It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
This a cut from the thread Netvocates: Our debunkers revealed. (We got off-topic.
)

It would've been nicer to have the posts separated and reposted on a new thread by a mod, but apparently they don't have an option for that so Majic suggested I do this instead.

And excuse me if the post I begin with isn't the most appropriate, but I really wasn't following the thread very closely, and my first post on it was pretty off-topic. I'll start with the discourse that I jumped in on and follow it through.


Originally posted by Christophera
Tell me this is caused by falling steel.




Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae

Tell me this is caused by falling steel.

Something about that image you posted screams photoshopped.
Does anyone have that sort of Image from another angle?



Originally posted by bsbray11
This, photoshopped?



That thing's been around for a while, ie at least as long as I've been interested in "alternate" 9/11 things, and I've never seen anyone object before. But nonetheless, here's a pic from another angle:



Notice the expulsions that the red arrow is pointing out. You can see those in first photo as well, if you look below the bulging-out part. The second image appears to have been taken just a split second before the image in question based on this feature that they share.

Both of them can be found on 9/11 Research's photo archive, which is Jim Hoffman's site.

Here's another, somewhat similar pic:



Maybe that helps? There are a good number of photos of both collapses showing insane amounts of spread, if that's what you thought was off.

I found this too while Google searching, and thought I'd share:



An expulsion is circled in red.



What I think is interesting, though, is that you can see many expulsions making up the immediate debris cloud:



Look back to the original photo to compare without all the red mess in the way. But I guess that's pretty off-topic. :-/



Originally posted by Vushta
What exactly looks like the collapse is the result of explosives? I think you are all trying to put out some misinformation here by not being at all clear about what it is you're claiming.
What exactly IS it you're claiming and where is the evidence.

This in part is what I mean.

On the one hand some say those pics show evidence of explosions. Sorry I don't see it. The column of smoke rising from the crashes and fuel burning continues to rise as it had--even and undisturbed over the "mushroom cloud" as some have put it, of the debris cloud. Things remain even and undisturbed. There are no random or uneven ejections or upward blast waves throwing some material with a far different pattern than the uniformity shown in the pics. This is simple one minor point but I'd like to explain why its important.
One school of thought states that only massive well placed explosions could have "pulverized" all that material. Another school of thought is that the building were rigged and the pics show signs of a controlled demo..evidenced by expulsive "squibs".

On the one hand it would seem reasonable to expect to see the "massive explosions"of that magnitude throwing material out in a much more chaotic and random manner.
Some say it MUST have been massive explosions to "pulverize" or "disintegrate" or even "vaporize" all that material--theres no other explaination for the amout of dust created.

There is no visual evidence of this in the pics.

On the other hand a conventional controlled demo, which some even reference others to vids of other controlled demos as comparative "proof" of the similarities, are the result of carefully failing a building by blowing out key structural members so the building falls in a predictable manner.

If this is the case, the resulting debris cloud would be a natural product of the failure and not "massive explosions" as controlled demos use the least amout of explosives needed for obvious reasons. In effect-- an artificially induced "pancaking" of the floors falling in and the physical effect of that in no way could be seen as an anomoly. CD advocates even claim that the floors were progressively blown out ahead of the collapse ("pancaking") allowing for "freefall" times.. Yet many of the controlled demo folks will still point to the dust cloud as evidence of----something?

So which is it folks? If its CD then the dust cloud has nothing to do with it and the only real disagreement between the CD people and the offical "pancake theory" people is one side claims it was artifically induced by explosives and the other side states it was a natural byproduct of physics. The only visual evidence to CD would be the manner in which it fell--straight down-- which it DIDN'T at all fall straight down into its footprint. But artifical or natural--they would look the same.

If its explosions massive enough to "pulverize" or "vaporize" the structures, wheres the visual evidence..let alone auditory evidence..of that degree of explosion? Which brings up another question..was there ONE massive explosion..or were there more? If only one--how would THAT work?--if there were many--wheres the visual and auditory evidence?

