It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What a controlled demolition really looks like.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I have done a search and cannot find any reference to this video. If it as been posted before, I apologies and ask any Mods to simply remove this thread.

www.dfw.com...

Please view this video of a controlled demotion of a skyscraper; it is only two minutes long.

For those that support the belief that the Towers were brought down in such a way I have noted the following.

1. The explosive charges that went off were clearly visible.
2. The explosive charges that went off were clearly audible.
3. The Building collapsed into its own footprint.
4. The building collapsed from the bottom up.
5. The building split during this collapse.
6. Very little dust cloud was generated from the top of the building.

This is not in keeping with the collapse of either of the Towers.

(This is not a thread about WTC 7, just the Towers).

So why the massive differences between this controlled demolition and the Towers?




posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Quite simple.

ALL demolitions vary because the building designs vary.

There are a whole bunch of videos on the web page of the company that cleaned up the WTC site and Oklahoma City bombing site that demonstrate this perfectly....


www.controlled-demolition.com...

Check it out. Virtually no two are alike.

Not to mention the WTC demolition was COVERT meaning they didn't want anyone to know it was a controlled demoltion.

That is why the used thermite which is typically never used in CD and is a chemical reaction as opposed to an explosion.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Quite simple.

That is why the used thermite which is typically never used in CD and is a chemical reaction as opposed to an explosion.



So all the witnesses that many people quote as hearing explosions are now invalid?

Since termite was used and is quiet all references to witnesses who heard explosions are now invalid?

You have not explained the dust cloud, or the reasons why a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building did not split during the collapse.Nor have you explained why this building collapsed from the bottom as oppose to the towers.

If I am to believe you that this operation was covert and done quietly then you simply invalidate anybody who quotes witnesses who heard explosions


[edit on 4-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I don't know, maybe the dreadful last moments of this guys live will expalin it all.

www.flurl.com...

Guess those explosives really were silent after all I never heard them as this poor individual went though what none of us will ever have to face,hopefully.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

So all the witnesses that many people quote as hearing explosions are now invalid?


Hardly.

It simply explains why it doesn't look exactly like the controlled demolition that you cited.

It was likely a combination of advanced superthermites (that use nanoaluminum) and more traditional explosives in strategic places so as to be detected as little as possible.

Besides....not all demolitions start at the base.

Here is an example of a mid level demoltion similar to what we saw at the towers in philidelphia 1999 courtesy of Controlled Demolition Inc....




posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
I don't know, maybe the dreadful last moments of this guys live will expalin it all.

www.flurl.com...

Guess those explosives really were silent after all I never heard them as this poor individual went though what none of us will ever have to face,hopefully.



Wow! Insane cllip.

Did you catch what he told the operator?



"My wife thinks I'm alright. I called and said I was leaving the building and then ---BANG!"


So he did hear an explosion.

There were MANY MANY corroborated accounts of bombs going off BEFORE the collapse as was testified by William Rodriguez to the 9/11 commission.

Kevin Cosgrove is yet another corroboration of explosions.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Were they indeed "bombs" or the sound of snapping main beams, etc?





seekerof



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
1. Controlled demolitions can and do vary from building to building depending on many things, including the size, shape, and architecture of the building.

2. The WTC demolitions were rigged with the purpose of making them NOT look like controlled demolitions.

a. The collapse of the towers was initiated by plane impacts.
b. The collapse of the towers was a result of the cumulative effects of plane impacts and demolitions charges.

3. WTC 7 was clearly a controlled emolition, therefore this cast shadows of doubt upon the official story behind the collapse of WTC 1 and 2

4.

By Jack Tripper\:
There were MANY MANY corroborated accounts of bombs going off BEFORE the collapse as was testified by William Rodriguez to the 9/11 commission.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Also remember two important points here:

If the WTC was imploded what requirement was there to minimize damage in the area due to lawsuits?? There was none as the terrorist attacks covered up any need to do a very controlled bring down of the buildings unlike what the pros have to do for a living.

Secondly, the planes hitting the towers and the fire did help to bring the buildings down. Most conspiracy theorists believe that the planes and the subsequent fires did help bring down the towers. But in a controlled demo as in the video where is the planes and fires?

