venger Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 OK... let's take this back to basics. If this janitor did indeed hear 2 explosions, the first being from below, then another a few seconds later as the aircraft hit, what exactly do you think that first explosion was, and what was it for? I am not going to get into this with you Tony, theories and explanations on what may have happened are clearly covered in the links provded by several people on this and other threads, if I start explaining them in any amount of detail, even I think that I would look like a "wacko" by not providing all of the evidence that is available to people who look for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I am not going to get into this with you Tony Come on don't cop out now, just when we get all logical. What was the purpose of this alleged 'explosion' before the aircraft hit? One sentence will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Come on don't cop out now, just when we get all logical. What was the purpose of this alleged 'explosion' before the aircraft hit? One sentence will do it. Was it to scare off the giant lizzards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Come on don't cop out now, just when we get all logical. What was the purpose of this alleged 'explosion' before the aircraft hit? One sentence will do it. Well as far as I am aware, on controlled demolitions, the main supports are weakend using cutting eplosive devices set at an inward angle to massivley weaken the integruty of the struture and help guide the building onto it's own footprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 if I start explaining them in any amount of detail, even I think that I would look like a "wacko" by not providing all of the evidence that is available to people who look for it. You do anyway, venger, so come on , how about some harm reduction and actually give us something to substantiate some of the wildly outlandish claims you make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 the main supports are weakend .... to massivley weaken the integruty of the struture and help guide the building onto it's own footprint. Perhaps they could use an aircraft full of fuel to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Well as far as I am aware, on controlled demolitions, the main supports are weakend using cutting eplosive devices set at an inward angle to massivley weaken the integruty of the struture and help guide the building onto it's own footprint. Just a small problem with that idea. Why didn't the building collapse at 8.45 when this 'explosion' allegedy happened Maybe the CIA has perfected skyhooks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downtroad Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Just a small problem with that idea. Why didn't the building collapse at 8.45 when this 'explosion' allegedy happened Maybe the CIA has perfected skyhooks? Very good point. Here is the seismic data. The first tower collapsed 64+ minutes after impact, the second 90+. If the impacts were to hide an demolition explosion in the basement, why the time difference? Why would it take one tower 64 minutes and one 90 minutes? http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Just a small problem with that idea. Why didn't the building collapse at 8.45 when this 'explosion' allegedy happened Maybe the CIA has perfected skyhooks? Like I said, I am not going to enter in to this, but I do know that there can be over 1000's of lbs of explosives and blast caps to bring once 'weakened' structures down. Many witness statements and even NY fire service radio transmissions document explosions going off around them before (perhaps during) collapse. Steel is strong light, flexible and fire-proof. The Windsor Tower in Madrid survived a 20 hour inferno in 2005 and did not collapse, yet 90 minutes of 'smoke' effectivly destroyed the towers. Do you not find that a little odd ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Like I said, I am not going to enter in to this, but I do know that there can be over 1000's of lbs of explosives and blast caps to bring once 'weakened' structures down. Many witness statements and even NY fire service radio transmissions document explosions going off around them before (perhaps during) collapse. Steel is strong light, flexible and fire-proof. The Windsor Tower in Madrid survived a 20 hour inferno in 2005 and did not collapse, yet 90 minutes of 'smoke' effectivly destroyed the towers. Do you not find that a little odd ? I would find it odd if it was true! Where do you get bizzare ideas like "90 minutes of smoke", didn't you see the big aircraft full of fuel crash into it and set on fire? PS. I think the lizzards did it, but, like I keep saying, I am not going to enter into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.