Do you guys realize that you don't even agree with yourselves?



[edit on 27-6-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Vushta]



Originally posted by Long Lance
Explosives can be used with sufficient precision for use in shaped charges compared to these, blowing a few floors out every second is child's play.

But that's not the point, is it? these buildings were turned into dust and steel beams, nothing in the official story can explain that fact, explosives are just the most reasonale explanation, because you don't have to venture into exotic weapons territory.

PS: your implicit claim


Originally posted by Vushta
What exactly looks like the collapse is the result of explosives?


doesn't make it so. it doesn't look like a mere collapse, ever seen those squibs? compressed air, right? no evidence, right? what about the temperature readings after 9/11? all irrelevant, i presume. the mechanism for turning two 500kton buildings into concrete powder? gravity. anyone using grinders must be a complete fool.



Originally posted by Masisoar
And for further support of BSBray11 on his comments, if the building's air pressure was being relieved in what you claim that "aren't" squibs, it would of completely shattered out the windows below it with the force it was coming down at but yet you see little jets of "smokey" air getting jettisoned out from the sides of the building only mere floors below the collapsing effect. Not to mention with the amount of force it was comign down, if it INDEED was air tight, you'd have a huge amount of air pressure blowing out through the basement and first floors of the World Trade Center.




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
One school of thought states that only massive well placed explosions could have "pulverized" all that material. Another school of thought is that the building were rigged and the pics show signs of a controlled demo..evidenced by expulsive "squibs".


One in the same. The 'squibs' were either off-timed or ill-timed.


There is no visual evidence of this in the pics.


Check out what I just posted:




I'm sure you're capable of seeing the same things I am in there. I even circled the things I'm looking at in red so you can compare to the first image.

Now whether or not you believe those are demolition charges, what do you think they should look like, if they were charges?

Because this is what they've always been known to look like:



Or



And where have I seen that dust cloud before?

Geez.


If this is the case, the resulting debris cloud would be a natural product of the failure and not "massive explosions" as controlled demos use the least amout of explosives needed for obvious reasons.


If this is true, then you should be able to show us naturally-collapsed buildings that have had virtually all of their concrete pulverized by their own falling. Can you do this?

It's unprecedented. Literally -- there's no precedent for this. The least amount of explosives needed is not the same as 'not very many' explosives or 'not enough to pulverize much'. The expulsions you see in the above building, for example, are only the outer charges that you can see. They're all through that building, ripping up a lot of material that's soon going to be flying around through the air. It makes a mess in the air.


If its CD then the dust cloud has nothing to do with it and the only real disagreement between the CD people and the offical "pancake theory" people is one side claims it was artifically induced by explosives and the other side states it was a natural byproduct of physics.


A pretty faulty conclusion. I can go down a lot more differences between the two sides than that, and I don't see how your dust cloud argument can be a logical one.


The only visual evidence to CD would be the manner in which it fell--straight down-- which it DIDN'T at all fall straight down into its footprint.


It's my understanding that the centers of gravity for all of the debris came back to the buildings' footprints. So, you're right, they didn't fall straight down, per se, but only because so much was being ejected laterally and fell outside of the footprints. That's a pretty trivial point. The buildings, unquestionably, came straight down, as opposed to toppling over or anything else.


But will you just concede one thing, to show that you know where we're coming from? I mean that the expulsions that I'd outlined above in red -- you'll at least admit that you can see how those can be taken for demolition charges, won't you? Whether or not you believe that's what they are, it's at least what they look like, right?



Originally posted by Christophera

Originally posted by Masisoar
And for further support of BSBray11 on his comments, if the building's air pressure was being relieved in what you claim that "aren't" squibs, it would of completely shattered out the windows below it with the force it was coming down at but yet you see little jets of "smokey" air getting jettisoned out from the sides of the building only mere floors below the collapsing effect. Not to mention with the amount of force it was comign down, if it INDEED was air tight, you'd have a huge amount of air pressure blowing out through the basement and first floors of the World Trade Center.


