It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Nikola Tesla's earthquake machine, vibration, natural frequencies and building demolition

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:24 PM
Search results for strange sounds

Sound comes from sound what say you.

I always tell these people that the Teslaship is overhead and causing local vibrations.
Something like Jimi Hendrix said vibrations from above in his gimmicky UFO songs.
So I say the UFO ship was not all that silent as we were led to believe was the truth.
Well just about everything in UFO reports were reversed to protect the free energy
ship of the .01% by their agents.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:27 PM
The fastest vibrational speed possible is Zero.

That means that it takes no 'time' to travel from A to B.

'Time' as we believe to 'know' it, does not exist in 'reality'.

Tesla probably knew this:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
― Nikola Tesla

A good and a very wise man .......


posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by djeminy

People on websites give him more credit than he deserves.

Main stream scientists don't put posters of him on the wall because he really didn't do as much as many think.

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:49 PM
Bump for later reading.

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:01 PM

originally posted by: jazz10
Bump for later reading.
Lol. Don't create an earthquake tho.

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:46 AM
Tesla movie in Russian with english subtitles
The movie is available to view by anyone with a library card from a member library to the hoopla digital library service.
The movie contains information about the Tesla earthquake device experiment.

I am not a builder of buildings personally so I would have to admit that I do not know if Tesla's device was capable of doing the things Tesla was afraid of doing and Tesla destroying the device "just in time."

I saw a suspension bridge collapse on youtube once and posted the video to my blog years ago.
The method of construction of suspension bridges has improved over time since the collapse of the bridge that the youtube video shows.

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 07:55 AM
Read a story of a high rise where everyone in the building was
getting sick everyday. When they left the building they felt fine.
Turns out that an adjacent building had a bad A/C unit on the roof
and it was vibrating at a certain frequency and affecting all those
people. It was classified as MACROWAVES...So low frequency that
most couldn't hear it. They fixed the unit and all symptoms vanished.

Why people have such a hard time thinking that some type of energy
generating machine MIGHT have been used to bring down the towers
is beyond me....

People use a microwave everyday to heat stuff yet have no idea how
it works....Imagine a microwave 100x the power of your kitchen model...

Now THAT would be destructive...Does the military have them?

I don't know....I have put many things in microwaves and have ruined
a few in my time, but I have never put a solid piece of concrete infused
with metal in one......

I don't use a microwave anymore since it rearranges the molecular structure
of anything put in it..Yum-Yum, macaroni and cheese with extra highly
agitated electrons....Yum-Yum, nuked water.....

Anyone care to try putting a brick, a steel rod and a bottle of gas into
a microwave and see what happens? C'mon you doubters, you know it
couldn't really do anything!!!!....haha

So if 47 handheld devices were strapped to the inner core columns....
1. No one would notice.
2. It wouldn't take a team to "wire" the building.
3. Would certainly account for the pulverization of concrete around columns.
4. If floor number 1 was designed to support the weight of the floors above
it and floor 90 was designed to support the floors above it, an energy
weapon would certainly explain total failure of those floor designs.

Sounds like you are on to something......Good thread.

And just out of curiosity Samkent...What posters DO main stream scientists
hang on their walls?.....Elvis or Einstein?

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: jabbathehut

4. If floor number 1 was designed to support the weight of the floors above
it and floor 90 was designed to support the floors above it, an energy
weapon would certainly explain total failure of those floor designs.

You initial premise is wrong.
Floor 1 was not designed to support anything beyond people and furnishings.
Floor 2 was not designed to support anything beyond people and furnishings.
Floor 110 was not designed to support anything beyond people and furnishings.
That's why people fall for this silly conspiracy.

Each floor was attached at two points.
One end was "hung" at the exterior wall and the other was "hung" at the inner core beams.
I say hung because that is one of the best descriptions to use.
Look at the inage half way down the page.
How would you describe the connections ?
Do those trusses look like they could support floors above ?

The building was nothing more than an exterior shell and an inner core, with light weight floor trusses bridging the space between.

If you thought the WTC were constructed like the Empire State building with big steel floor beams. you were wrong.

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:21 PM
a reply to: samkent

I wasn't talking about the "beams" and floor trusses that supported the weight of
people and furnishings.

I was talking about the inner 47 steel "COLUMNS" that were the heart of the building.

They WERE designed to support ALL the weight above them or the building would
have never stood in the first place. That is my only concern as to the failure. The
floors were agreeably "flimsy" compared to the rest of the building.

The outer shell should have collapsed "in" from the pancaking of floors. Not blown
out from the building. For the "inner core" structure to have disintegrated seems me.

3 buildings fell yet they all had different characteristics of failure.

2 buildings were struck by a plane, yet not on the same floor. Not the same columns.
1 building failed with a whole different set of circumstances. Would you agree?

The pancaking of the floors is very feasible, but every single support bolt had to shear
at the exact same second or it would not have been symmetrical and the building would
have collapsed lopsided..IMHO....possibly stopping some of the floors.

They didn't use the same grade shear bolts on floor 78 as they did on floor 98. That is
why the design load had to support the upper floor above it.

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:55 PM
My bad OP...Sorry Samkent.

I feel as if I am derailing this thread by getting away from the OP's
main subject.

I do find Teslas' work, Tom Beardens Site, the Kawai Engine,
Magnetic Energy Limited, Inc. and the untimely demise of
Bruce DePalma very interesting subjects..


posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 06:30 PM
3/11/11, july 4th, etc

The timing is uncanny

And originating at military bases is the give-away!

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in