See the plume of black smoke

to the right of the antenna?



This plume is occurring during the collapse of the building. Also, the plume is going up while the rest of the building is coming down. Can anyone explain what would cause this to happen?

As for the plume, I think it is rotating downward when I look at the videos, at least the lower half of it.

In regards to the plume, what would a column of thick black smoke to not fall at the same rate has the rest of the debris?

Christophera I think has posted something on this...hopefully he'll chime in

Definitely not an antenna - at this point the entire building has fallen, meaning the roof has hit the ground and every floor collapsed all the way to the bottom. However, this leaves a portion of the core structure still standing. In 9/11 speak this has been dubbed "the spire." It also collapses, over the next few seconds, a couple of the columns falling over even as the main part of it just descends downward.

I was just using the object has a reference to point to the plume of thick black smoke that I am questioning.

the plumes are being forced upward and not by "pancaking floors".

only lasted for a short period of time.

This is the only 'good' picture I've ever seen of it. Once the collapse was over, then the black plume dissipated, it did not persist.

It seems that something exploded deep in the center of the building.

Maybe a weapon that would cause something that looks like this?



It would be a lot quicker and easier to plant a small weapon then to put termite all over the building.

And nuclear blasts tend to involve a blinding hot flash followed by a shockwave, then lots of residual radioactive material. BTW, did you mean "thermite"?

I'm a lousy speller and typist. If one doesn't get me the other one will.

In regards to the weapon, it didn't necessarily have to be nuclear. A weapon that uses fuel like the MOAB is more likely.

However, there was a large amount of uranium in the dust samples. 10 PPM which was quite a lot of uranium considering that there was 600,000 tons of fine particle debris.

If it was a nuke it would work upside-down.

activity going on as evidenced by the molten steel dripping out, and the lined up jets (or squibs) and the way the top of 2 sort of neatly was sliced off all along one floor.

Where one entire floor is on fire?




Yet the floors about and below are not. Well probably because the firewalls between floors was working and those steel pans full of concrete certainly helped a lot.

However, what is causing this obviously intense fire across the span of one floor? This must have been an empty floor or section of the building. One thing with big buildings is that often whole floors are never finished because no one ever comes along to rent them. Of course, these floors would be good place to set explosives, since no one hardly ever goes to the empty sections.

Then when the collapse begins, there is a big explosion from this floor.



Something major blew up on that floor.

I am also speculating that something happened underground, in the core of the building at the same time. However, that event was more contained and less apparent, since everyone was aiming their cameras at the fires at the top of the buildings. If you notice in almost every video, you only see the top half of the building during the collapse. It's very hard to know what was happening on the ground level at that point based on the visual evidence that we can find.

Both buildings appeared to collapse starting approximately where the planes hit, right? So if charges were placed around those floors, wouldn't that require coordination with the pilots?

I'm open minded about controlled demolition, too - I just have trouble with the scope of it. It seems like too many things to go wrong and too many chances to leave evidence for someone to find, if both buildings don't collapse completely.

In this picture, the side that was hit is furthest to the left.



The side with the one floor that is on fire across that whole side is facing toward us. That floor is about at the same level as the tip of the wing at it's highest point. Since most of the plane came in below that floor and on the other side, what is generating such intense fires on just one floor. Wouldn't the more intense fires be closer to the impact area? Or on multiple floors since the plane came in at an almost 45 degree angle?

I don't know what's generating the fire or where the most intense fires would be. I never even saw these pictures until yesterday and don't know for a fact that they haven't been photoshopped. I'm not saying you might have photoshopped them - just that I don't know they haven't been. So I just can't say. And you answered my question with a question.

While I am open minded about CD, I don't think the plumes are evidence of an explosion. The still pictures of the collapsing towers do look very much like they have plumes of explosive smoke rising from the collapsing building.

But when you look at the video, you can see that the stills are misleading. The videos clearly show that the plumes are basically stationary, while the building falls rapidly, giving the illusion of smoke rising explosively from the building.

Again, look at the video. The plumes are basically vertically stationary and are not exploding upward; they are created as the building leaves the smoke, not vice versa.

but in the OP picture there are several sort of smaller plumes running diagonally towards the right which have a explosive sort of affect, in that they appear to be divided into smaller parts splashing out in different directions rather than the smoother more unified, drifting affect of smoke. I thought those looked liked forced debris/smoke, because they are thin and jet-like and I don't know why smoke would be shooting out in thinner sort of jets. hard to describe, but i am not talking about the large plume.

