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.

 

Secret Demolition Technique amd 9/11?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Here's a video of a tower that was impoded a few months ago. It is the tallest tower ever to be officially imploded. But notice something odd about this demolition, the building doesn't collapse so much as it disintegrates into fine dust. It's almost as if it melts into nothing.

The reason I bring this up is because the WTC collapse exhibited similar characteristics...Aside from the exterior steal skeleton, the building vanished into cascading dust. Workers at the site found no large chunks of office furniture, filing cabinests etc, what they found was steel girders and dust.

Check it out:




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Nice video, thanks for posting
I don't really think it's that similar to the WTC, but I haven't seen an imploded building go down like this. Then again, haven't watched too many of these videos, so who know



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Notice the puffs or blurbs (as some people call them) as the explosions go off in the very beginning of the video. Same as the towers and WTC7, all controlled demolitions.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sadwolf
 


To fall a building with controlled demolition, you need to gut the building and weaken key points in the structure.

Is that what they did on 9/11 is it?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
No I dont think thats what they did on 9/11...hence the title "secret demolition technique?" My point in the post was to ask if they figured out another way to demolish a building besides the traditional method...one that doesn't collapse the building and contents as much as it pulverizes it to dust...perhaps some sort of directed energy method...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sadwolf
 


They aren't similar though. They don't look the same, and your contention that they go off "in the very beginning of the video" is interesting.

Do the squibs at the WTC happen "at the very beginning"? Or during the collapse?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by grom0007
No I dont think thats what they did on 9/11...hence the title "secret demolition technique?" My point in the post was to ask if they figured out another way to demolish a building besides the traditional method...one that doesn't collapse the building and contents as much as it pulverizes it to dust...perhaps some sort of directed energy method...


"Directed energy method"?!? As in laser beams from outer space?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Well I see no similarities, not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Hear how LOUD that demo was for even a much smaller building? The first tower to fall made no such sound as recorded by the Naudet brothers who were at the very base of the tower when it began to collapse.

Next, notice how this building falls from the bottom down? WTC 1 and 2 both fell from the point of impact down.

Sorry, this is nothing like what was witnessed on 9/11 unless you want to compare it to WTC7 which once again had a 110 story building fall on it, was on fire for hours, and when it did finally collapse from the damage, it made no enormous explosion sounds like the video posted.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
the difference is the building in the above video appears to be mostly concrete but disintegrates like the SPIRE

the wtc was mostly steel

so the primary issue has to do with how wtc1 and 2 appeared to explode in a pyroclastic fashion and turn to dust, whereas the above building is only collapsing and turns to dust.

but the dust characteristic is a very interesting find/anomaly?...


Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by grom0007
No I dont think thats what they did on 9/11...hence the title "secret demolition technique?" My point in the post was to ask if they figured out another way to demolish a building besides the traditional method...one that doesn't collapse the building and contents as much as it pulverizes it to dust...perhaps some sort of directed energy method...


"Directed energy method"?!? As in laser beams from outer space?


so go ahead and explain the SPIRE disintegration anomaly then dave...

how does a STEEL SPIRE go from STEEL to DUST in a matter of seconds?

can't wait to hear this...

what other known energy source can do that?

you're ridiculing a technology that DOES EXIST... as to how advanced is unknown.

so to dismiss an unknown technology and ridicule it without showing a better or more reasonable alternative, isn't much different than those who laughed at the idea the world was round... and if anyone was looking to progress or find the truth, i'd hope they wouldn't be listening to you.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
This video should actually be evidence that DEW's were not used on 9/11. If a regular controlled demolition can produce effects that look like steel being disintegrated, where there were clearly no DEW's, then that effect seems to be produced from conventional demolitions alone.

The WTC towers that were demolished probably used unconventional explosives however, to reduce the sound as well as increase the explosive power. Whether you believe planes fell the buildings or CDs, neither can very easily explain several-ton debris found over 500 feet away. That hints at unusually powerful explosives.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Well I see no similarities, not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Hear how LOUD that demo was for even a much smaller building? The first tower to fall made no such sound as recorded by the Naudet brothers who were at the very base of the tower when it began to collapse.

Next, notice how this building falls from the bottom down? WTC 1 and 2 both fell from the point of impact down.

