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.

 

Nice footage of skyscraper demolision..

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Thought this video was rather interesting showing a good size skyscraper being demod by explosives.Notice the explosion at the base of the building before it drops,very simular to the WTC smoke rising from the base.

ebaumsworld.com...


Compared to this footage of the smoke rising is simular,if there were explosives in the towers they were not conventional explosions.They were more powerfull and stratigically placed as you can hear just a few heavy explosions before the towers fall [if the explosions we hear in this footage are real ]
video.google.com...


[edit on 17-9-2006 by Samblack]

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Samblack]




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Yes interesting indeed.

All I have to say till someone else posts.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Yes interesting indeed.

All I have to say till someone else posts.


Your time has come.

The collapse is completely identical, only problem is in the WTC footage, the alleged 'squibs' don't have the same characteristics. No flash, no flame, only pufs of smoke. I know, I know, witnesses saw flashes...just saying it's not in any of the footage we get to see.

Still, watching the WTC come down right after watching this video...hard to see any other differences.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
The lack of shredding is the biggest difference I can see. The WTC Towers blew up from top down instead of bottom up, but that's just a technical difference relating to the sequencing of charges. The WTC Towers, as a result of the top-down destruction, were much more energetic from what was apparently so many more charges going off progressively, and everything was much more thoroughly destroyed. Chunks of exterior columns were hurled everywhere, virtually all of the concrete was turned into the fine dust like you see swirling around that building (Landmark Tower, used to be in Fort Worth Texas).

It's funny that they didn't just blow out one of the uppermost floors and just let the building take care of itself, huh? But of course, that'd send column sections energetically into neighboring buildings, and cause all of the mass of the building to be blown out all over the community.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
My first difference I see is that the implosion is actually breaking apart from the bottom up, unlike the WTC. More visual explosions seen in this implosion video and also some SERIOUS noise! The thing that looks most similar would be the dust.

Thanks for posting this one haven't seen it.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
That first video makes the WTC buildings look like more of a collapse than of a demolition. Did you hear all those charges going off? See all those flashes? Definately no comparison to WTC. Hmm I am more skeptical than ever. I think i should just forget about 9-11. Live in the now, in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Noticed something interesting at the 13:20 minute mark.

Senior enlisted airforce witness says that he say a military helicopter circle the pentagon, go behind the pentagon where the heliport is and then he saw a fireball go into the sky.

video.google.com...

[edit on 18-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Yes that video does show the exact opposite of the way the towers fell.The demolision starts from the bottom up where as the WTC pretty much colapsed from its own weight.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Excellent film, especially the last 15 minutes.

video.google.com...




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
Yes that video does show the exact opposite of the way the towers fell.The demolision starts from the bottom up where as the WTC pretty much colapsed from its own weight.


CDI can do it from the middle if they want. Read my sig... BE a tad creative.

If you believe it "collapsed from the it's own weight", keep in mind that the weith was being SUBTRACTED as the collapse progressed.

In the case of WTC 2, the entire block above the crash was essentially eliminated a as a source of kenetic energy as it rotated off of the building... then turned to dust?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vicarious
Did you hear all those charges going off? See all those flashes? Definately no comparison to WTC.


Flashes were caught on some vids (of higher quality), and firefighters describe a "boom boom boom boom boom" as one of the towers collapsed on the Naudet Brothers' footage, as testimony to audio, even saying it sounded like they had planted detonators on each floor. There have been audio analyses of collapse recordings too, in which the guys doing the analyses appear to believe that a very rapid series of steady, low-pitch events rode each tower down.

Considering this would have been done with military precision and tech, I wouldn't throw any possibilities out just because of some commercial demos that are done to save money and not as part of a psy-op.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The pilots it seems have judged exactly where the bombs were when the towers fell at the impact zones? would the heat exploded the bombs anyway a lot sooner?

Something says maybe it was the big hole inside it, and where the impacts were is the point they fell inwards. I say its like a ciggertte end it has to fall off if it becomes ash, but in this case a few hundred tonnes of it down a hollow spacious box of a building.



[edit on 18-9-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
The pilots it seems have judged exactly where the bombs were when the towers fell at the impact zones?


