Humint Events Online: South Tower Oddity: Two Flaming Spots and the Anomaly of the Cold Spot

Thursday, November 15, 2007

South Tower Oddity: Two Flaming Spots and the Anomaly of the Cold Spot

I have always been curious about the damage pattern on the North face of the South tower-- particularly the flame spot towards the middle of the tower (see photo below). As you can see, the flaming regions are on different floors. This diagonal fire pattern actually correlates with the banked angle of UA175 (second image down), but still major questions remain.

There are two main questions I have about this:

1) what caused the flaming spot in the middle of the north face?

2) why is there no fire in between the two flaming spots? (This "cold spot" anomaly was even noted by NIST in one of their WTC reports)

To answer this, I took a diagram from the NIST report, put it together with the photo from above, and tried to synthesize what could have happened according to the official story of a large Boeing 767-200 hitting the massive tower (note-- the following analysis follows the official story that a Boeing 767 produced this damage-- and we shall look for discrepancies in this official story. There are of course, reasons to doubt this official story, as I have detailed at this site previously):

The blue lines are from NIST, I added in the orange and black arrows. For reasons I do not understand, the NIST blue lines are not perfectly parallel to the plane. Nonetheless, the area on the north face (bottom face in the picture) between the two lines is supposed to be the "cold spot".

The thin black arrows are possible engine trajectories, and the orange lines represent wing fuel tanks-- if we assume the flaming spot on the northeast corner is from the starboard wing fuel tank.

Now, immediately a few things become clear in this diagram:
1) the two flaming areas correspond to the floors where the engines and associated sections of wings would have gone in-- if these parts traveled straight through the floors horizontally and then hit the far side of the tower
2) the flaming spots do not correlate with exactly with straight paths for the engines-- the flaming spots are further apart than these parts of the plane were as they would have entered the tower
3) the port wing and engine have the core section blocking their way to the other side, whereas the starboard wing and engine have more or less have a clean shot to the other side of the tower
4) the floor where the fuselage would have gone in is "cold"-- no visible fire

So, if we assume the center fuselage fuel tank was empty, this fire pattern makes some sense, although a) it is still not clear what made the discrete fire spot in the middle of the north face-- engine or wing, and b) if the plane was fully loaded with fuel for a cross-continent flight (as the official story holds), it is surprising that the center tank would be empty.

But let's get back to the two questions:

1) what caused the flaming spot in the middle of the north face?

2) why is there no fire in between the two flaming spots? (This "cold spot" anomaly was even noted by NIST in one of their WTC reports)

In terms of the "cold spot", again, the only possible explanation would be that the center fuel tank on the plane was NOT loaded with fuel. But for a cross-continent flight (as the official story holds), this is again very surprising-- particularly as we were told over and over that the plane was fully loaded with fuel. So there is something wrong here. Because it defies belief that the plane's 159 foot-long fuselage would penetrate fully into the tower but then not have a significant portion of the fuselage make it to the far side.

Now, in terms of the center flaming spot, probably the best candidate for the flaming spot is the starboard engine, because it is fairly solid and heavy, and as the black arrows indicate, could potentially bounce off a core column and come out the far side at the approximate spot where the flaming spot was. The problem with this scenario is that a) it is not clear that an engine would actually have this trajectory, b) it is not clear an engine would carry enough fuel by itself to produce such a large, sustained fire spot. The only other reasonably possible candidate for the flaming spot would be that a heavy landing gear took a similar trajectory through the core as I indicated for the engine-- and also carried a bunch of fuel along with it. Again, while this is possible, it is not clear that this could actually occur.

The big mystery is the complete lack of fire on the 80th floor-- not to mention that there isn't exactly signs of plane debris there either. But it makes little sense that the fuselage, which entered the tower without hindrance, knocking down massive outer columns on the south face without pausing, would be completely stopped by the core.

In summary, the official story doesn't exactly hold up real well here, but it is hard to prove it wrong based on this fire/damage pattern.

