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
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
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]