Exactly, but ONLY if the windows could hold significant pressure, which they can't. Five PSI is probably more than they will take. Jets of dust like we see take 150 PSI minimum, likely more for the distance they travel.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Damn, Christophera, I'd never thought of that! Good thinking man!



That would literally have to be the result of some jet of supercompressed air rocketing across a floor and smashing a window instantly -- which is also impossible -- to occur from air pressure, based on the fact that you just pointed out: windows would blow way before reaching that much PSI. Multiple windows, too, and not just singular bursts of easily over 100 feet into the air.

Another thing to keep in mind: the only air shafts were in the core. Therefore, a whole floor would have to pressurize that greatly before it could exhibit such an expulsion from the perimeter columns. Again, the windows would've given out much sooner. The squib you're looking at above was hardly the result of just overwhelming a window there; it was no contest for that small section of the building, and a far cry from only breaking it. Pulverized solids and all spewing out there.


There we are.

I hope that's not too much of a mess to read. :-/



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Both of these images share a feature that can be traced to the positions and distributions of the explosives used.

premature detonations

mushrooming explosion

Both explosions show the main mass of expanding material going in 2 directions, away from each other perpendicuarly. This is so evident that the masses have a valley between them. It can also be seen that one side is always slightly wider or larger than the other.

The concrete core walls face perpindicuarly away from each other and one is shorter than the other. If you can figure out what side of which building you are looking at you can see that the narrower explosion is consistent with the narrow side of the core.

algoxy.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The squibs appear in different areas all over the building - how on Earth can it be an isolated event at just one window of air pressure being released if the force is so strong that's forcing the air out.

That's what I'm curious about



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The squibs appear in different areas all over the building - how on Earth can it be an isolated event at just one window of air pressure being released if the force is so strong that's forcing the air out.

That's what I'm curious about


To make this sound realistic I'll say,

"The pancaking floors above are compressing air and it is being distributed through the electrical conduit and it is blowing out the windows."

Where is the "duh" emoticon when you need it.



No way.

Some terrorist selected the wrong digital delays in that 38 hour detonator rigging the weekend before 9-11.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera

To make this sound realistic I'll say,

"The pancaking floors above are compressing air and it is being distributed through the electrical conduit and it is blowing out the windows."

Where is the "duh" emoticon when you need it.

Now way.

Some terrorist selected the wrong digital delays in that 38 hour detonator rigging the weekend before 9-11.


But really, I'd like a valid argument about these squibs.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by Vushta
One school of thought states that only massive well placed explosions could have "pulverized" all that material. Another school of thought is that the building were rigged and the pics show signs of a controlled demo..evidenced by expulsive "squibs".




One in the same. The 'squibs' were either off-timed or ill-timed.


No. They are not one and the same. You missed my point.

One school of thought (Chris) has stated that a conventional CD could not have created all that dust and "pulverize" the building. It could only have been accomplished by high explosives embedded in the building itself.
The other idea was of a conventional CD.
My point is that conventional CD uses the least amount of explosives necessary to finish failing the structure after pre-failing it to the point of it being quite weak and not a safe building to be in.




Now whether or not you believe those are demolition charges, what do you think they should look like, if they were charges?


They should look just like they do--except they are not what you think. A "squib" is in fact the expulsion of pressure. They are not explosives in themselves. A series of demolition explosions are set off in a vacant building. the pressure wave exits where it can. In CDs the glass is removed from windows for obvious reasons. A "squib" caused by an explosion and one caused by the compression of air from a once open space being squeezed out of existence would look the same.

I see really no similarities in the pics and vid you posted and the collapse of the towers. I do however see plenty of differences.

