Missing: South Tower's Top

Mf Dnes hit piece. "Circus CIA" screenshot

Anyone want to run with this idea of using a milk carton as a parody on the "official story" of 9/11? How about "Missing: A Real Investigation of 9/11?" Or "Missing: Justice for the Real Perpetrators of 9/11"?

Do people think that the top of the South Tower really did "go missing" due to demolition, or did it fall over and land somewhere, like Church street? This thread contains an interesting debate on this question.

Thanks to Angular Momentum Fan for the heads up.

I guess you didn't see what

I guess you didn't see what I wrote earlier in the Bush comments.

So I'll paste it here.

The top of the South tower didn't actually straighten out. In some video it appears to correct itself because of the camera angle and resolution of the video, which hides the fact that the pulverising concrete obscures the visibility of the top chunk continuing its southward topple. But in other video where you can see it better, the top chunk continues falling on that angle, and the South towers' eastside -- including that top chunk -- collapses all the way to Church street at the far east side of the WTC plaza.


I by no means am trying to say that the top chunk was completely intact while it continued its southward topple, and the majority of it may have been blown up during collapse, mostly obscured by the pulverising concrete around it, since there wasn't a recognizable top chunk in the debris pile that stretches toward Church Street.

I was merely pointing out that the top chunk didn't straighten out nor fall straight down, but that it continued its southward topple in the direction of Church street, most likely being a significant part of the debris that made it to Church street, since the top had the furthest reach ability stretching away from the base.

I agree completely.

I agree completely. Buildings can't support the vertical weight if they are off- center by more than a few degrees. Therefore a building like the WTC can never 'tip over' - instead the unsupported weight would tear the building apart after it had tilted a significant amount. The portion of the WTC that was blasted loose could not remain intact once it was no longer upright, and therefore it quickly disintegrated.

are you serious??

go away, shill! and please take your pseudo science with you! what you say makes no sense. care to define what you mean by unsupported weight? tearing apart? my god you people really have no limits...

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

LOL nice

That's good!

Also, IMO the biggest evidence for Controlled demolition, as Jim Fetzer points out frequently, is the fact that there was a fire on the 11th floor back in 1975 which burned at temperatures of 1000c (the MAX temp reached on 9/11) for 3 hours, enveloped the core and the buildings stood.

The reason this evidence is SO KEY is that NIST's theory of the collapse relies on the enourmous weight of the combined floors (12 and 28 respectively) above where the fires were on 9/11.

Well, with this fire in 1975, there was a WHOPPING 99 FLOORS above where the fires were burning and there was no collapse. That is about 4-8 times the weigth, respectively.

1975 fire link

Could you please post a link to the 1975 fire at the WTC? Very good comment!

It was reported by New York Times 2-15-75 according to wiki

Jim Fetzer cites this incident in his responses to the recent NIST FAQ's. Here's the link for his responses. Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman's responses are good too. I actually took the time to combine them all into a single Word file that had each question, the NIST response, and then Ryan, Fetzer and Hoffman's responses under each question. Here's my version, the originals are all available at www.st911.org


As for the citation for the fire itself, it is listed on Wikipedia as well, saying the same thing Fetzer did.. that the fire burned for 3 hours, enveloped the core and did not cause structural damage or weakening.


Wikipedia cites the New York Times 2/15/1975 as the source...

new doc - Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West


"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."

Anyone know where I can find

Anyone know where I can find a high res photo of this the South Tower top?


GW, here's the image of the

GW, here's the image of the collapse debris stretching to Church street. Or you can right-click save or drag the image to your desktop. Use it for future reference. 


Ø®£Z, thanks

looks pretty convincing. I've passed the photo onto the scholars. BTW, what is the original source link (not imageshack, but where it originally came from)?

I don't remember exactly

I don't remember exactly where the original high-resolution image -- that that screen capture was taken from -- originated. But I can upload it to a file sharing website and you can download it. it's a 14mb, 9400x9400 pixel image taken from satellite on September 12, 2001.

It'll take a few minutes to upload.

Please do.

I just went back and scoured my "pics" directory tree. I remember downloading satellite images shortly after 9/11 but they weren't near this resolution.

That 14 MB 9400x9400 image can't be a screen capture. unless I have fallen way behind the times. Perhaps if you plug that filename into google you can find its original source. Just an idea.

lol the screen capture is

lol the screen capture is the image that I posted with the text on it, which was taken from the huge WTC satellite image. A 9400x9400 pixel screen capture lol That would be a HUGE monitor.

And yes, you might be able to find it like that. It wasn't from some hidden location online or something that isn't locatable. I just don't remember where I saw it.

FEMA has great cameras!

