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.

 

How was the collapse of the towers different than a CD?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The 'how were they rigged' thread burned out with really no believable explainations.
I started the thread to give CTs an opportunity to explain the process in order to be more believable.

This thread is for the 'other side' to help clarify why they think the collapses are different than a CD.

So heres the question.
When looking at the events of 911 and the collapse of the towers, what makes you think.."that looks nothing like a demo"?




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
For one thing there were no visible explosions. For another there were no sounds of explosions before the collapse started. How could this be if the builings were brought down by explosions?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Well...

1. The fact the steel at the top of the towers bent and collapsed seconds before collapse.

2. If the towers were brought down by CD, they would need POWERFUL explosives. Such as planes


3. To elaborate on powerful explosives - there would be way more than one or two puffs here and there (caused by 'pancaking') - the building would go up like a tom thumb.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
For one thing there were no visible explosions.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


For another there were no sounds of explosions before the collapse started.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by shanemcbain
1. The fact the steel at the top of the towers bent and collapsed seconds before collapse.


Thermite on the core and corner box columns would result in what you saw that day, whether you think that was the actual cause or not.

Loads would fail to redistribute and remaining columns would not be able to support their loads, resulting in a natural enough collapse until other explosives were initiated (which can also be visibly identified; see this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... ).


2. If the towers were brought down by CD, they would need POWERFUL explosives. Such as planes


Or just explosives that were actually efficient at taking out the support columns. The plane impacts didn't take out all that many.


3. To elaborate on powerful explosives - there would be way more than one or two puffs here and there


To elaborate on squibs, there were many more than just a few here and there, and they would have been predominantly "riding" the collapse wave (or actually being the collapse wave, more like it), which was obscuring by free-falling debris for virtually the entire time for both collapses.

Nonetheless, there are some images showing the collapse wave somewhat clearly, in which you can see the actual waves of squibs:



< br />

And the thread question: "How was the collapse of the towers different than a CD?"

Well, which CD are you talking about?

Just as you don't like to compare other buildings to the WTC (ie Windsor) because of structural differences, so are demolitions very different from building to building. Different priorities, ultimate objectives, technology, etc.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join