Would this be considered Normal?

I've been a member here for a pretty long time and I have read through the 911 post quite often over the years as it is a topic that has really held my attention since it happened. I have never forgotten and don't intend to. In all that time though, I don't ever recall seeing this particular picture which you will see in the 5 minute video below.

Im really hoping to hear some opinions about what is really going on here or hopefully some builders, designers, or maybe structural engineers can chime in as to whether or not this is normal? Its just been bugging me since I saw the pic.

I've also been hoping to hear from people that may have had friends or family members that worked there and what floors they worked on just to see how the floor numbers come out when compared. If this is just a normal thing then this is something I wouldn't really need to pursue.

Like I said the video is only 5 minutes and you can basically skip the last minute.
Who better to solve this little mystery quickly than the great minds that reside here!

a reply to: onehuman

www.picturecorrect.com...

Looks like it was taken during construction so yeah it would be normal if essentially just the skeleton of the building was up. Google can be helpful

a reply to: onehuman

The design of the tower was such that it was held up primarily by the steel external columns.

If the sun was shining through brightly enough, it would have overexposed the film causing the light to appear to 'bleed out' beyond the boundaries that you might expect and causing detail to be lost from the picture.

Clearly it shows the lift shafts at the core, and the dark horizontal band also shows a difference in the organization of the lift shafts as well. Therefore it is likely that the dark horizontal band contained aircon and lifts 'plant', and did not require any external windows, and so are opaque.

I don't see anything unusual in this picture.

a reply to: onehuman
The view is from the south, looking northward up through downtown. The September sun is regressing back to the south and It's reflection off of the glass is creating a mirage effect making it appear that we are seeing through the building..

a reply to: chr0naut
Just read your post. I overlooked the elevator and utility shafts. Good catch and shoots my theory out of the water.

a reply to: CharlesT

a reply to: onehuman


M

I forgot why I even have this picture?

Something with taking a 3D world and representing it on a 2D picture and how white balance gets really confusing in a photo.

Anyway. Like how my off road lights makes it look like they can burn a hole through my garage door?

a reply to: CharlesT

Actually if you read the link i posted it was taken during construction, it is not creating the illusion of seeing through the building you actually are seeing through the building.

All I'm going to say on this topic, is use these videos as comparison for things such as speed and distance to the skyline




And this one



Also, fuel exploding on impact doesn't ignore laws of physics

Inertia means that fuel exploding on impact at speed carries outwards in a spray. It doesn't magically stop and travel straight upwards. That's what movie prop explosions do

You should have seen streaks of fire and debris from the plane shooting out in all directions. Straight outwards from the building, mostly in the direction the plane was traveling on impact

The physics of the explosion are impossible

Throw a water balloon at a tree and watch the way the water sprays around and outwards under inertia

And that's impact on a solid object

If you throw a water balloon at a semi-permeable object, the liquid shoots out further, through it, under pressure

Whatever happened to the building, it was not a plane full of fuel at speed

The engines would have gone through that building like bullets, shot out and put holes in buildings nearby

Even if they hit steel columns, at least one of the engines would have ricochet or been deflected outwards from the building at enough speed to cause serious problems to building blocks away

Whatever happened, the American Government cannot be trusted, and should not be trusted

Regardless of whether they are complicit or not, they are covering it up

Also, I believe these fly-bys were done using very specific (speed) aircraft at a very particular level, through buildings, for more than just display. I think it was some type of comparative research, behind the scenes

a reply to: Compendium

Inertia means that fuel exploding on impact at speed carries outwards in a spray. It doesn't magically stop and travel straight upwards. That's what movie prop explosions do

You should have seen streaks of fire and debris from the plane shooting out in all directions. Straight outwards from the building, mostly in the direction the plane was traveling on impact

Like what occurred below?

LoL. No. Nothing like that

It would be 4-5 times that distance spraying outwards from the building

Those flames are traveling upwards, not outwards/forwards

See how there is no "flow" within the flames? It's all just ballooning from the exit point. That's impossible under inertia. It means the combustion is from a static source opening to its oxygen source

If it came from fuel traveling at speed, there would be inertia flow in the combustion. It would travel faster than the oxygenation of the combustion, meaning you would see fuel spraying outwards, as it is being ignited

Those explosions are impossible for what they say it is

There should also be debris flying out in all directions, forwards, from the point of impact

Imagine smashing something like an apple against a tree

How much pieces of that apple do you think you'd find in varying size pieces, sprayed out at varying distances from that tree?