In the animated implosion you have a building about 30 stories??..and you see about 50 explosions happening at about the same time. This is with only 2 sides visible. I wonder what it sounded like?
In your post showing the towers collapse you have to red circle one here..and one there?

This is by no stretch of the imagination similar.

Explosions are instantious. The dust ejected by the pressure wave (not the explosion itself) show a small amount of dust, and notice that it doesn't build until the structure begins to collapse. Also notice that roughly 100 explosion happen BEFORE any structural collapse starts. Also notice that the greatest number of explosions are at the base and the "familiar dust cloud" has nothing to do with explosives.

None of these are similar to the towers collapse.

But there are also things that are not similar that are not visible.

You show the end result of a CD.--really its the most unimportant part--the pushing of a buttom to dramatically conclude what was months of careful work by highly trained people. THIS FACT CAN NOT BE IGNORED.
The process of a CD--as I understand it--involves the prefailing of just the right structural members in just the right way. This is done by exposing the structural members and severing them up to 90% of the way through. Sometimes in more than one spot on each member. In some cases some charges "cut" the member while others timed in milliseconds push the severed piece out of the way to insure no obstruction or pinching that could shift the collapse in an unfavorable way. All these charges are tracked and lead to the proper timed circuit. This has got to be done using physical fuses. Obviously its much more complicated than this but I'm running out of space.
If you like I can post the documentation of the demo of a historic building about 45 stories...not 113...45 ( I think) and the set up for that took a full crew working in the open with all the equipment necessary to complete the job 4 months to complete..I'm talking wrecking equipment..cutting torches and Bobcats running around in the building--4 months. 4 months for ONE building a bit over one third of the size of ONE of the towers.

None of that was seen to happen at the towers. No similarity to the towers.

How was the CD set up for the towers with no one noticing?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The squibs appear in different areas all over the building - how on Earth can it be an isolated event at just one window of air pressure being released if the force is so strong that's forcing the air out.

That's what I'm curious about


How do you know that all the windows are NOT showing that? The debris cloud obcures everything at the center of the collapsing floors.

But consider of another observable fact.

Why is there only one or two visible? Don't say the were mistakes or mis-timing. That doesn't make any sense.
The "properly timed" " non mistakes" are nowhere to be seen. However they ARE easliy seen in an actual CD. They happen BEFORE any collapse starts.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

How do you know that all the windows are NOT showing that? The debris cloud obcures everything at the center of the collapsing floors.

But consider of another observable fact.

Why is there only one or two visible? Don't say the were mistakes or mis-timing. That doesn't make any sense.
The "properly timed" " non mistakes" are nowhere to be seen. However they ARE easliy seen in an actual CD. They happen BEFORE any collapse starts.


What's your explanation? Can you justify what you have to say?

Can you explain away the squibs?

Air pressure is going to act in all directions when being forced out, so you'd have a global blow out of all windows. And this is referencing to the area of the squibs, if indeed anyone claims it to be a release of air pressure.

Vushta, what's your take on the squibs?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by Vushta

How do you know that all the windows are NOT showing that? The debris cloud obcures everything at the center of the collapsing floors.

But consider of another observable fact.

Why is there only one or two visible? Don't say the were mistakes or mis-timing. That doesn't make any sense.
The "properly timed" " non mistakes" are nowhere to be seen. However they ARE easliy seen in an actual CD. They happen BEFORE any collapse starts.


What's your explanation? Can you justify what you have to say?

Can you explain away the squibs?

Air pressure is going to act in all directions when being forced out, so you'd have a global blow out of all windows. And this is referencing to the area of the squibs, if indeed anyone claims it to be a release of air pressure.

Vushta, what's your take on the squibs?


My take is that the couple shown (in that one still) are the result of pressure from one floor compressing the airspace in another floor area possiblly in combination with simple tensioning forces causing the unbendable glass to bend and shatter.

