need some 'think-time' on the balance of your comments; back to you soon.

Cheers!

'the core went down first' (agreed, but only core section above the plane strike area was a leading event)

' and the demolition began in the top third ' I get your point, but i would qualify that to say the CD began about 6 to 8 seconds in sub level 4 or 5 before the plane event; ( William Rodriquez - WTC Head Janitor) and the CD appears to have had multiple stages (multiple phases, multiple waves)

" I think the demolition wave traveled faster than gravity and was followed by the building, down. " (agreed) I would qualify that to say the floor areas (excluding stairwells) were followed down by the core section, below the plane strike area, where below the plane strike, we see a building corner edge remain intact above the leading floor explosion wave. The lower 2/3 of core dismantling appears to be a separate explosive wave, delayed by about 1.5 seconds behind the floor explosions. (the core needed to remain intact to preserve the building's lateral integrity while the floor explosives blew.

In simple terms, the building area was dismantled downward floor-by-floor (2 or more floors at a time), as was the 47 column core array, section by section, level-by-level, a separate wave.

The stairwells were the one 'piece' if you like, which were not exploded, and left to drop in the cloud. They served no structural purpose, and were incidental.

Edited to note 'floor explosives' means the explosives that blew the 'floor areas' (most probably as jim hoffman says, in the ceiling tiles, or similar innovation..whatever it was, where ever placed, it was uniform in span and in timing over an acre of floor area. )

A couple of points Jim,

1. The collapses themselves were preceded by the buildings/ground shaking as reported by numerous eye-witnesses. It suggests some event occurred underground prior to the observed collapses.

2. Not all explosions reported from the towers (or the basement floors) were necessarily initiated for the destruction of the buildings. There is a school of thought that the purpose of the these early explosions was to hamper fire-fighting efforts and to take out the systems in the towers that could be used to co-ordinate these efforts.

Hi, yes i am pretty up to speed on the above ideas. I am open minded, so don't take it otherwise when I say as follows, that I have now figured out to my own satisfaction, about 96% of this puzzle of the WTC take down, and i mean on a minute by minute, event by event basis, all events correlated. I don't want that to sound arrogant either, so pls let me explain a bit.

Did you ever do the big crossword puzzles on the dining room table when you were a kid? First the ears, then a foot, and then a snout, and eventually at one moment you saw a giraffe in your minds eye materialize, and you quickly snapped all the other pieces together. In Psychology, that moment is sometimes called a gestalt. Well, I had my gestalt moment. All the pieces fit for me now. There's just a bit of tidy-up left.

Solving this puzzle I went thru a kind of forensic CSI-type process where I threw out a lot of hunches, because they didn't fit. When I had a hunch that fit, I hung on to it until it matched another group of pieces, stand-alone fitting together elsewhere. Finally, I had all the piece-groups connecting and the final picture emerged quickly at the gestalt point.

So that's the process I went thru, and I am there now. I have a deadly scorpion on the dining room table, fully assembled. This includes the bsmt explosions which perplexed me for the longest time. They were indeed the hardest. I think on the weekend, I will write the story and lay it up on that temporary web site I built yesterday. Or maybe next week some time.

My scorpion only deals with the execution of the CD crime, and only the WTC1 and WTC2 take-downs. I will not allow myself to get into the aircraft scenario because the field is not my expertise. Construction however, I know.


I hope that makes sense.

Concrete can be "blown up" but doesn't steel have to be melted through?
The steel was more or less complete intact pieces, only a few with angled cuts, weren't they?

I wonder if this is why, thermite was found.

Again, the only use of concrete as a STRUCTURAL ELEMENT, was in the column footing.

If you want to speculate on something, how about this one: after you understand ' exactly' how they took down the buildings, you will see that they had to plant core charges to initate the collapse of the core at or around the aircraft stike level. Why? Because the building take-down had to simulate for public consumption, the idea of a structural collapse caused by aircraft strike. Notice that the aircraft strikes occur at levels that were previously upgraded with fire protection. There is a planning method emerging here which leaves clues.

So the bolting points at the ends of the column were "blown"?

Bolts? No. Lunk...the evidence is right in the photos

Yes, I completely concur, (as we know) The Law of Conservation of Momentum seals it; buildings do not fall down by themselves at the speed of gravity. In my case, I have been obsessed (I admit to the obsession) to solve the mechanics of the crime. It's probably a giant waste of time, but I have to do it. It’s a personal thing I suppose; maybe it's just the challenge solving an intriguing problem. I have to satisfy myself by understanding how they accomplished the CD in the manner they did.

