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.

 

Top-Down Building Collapse Videos May Ruin Your Day

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Bspiracy
 

Then maybe take another look at the explosive destruction of the north tower on 9/11.





I think you may have missed the point of my post. I said there was a need for LESS explosives. But since you want to not get my point, I'll be the devils advocate and debate with you.

I read somewhere that the total weight of the top portion when it started to collapse was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 million tons. I don't know about you, but 2.5 million tons suddenly collapsing on itself will most certainly force A LOT ( or we can say EJECT A LOT if yo wish) of debris in the path of least resistance. While using common sense, that would be up and out would it not?

Oh, the 2.5 million tons is being pulled from my arse's memory so do not quote me on that. Even if it's only 2.5 THOUSAND tones, the point still stands. I especially would like to point out that the dust that everyone has been pointing at that is supposedly a mark of demolition is also recreating in the french versions so once again, the debris you see ejecting out is partially explained.

Do I need to point out "partially"? The OP did a wonderful job in stating that there are some anomalous issues still such as large chunks of steel floating through the sky, but the French videos have significant weight towards this whole issue and if you are a "inside job" guy or not, you have to agree or you're being plainly stubborn which isn't good for anyone.

b




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
notice that these "crush down/crush up" demolitions are done to CONCRETE buildings, which are brittle. i have yet to see this technique used on a steel frame building.

steel will fold and tear, not shatter.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Good replies folks. Thanks.

Remember that I am posting these in the spirit of discussion, and am not subscribing to this theory.

I think those of you that have pointed out that all these videos prove is that it would take much less explosives than previously thought to initiate collapse have a pretty valid point.

And as far as the pancake theory, this theory just doesn't work at all for me as explained somewhat in this video, which debunks NIST's report:




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Good replies folks. Thanks.

Remember that I am posting these in the spirit of discussion, and am not subscribing to this theory.

I think those of you that have pointed out that all these videos prove is that it would take much less explosives than previously thought to initiate collapse have a pretty valid point.

And as far as the pancake theory, this theory just doesn't work at all for me as explained somewhat in this video, which debunks NIST's report:




That is what we need more of. We have to be tough on ourselves, and challenge ourselves as much as challenging others. Keep it up.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
That is what we need more of. We have to be tough on ourselves, and challenge ourselves as much as challenging others. Keep it up.


Absolutely. I mean there is no such thing as a sane group of 9/11 truthers, is there? According to the MSM, there isn't.

But if theories are going to hold water, they can't be full of holes- no matter whose theories they are. So the point is that sometimes it's good to just come at it from another angle, and test your own beliefs.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

... to be a true researcher means starting with the evidence, and looking objectively at the evidence- and not with a preconceived notion, and then finding selective evidence to support that notion. So in the spirit of neutrality I present these videos, for better or for worse.


There were no explosions on the very uppermost floors of the towers.

The explosions in the WTC started near the top and continued down the building at key structural points. The weight of the top of the buildings, with explosives acting as the catalyst for the collapse, are actually what brought the buildings down.

There is an element of truth in both theories.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I like your style and the fact that you examine both sides of the coin.

Notice a few things (not sure if it has been metioned):

- Is there a core steel structure within any of those buildings?

- As the dust rises, does it expand and flow in a pyroclastic form
("cauliflower" looking clouds like on 9/11)?

- Notice the huge chunks of concrete falling to the ground and not
pulverizing in mid air.

- The top sections of those buildings remian intact all the way down
as they crush the remaining structure (second video can be seen on
the ground).

You may want to expand on these points in your presentation (looking forward to it!). If you can, try to get a hold of those demo companies
and ask whether they weakened (and/or prepped) the lower levels
to facilitate the collapse.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by turbofan]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join