It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


North Tower damage implications?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 11:36 PM
I have discussed this previously but there are a few pictures that kind of spell out what I am talking about.

The first picture is a pretty good shot of the North Tower and the South Tower collapsing, notice the amount of material that would have hit the North Tower.

Now compare this with the following picture

Granted the second picture is further away, but you should instantly see the problem. (in a way it is the perfect picture) Is the North Tower so incredibly strong that material in excess of many tons ejected at high speeds and close by couldn't even create damage similar to the plane striking or at least fires?

Now I must repeat something here that is important. I am not saying that there ISN'T DAMAGE from the South Tower visited on the NORTH.
Rather what I am saying, is the damage is far less then one would expect. Especially given the close proximity and the damage that was supposedly inflicted on Building 7 by the South Tower.

Now, notice in that distant photo, you can still see the plane damage. But you can't really see significant damage visited by the South Tower.

here are a few possibilities. I am not firmly set yet on which.

#1. Building 7's damage visited by the South Tower alone, is not believable. Bldg-7 was much further away then the North Tower therefore something else was used to weaken the structure.

#2. The North Tower is actually so strong, so completely strong that whatever flew into it on 9/11 was not an ordinary plane. Indeed, it could be that what flew into it was of a different material and or filled with explosives. This was to ensure complete 100% penetration into the building and maximal damage.

To me its either of these. I am not sure which. Perhaps the Towers are actually stronger, much, much stronger then we all realize.

Some possible OBJECTIONS

"there are quotes of people who saw damage from the South Tower visited on the North Tower"

Answer: No one is saying there is *NO DAMAGE*, but surely if the plane damage can be so clearly seen and the fires from the plane strike on the NORTH TOWER, surely we should see something in that photo even at that distance.

"What we need is close up photo's of really good quality."

Answer: Why? I already mentioned there was probably "DAMAGE", but its not the type of damage that is consistent with what happened, and the distant photo bears that out perfectly. Furthermore, I have seen the plane damage on the Towers from much more distant shots.

I just wanted to add, if someone proves conclusively that Building 7 was damaged by the South Tower and set ablaze even though it was over 300 ft away, but let us suppose that they prove this.

Then there is no way in my view that the plane that struck that day, was an ordinary jet of any kind. The mass and velocity of ejection from the South Tower was enormous. We should have seen large fires or open gashes in the photo I presented.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by talisman]

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 11:57 PM
Just to update this.

As I sat here contemplating this, I have come to a conclusion. The conclusion is that the North Tower is indeed much stronger then we realize. It is also the conclusion that whatever hit the North Tower, was not an ordinary passenger jet.

I see no other possible explanation. Why I just came to this? Well just looking at the facts, the facts are that the South Tower ejected material with enormous energy and weight.

The South Tower probably did do damage, as one would expect, but if a passenger jet did that type of damage then surely the South Tower's collapse should have presented something similar in damage.

Sadly the conclusion is:

The Plane that hit the South Tower
The Plane that hit the North Tower
The Plane that did whatever it did at the Pentagon
The Plane that crashed or was shot down...
These Plane's had observations of them maneuvering like military jets.
These Planes were...

... not ordinary passenger Jets, but disguised military jets, probably with a payload of explosives and or materials and made out of materials different then an ordinary passenger Jet.

This makes so much sense out of a lot of things.

1. Inconsistent Damage on the North Tower.
2. 100% Penetration in the Towers.
3. No video of the Pentagon Strike, (possibly because it would bear out what I am saying)
4. Shanksville and its own mysteries.
5. Why the serial numbers were never matched to the planes to identify them.
6. Passport of one of the hijackers at the WTC site.
7. Reports of hijackers alive.
8. Certain questionable cell-phone calls.
9. The jets were said to maneuver like military jets
10. The longer flight paths chosen for the targets.

Now keep in mind the planes penetrating would be consistent with a normal building, however I have come to the conclusion that the Towers were not ordinary buildings. They were super strong.

When Frank Demartini stated in the following

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Now when you take Frank's statement in conjunction with the South Tower's lack of hardcore damage done to the North Tower, then it is devastating. The conclusions are as follows....

He is right. The plane should have just really done nothing to the netting. That is if it was an ordinary plane.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by talisman]

posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 01:05 PM
I agree with your premise here talisman, but I just wanted to say:

I think the damage to WTC 7 was caused by the North Tower's collapse. But, the same premise applies.

Starred and flagged.

posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by Griff

Yeah I am leaning toward the Wtc-7 being damaged by the collapses. There are more strange things that just don't add up. Here is another I just came across.
Stanley Praimnath survivor from inside the Tower-2

Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.

How a wing managed to survive such an impact into the steel of the Tower, but not only that. When we look at the Pentagon, we are to believe the wings were destroyed?

[edit on 12-3-2008 by talisman]

posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 05:06 PM
Here's a picture you might want to analyse. It's from Aman Zafar's collection, which was shot using 35mm film.

Be aware, it takes a while to load and isn't of the highest quality.

posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by coughymachine
Here's a picture you might want to analyse. It's from Aman Zafar's collection, which was shot using 35mm film.

Be aware, it takes a while to load and isn't of the highest quality.

Thanks for the picture, they are hard to come by. It is so hard to believe that the North Tower would look that "clean" after what happened. Unless of course, it was incredibly strong.

new topics

top topics

log in