Allow me to add a little anecdote. The same day I 'woke up' to the CD, I came across Kevin Cosgrove's now famous last call from the 105th of WTC2. I was horrified of course. Feeling his helplessness, and his terror, his terror became my terror. He knew he was going to die. But I was still alive after I felt his terror. Then I became incredibly angry.

I can't explain my anger, but it was intense because I knew it was 'our side' that did this. Later on I began to realize just who and what the force of this evil is and how diabolical they are. Now I realize my entire life has been shaped by this same force. I cannot explain the depth of my reaction to that, only to say that waking up in a world controlled by such a black force had a profound effect. Think of how you felt the day John Lennon died, and that's probably close. I came to realize we are in a struggle between the light and the darkness and it's all inclusive, we cannot run, we cannot hide.

At that moment I kind of made Kevin a promise, something like, "buddy, I'm going to find out who did this to you, and how they did it." So it became sort of a promise to a dead man I never knew. But to me, he was everyman. I could also die like him. I suppose I felt fear with the anger. So I think in my own way, I personalized the event, for whatever reason. This may sound a bit melodramatic or corny, but its how I feel. Now, three months later I've figured out to my own satisfaction, down to the fine strokes, how they brought the towers down. I'm going to write a little story about it, and that will be it. It's symbolic, like letting loose a dove.

To be continued. I'm working my way through your post, because it deserves a considered response.

Later...

Hi JimmyMac!

Thanks for the nice words about my post. I just wanted you to have some idea about how I approach the WTC because your work on the demolition method might help me explain it to others. The first thing below is how I would explain it to a newbie and why - if you think anything is wrong with it please fell free to let me know. Toward the bottom are some of the questions I still can't answer in italics to set them apart. To give you an idea of what you are dealing with, I set forth my ???*extensive qualifications*??? on construction at the end, which are just enough to make me dangerous.

1. This might be a better explanation of my "Minimum Departure" principle: (1) minimize changes in the official story; (2) with good evidence that you fully understand; (3) know exactly what must change; and (4) only change to that extent. It's a tool for breaking down a person's natural resistance to a thing that is so monstrous and disturbing that it won't just change their view of 911, but their fundamental thinking about how the world works. So you have to sell out what you might really think in favor of getting converts.

I figure that they are all locked into and know the Official Story. Their lock is what I have to break so I have to be credible. What they think they already know gives them a time line and other things that help them navigate and understand. They won't start listening unless you have good evidence and keep them on familiar ground. They won't keep listening unless you understand the evidence and present it well. They won't agree unless you overcome their objections and fear of feeling like a fool for buying the entire official story in the first place. Showing that most of what they understand doesn't have to change makes you credible and allows them to think that they mostly weren't fooled. A lot of objections come from the changes they have to make in what they think they already know. It's easier for you to justify those changes when they are specific and as small as possible.

2. With regard to CD in general and your method in particular, most people *already know* two things.

a. "The impact of the hijacked planes combined with their hot jet fuel fires damaged the

structure to such extent that it failed".

My approach keeps "the impact of the hijacked planes combined with jet fuel fires damaged the structure to such extent that it _____ ". You only have to toss out "hot" and put something other than "failed" in the blank like "had a big hole in it and made part of it black".

This is just an illustration of the principle. Because it concerns the CD as a fact and you are working on how a CD was done, it's not involved. The next one does relate to how your work will help.

[/indent]b. "Controlled demolition of such huge buildings requires one of the few expert private companies, weeks of planning and preparation, many people, lots materials, preliminary demolition or removal of certain things, placing bundles of TNT sticks in open space all over the building, running wires from each down the halls and steps and then outside for a safe distance to a plunger, . . . . and a permit".

