What if a new investigation reveals the same as the first?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So then you proved this statement by you "I don't think any of those singular puffs coming out is ever the result of any floor "pancaking" down." to be incorrect.

Self debunking.

Actually if you re-read my post I made a distinction between the form that the bigger clouds took, and the individual puffs coming out. As in, they aren't created by the same mechanism, which is why the videos you posted don't show them. That mechanism is large sections of building crashing down, which is one way to pulverize concrete (not the only one). Remember the "puffs" I am talking about are coming from about 30 and 50 floors down from the actual collapsing building in at least a couple of cases, and that's a lot of intact structure.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually if you re-read my post I made a distinction between the form that the bigger clouds took, and the individual puffs coming out.

Ok then.

So then at the very least you would admit that the larger clouds, coming out at the collapse zone, are easily explained by the collapsing building.

So then what is your opinion of those that continue to claim that those large plumes are proof of explosives?

At the very least, you must admit that they're NOT proof, correct?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82681924bc62.jpg[/atsimg]



No explosives were used, but it clearly has "plumes" around the entire perimeter where the exterior walls were removed.

www.dailymotion.com...

So I have two questions. One what does this have to do with a new investigation yielding the same results as the previous one?

And two,: If explosives were not used to blow up the above building then What did they use? Prayer and good intentions? Cheetahs with sledge hammers? I don't see any wrecking balls so if explosives were not used to blow up the corespondent support columns needed for cascade failure WHAT THEN was used?







EDIT TO ADD:

You must of been mistaken or purposefully attempting to mislead folks. I had to translate from french to English to find the right image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/175f0fb81a49.jpg[/atsimg]

This was clearly a conventional demolition using conventional explosives and you attempt to say otherwise is noted Joey Canoli

[edit on 24-7-2009 by titorite]

[edit on 24-7-2009 by titorite]

Originally posted by titorite

So I have two questions. One what does this have to do with a new investigation yielding the same results as the previous one?

And two,: If explosives were not used to blow up the above building then What did they use?

You must of been mistaken or purposefully attempting to mislead folks. I had to translate from french to English to find the right image:

Ask Bonez. he brought it up.

Hydraulics.

That's a pretty cool translator. It translates pics from French to English.....