...as the building collapsed, the air/gas was compressed and forced from the enclosure - like squeezing the air from an acordian - and the flames and smoke were rapidly externalized in the process.

Just moments before the collapse the building was THAT TALL. You can see it in the videos which DON'T follow the collpase down.



The smoke above the towers was there already from the fires.

In the middle of the plume is the core which collapsed a few seconds later.

Which core? The one made out of concrete or the one made out of steel?

the wirey thing in the center where the tower used to be is the core. The smoke is to the right of it. The wind was blowing to the east-southeast and that photo was taken from NJ just southwest of it. You can see this effect in the videos taken from NJ. The dust and smoke moves to the east uncovering what's left of the core before it also falls.

blowing away in one column of think dark smoke, that somehow stayed suspended after the rest of the building has past that point?

That means the material in the column of black smoke finer/lighter weight dust then the rest of the building?

Second, could you show me this core that you speak of? What is it made of?

Please quote where I said anything of the kind. I ask that you not misquote what I'm saying.

The smoke and dust is "LIGHTER" as you said, so it LINGERS in the air longer than heavy columns.

If you want to see how the building is constructed and why it fell read this...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/towers.htm

Here is what I'm talking about. Note how long the smoke and dust linger. It's also moving. Also note the columns in the center which lean over like a drunk then falls. That's not the antenna. The building was twice that high.

http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv

You can see the outer perimeter columns peel away and you can even see debris hit B7. This video was taken from the northwest (NJ) and the smoke was going southeast, away from the camera. The photo was taken from the southwest NJ so you see the smoke/dust to the right. (East)

what the hell is that GLOW!!!???
everybody misses the GLOW! All the still shots and all of the video of the first collapse
has the weird glow- like the sun is rising from the debris.
This glow is much brighter then the ambient light. This glow turns the entire area white
for a few seconds. This white glow engulfs what must be six square blocks of lower Manhattan
This glow melts the spire.
What is this glow's energy source??

to illustrate what you are referring to? I haven't noticed a glow before?

BTW: Welcome to the DUngeon. :hi:

Odd, I noticed the same sort of thing on the new Pentagon video today.


On Video #2 of the Pentagon attack, at about :34 sec is a major flash.

The object goes into the building. There is a huge red fire ball from the fuel. Then the fire ball starts to disappate and there seems to be a secondary explosion deeper in the building. This secondary explosion causes an enormous white flash, that does not occur in the first explosion.

This would be so easy to check because there would have been nuclear fallout all over lower Manhattan. My cousin would be glowing. She was so close she got glass in her shoes. Some of the things conspiracy sites come up with really have nothing to do with reallity and the evidence.

that the USGS did. There is a fair amount of uranium in that dust. About 10 PPM's according to the data. Considering there was 600,000 tons of small particle debris, that's a lot of uranium. A lot more then you would expect from natural causes.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.htm

Common coal can contain up to 10 PPM of uranium. I find little surprise the the charred, condensed wreckage of the WTC contained levels of uranium similar to naturally occuring minerals.

Note when you cut out the other columns in between it's clear the unranium was normal. About 3 PPM. The reason it's in the middle between 1 and 10 PPM is because the bars shorten as you go up. 3 is about in the middle while everything else is above the middle.



So that proves there was no nuclear fall out.

are diluted. They took samples from the various locations some of them blocks away from the WTC and mixed all the data together to come up with these results. Based on the data provided there is no way to know if samples from the pit had more uranium then let's say samples 10 blocks away.

Since uranium is turning up in significant quantities, then it would be nice to figure out the sources, you would think? Of course, our government doesn't even want to think about such things.

The samples you cite (collected near the WTC site) contain roughly 3 ppm uranium... Guess what? that figure is entirely consistant with the natural uranium content of many common earth minerals - including those typically used to create aggregates like concrete (e.g. granite, typically 2-5 ppm uranium; fly ash, typically 5-13 ppm uranium).

What you've uncovered at the WTC site - is nothing more than concrete dust.

but the sample used is diluted.