Lastly as mentioned different types of buildings require different types of demos.

It was cool watching the video as the cutting charges went off and the arrangement of the explosions all carefully designed to make the building fall into a small footprint.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Were they indeed "bombs" or the sound of snapping main beams, etc?




William Rodriguez who was a wtc maintenance worker for 20 years and had a master key to all the floors experienced bombs coming from the basement level just BEFORE the plane hit almost 100 floors up. Not when the building was collapsing.

Felipe David was in the basement and suffered severe burn wounds from this explosion that caused his skin to hang off his arms.

They were bombs.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
I don't know, maybe the dreadful last moments of this guys live will expalin it all.

www.flurl.com...

Guess those explosives really were silent after all I never heard them as this poor individual went though what none of us will ever have to face,hopefully.



Wow! Insane cllip.

Did you catch what he told the operator?



"My wife thinks I'm alright. I called and said I was leaving the building and then ---BANG!"


So he did hear an explosion.

There were MANY MANY corroborated accounts of bombs going off BEFORE the collapse as was testified by William Rodriguez to the 9/11 commission.

Kevin Cosgrove is yet another corroboration of explosions.




He was talking about the plane crashing into the building.

And now you are saying that the explosions that were heard actually went off before the planes hit?

So as well as using Thermite (the silent type) they also use tradition explosive charges before the planes hit. But that doesn't make sense at all.

If explosives were used before the planes hit (the conventional type) then what would have happened had the planes not hit?

So it all boils down to using explosive charges prior to the planes hitting, the actual damage caused by the planes and then using thermite after the planes hit. Seems mighty elaborate to me.

Sorry for being so stupid but maybe you could talk me through the precise sequence of events because from what I have read, this is now how you see it.


Step 1. Explosive charges go off prior to the planes hitting.
Step 2. The planes hit.
Step 3 Thermite are used to complete the job.

If this was the case then the demolition experts must have been very confident that their tracks would have been covered by the planes hitting the Towers and that the buildings would not have collapsed prior to the Planes hitting. Also they must have been extremely confident that the Towers which, by your implications were already dangerously unstable prior to the planes hitting did not collapse as soon as the planes hit.


Secondly, the planes hitting the towers and the fire did help to bring the buildings down. Most conspiracy theorists believe
that the planes and the subsequent fires did help bring down the towers. But in a controlled demo as in the video where
is the planes and fires?


So if the planes did not help to bring down the towers then step two is now invalid?
And the Towers were simply brought down by using a combination of conventional explosives that was not captured on camera at all, as they went of prior to the planes hitting and then the silent thermite type explosions.

But wait that doesn't make sense neither, because many people point out the squibs coming from the Towers as they went down, surely this must have been caused by conventional explosive charges and not the slow burn thermite?

Also why would the Towers start to collapse precisely at the point of impact, rather than the basement? How would termite survive such a massive plane crash?
And why if they were so well prepared for this demolition did they not collapse into their own footprint?

It's all very confusing maybe somebody could clear it up.

[edit: fixed BBcode for code]

[edit on 5/5/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Ok I guess it could have been the plane hitting because he was in the south tower and the north tower was hit first.



Step 1. Explosive charges go off prior to the planes hitting.
Step 2. The planes hit.
Step 3 Thermite are used to complete the job.


Yes there are NUMEROUS accounts of explosions just before impact as well as after impact but before the collapse. This was most notably reported from William Rodriguez.

These would have helped weaken the the base and various support columns of the towers in order to facilitate the collapse but did not initiate the collapse.

The superthemite or thermate helped initiate the collapse while ADDITIONAL more traditional explosives were also used during the collapse.

The initial explosives were timed for when the plane impacted as a diversion.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Were they indeed "bombs" or the sound of snapping main beams, etc?





seekerof
under high heat steel will bend not snap,if it were the case those buildings would of teetered taking out a bunch more buildings as they would of went top 1st



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Ok I guess it could have been the plane hitting because he was in the south tower and the north tower was hit first.



Step 1. Explosive charges go off prior to the planes hitting.
Step 2. The planes hit.
Step 3 Thermite are used to complete the job.


