Don > I hope there is a different photo to back it up.
I'm sorry, that's the only "photo" there is. It's clearly a clip from the CNN video. The quality of the earlier copy 911research.wtc7.net is superior to mine because mine is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy.
> I think you'd have a hard time making a case for it being something other than a clip of the first collapse rather than from the earlier second plane crash.
As I see it, it's an independent explosion which has nothing to do with plane crashes. Hufschmid feels it has been done deliberately to release pressure. I feel it may have more to do with ensuring an insurance pay-out.
>>Did high pressure punch holes in Building 6?
Photos shows a plume of dust rising upwards near Buildings 5 and 6 as each tower collapsed (Figure 1-1). This dust shot upwards so quickly that it passed the top of Building 7 (nearly 600 feet tall) within a few seconds. The collapse of the towers would have pushed dust into the underground shopping mall, parking lot, and passageways, increasing the air pressure underground. These plumes of smoke might be the result of the high pressure dust blowing open a hole in or near Buildings 5 and 6, and then shooting upwards. Building 6 has two deep holes in it, and Building 5 has at least one mysterious hole. Were those holes blown open to release the high pressure?<<
> If an explosive device had enough force to blow out five floors and a roof, why didn't it blow out the walls as well?
Maybe there was a stair well?! What do I know?
> So, is it possible WTC 6 was bombed in some fashion or another? Sure, any explanation is as good as the next when the facts are being held hostage.
You're making a joke, right, but since you're asking I think they just blew up the building. [pun intended] |