I'd like to see samples of the dust just from the center of the pit. If there was a device that's where the higher levels would be found. Plus most of the radioactive stuff would have been entombed by the rest of the building falling on top of it. There wouldn't have been that much of it in the lighter stuff that blew away.

BTW: I really don't think they used a radioactive device. I think it was fuel based. However, thanks for the explanation about the 'natural' causes for the diluted levels that were reported. I didn't realize how much radiation cement puts out on its own.

that were already burning? The upper floor fires would continue burning & sending up smoke before the building collapsed, so as it collapsed, that smoke would be much higher than the pancaking building.

continue to burn if they weren't there any more?

Yes, there would be some remnents of smoke and debris but not a thick black plume of smoke like in the first picture.

The building pancaked very fast & the upper floors would still be spewing smoke for a period of time as it fell. And the smoke that had been released right before the collapse would continue rising. So it makes sense that there'd still be smoke rising from the upper floors as the building fell. What would be odd is if there weren't such smoke, considering that the those floors were burning strongly & releasing a lot of smoke before the collapse.

And, it makes sense that the smoke would be to the right of the antenna, because the south tower didn't pancake straight down, but skewed to one side as it fell. In this photo, you can see the smoking upper floors first breaking off & then falling to one side.

You would not have one thick plume of black smoke that rises from ground level or below from fires that occured on the upper levels.

Looking at the photo, one side of the tower failed, leaving the upper floors to skew to one side & fall. So there wasn't a full pancake at that level to smother the fire. The pancake (collapse) began below, & the upper floors fell to one side, spewing smoke as they fell.

"Looking at the photo, one side of the tower failed, leaving the upper floors to skew to one side & fall."

Yes, we agree here 100%

"So there wasn't a full pancake at that level to smother the fire."

Yes, we also agree 100%

"The pancake (collapse) began below, & the upper floors fell to one side, spewing smoke as they fell."

It seems we are in total agreement. I retract me thinking you're wrong. I got the impression you were saying the pancake never happened on one building.

I have also seen videos of the other building push the flames out as it did collapse. The smoke doesn't change much between building collapses. In fact you show a photo and make a very good argument for the first building collapse but the smoke we were talking about was from the photo which showed the second collapse.

But in any event we don't really disagree.

a photo which was taken DURING the collapse and not after. Most of the smoke was there and is just disapating when the photo was taken. You are also not taking into account the size of the building It's about an acre wide and 1300 ft tall. All gypsum dust of 110 stories isn't just going to vanish. It has to slowly settle and drift with the wind. So you have a huge amount of gypsum dust and smoke from the fires mixed together and drifting. The videos would clear this up if you take into account the cameras are almost always being paned down or zoomed with the collapse. So smoke which is not raising will look like it's raising because of the camera following the collapse downward. Only in the cameras which don't move or zoom do you get a good look at the collapse smoke/debris as it really is. But in general you can just watch any video and keep this in mind.

The FLOORS below the tilt point pancaked on both towers around the core. That's why the core was still standing. It's the perimeter columns that fell away from the building on both causing the wide damage.

This isn't really what the core did, but the floors themselves. The floors beneath the tilt point collapsed & began pancaking downward. The smoking floors skewed & fell to one side, causing the plumes of taller smoke seen in the photo.

the post. My bad. An explaination is above.

"oops" if you've already seen it. 911 Eyewitness (Google video or downloadable in 3 parts) contains a lot of clear footage shot from a different angle from most of the news clips. It's excellent. A lot of videos are floating around out there in DVD form; this is one of the few I plan to buy.

There's a fair amount of time spent discussing the various smoke plumes and why they might have behaved as they did, especially in the third part. Essentially, the smoke from the fires (grey-black at the top) remains hanging in the air after the building has come down. Just beneath that smoke there may be (notice I said may be--I don't claim authority on this) additional blacker smoke from explosions. The gray-white "smoke" at the bottom isn't smoke at all, but pulverized concrete dust moving like a pyroclastic flow that hugs the ground rather than rising. The film explains it better, but that's the gist. I'd suggest looking at the whole thing rather than skipping to part 3 if you can stand the bandwidth.

It's a fantastic image and audio resource that examines (not necessarily explains, but seriously examines) many of the issues surrounding Sept 11, especially the WTC collapses, in an intelligent, calm, thought provoking way. I think it might answer your question or at least provide serious food for thought. Hope it helps.