If bombs were on multiple floors already, what makes it impossible that they wouldn't have rigged a set of floors as potential regions for initiation?


would the heat exploded the bombs anyway a lot sooner?


No; many explosives cannot be set off by fire, like thermite and HE's like C4.


I say its like a ciggertte end it has to fall off if it becomes ash, but in this case a few hundred tonnes of it down a hollow spacious box of a building.


Care to show us any pictures of this "hollow box of a building" during construction? All I can find are pictures of a steel structure with 47 massive box columns in the center (the core, by far the strongest part of the structure and taking up a very large amount of the floor space on each floor), laterally braced with large beams with 5"-thick concrete slabs sitting on top.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
There were no demolision explosions! Considering the hundreds of videos taken on the events of 911 at the WTC and the lack of any of them recording any explosions tells the story.Demolision explosions are frikn !!!!LOUD!!!! THERE ARE NONE!!!

ebaumsworld.com...


Again this footage was recorded at near the same distance as that Demolision video and so were many WTC/911 video's that record no explosions!!!!

www.revver.com...

LOL, it's common sense!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
Demolision explosions are frikn !!!!LOUD!!!!


Not always... Aluminothermics.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I guess I have to post this yet again.

Source: www.buildingdemolisher.com...


Explosives come in all sorts of forms--gels, granules, powders, cord, liquids, plastics (in blocks and sheets), and old reliable, stick dynamite. All have properties designed for specific conditions. Huge quantities are used every year, often in urban areas and often without anybody even noticing the detonations. Dynamite is a mixture of nitroglycerin, a liquid and a binder. It was the first practical high explosive and revolutionized mining and construction by making the blasting process safer and more efficient... As per the design, the first blasting takes place the weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction. The remaining charges fire at preset intervals of about one second, fracturing the structure's internal supports, weakening it from the inside out. Then, as it falls, the once strong structure's own weight tears it apart leaving nothing but a pile of pulverized concrete and reinforcing rod.


Sounds alot like the towers eh? Notice it says that most people in urban areas often don't hear the detonations? I guess that blows your theory of loudness out the window huh?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
So your willing to trust some stupid site from Tirupur? over hard evidence that explosions are obviously loud?Explosions are loud it's common sense as far as I know.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
So your willing to trust some stupid site from Tirupur? over hard evidence that explosions are obviously loud?


Are you unable to understand that LARGE explosions would not be necessary to take down a building?

Are you unable to understand you can do it WITH NO EXPLOSION AT ALL?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
So your willing to trust some stupid site from Tirupur? over hard evidence that explosions are obviously loud?


Stupid site? I guess people from India are stupid to you, but in my book they are just as well educated as us. At any rate, don't you think if people from India can acheive these desired effects, that a company/government/millitary in the U.S. could? If not, you are badly delusional.

Where's the hard evidence that demolition explosions are obviously loud? From one source on one building? Your logic is flawed...get over it. I have debunked your "they had to be loud" claim with hard evidence.

Show me any source that states that every demolition with explosives HAS to be loud. Not even to mention incendiaries. This assumption that they had be very loud is flawed and until you supply me with a quote/source from a demolitions company that states they have to be loud, then I will not believe this claim.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I love how obsessed you are with these conspiracy theories..calm down bud.You know im right.You have to realize that not every event in human history is a god damned conspiracy! Do I think certain people had prior knowledge to these events?Yes I do,but I do not believe there were explosive devices planted in the towers.Why can't people accept that a giant plane flying at a very high speed smashed into a Tower and took it down?

How did they plant explosives in the buildings? You dont just tear apart Drywall place an explosive on a beam and Patch the Drywall in a matter of minutes,first off you have to reainstall the wall that was destroyed,then apply tape and mud to hide the seam wich has to dry for hours,then you sand the seam before painting it and then after its painted the fresh paint stands out and looks quite obvious that somebody was doing work there.?The amount of time it would of taken to do that would of taken months considering the amount of explosives it would of taken to take those two towers down.


And one more thing every single Demolision Ive ever seen in my 30 years of life on this planet has been LOUD!!!But I know,I know they used super duper high tech silent explosives from Mar's.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join