Those pics originally came from FEMAs' own website. They have great cameras! The best pictures I like were the ones from the Pentagon or should I sat the "Pentasham", due to the fact that "that section" was NOT renovated whatsoever! Notice in their high resolution pics of the old rotted timber in the outer wall along with outdated office furniture, with old computers that use the old 5 inch floppys, the rotary phones, 70s style carpenting, and that most of the rooms had not been utilized in years. Since smoking has been banned in DoD offices since the late 80s, notice the ashtrays on the desks.


I uploaded it to Mega

I uploaded it to Mega Upload.

Click the link, type the 3 character confirmation in the box at top-right. Then it'll download, or make you wait for a minute.

The file is clean. But a word of warning, it's a 14mb file, it's huge for a .jpg image file. So when you open it, unless your computer has a super fast processor, it'll take a few seconds to load, at the least. And when zooming in or scrolling side to side, it'll take a few seconds at least to perform each command. There's nothing wrong, it's only because it's a huge file. It takes my computer about 4 - 5 seconds to perform each command with the file. I'm using a computer with 768mb RAM, and a 1GHz processor.

Thanks, Ø®£Z.

I can't type your handle but I can copy and paste it!

You're welcome. I type the

You're welcome.

I type the screen name by pressing 'caps lock', then holding 'option' ('alt' for windows) and typing "O", "R", "3", then let go of 'option' or 'alt' and "Z".

It's an alias name of mine, which is normally spelt - OREZ - But I spell it - Ø®£Z - online because it's different and stands out.

Aereal pictions from 911 crime site

This URLhere


may be interesting as well (because it has split one single hi-res photo [probably made by satellite, giving a topdown aereal view] into different tiles which can be viewed separately)...


I've seen this top section of the tower in many collapse videos from multiple angles and I believe this is a weak argument at best. You surely aren't going to win over any skeptics of 9/11 Truth with it. Yes, it looks at first like this top section is going to fall to the outside and away from the building, but then you see it collapse back towards the center of the building. This is not smoking-gun-proof of a controlled demolition. For those of us already convinced the reason is more obvious. But for anyone else it doesn't necessarily have to look strange or suspect. If you're ready to believe a lie as large as this, it's going to take a lot more than this.

Bah you too

Wumpus, I'd refer thee to the comment further down, which I shall paste in here:

The top of the South tower didn't actually straighten out. In some video it appears to correct itself because of the camera angle and resolution of the video, which hides the fact that the pulverising concrete obscures the visibility of the top chunk continuing its southward topple. But in other video where you can see it better, the top chunk continues falling on that angle, and the South towers' eastside -- including that top chunk -- collapses all the way to Church street at the far east side of the WTC plaza.

However, as the writer also points out, that chunk did not get to Church Street in one piece. The mystery is how it disintegrates in mid air.

Furthermore as the chunk disappears into the dust clouds (though one can still follow it as menioned above), bits of it fly directly UPWARD - a fact I have pointed out earlier. And if that not be a smoking gun, as this chunk of the building is falling, even before it disappears into the dust, some videos clearly show bright sparks (like the "thermite") previously seen under the damage area - mid way from the collapse/damage area and the top.

This "Catherine Wheel" of fireworks is at the corner of the building, and I have not seen any one else comment on it so far.

Christopher: Yes I totally


Yes I totally agree with you, but what I'm saying is that you won't convince someone who believes the official story that it disintigrates in mid air. It's easy to ignore anomalies such as this by the simple fact that they don't really have a basis of comparison. You tell them the concrete of the towers were pulverized into fine dust and they'll just attempt to explain it away, that the kinetic energy "could possibly" have been great enough to cause this.

And yes I've seen the pieces of the building fly upward and also outward with great force that cannot be explained by mere collapse. I've also noticed the bright sparks you mention. Very telling.

The mysterious disentigration of the top of the tower IS...

unexplainable according to the offcial theory, or anything other than demolition, however it may not be the most convincing thing to 'bring out of the bag' so to speak...

I think this point that I referred to above really is a strong one, the idea that the towers caved, because of the fire, under the weight of 12 and 28 floors repsectively, yet in 1975 there was a 3-hour fire on the 11th floor that burned at hotter temperatures than what we know to have occured on 9/11, and yet the tower DID NOT COLLAPSE under the weight of 99 floors?

This is irrefutable.

Hilarious! I don't expect

Hilarious! I don't expect it to be something that would convince anyone of anything, but handed out on stickers or post cards, it would at least make some people wonder "hmmmm" and at least know that people are questioning the events of that day. Plus it's an inside joke for people who already know everything we know.

Next Attack Imminent:

Muslims ordered to leave the United States


Validity and Veracity?

Can anyone vouch for this, or the journalist, or the true source?

This smells like classic disinformation.

But then there's so much "shee-it" goin' down everywhere, it's hard to tell anymore without a scorecard AND a playbook.

doesn't seem real to me

doesn't seem real to me either...