I should also point out the cold spot anomaly carried over to the south face (entry face) as well, and even late after the 2nd hit, the south face was not exactly flaming where the port wing went in:

There is some fire at the southwest face of the 80 floor, though it seems to have skipped the 78th and 79th floors where the wing would have gone.

There is also this abnormality: some fire spots on the west face WAY far up and away from the region of the hit, eight to ten floors up without any intervening fire (see note black spots on the left face of the tower):

So, the fire behaviour in WTC2 is really not well understood, despite the fact that NIST wrote a massive report just on this aspect of 9/11 alone.

What are alternative explanations for the north face flaming spots?

1) they were pre-planted fuel bombs meant to mimic the plane crash.

2) they represent where missiles shot through the tower and exploded-- and they were at slight different trajectories.

Interestingly, the other flaming spots away from the "crash" area, could also be explained by either some sort of (fuel) bombs pre-planted in the tower or other missile hits.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

i find it odd that in the first photo the street lamp in the foreground is in focus while the wtc campfire in the background is also in focus.
was this shot with some kind of magic camera?

7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good observation.

I find the following most interesting. As this is the North side of WTC2, it brings up my analysis of the strange smoke at the North side of WTC1 in the bartvanbelle/Belgian, AKA slow moving garbage truck video.

Recall I showed how the North side smoke blew just to the left without any rising, vertical component, unlike around the corner where the smoke just went straight up without any lateral vector.

So now we see with the same--North--side of the other tower, the smoke has no lateral vector, it goes straight up. Should not the same wind pattern be at the same--North-- facade?

As I hypothesized, there is now even more evidence that something rotten is going on at the North side of WTC1 regarding its smoke blowing only to the left.

Were there smoke machines there, blowing out non-rising, ambient temp. smoke a la Hollywood?

Where are all the videomashers, when you need one???

Are you all on the payroll of you know who?

Anonymous Physicist

7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i remember AP's analyses of the smoke - please link it here if you would.

11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article is here:

(You could always use the google search [click covertops] function that is on each page on the left.)


12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're welcome.

(I meant on the right for the search function.)

If you are the real deal, and not a shill, tell us what you think.

It appears that only the North facade of only WTC1 has smoke blowing only to the left, and not rising. Even the North side of WTC2 has the rising smoke wihtout any apparent lateral vector, as it should from being hit by the same winds. It sure seems like fake, ambient temp. smoke is being blown out the side at this facade.

Why is everyone ignoring this find?

Anonymous Physicist

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

everyone is ignoring EVERY find, not just that one, and what can i say about the smoke other than it appears that you are correct - most likely as usual.
oh you know who i am and i am no shill - i will die (along with everybody else) before i will allow anyone to put words in my mouth.

4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

EVERYONE is ignoring this crap because you idiots have no idea how the hell the world goes around.

And Sphincter911, you prove your ignorance yet once again about matters you have no clue about.

Go look up the range of a 767-200 (5200 nm). Then go look up how far it is from Logan Int'l to LAX (hint 2264 nm). Then tell me exactly where you heard that these aircraft were fully loaded with fuel.

They weren't. They never are for transcontinental flights. It would cost an airline company a tremendous amount of money to fully fuel an aircraft when a half or 3/5 fuel load will result in a more efficient aircraft and flight profile and corresponding savings.

I'm surprised your big brained scientific and superior aeronautical experience and intellect missed that.


8:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you, h, for your feedback.

Yes I know you are the real deal, and you too are right as usual, RE the overall picture. People are ignoring good evidence, and the strange (mostly shills) of the TV Fakery crowd chase their own tails, and don't know a good lead, or are not allowed to follow it, if you know what I mean.

Be well, h.


9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are a sphincter, too!

9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow a sphincter? hell of a rebuttal, 9:30!

3:26 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Does this person @8:39 know ANYTHING about 9/11?

The official story -- at least for the first five years, was that these planes were fully loaded with fuel-- that is why the fires were so horrible that melted/weakened the steel of the WTC.

NOW the story is that there was far less fuel than we thought?

OK, good.

9:58 PM  
Anonymous said...

This will not have effect in fact, that's exactly what I suppose.

4:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger