3 Questions about 911

Over the years I have found myself sporadically going back and watching 911 videos. Not sure why I do, but I guess I keep hoping something will pop up that may prove to be a clear case of truth. Just for the record here before I go any further, I do not believe the intended story for the masses. This really isnt why I am here for this thread.

I have two other things I'm curious about. Three really, but I didn't realize until just a bit ago that I would have three.

The first is a easy one. Can someone explain to me how with all the intense heat, and buildings pulverized, there was so much paper? Paper everywhere you look. Not even appearing to be burned around the edges or anything, though I'm sure some was. Just curious as to how this is possible.

The second thing should be pretty easy too. Very possibly I may have just missed it somewhere along the line, but whatever happened to that photographer "Kurt Sonnenfeld?" The one that America wanted to have extradited back here for murder. Claimed he had photos that would basically upset the apple cart to put it simply.

Now the third thing in all this time I had never noticed in all my time spent watching videos of that day, is the subject of building 6. It took until today and just stumbling across a video that actually brought it to my attention.

When watching the video I was stuck by a odd contrast. I remember watching clips of the pentagon and they showed where the plane had entered and you could still see the different office more or less still in tact. Computers, desk, books, chairs, etc.. I remember how eerie I used to think that was. A weird moment just sort of frozen in time. Also wondering then how that could be with such a intense heat all around them. Plastic should surely have melted.

Now the contrast here is with building 6, another office building, nothing is there. You would have no idea it was a functioning office building just hours before. If you watch the first three minutes of the video below, you will see what I mean. Again another eerie feeling from a opposite scenario.

It appears the video was posted in 2013, so I don't know if anymore has come of this and why it doesn't get the play that building 7 does. It just seems very curious and a bit odd all in all considered. I don't even recall much mention of it on this board, though that's not to say I may have just missed that as well. I know I get tired of the arguing so sometimes I just skip it.

Anyhow, the first three minutes of the video are what I'm interested about, up to you if you want to watch the rest of it.

I know I can answer first question you posted.

The first is a easy one. Can someone explain to me how with all the intense heat, and buildings pulverized, there was so much paper? Paper everywhere you look. Not even appearing to be burned around the edges or anything, though I'm sure some was. Just curious as to how this is possible.

After both planes crashed in the North and South Towers, whatever was inside the floors that were hit caught fire; ashes of paper, office furniture, was not only fuel for the intense fire but "rained" down from the fires inside the building. We have to remember both twin towers were design to more "economical" for renters and therefore the building was not design against modern jets if they were to crash into the building.

The lower floors were not on fire as the upper floors came crashing down.
The pressure forced paper out.

Kurt Sonnenfeld (born 1962) is an American currently awaiting extradition to the US from Argentina for the alleged 2002 murder of his then wife, Nancy. Prior to 2002, Sonnenfeld was a videographer for the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and was one of four FEMA photographers who were given exclusive access to the World Trade Center site following the September 11 attacks in New York in 2001.[1] In addition to the photographs and video he took on behalf of FEMA, he claims to have taken additional video footage and photographs which he says provide evidence that the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks

As to the pentagon:
IIRC the fire was mostly out before the upper part of the structure collapsed, exposing offices.

Google building demos, watch the buildings collapse, then watch WTC 1 & 2...who is BSing who?
Really don't need three questions just one...who benefits?

Okay, I understand that pressure would have forced some of the paper out, yet, we had cars melted from the heat blocks away. So, melts metal, paper escapes unscathed.

I know who Kurt Sonnenfeld is, I'm curious as to what happened to him since then. I'm guessing you may have posted that in case others weren't aware of who he is.

As far as the Pentagon, it just seems to me the initial blast of impact and explosion should have had enough heat to melt things like a office computer. Even if the fire was out, the walls came down while it was still pretty hot yes?

I'm still very curious as to why building 6 is such a ghost office with nothing there that resembles any kind of office items. Anyone care to address that?

I'm really not here to discuss who benefits from the towers, that has been kicked around for years and I have my own thoughts about all that. I'm just here for some of the dynamics of how some of this stuff came to be. One building has the furniture there in pretty good condition, another building which isn't mentioned much as far as I know, has nothing really to be seen as far as furniture and such.

It would be nice to stay on topic...

Thanks for your replies btw

a reply to: onehuman

yet, we had cars melted from the heat blocks away. So, melts metal, paper escapes unscathed.

You have to remember that when both buildings collapsed, and later other buildings like WT7, just didn't collapse within their own foundation. The debris not only destroyed other buildings near by, but caused damage to the streets below and also started fires which lasted for days.

originally posted by: onehuman
Okay, I understand that pressure would have forced some of the paper out, yet, we had cars melted from the heat blocks away. So, melts metal, paper escapes unscathed.

How do you come to that conclusion?

The fires burned for several weeks after the buildings collapsed. Maybe that is what you mean - cars were being retrieved from the underground park for a long time as they excavated the ruins.

a reply to: Teddy916


I really do get all that. Ive been following it for years, like most of the other members here.

I'm just very curious about the first three minutes of the video about building 6. It just seem so opposite of everything else that happened. It doesn't even appear to look like it really burned per say. At least to me, but I don't have a trained eye for that sort of thing.

a reply to: onehuman

I'm just very curious about the first three minutes of the video about building 6. It just seem so opposite of everything else that happened. It doesn't even appear to look like it really burned per say. At least to me, but I don't have a trained eye for that sort of thing.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. WT6 was not only affected by the falling debris from the twin towers; the fires also damaged it's structure. WT6 was an 8 story building and not surprisingly was easily destroyed when the North Tower collapsed. It's not like how a house is burned and it's body turns dark black as a result. I think it's because the materials that were used react differently to being in a fire like on 9/11.

a reply to: markosity1973

The toasted cars alone is a an underrated smoking gun. Yes, some cars were parked underground but the majority that were found in the adjacent blocks were found in very odd condition. In some cases, this included entire parking lots.

The fact is, many cars were found with extremely scorched parts, while half of the car remained in its original condition. So what could explain this?
Jet fuel is NOT an appropriate answer no matter what ridiculous reason is given to support that.

And i hate to say it ( bc this statement garners responses that are beyond criticism i. e. Being banned from discussions. ) but Thermite isn't capable of doing this either. Only a highly concentrated energy can do that. Just like the energy that turned steel into dust.

If anyone cares to debate this in a civil way, I'd happily oblige. But I won't respond to personal attacks.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Thank you as that was what I was referring to when I mentioned the melted cars. Did you watch the first bit of the video?


No matter how I'm told I need to remember such and such. it is bizarre that there isn't any apparent anything really that would tell you it was a office. Did all the furniture, file cabinets, etc., just all go poof?

a reply to: onehuman

After researching 9/11 thoroughly since 2006, its my opinion that YES, many things ”vaporized” in and around the towers. And this didn't and couldn't happen from jet fuel, thermite or the force of a collapse.

I agree that it requires some "unlearning" or ignoring many explanations and in turn, simply looking at the evidence. All of the footage and photographs taken once the dust cloud has dissipated show the amazingly SMALL amount of actual rubble in comparison to the size of the towers and all the steel that the towers were comprised of.

Not to mention the bodies. The amount of intact corpses and body parts that were found since 9/11 is nowhere near the amount of people that died. Sadly, whatever vaporized steel also vaporized many bodies.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Well I'm glad someone is on the same page as I am here. Hard to get a straight answer around here. Probably why I never really posted in this forum as it is so frustrating.


I did find the rest of the video rather interesting as the presenter tried to put what was "vaporized" into perspective. When you think about the tons of concrete that would fill container ships etc.. While I don't know how exact his numbers are, even if he were off a bit, it is still pretty amazing.


Funny, around here it is usually pics or it didn't happen. We have thousands of pictures and videos and somehow it still didn't happen, if that made sense...

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So a high/concentrated energy weapon?

I'm gonna be that guy.

Let's start with the obvious. There's no footage of any high/concentrated energy weapons coming from any angle. Remember the whole thing was caught on multiple cameras.

Now the more interesting part.

It vapourizes steel? But not all of it?

It vapourizes concrete? But not all of it?

It vapourizes bodies? But not all of them?

It vapourizes cars? But only some of them?

It vapourizes paper? But only some of it?

I could carry on going, but I won't.

ETA: If you did some research you'd find the steel was below standard, the construction was controlled by the mob so no doubt cut corners.

a reply to: onehuman

Thanks for posting your questions.

My "opinion" to all the un-burnt paper is, it was blasted out of the WTC as the demolition was going on, on each floor as the WTC were falling.

Yet, no traces of bomb making materials were ever found and no one was allowed to look for bomb making materials, does not mean there were no bombs in the WTC.

The fact is, the official narratives of the WTC demise does not stand up to basic science. So in my "opinion" something else happened.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So a high/concentrated energy weapon?

I'm gonna be that guy.

Let's start with the obvious. There's no footage of any high/concentrated energy weapons coming from any angle. Remember the whole thing was caught on multiple cameras.

Now the more interesting part.

It vapourizes steel? But not all of it?

It vapourizes concrete? But not all of it?

It vapourizes bodies? But not all of them?

It vapourizes cars? But only some of them?

It vapourizes paper? But only some of it?

I could carry on going, but I won't.

ETA: If you did some research you'd find the steel was below standard, the construction was controlled by the mob so no doubt cut corners.

Ok here we go. First off, I'm not claiming to know exactly what type of weapon or energy could have been used, but Im trying to eliminate what it couldn't physically be.

I think we can all agree that nobody here truly knows the secret technologies that governments or TPTB can employ. And it's very much a case of ignorance to assume that an energy weapon must be visible to exist similar to the particle beam destroying the White House in the movie ”Independence Day" haha.

As far as the case of ”it vaporizes ___, but not all of it. ” Watch the footage and the aftermath carefully. Whatever was used on the upper levels of the towers was NOT used on the lower portion of it.

Ask yourself this : If these towers collapsed from fire or the weakness of the steel, wouldnt the bottom levels be pulverized THE MOST from the sheer weight of all the above floors? Yet, they aren't.

And as I've said earlier, I've done extensive research. I've changed my opinion a few time throughout the years, but at the end of the day the evidence speaks volumes once you toss all the BS aside.

As for the quality of the steel, I've heard about it being sub-par on many occasions. However, even lower quality metals don't simply turn to dust from fire. If you can find an instance of that EVER happening, please share.

a reply to: onehuman

I agree, it can be hard to post a serious question here with all the so called "experts" and know it alls chiming in with their opinions.
But to be fair, you did post the question here.

You just have to dig a bit through the bs answers to find the answers your looking for.

It's reassuring that so many people in this forum know the melting point of the particular steel structure used in TWC.
I guess they could have all studied the destructive testing data provided by the manufacturer.

Being a mining engineer, im ignorant to most metal structural engineering aspects, asides from the structural stability of rock.

But ill say this, if it a plane crashed into my mine and caused it to collapse in on itself, id get to the bottom of it for ya

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

This kind of makes a circle. I wonder what Kurt Sonnefelds photos might have shown, if anything. Still would like to know what happened to him. He was hot in the news then nothing.

Wonder if a sound wave could have caused that destruction. That is something you wouldn't see but could be focused... Just pondering out loud...