It would either make allot of small debris and spray, that would make a big mess on the ground all around it

Or, it would stay in large pieces, and be found laying at significant distance from the tree

For a plane you hit that building without deadly and destructive pieces of debris raining down for 10-20 blocks (at least), is impossible

That's like the apple hitting a tree, leaving no trace out around the tree, only against the tree itself

It's impossible

Those explosions are bad movie props

a reply to: Compendium

You.

It would be 4-5 times that distance spraying outwards from the building

Based on what?

Prove the below derived simulation is wrong in some way using actual calculations, not your unfounded opinions.

The simulation starts it’s simulation of the jet fuel igniting at 2:27 minutes in to the video.

cientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

You originate post.

Inertia means that fuel exploding on impact at speed carries outwards in a spray. It doesn't magically stop and travel straight upwards. That's what movie prop explosions do

You should have seen streaks of fire and debris from the plane shooting out in all directions. Straight outwards from the building, mostly in the direction the plane was traveling on impact

My counter



Your moving goal posts.

The truth movement has gone from the jet’s should have bounced off the towers to now the jet’s didn’t penetrate enough. What a joke.


Anyway. Event for comparison.

El Al Flight 1862

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Shrugs…

a reply to: Compendium

You

Inertia means that fuel exploding on impact at speed carries outwards in a spray. It doesn't magically stop and travel straight upwards. That's what movie prop explosions do

That is wrong on different levels.

The momentum of the jet would carry the fuel into the building. It wouldn’t magically stop at the wall with all forward momentum and then go straight up.

The fuel would make its on vapor cloud of mostly fuel pushing oxygen away. The fuel at first would only ignite where there was enough oxygen to ignite, and that would be at the boundary of the fuel vapor cloud.

So the fire ball would have to back draft out of the entrance hole before the fire would become visible at where the jet entered the building.

a reply to: Compendium

Flight Photos

Photographs of Remains of Flights 11, 175, and 93

Here are photographs of the remains of Flights 11, 175 at and around Ground Zero, and Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA. Photographs of the aircraft remains at the Pentagon are found in the Pentagon evidence section.


911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: Compendium

The events at the WTC are proportional to this test crash.

720 Jetliner Crash Test at Edwards AFB

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: Compendium

Those flames are traveling upwards, not outwards/forwards

It looks like it is moving outwards in all directions like a tank of fuel smashed into a vapor cloud should.



The fire ball would expand with the fuel vapor cloud.

The initial fuel vapor cloud is spreading outward when it ignites.



Who’s momentum was arrested by the first wall. Probably by the core of the building. Or at least the fuel in the wing on the core side being more atomized like a fuel injector. How many floors and how much of the floors deflected the fuel tanks. And the vapor cloud traveling with the shockwave/ jet parts that made it through the walls or walls opposite the entrance hole.

a reply to: Compendium

You

Inertia means that fuel exploding on impact at speed carries outwards in a spray. It doesn't magically stop and travel straight upwards. That's what movie prop explosions do

Let’s see a more clear view of a jet crashing.

m.youtube.com...

This is referencing the video at the 1:33 mark.

What is interesting, despite the fuel traveling at the same speed as the jet, when the wing is ripped open. The fire trails the forward motion of the jet. Even though the jet hit relatively slow, the fire from the rupture trailed behind the rupture. It seems the momentum of the jet body is greater than the fuel spraying out. The air rushing over the jet body as it has forward momentum pushes the spraying fuel back from the rupture. The fire doesn’t “get in front” of the jet body until it comes almost to a stop.

Also, the fire causes enough heat the fire wants to rise up even as it’s being dragged behind the rupture point.

The simulation of the jet hitting the tower keeps this phenomena.

m.youtube.com...

Fire visualization at 3:30 mark.

We can see from one of the angles of one of the jet’s hitting the towers the phenomena of the jet body leading the fire.

From Evan Fairbanks 3:33 mark

18 Views of 'Plane Impact' in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center (2001 Terrorist Attacks)

m.youtube.com...

So. No. Fuel, even though it travels at the same speed of the jet does not spray ahead of the jet. As long as the heavier more solid body of the jet is able to cut through the air better than spraying fuel, the air slipping over the jet body causes the fire to trail behind the rupture openings. And the heat causes the vapor cloud to rise and ignite.

You should have seen streaks of fire and debris from the plane shooting out in all directions. Straight outwards from the building, mostly in the direction the plane was traveling on impact

No. The spraying fuel as it vaporizes into a cloud cannot maintenance the same forward momentum as the jet body / parts.

But the jet’s hitting the towers are not going to be spraying fuel. The fuel tanks are under going a complete and continuous shredding. Releasing the fuel to be atomized in the sense every time the fuel hits something it atomizes in the context of what a fuel injector dies. The tanks probably ruptured on the outer wall upon entrance into the tower. The fuel smacks into the columns, the core, the floors, turning into a cloud being driven up with heat as the fuel vapors ignite and cause explosion like action.

