September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

Can you please tell us how World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed? since there was no impact from an airplane

This ought to be interesting.

originally posted by: liejunkie01

Can you please show me where I said it stayed in one piece?

Can you please tell me how the weight would be affected if itbroke up or if it was intact?

Can you tell me how the weight of the downforce of the debris has no impact on how the upper connections are supposed to stay intact during contact of the enormous weight of the falling debris?

originally posted by: Realtruth
Can you please tell us how World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed? since there was no impact

Funny how you ignore the photo's showing the damage caused by the impact of WTC 1 on WTC 7 - almost as if you did not realise it had been impacted by WTC 1!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

None of which is relevant to the pictures you posted. Flight 93 was intact when it hit the ground. It didn't hit anything else.

What ground, considering that all the facts have shown that no plane the size of a commercial airliner crashed in Shanksville on September 11

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Really? Because there wasn't a cartoon cutout in the ground?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

None of which is relevant to the pictures you posted. Flight 93 was intact when it hit the ground. It didn't hit anything else.

it is relevant if you consider the size of the holes compared to what supposedly made them.

Enlighten us.

Show us the how WTC 1 impacted WTC 7, causing it to fall.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Realtruth
Can you please tell us how World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed? since there was no impact

Funny how you ignore the photo's showing the damage caused by the impact of WTC 1 on WTC 7 - almost as if you did not realise it had been impacted by WTC 1!

a reply to: sg1642

You keep saying Flight 93 wasn't intact when it hit, when it was. And saying the hole was too small based on the hole left by a completely different aircraft type, on a totally different medium doesn't prove anything.

Simply one of the best put together pieces of evidence I have seen on this site and I have seen a lot of good stuff which fits right in with what has been posted

Thank you very much for putting this all together. If it gets deleted ... I'll never come here again

a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

Except for the fact that no one noticed that UAL175, a 767, was actually a 757.

a reply to: intrptr

What about those looks similar? Lockerbie exploded from a bomb and then rained down on a village, debris everywhere. This plane allegedly hit the ground intact and disappeared.

a reply to: hellobruce

This isn't true. You do realize that world trade center building 6 was in between world trade center building 1 and 7? The layout was 1,6, then across the street 7. World trade center 7 was a half a mile from WTC1. It was damaged by debris, but fire is allegedly what brought it down.

a reply to: liejunkie01

Poppycock, at least a full half of the weight is blown to dust and is easily seen landing OUTSIDE of the main frame.

And the weight is distributed LESS heavily onto everything it hits because of the fact so it is mostly powder and is nicely spread out.

No matter how it is looked at, OS'ers find ways to be illogical as all get out.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Really? Because there wasn't a cartoon cutout in the ground?

No, because there was NOTHING in the ground.

I already said I made a mistake in my original post in regards to flight 175 (which wasn't swapped out for a C-32B like I originally said, but instead was swapped-out with a (windowless) Prototype Boeing KC-767). Again I wrote the basic framework of my original post ~3 years ago when I was still researching 9/11 (got kinda sidetracked when Sandy Hook & Boston happened which drew my attention to DHS HSEEP & FEMA COOP for the last several years) so the data wasn't as up to date as I thought when I posted it. Again I made that correction in a post later in this thread. a reply to: Zaphod58

Anyways feel free to disagree, and I love a good debate about 9/11 so your input/thoughts are always welcome (even though I don't necessarily agree with your stance on the event)!

a reply to: Zaphod58

And how would anyone have noticed that ??

Since no one actually saw the planes clearly I am not sure how it could have been noticed.

originally posted by: hellobruce


Funny how you ignore the photo's showing the damage caused by the impact of WTC 1 on WTC 7 - almost as if you did not realise it had been impacted by WTC 1!

Care to show us these photos ??

Be careful you and many others on this site have shown us other buildings INSTEAD that were at least 500 times as badly damaged as your BUILDING SEVEN evidence.[

a reply to: ParasuvO

You've seen the pictures and video of UAL175 right? It's easily identifiable as a 767.

a reply to: ParasuvO

There was a lot recovered once they dug down to the wreckage.

I think the most interesting evidence is this random 'bystander witness'.

He said that the towers fell "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense".

How can he possibly know that after the towers just fell?

And why would he even say that? it sounds out of place.

It is recited and note the really bad acting where he is trying to express shock and empathy - watch!