False Narrative: "North Tower Antenna Dropped Before Roof Line"

Joe Hill

Member
Richard Gage's AE911Truth organization asserts the North Tower antenna dropped straight down into the building at the beginning of collapse, and claims that is evidence the core columns had to be cut with cutter charges. The claim is made in the video, "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out", at 53:20 here: As recently as March, 2018, one of the key AE911Truth engineers repeated the claim as fact:
It is clear that the antenna dropping before the exterior roofline in the North Tower collapse shows it was a core column failure that pulled the exterior columns inward and initiated the collapse.
Having found no rebuttal of Szamboti's premise, it seems appropriate, for the record, to submit a thread on the topic. The assertion is patently false, easily discernible by studying collapse initiation from east or west. I used a video taken from the west, on the Hudson river:
It's clear the tower top section and antenna are tilting south as one unit to begin collapse. The motion indicates that the core initially served as the fulcrum for the rotating motion of the tower top, buckled, and was quickly ripped apart.
A closer look shows clearly the antenna did not drop into the building:
NTtiltannotated.png

Gage and Szamboti use only a view from the north, the optics of which are illustrated here:
NTtiltAEanalysis.png

Editorial comment:
It is unfathomable that professional architect and engineer researchers would fail to study initiation of collapse from all angles. Initiation, or onset, is actually all that matters in determining why a structure collapsed. It is clear onset of the North Tower was due to failure of the south wall, not the core. The south wall gradually formed an inward sink, long before onset of collapse, seen below, and there is no sign of core failure until after the tower top started tilting south. For Gage and Szamboti to still claim the core failed first reveals utter sloppiness, or outright bias/deceit, neither worthy of the "Truth" moniker.
WTC1_Fire_Anotaded_Crop.png
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
...As recently as March, 2018, one of the key AE911Truth engineers repeated the claim as fact:

Having found no rebuttal of Szamboti's premise, it seems appropriate, for the record, to submit a thread on the topic.
Agreed that there may not be any rebuttal on this forum of Szamboti's specific claim about antenna drop >> caused by core column cutting. Your comments about geometry and viewpoint are probably sufficient of themselves to cast doubt on Szamboti's claim. However I suggest that comprehensive rebuttal is best framed in the context of the "tower top section and antenna are tilting south as one unit to begin collapse". i.e. the full context of the role played by the "Top Block" in the initiation stage...not just the antenna itself.

I'll put some comments in line:
The assertion is patently false, << Agreed easily discernible by studying collapse initiation from east or west. << and also by comprehending the mechanism of Top Block movement ......
It's clear the tower top section and antenna are tilting south as one unit to begin collapse. << Yes The motion indicates that the core initially served as the fulcrum for the rotating motion of the tower top, buckled, and was quickly ripped apart. << I'll offer an alternate explanation for both those points. You accept as premise that the top section tilted as one unit. That suggests that core columns were also failing to allow the tilt. And the "ripping apart" of the "Top Block" occurred later - as the Top Block fell bodily - graphical evidence in a later post.
A closer look shows clearly the antenna did not drop into the building: << Yes - a conclusion supported by your video evidence and also flowing from analysis of the mechanism.

Gage and Szamboti use only a view from the north, the optics of which are illustrated here:
NTtiltAEanalysis.png
<< Fully agreed and probably strong enough as a stand alone argument.

It is unfathomable that professional architect and engineer researchers would fail to study initiation of collapse from all angles. Initiation, or onset, is actually all that matters in determining why a structure collapsed.
Agreed both points.

It is clear onset of the North Tower was due to failure of the south wall, not the core. The south wall gradually formed an inward sink, long before onset of collapse, seen below, and there is no sign of core failure until after the tower top started tilting south.
This is the aspect that IMO needs discussion. The observed fact that the Top Blocks... both of them ... tilted as integral single units conflicts with the asserted no failure of core. We need to be very clear what stage we are discussing. My contention being that the Top Block maintained most of its structural integrity as it tilted - therefore the tilting resulted from differential shortening of columns whether perimeter or core. The integrity of the Top Blocks was destroyed after they started to fall bodily - the Top Block and upper levels of lower tower in mutual destruction... The analogous mechanism for both towers notwithstanding the greater tilt for WTC2.
For Gage and Szamboti to still claim the core failed first reveals utter sloppiness, or outright bias/deceit, neither worthy of the "Truth" moniker.
The underlying issue is that none of the AE911 technical leaders understand the actual mechanism of the collapses. Especially at this stage and the transition into "progression". Both Szamboti and Chandler making similar errors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Richard Gage's AE911Truth organization asserts the North Tower antenna dropped straight down into the building at the beginning of collapse, and claims that is evidence the core columns had to be cut with cutter charges. The claim is made in the video, "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out", at 53:20 here:

I don't think that's a great example. He just says:

00:53:11,309 --> 00:53:19,890 before the towers
00:53:16,349 --> 00:53:24,829 started collapsing from the top the
00:53:19,890 --> 00:53:27,839 antenna started to fall and the antenna
00:53:24,829 --> 00:53:30,990 of course was over the middle of the
00:53:27,839 --> 00:53:36,180 elevator shafts. I'm very familiar with the
00:53:30,990 --> 00:53:40,200 interior structure that surrounded the
00:53:36,180 --> 00:53:44,130 elevator shafts and the accessibility
00:53:40,200 --> 00:53:51,390 which the elevator companies had 24/7
00:53:44,130 --> 00:53:54,160 The only way that I can see that the
00:53:51,390 --> 00:53:57,519 towers could have collapsed
00:53:54,160 --> 00:54:00,279 is that the inferior columns were
00:53:57,519 --> 00:54:02,859 compromised
Content from External Source
 

Joe Hill

Member
That suggests that core columns were also failing to allow the tilt.
Indeed. Core columns would have to buckle, bend, kink, sink, in order for the upper block to tilt. They could still function as fulcrum for observable motion of the upper block while sustaining such failures. Whether it was the core or south wall that initiated vertical failure of the building however, is off topic, and I probably shouldn't have commented on it. :oops:

And the "ripping apart" of the "Top Block" occurred later
The "ripping apart" I referred to was the core structure, not the top block. Based simply on motion of the top block, over, then over and down, then down, in rapid succession, the core structure quickly ripped apart.

