|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#10
February 25th 06, 09:22 PM
posted to rec.travel.air,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Unpossible (D'oh!)
In article ,
TRUTH wrote: Okay. WTC 7 was the only WTC building not in the same physical area as the other WTC buidlings. Except, of course (and we all knew this was coming, right), that it *was* in the same area. It wasn't immediately next door, but was in the same area, and was actually closer to the towers than some other buildings that were also heavily damaged. The only intervening building was WTC 6, a fairly small one (that was pretty much erased when the towers fell). Between fire and the earthquake-equivalent damage, WTC 7 was a lost cause well before it fell in on itself. 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Miss L. Toe | Piloting | 11 | February 23rd 06 02:25 PM |
| Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Jim Macklin | Piloting | 12 | February 22nd 06 10:09 PM |
| Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Bob Gardner | Piloting | 18 | February 22nd 06 08:25 PM |
| Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Scott M. Kozel | Piloting | 1 | February 22nd 06 03:38 AM |
Threaded Mode