LOL @ Canadafreepress

LOL @ Canadafreepress article. What, is this the ANTI Alex Jones 9/11 truth symposium?

don't ask me...first time

don't ask me...first time I've visited the page...

Here's my take

Here's the situation with the topple over/church street. In effect, both of you are partially correct, IMO.

The building does begin to topple over, we clearly see that. During the time that it 'corrects' the topple, this does not necessarily imply that it goes back into the original position with the rest of the building, as that is impossible.

Rather, it is displaced by the original rotation, and then once the center of mass has been destroyed (through explosives), the pieces fall down with their current displacement, and the rotation effectively appears to slow down and stays at an angle, which is extremely suspicious as this should not happen. The unit should topple to a much larger extent than what was exhibited.

The result are pieces displaced across church street, but not to the extent that you should see it if it fully toppled over rather than being rotated, displaced, and then having the moment of inertia destroyed and scattered.

I've been looking for the

I've been looking for the amateur video of the collapse of the South tower, filmed from Church street, north of the WTC complex about half a block, but I can't find it. You can see a huge amount of the upper portion of the tower fiercly collapse in a massive way toward Church street.

There is no doubt

Angular momentum is conserved, and the laws of physics leave no choice about this. The top part once it begins toppling won't stop - even if it gets blown up as it falls. Once it starts falling over, there is no way on earth, no force artificial or natural, to "correct" this mass back into an upright!

The debris pattern demonstrates that the top did in fact topple away in the direction that it begins moving towards initially, landing exactly where one would expect. The headstone from floor 110 was found near the corner of Liberty and Church, according to a rescue worker I have met, and again, this is fully consistent with what we expect from a toppling-away of the top section in that direction as visible on so many videos. Videos I've seen clearly show it continuing to topple as a single unit, into the dust cloud being raised by the destruction of the lower floors (I have no immediate access to these, but look at all possible angles - you will see it).

There has been much confusion on this point. The graphic by "Angular Momentum Fan," surely well-intended, unfortunately contributes to that. The top 40 floors of the South Tower did not go missing, and I think the reference is not only inaccurate but very obscure and too ironically rendered for use as a propaganda tool. (This is a critique, not an attack - please let's stay friendly.)

The suspicious part in all this - i.e., the aspect of the toppling that ends up supporting demolition arguments - is not that the top continued to topple or that the laws of angular momentum were violated (an impossibility).

It's that if the top so clearly toppled away and fell hundreds of feet away from the base... this radically reduces the mass supposedly falling into the footprint and crushing the still-intact lower 70 floors, which nevertheless continue their progressive collapse, even without the top falling on them.

so if the top 40 floors tip over and fall.....how do they

exert enough force on the lower floors to "pancake" them?

"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."


The fact that this section clearly falls at an angle clearly demonstrates both:

1) That the tower is collapsing at a speedi consistent with free-fall, by comparison

2) That NIST's explanation is impossible, since it relies on the weight of this top section to provide the force to collapse the rest of the remaining building. It is clear that the building was coming down, independently of the force of this top section, at approximately the same speed.

the upper block of roughly

the upper block of roughly 30 floors of wtc2 tilted at an angle of about 23 deg. - but then that entire block of floors began disintegrating from it's bottom simultaneously with the disintegration of the top of the lower block of roughly 80 floors. - here is a clip of this phenomenon:
and here is a photo showing the wtc2 about 5/8 of the way thru it's disintegration:
we can clearly see that by this point the upper block of 30 or so floors had finished disintegrating and was nowhere to be found.
here is a diagram depicting what happened to both towers:
wtc2 took only 10 seconds to completely disintegrate. that's 11 floors per second!

when you watch this, look at

when you watch this, look at the block as its falling...on the corner closest to the camera about 1/3 of the way up...someone tell me if anyone else sees something.

i don't see anything in

i don't see anything in particular that you might be referring to? - spell it out man! - how many seconds exactly?
i will say that i see a sort of illumination at the corner from 1 sec to 5 secs but i have a feeling that's not what you meant.

the 9/11commission says

the 9/11commission says that wtc2 collapsed in 10 secs but they do not say how long it took wtc1 to collapse - does anybody know what the official line on that is?
here is a clip of that but it seems like the collapse has already begun when the clip starts - and then the 'spire' remains standing for a few moments after.

At 3 seconds about 15 floors

At 3 seconds about 15 floors above the "crumple zone"
on the corner I think I see flashes that blow from both sides of the buildingns windows.

Flashes on video

That piece of video is very revealing. There are several flashes at approximately the same position relative to the corners, both above and below the collapse front. Their presence and the distinct pattern which they form is unexplained by the official theory of a gravity only collapse. The relevence of the flashes can be judged when put into the context supplied by this page,