The point of my response to your post was that those types of expulsions could have been happening en mass but obscured by the debris cloud.
I imagine that the collapse was very complex and many things could have happened to cause forces to be present on the floors next in line for collapse. Things were failing all around--seals were broken between walls and cielings and ceilings and floors. A piece of debris could have punched through the floor creating a route for air, pressure, and debris--air could have been forced down heating ducts or along utility channels etc. It wasn't a tightly sealed object at this point. It wasn't like a tire pump forcing air through the only escape hole. Its hard to imagine what all could have happened in an event that huge.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The issue is distribution of explosives. Conventional demolition does not distribute the explosives well enough to get the entire concrete structure to turn to sand and gravel. They make pieces small enough for machinery to move.

The term "squib" is not at all accurate to describe what is seen jetting from the towers. Although it appears as a squib did, somewhat. A squib is essentially an obsolete term to describe a primer for a black powder charge. After black powder was obsolete some blasters continued to use the term for a single blast holes that jets out as powder blasts did most often.

So a squib causes an expulsion of pressure but that is not what it is. It is a primer. In a demolition the charges are detonated and the "pressure wave" travels between blasts in the material being blasted fracturing the material to varying degrees depending on proximity. There are loose gases expanding freely in the building spaces and they exit at the points of least resistance. Some dust comes out out with it.

The final dust cloud is the suspended particles of the various blasts and their dense but fine particulate inside the building being displaced by the falling building.

Since the explosive must be finely distributed in exact amounts, placed in the center of the concrete for something like this,



to happen, explosives must be placed during construction. The demo photos of ordinary CD do not show waves of expanding debris clouds as we see above. After the dust settles there are many, many large pieces of concrete laying around.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera

The demo photos of ordinary CD do not show waves of expanding debris clouds as we see above. After the dust settles there are many, many large pieces of concrete laying around.


The demo photos show the demos of buildings about 30 stories. The debris cloud only starts to build after about 20 and is really only impressive after it hits the ground and has to continue to disperse laterialy. Its an apples to oranges comparision though in reality.

I don't understand this "everything was disintegreted" or "pulverized" bit.
There were HUGE pieces of everything present after the collapse.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
One school of thought (Chris) has stated that a conventional CD could not have created all that dust and "pulverize" the building. It could only have been accomplished by high explosives embedded in the building itself.
The other idea was of a conventional CD.
My point is that conventional CD uses the least amount of explosives necessary to finish failing the structure after pre-failing it to the point of it being quite weak and not a safe building to be in.


Those demolitions were not conventional by any stretch of the term.

But, you're right in that there are two ideas going on how they got there -- built in, or implanted later. Maybe even a combo. But, yeah, there are differences of opinion there. It doesn't really negate the overall argument, though, that there was too much dust for slabs simply fall onto one another by simple gravity.



Now whether or not you believe those are demolition charges, what do you think they should look like, if they were charges?

They should look just like they do--except they are not what you think.


Well there we go. That's all I wanted.

So we can agree that they look pretty much the same (judging by your wording), but we just don't agree on what they actually are. So maybe in the future, instead of asking, "Why didn't we see any explosives?", one might ask instead, "What makes you think those are the result of explosives?"

Is that fair enough?


A "squib" is in fact the expulsion of pressure. They are not explosives in themselves. A series of demolition explosions are set off in a vacant building. the pressure wave exits where it can. In CDs the glass is removed from windows for obvious reasons. A "squib" caused by an explosion and one caused by the compression of air from a once open space being squeezed out of existence would look the same.


But what should we think when the floors aren't collapsing yet, and yet there are still expulsions?


I see really no similarities in the pics and vid you posted and the collapse of the towers. I do however see plenty of differences.


Of course. No similarities. Only differences.

That must be why I posted them! Will you admit to a certain degree of bias here? One could obviously make easy comparisons between both the expulsions themselves, and the dust clouds. This would make at least two similarities, discounting the obvious that we're also dealing with collapsing buildings, etc.


