|
|
Post by CooL HanD on Sept 21, 2007 8:47:30 GMT -5
I've seen this video before but hesitated to put it here for you guys and gals to see due to my own reservations. But I'd like to hear what you get from this video.. CLICK HERE |
|
|
|
Post by 2ndtimearound on Sept 21, 2007 9:07:16 GMT -5
OK six years later the passengers are where? If you buy into the "conspiracy" aspect then you have to take the logical next step and say that they were killed as a group by the "ringleader" or his designees. Now you are talking about a lot of people to pull this off and NOT ONE has come forward with some stupid drunken statement in a bar? I doubt it. the problem with a secret plan is the more people you involve the risk of just one telling grows exponetially. sorry I am nto ready to buy into GWB and his family having this entire thing planned out to this extent. Come on GWB we all know he is not that smart.
|
|
Logan
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by Logan on Sept 21, 2007 15:15:05 GMT -5
The towers were not taken down in a manner consistent with demolishing old buildings. I did demolitions in the Army. What is used to IMPLODE old buildings is what is called a dust initiator with H.E. cutting charges placed on the load bearing frame.
Basically what your doing is simultaneously cutting it's skeleton into small sections while burning up the oxygen inside the sealed building to create a vacuum.
The little blow outs being pointed out in the film are just that, as floor after floor are pancaking downward the weakest point on each floor gets blown out by compressed air.
That's as about as detailed as I'm going to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by CooL HanD on Sept 21, 2007 15:53:32 GMT -5
There is another video that I saw which acounts for the molten steel in the lower levels, ie. jet fuel which ran down the elevator shafts. But I've been unable to find it.
I completely agree with 2ndtimearound on where are the people? This video holds no water so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Hat on Sept 24, 2007 11:52:34 GMT -5
Having seen the entire series, and having seen and looked into several other air crashes, jet fuel could NOT burn hot enough to cause the towers to fall by themselves. As for not being a demo expert, I can't say they did use explosives or not, but it looked too planned out of a fall for the buildings if you ask me. Why didn't the top fall off to the side where the cavities were left from the planes?
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckledragger on Sept 24, 2007 12:45:30 GMT -5
Unlike Druid, my primary job in the Army was to JUST blow sh*t up. Not demolition. I am NOT an expert in building demolition. Nor do I have any experience in building demolition. What WAS my expertise, was blowing up airplanes and helicopters with a shoulder fired Stinger missile. While the video is interesting, I really don't see any difference between a plane (missile) and the buildings (targets) as to the imploding theory. The type of missile (airplane) and it's payload (fuel) have little to do with the end result. When a projectile hits it's target, there is going to be plenty of blow out. You can plainly see this in the video, despite what the narrator contends. Think of the airplane(s) as a shaped charge. When it strikes something it starts to burn the instant it makes contact. The buildings were not bunkers. They had plenty of combustibles that ignited at the point of impact. Gravity is going to pull any and all things burning, down. It should also be noted that the planes did not strike at the base, or even in the middle of the buildings. This is a crucial flaw in the "imploding" theory. The buildings fell just as they should if they were hit with a MISSILE.
|
|