Throw a water balloon at a tree and watch the way the water sprays around and outwards under inertia

Very much different than a jet penetrating a building with large voids delivering fuel into those spaces. Dumping fuel as the fuel smacks around walls, floors, and columns.

If you throw a water balloon at a semi-permeable object, the liquid shoots out further, through it, under pressure

No for a jet. Even at relatively slow speeds, the air passing over the body of the jet causes the fire from a ruptured gas tank to trail behind the forward momentum of the jet body.

Whatever happened to the building, it was not a plane full of fuel at speed

Wrong. Radar tracked the jests to the WTC. There is video of the jet’s. Passenger DNA at the WTC. With documented plane parts.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Compendium

Flight Photos

Photographs of Remains of Flights 11, 175, and 93

Here are photographs of the remains of Flights 11, 175 at and around Ground Zero, and Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA. Photographs of the aircraft remains at the Pentagon are found in the Pentagon evidence section.


911research.wtc7.net...

The engines would have gone through that building like bullets, shot out and put holes in buildings nearby

Something like this?

Even if they hit steel columns, at least one of the engines would have ricochet or been deflected outwards from the building at enough speed to cause serious problems to building blocks away

Depends on how hard it hit the core of the tower, or if it tried to push through 200 feet of flooring. Or what direction it go deflected to.

1945 Empire State Building B-25 crash

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The other engine and part of the landing gear fell down an elevator shaft.

How many elevator shafts and stairwells did each tower have?

Whatever happened, the American Government cannot be trusted, and should not be trusted

True. But neither can truth movement charlatans that make a profit selling innuendo to a target audience that will literally buy into anything.

Regardless of whether they are complicit or not, they are covering it up

Saudi Arabia ties to the terrorists. Yes. Government/ intel incompetence. Yes.

Also, I believe these fly-bys were done using very specific (speed) aircraft at a very particular level, through buildings, for more than just display. I think it was some type of comparative research, behind the scenes

Sorry. Again..

Wrong. Radar tracked the jests to the WTC. There is video of the jet’s. Passenger DNA at the WTC. With documented plane parts.


With no other jets witnessed. With no other jet’s captured on the numerous video angles while all eyes were on the WTC after the first jet strike.

a reply to: onehuman

I've also been hoping to hear from people that may have had friends or family members that worked there and what floors they worked on just to see how the floor numbers come out when compared. If this is just a normal thing then this is something I wouldn't really need to pursue.

The picture was taken during construction, the building framing and floors are up, but the interior partitions and exterior glass have not been installed giving the impression the building is hollow

As for people in building one person I know worked for Port Authority on 85th floor One of her co-workers was badly
burned by jet fuel fireball coming down elevator shafts - she is quoted in book "102 Minutes:"

Woman who lived in apartment across from me lost her 2 sons in North Tower, worked as traders at Cantor Fitzgerald on 105 floor

Idiots like to take the photo out of context and claim that WTC was empty and whole thing was a hoax

My advice to you is dont be an idiot believing in outlandish conspiracy fantasies

Gee lets see here. You have windows on all four sides and the sun on the other side. A normal person expects to have light go all the way through. But a conspiracy person thinks it will stop half way through. I guess they have never looked though car windows.

originally posted by: Compendium
Also, fuel exploding on impact doesn't ignore laws of physics

Inertia means that fuel exploding on impact at speed carries outwards in a spray. It doesn't magically stop and travel straight upwards. That's what movie prop explosions do

You should have seen streaks of fire and debris from the plane shooting out in all directions. Straight outwards from the building, mostly in the direction the plane was traveling on impact

The physics of the explosion are impossible

The part I highlighted in your quote above is exactly what happened. The buildings stopped the planes and then almost immediately after the planes were stopped, the fuel ignited. Heat travels up, not out.

Have you ever seen people use flame throwers on TV or in video? The spray only goes horizontal so far, and then goes vertical after that at the end because heat travels upwards. But using a flamethrower out in the open is totally different than fire going through a building where there are columns, walls, etc. Your theory doesn't exist because there were too many things in the buildings to stop the "spray" from going past the building.

originally posted by: Compendium
The engines would have gone through that building like bullets, shot out and put holes in buildings nearby

But they did. The engines were found on the streets blocks away. Even seats and landing gear went through the buildings and landed on the streets blocks below. But these are solid objects. Not liquid that A.) could have almost instantly ignited, and B.) had nothing but building materials, walls, etc. to stop the liquid or slow it down before ignition.