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.

 

Why on 9/11 were the collapse plumes so drastically different than other building collapses?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I have often wondered this and those two new videos of the collapse both give excellent views of the collapse plumes.

You can go take a look at a multitude of different types of buildings collapsing and every single one of them have the same characteristics of collapse smoke or dust plumes. Its "fluffy" like a cloud in the sky, usually short lived and doesn't seem to have the ability to "rise" up like the WTC's plumes. Whether there brown in color or white, and the collapses I viewed were either controlled demos or fires with collapse. They all were the same though, very "fluffy" having the appearance they were not "thick".

As opposed to all of the WTC collapses, that seem to be extremely thick. Seeming to go on and cover extremely large area. At the same time looking nothing like a "fluffy" cloud but more like "Pyroclastic flow" type of cloud. Also it seems to be in this "state" at the very beginning of the collapse all the way down to the bottom. They seem to "rise" or "bubble" upwards even after the collapse.

Whats even stranger is that WTC7's collapse plumes had this same exact effect. I mean literally the exact same type of giant collapse plume that almost seems to explode outwards in all directions. How is it possible that all three collapses experienced these exact same types of collapse plumes.

Why do the north and south towers collapses seem to be instantly producing extremely large amounts of "smoke" for lack of better word referring to what was trailing all of the debris that was falling. What caused the plumes after the collapse of all three buildings to be so drastically different than any other collapse out there. By what means were they created, if the concrete floors were pulverized into the air why doesn't this happen in controlled demos? Lastly, why were they "carrying" so much debris within them. Everyone knows about the "six inch deep, snow like look it had" how was this possible?




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
You don't mean that explosives could have been used.

Are you suggesting a controlled demolition.

Weirdest thing for me about 911 is the evidence that NO PLANES at all were involved...

au.youtube.com...

Do some research on No Planes ,thermite,911 hoax Silverman etc

from 15,000kms away the fishy smell lingers on even 7 years later.

What if it was an inside job? What else are TPTB capable of ?

maybe after the elections SOME of the truth may come out.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ROO-meh
 



No planes involved??? You're kidding right? You have to be.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I'm not a structural engineer or anything like that, I've seen a few demolitions in my time, everyone does.
But the collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings don't have anything in common with other demolition's, wether controlled or structural failure, and the question you've put forward makes me think that the difference of size comes into effect, Both Buildings were made of Glass and a steel lattice structure. AND they were both extremely large constructions as most other demo's are mainly like small office blocks or tennement buildings.
Therefore the amount of debris sent out is going to be a lot larger than most other demolitions. Glass also pulverised adding to a cloud effect, I saw the disaster on TV and I couldn't believe it , I thought that everything inside would be crushed to dust and there were little in remains dug out from the rubble.
In an office environment don't forget that there would have been water bottles, and a supply of water for lavatories and for the fire suppression system and if you ever watch a contruction site they're always watering down the dust , that makes it look oily as it's damp. And the dust carried a long way. plus there was fuel from the aircraft ( if they hit at all before being detsroyed in the explosions) which caused fires so the fire supression systems should've come on. Also on a more grisly point the human body is made up of a large percentage of water and the blood of the 2900+ victims ( Rest their Souls) added to the mixture as they're bodies were litterally pulped.




top topics
 
0

log in

join