I always hear this objection and here is my current answer.

a. You are way behind on the technology. Each charge is smaller, can be made to cut, melt, concuss or act in other ways, and has a radio controlled detonator. No more wires- the charge is an independent pre-made unit, ready to go. Placing it can be as simple as carrying it in and setting it down, and concealing it is not difficult. Once placed, nothing more is needed and they are ready for use and will be for months. The detonator is basically a computer that sends radio signals to the charges according to a program that is tailored to the job and allows each charge to be set in a precise sequence divided into milliseconds. They can start at any point and go up or down or both or first in one direction and then the other while at the same time giving different treatment to different components. As a result, they can vary how CDs look. And that is just for your standard commercial job. The military technology around the world is more exotic.

b. An expert private company is not necessary. There are at least 1,000 private people around the world who know how to use this technology and sell their services. Some do illegal things for criminals and governments. Some are legitimate consultants for businesses, governments and individuals. Some do legitimate jobs where the large companies aren't required, cost too much, turn them down or are not available. Some do otherwise legitimate jobs for customers who want to cut corners. If you add world military you have more than 10,000. All are shadowy or at least discrete by nature and well aware that talking is admitting to being a conspirator and actor in The Biggest Crime In American History. You say common sense tells you that someone would have said something by now when it should be telling you why no one has or ever will say anything.

c. The huge buildings aren't themselves a problem. You already know that airplane impacts and their hot jet fuel fires can look just like a controlled demolition and accidentally have the same result. Why wouldn't the deliberate use of this technology, which is designed for the purpose, work as well?

d. Given that a normal CD would otherwise work, the need to surreptitiously plan and set up this CD is the only thing that is different and adds difficulty. On the other hand, its purpose is to cause a catastrophe, so safety can be disregarded; in the usual case it's the largest problem. This CD is not more difficult, just different, with an abnormal problem replacing a normal problem.

e. There will not be any pre-demolition work. Usually, safety and salvage are the reasons for this very visible and time consuming work. But safety is not a concern; nor is salvage for obvious reasons. Your right that this always done before a CD, but it's not essential when the only thing wanted is a CD.

f. Adding a permit was funny but the huge scale might benefit and interest a few very powerful people whose blessing and aid will help enormously. Such power can leverage the capability of the perps allowing them to do more with less or do things in the open. This isn't money but instead the power to make well placed or timed things happen or fail or provide an unquestionable cover story.

f. So after the main perps get some kind of advance notice of the attack, they have to:

- obtain the required "permits" and "permissions"

- plan the concealed placement, types, sequence and timing of the charges,

- assemble the number of people needed to execute the plan,

- obtain whatever vehicles, tools and supplies are needed,

- program the computer detonator accordingly,

- slip the number and type of charges the plan requires into the building,

- place and conceal each charge according to the plan.

g. This is still a large and complex project. You thought technology was a problem but instead the charges are much easier to conceal, install and use. It turns out the size of the buildings does not matter. You included pre-demolition work but its not needed. You thought that safety would still be the biggest problem but the reason for this CD negates that problem. It is not something that only a few companies can do. All that is left is whether there is enough time and whether the work can be concealed. Even if the charges are much easier to conceal, install and use that doesn't mean that they are easy enough for this job. That leads to further questions.

What different types of charges are required?

How big is each?

How many of each?

How many just have to be set in place?

What is required to make the other types of charges ready for use?

How close to the ideal spot must they be placed to still have the intended effect, and can anything be between them?

Is that placement radius large enough to provide options that avoid problems with concealing the charge, or will inflexibility force use of one place to properly place and conceal it?

Will there be problems gaining access to required placements?

How much work will this force?

How many of these placement problems will be repeated and how many times?

Can the placements and problems be broken down into categories?

If so, how long will one placement take in each category and what has to be done to do it?

How much time will be spent in elevators?

What percent of a floor can be done in one elevator trip?


h. You can't say its impossible without knowing the answers to questions like these. I strongly suspect that none of the answers will present a problem that can't be overcome.

mY qUaLiFiCaTiOnS

General Contractor on two additions to my home.

[indent]1. Garage and master suite with bath on top, on the side of the house. Demolish brick and interior walls as needed, excavation, footing, concrete floor, foundation, stick built frame, windows, roof, exterior finish, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, interior finish. Maintain cold beer keg in gameroom-construction office behind bar-desk to keep contractors and workers happy and interested.

2. Two children's bedrooms, bath, roof deck, interior stairs adding second story on top of the house. Demolish and remove 40% of roof and interior walls as needed, stick built frame, windows, roof, exterior finish, HVAC plumbing, electrical, interior finish, roof deck structure. Maintain cold beer keg in gameroom-construction office behind bar-desk to keep contractors and workers happy and interested.

I learned a lot being GC. Dealing with architect, preparing prints, getting permits, reading prints for a basic and common project, scheduling, ordering materials, logistics such as access, keeping the sub-jobs from colliding or conflicting, politics and entertaining. One job was bottom up and the other top down.

Although I don't know whether residential or commercial, this sounds like what you do for a living.