| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Explosions in WTC 5 after 2nd hit | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 19 2009, 06:49 PM (340 Views) | |
| DoYouEverWonder | Sep 19 2009, 06:49 PM Post #1 |
|
Gabriel Torres was in WTC 5 when the first plane hit. Why would WTC 5 fill up with black smoke, unless something big exploded nearby at the same time the plane hit? Edited by DoYouEverWonder, Sep 19 2009, 06:50 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| BoneZ | Sep 19 2009, 09:25 PM Post #2 |
|
WTC 5 was directly in line with the south tower and the debris that ejected from the south tower when the plane impacted. Likely, the smoke was from a burning part that fell from 80 stories up and crashed through WTC 5:  If you look on the very right-hand side, you can see many pieces of smoking/burning debris that come crashing down onto the buildings and streets below:  |
|
|
| 22205 | Sep 19 2009, 11:11 PM Post #3 |
Arlingtonian
|
bonez - while everything you are proposing is more than likely true and did occur, none of it 100% excludes or forbids the possibility that a seperate "explosive event" (for lack of a better description) may have taken place at wtc5 (as well as other places throughout the wtc complex - including but not limited to cars parked in the area). its entirely possible that such an "explosive" event at the wtc5 building (if such an event indeed took place), could have been timed knowingly and intentionally to specifically use the plane crash into the tower as cover. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 20 2009, 12:04 AM Post #4 |
|
Nowhere in my post does it say that it is 100% fact. That's why I used the word "likely". Although you can see many pieces of burning debris crashing down onto WTC 5. However, even though there were explosive events in the towers and possibly WTC 7, I see no reason for there to have been any in WTC 5. That doesn't mean there weren't any, I just see no reason for there to have been. Edited by BoneZ, Sep 20 2009, 07:14 AM.
|
|
|
|
| JackD | Sep 21 2009, 12:04 AM Post #5 |
|
I think that BoneZ is valid in pointing out many possible causes of smoke in WTC5. however, a falling object from plane strike would seem unlikely to be able to cause a large hole underground in between WTC5 & 6, or cave in the ceiling. |
|
|
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Sep 21 2009, 05:29 AM Post #6 |
|
A couple of screen caps of the area between WTC 5 & 6 looking south from West Broadway.  Edited by DoYouEverWonder, Sep 21 2009, 05:46 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 22205 | Sep 22 2009, 01:29 AM Post #7 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
ur mis-stating (or misunderstanding) my point bonez, so for clarification: i never said that you asserted anything as 100% fact. what i was saying is that you seemed to exclude other explanations or causes for smoke in wtc5; and to me it seemed like your post was posed/meant to rebut dyew suspicions. so all i was hoping to add was that other possiblities could also exist, aside from the possibility you asserted about flying plane debris causing damage, fire, or smoke in wtc building 5. some background info: http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/5-World-Trade-Center
the above link also states:
-it seems their own cited source differs slightly however, on the issue of debris as a cause for any collapses at wtc5: http://www.asce.org/pdf/5-1-02wtc_testimony.pdf
the author does admit however, that: protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist. -so even he knows that the explanation he has given and that the conclusion he has reached calls for an unusual "phenomenon", a freak occurrence due to some hitherto unseen "vulnerability". we of course know, there is no scientific phenomenon, and the vulnerability not due to any structural flaw or shortcoming, but due instead to human hands doing dirty deeds. i know you (bonez) think the wtc 1 and 2 were probably sabotaged and their destructions aided by nefarious means, right? so given that the same general "official" explanation (fire) is given for the wtc1/2collapses, then the same suspicion should apply (imo) to wtc5. some further thoughts:
since we know fires cant cause collapses, and said collapse was not initiated by debris (even according to corley), then sabotage is a possibility that (imo) should be given strong consideration. i think some of the wtc5 tenants at least, would make viable targets for attack, particularly the financial institutions. these extra explosions/fires could have even been used to neutralize specific human targets within each building/office. without direct knowledge of who was killed, or what area burned at what time, and what/who was contained in each area, its hard to say exactly why a particular place or person may have been targetted, but overall - subterfuge and sabotage can (and should) not be ruled out in any area of the wtc complex, even areas that may have sufferred "natural" incidental damage, or areas that may on the surface (to an outsider) seem benign. also worth considering is that since wtc5 was smaller and shorter (easier to enter AND TO EXIT), a fire there could occupy some of the rescuers (instead of them climbing into and being trapped at wtc1 or 2), and therefore limit more un-necessary deaths. so like some of the other explosions/fires around the complex (in buildings and cars), one inside the wtc5 could/would have (imo) served as an act of grace and mercy. such explosions/fires could perhaps also serve as a tactical diversion to keep people/rescuers lost in chaos and confusion focused on one area, while elsewhere other possibly covert activities took place. but like i said bonez, i fully agree with or accept the fact that pieces of plane flew out and landed somewhere below in the wtc complex, possibly even into wtc5. so im in agreement with what u proposed as a cause for at least some (if not all) of whats seen there (at wtc5). so my post was not a rebuttle to yours - but rather an addition to it, meant to hint at the bigger picture (as i see it). IF wtc5 was indeed a target (for whatever unknown-to-us reason), then it would have t have been compromised via sabotage, because the plane pieces that flew out could have landed randomly anywhere and could not be counted on to take care of the (possible) necessary perp objectives (IF indeed wtc5 was a target). ***
jackD, thats the thing, bonez only proposed one possibility, his entire post substantiated that pieces of plane (and/or other debris) were ejected after the crash of "175" and that such pieces probably rained down on the streets and buildings below (particularly wtc5). as i said i have no issue with that being 100% true, but i was trying to point out that in spite of that truth/fact (of falling debris), other "things" could have caused other damage to the wtc5 building. so had he posed or mentioned these other possibilities (or at least left the door open for them), i wouldnt have felt the need to add my 2cents/thoughts/suspicions. but i wasNt taking issue with what he did posit, i just wanted to make sure the other possibilities (as i perceive them) were also definitely included. Edited by 22205, Sep 22 2009, 01:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic » |
3:30 PM Nov 30