We need to be very clear what stage we are discussing.
Agreed, and imo, there is nothing more important than initiation, in as tight a frame as is observable.

I don't think that's a great example. He just says:

00:53:11,309 --> 00:53:19,890 before the towers
00:53:16,349 --> 00:53:24,829 started collapsing from the top the
00:53:19,890 --> 00:53:27,839 antenna started to fall and the antenna
00:53:24,829 --> 00:53:30,990 of course was over the middle of the
00:53:27,839 --> 00:53:36,180 elevator shafts. I'm very familiar with the
00:53:30,990 --> 00:53:40,200 interior structure that surrounded the
00:53:36,180 --> 00:53:44,130 elevator shafts and the accessibility
00:53:40,200 --> 00:53:51,390 which the elevator companies had 24/7
00:53:44,130 --> 00:53:54,160 The only way that I can see that the
00:53:51,390 --> 00:53:57,519 towers could have collapsed
00:53:54,160 --> 00:54:00,279 is that the inferior columns were
00:53:57,519 --> 00:54:02,859 compromised
Content from External Source
Relative to, "and claims that is evidence the core columns had to be cut with cutter charges" (OP), I agree. I considered that axiomatic.
The video reference was to show that AE uses a view which makes it appear the antenna is sinking as an initial movement, not necessarily the accompanying dialogue.
Relative to the thread topic however,
"00:53:11,309 --> 00:53:19,890 before the towers
00:53:16,349 --> 00:53:24,829 started collapsing from the top the
00:53:19,890 --> 00:53:27,839 antenna started to fall", confirms AE claims the antenna moved, "fell", before any other part of the building.
 

Abdullah

Member
Are you sure the narrative that the antenna fell first is necessarily false? FEMA said

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Are you sure the narrative that the antenna fell first is necessarily false? FEMA said
... in "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations" (FEMA 403), January 2002, page 2-27
Chapter 2: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
Full report: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_403_2002.zip

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. This is consistent with the observations of debris patterns from the 91st floor, previously discussed. This is also supported by preliminary evaluation of the load carrying capacity of these columns, discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2.2. The core columns were not designed to resist wind loads and, therefore, had less reserve capacity than perimeter columns. As some exterior and core columns were damaged by the aircraft impact, the outrigger trusses at the top of the building shifted additional loads to the remaining core columns, further eroding the available factor of safety. This would have been particularly significant in the upper portion of the damaged building. In this region, the original design load for the core columns was less than at lower floors, and the column sections were relatively light. The increased stresses caused by the aircraft impact could easily have brought several of these columns close to their ultimate capacity, so that relatively little additional effects due to fire would have been required to initiate the collapse. Once movement began, the entire portion of the building above the area of impact fell in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air pushed through the impact area, the fires were fed by new oxygen and pushed outward, creating the illusion of a secondary explosion.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Abdullah

Member
@Mendel ??? The two bolded sections are not related. The first is describing antenna movement whereas the second is explaining the fanning of flames
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
@Mendel ??? The two bolded sections are not related. The first is describing antenna movement whereas the second is explaining the fanning of flames
The two bolded parts together strongly suggest that the same event that caused the antenna to move also caused the top section of the building to come down. The explanation for that is between the bold parts.

Given that some 9/11 truthers have argued how difficult it supposedly was to hit the WTC, hitting them at the exact height where the charges were (different for each tower!) should've been impossible.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
The two bolded parts together strongly suggest that the same event that caused the antenna to move also caused the top section of the building to come down. The explanation for that is between the bold parts.

Given that some 9/11 truthers have argued how difficult it supposedly was to hit the WTC, hitting them at the exact height where the charges were (different for each tower!) should've been impossible.
Clearly there had to have been charges on every floor.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Clearly there had to have been charges on every floor.
If we assume for moot purposes that there was CD then there are potentially two scenarios for "necessary charges".

First in the impact and fire zone to trigger the initiation sage which ended with Top Block moving down. The location of those charges would depend on the chosen plan of attack. If the goal was to "mimic" the actual collapse mechanism the two (semi) plausible options would be cutting office space floor joists - to start perimeter column inward bowing. OR direct cutting of core columns -- to trigger apparent early fall of the hat-truss and antenna. There are many more options that would cause "initiation" but not mimic the actual collapse.

Second, the oft-repeated truther fantasy need for "squibs" at every floor to cut the joist to column connections.

Actually, no charges were needed because the initial damage plus accumulating fire damage was sufficient for both of those locations.
 
Last edited:

Abdullah

Member
@econ41 there is no need to touch the exterior at all. The outriggers are not that strong. A building thus caving in from the middle could easily be explained as insulation damage + high temperature.

But is this on topic?
 
Top