Yes there are NUMEROUS accounts of explosions just before impact as well as after impact but before the collapse. This was most notably reported from William Rodriguez.

These would have helped weaken the the base and various support columns of the towers in order to facilitate the collapse but did not initiate the collapse.

The superthemite or thermate helped initiate the collapse while ADDITIONAL more traditional explosives were also used during the collapse.

The initial explosives were timed for when the plane impacted as a diversion.


So this basically sums up your explanation has to why the video of a controlled demolition differs so much from the collapse of the Towers?

Step 1. Explosive (loud) charges go off prior to the planes hitting.
Step 2. The planes hit and are basically to diguise the fact that explosives have been already used.
Step 3 Thermite (quiet) is used to complete the job, along with additional conventional explosives (loud). Presumably to diguise the fact that the planes didn't do enought damage to cause them to collapse.

Brilliant, wonder why it never occurred to me before?


[edit on 5-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Well considering that thermite is an incindiary and not an explosive there would be no explosions to hear. Nano aluminum? You have got to be kidding me. My question is simple what kept the thermite attached to the beams during the aircraft's impact? If the explosives were set off before the planes hit, why did the buildings take so long to collapse? Why go through all of the trouble of using aircraft any way? If you had the charges set in the buildings all you had to do would be to set off a truck bomb on the street by the towers. Just scale up the Oaklahoma City bombing. Leave some fake IDs in the truck and presto.

Nano Aluminum


Someone has been watching the SciFi channel too much.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Yes there are NUMEROUS accounts of explosions just before impact as well as after impact but before the collapse. This was most notably reported from William Rodriguez.


What I don't understand (and this is more about the 9/11 Truth movement) is that when talking about the Pentagon, there are hundreds of witnesses who are either labeled disinfo agents or completely not credible, period. They are dismissed instantly as people that couldn't know what an airliner looks like from a guided missle (in reality, most people would know a plane much better than the sound of an alleged bomb.")

But when talking about the WTC buildings, the witness that heard alleged "bombs" are 100% credible, believable, and factual.

It seems to me that this is a clear case of twisting the facts to fit the crime.

Just an observation.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

It seems to me that this is a clear case of twisting the facts to fit the crime.

Just an observation.


First off.....there most certainly would be more agents/planted witness at the pentagon where there were a lot less civilian witnesses/victims.

2nd off.....I've never heard somebody discount all of the witnesses at all.

Plenty witnesses reported a small craft.

Plus it has been shown that a decoy plane flew over the pentagon and landed at reagan airport at the exact moment of impact.

So there were some planted witnesses, some that were fooled by the decoy, and some who saw a small craft.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Nano Aluminum


Someone has been watching the SciFi channel too much.


It makes sense if you know how thermite works. It's an extremely exothermic reaction whereby aluminum in contact with iron oxide rips the oxygen away from the iron oxide. The more contact between the aluminum and iron oxide, the faster the reaction proceeds and the more energy is released per time frame. So a powdered mix of oxidant and reactant produces a more violent reaction than filings or small pieces. Extend this principle to nano-scale powders (



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Well considering that thermite is an incindiary and not an explosive there would be no explosions to hear. Nano aluminum? You have got to be kidding me. My question is simple what kept the thermite attached to the beams during the aircraft's impact? If the explosives were set off before the planes hit, why did the buildings take so long to collapse? Why go through all of the trouble of using aircraft any way? If you had the charges set in the buildings all you had to do would be to set off a truck bomb on the street by the towers. Just scale up the Oaklahoma City bombing. Leave some fake IDs in the truck and presto.

Nano Aluminum
Someone has been watching the SciFi channel too much.


Scifi? This is real and existing technology. I sourced the physics professor that states so and sources his claim. If you are too lazy to read and prefer to ridicule because of your ignorance on the matter it's not my problem.

The aircraft was required to fool you into thinking it was the cause of collapse. They barely pulled off the "truck bomb" lie at oklahoma city. There is no way they could have gotten people to believe that was the cause at the towers.

Plus the question of "why didn't they....." is pointless. Especially in regards to the most important component.....the "hijackings".

Obviously that was central to the operation.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Brilliant, wonder why it never occurred to me before?



Quite obviously because you haven't researched the details surrounding the event.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join