In the animated implosion you have a building about 30 stories??..and you see about 50 explosions happening at about the same time. This is with only 2 sides visible. I wonder what it sounded like?
In your post showing the towers collapse you have to red circle one here..and one there?

This is by no stretch of the imagination similar.


Realize that a proposition is that you're purposefully not seeing most of the expulsions because they're masked by falling debris and themselves because they're going off in quick succession, downwards. They were just programmed to go off in such an order, with such delays, just slower than free-fall to allow themselves to be masked.


Explosions are instantious. The dust ejected by the pressure wave (not the explosion itself) show a small amount of dust, and notice that it doesn't build until the structure begins to collapse. Also notice that roughly 100 explosion happen BEFORE any structural collapse starts. Also notice that the greatest number of explosions are at the base and the "familiar dust cloud" has nothing to do with explosives.


This is easily explained with thermite. The J. Hudson building was an obvious demolition -- there was no effort to conceal it. Thermite would've been used in the WTC collapses to mask initial explosives. Thus, WTC2 leaning before falling straight down (see the observations on a WTC2 vid thread), etc.


How was the CD set up for the towers with no one noticing?


The real question is: how does your question negate the evidence?

There's no sufficient data to really tell when the charges would have been set up, or whether it was gradual, or in sections with down-time, or what. But admitting this in no way diminishes the arguments above.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Why is there only one or two visible? Don't say the were mistakes or mis-timing. That doesn't make any sense.
The "properly timed" " non mistakes" are nowhere to be seen. However they ARE easliy seen in an actual CD. They happen BEFORE any collapse starts.


That's the whole point!, lol. (emphasis mine)

Keep the bigger picture in mind. It wouldn't do them much good to try to pin the collapses on Islamic impacts and fires if the demo charges were in plane sight.


Originally posted by Vushta
There were HUGE pieces of everything present after the collapse.


Not concrete floor slabs, for one. I read a firefighter's testimony once -- said the biggest piece of non-steel debris was part of a keypad off of a phone.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
The demo photos show the demos of buildings about 30 stories. The debris cloud only starts to build after about 20 and is really only impressive after it hits the ground and has to continue to disperse laterialy. Its an apples to oranges comparision though in reality.

I don't understand this "everything was disintegreted" or "pulverized" bit.
There were HUGE pieces of everything present after the collapse.


Demolition contractors have very little if any flying debris coming off the property. That is the whole idea of "controlled". There are a number of larger pieces in that wave of dust, particulate and chunks.

There were some pieces that were related to the plaza. There was one total box like building and some of the parking garage cielings, there is a piece of the core wall at its base, but the concrete core of the tower is GONE. Turned into SAND & GRAVEL. A conventional demo would leave perhap s field of 20 x 40's for a building that size and they would break them up on the ground to where they could be loaded. (The thought of a 20 x 40 2 feet thick falling from the top makes me think about building towers to demolish) A collapse to the ground would leave a part of the building toppled, lying on top of other bulidings, with its core broken into many 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 foot long pieces with steel smashed under it and tangled loose structure above.


[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
We just have to look at what they could not be, it'll be easier by deduction of logic as to what they are from the remaining.

Jets of air? It's such an isolated event, why not globally if so much pressure?

Remember, some of these occured on floors below the collapse (i.e. no damage to anything yet).



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.

That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

Lim landed near Harris. “If Josephine doesn’t slow me down, I’m dead,” he’d later say. “I figured this out.” That captain who’d urged Lim to go ahead didn’t make it. “Josephine Harris saved my life,” he says definitively. Harris landed on her side, clinging to the boot of Billy Butler.

www.newyorkmetro.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Repost

[edit on 6/27/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
So there were jets of wind that were being blasted down, causing isolated events on certain floors (i.e. one or two windows?).

What are your thoughts at this point Howard?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
The building was 95% air. That air had to go somewhere.

Have you ever seen demolition charges go off? They don't form long lasting jets of dust.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join