Sorry, this is nothing like what was witnessed on 9/11 unless you want to compare it to WTC7 which once again had a 110 story building fall on it, was on fire for hours, and when it did finally collapse from the damage, it made no enormous explosion sounds like the video posted.


UH, SORRY, but YES, it did... and in regards to wtc1&2, there is a dust aspect which is very similar.

second, the implosion was expected and recording equipment was intentionally set up to record it from many angles.

third, the naudets coverage including the first impact, is at the very least suspect, so any comparison is absurd and subjective.

fourth, many witnesses reported explosions in each "collapse", which contradicts your premise there was no such explosions aside from the fact there's several videos that have no audio (how oddly convenient) some of which allegedly passed through FBI hands.

fifth, to also dismiss CD because it wasn't a classic/traditional bottom up like the building above, is even more ridiculous since you're essentially implying CDs can only be traditional bottom up which ignores military technology that is far advanced and most likely anything but what most might consider "traditional".

nice try on the disinfo rant though



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
UH, SORRY, but YES, it did.


UH, SORRY, but NO, it didn't.



third, the naudets coverage including the first impact, is at the very least suspect, so any comparison is absurd and subjective.


So it's suspect because it doesn't show any evidence of explosions?


I guess the fire chief that was standing there in the video, and all the others standing at the BASE of the tower when it starts to collapse, yet you can HEAR them talking over the collapse and no LOUD explosions.....hmm...they must all be suspect too, eh?




fourth, many witnesses reported explosions in each "collapse", which contradicts your premise there was no such explosions


Video and audio trumps witnesses. Explosions of the magnitude that the OP is suggesting would have knocked them to their feet, not allowed them to run into the tower for safety while yelling over the noise of collapse.


fifth, to also dismiss CD because it wasn't a classic/traditional bottom up like the building above, is even more ridiculous since you're essentially implying CDs can only be traditional bottom up which ignores military technology that is far advanced and most likely anything but what most might consider "traditional".


Wow, a comprehension problem.


I said the 2 are not comparable because one is traditional bottom up, the WTC's both started to fall from the point of impact. I wasn't "implying CD's can only be traditional blah blah blah"




nice try on the disinfo rant though


Fail try on the comprehension and eyewitness claim though.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
so go ahead and explain the SPIRE disintegration anomaly then dave...

how does a STEEL SPIRE go from STEEL to DUST in a matter of seconds?

can't wait to hear this...


Easy- the steel didn't turn into dust and you're making that up off the top of your head. There are enough photographs of ground zero that shows gigantic piles of steel lying all over the place to shoot down any and all debate on the dustification of steel fable.

I have one question before you go any further with this thread- if such a weapon can destroy a building, then why didn't it disintergrate all the people in the vicinity? The laws of physics apply to conspiracies just like they apply to the rest of us, you know.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grom0007
 


I think it is ALSO quite obvious, when watching the OP's example of YouTube building demolition is ENTIRELY different than seen with with either WTC 1, 2 or 7.

Not only the manner of the collapse (which, in the case of the YT video is without question a controlled demo)...but another important point has not been mentioned, so far.

SOUND.

(Yes, I know the aspect of the LACK of the sounds that normally accompany a demolition has already been pointed out, in regards to the WTC Buildings. This strongly points to a 'global collapse' scenario, as opposed to "controlled demolition" in those cases. To argue otherwise requires the addition of some fantastical, entirely made-up "top secret" super-'quiet' explosive of some sort...something never, as yet, known to exist. This is hardly logical).


In the video the OP offers, I am referring to the SPEED of Sound, versus the SPEED of light. (AND, compare again to WTC...)

If that is not yet clear, allow me to elaborate --- assuming that the soundtrack in that video presented by the OP is actually as it seems (THAT IS, recorded 'live' during the event) then anyone with a smattering of physics knowledge will recognize that LIGHT (things we see, by visible light) travels much, much faster than the SOUND, being carried through the air, and thus recorded on the microphones.

I hope the importance of these observations is getting through to the readers, here....

...because, I invite viewers to watch again...and listen also, very carefully.

When watching, pay attention to when the sounds (explosive blasts to sever/destroy key and critical structural components), then pay heed to the time delay before visual indications of the building's collapse begins.

I hope this makes sense......because, once again...LIGHT, and visual references, reach our senses BEFORE the sounds do....this is critical to understand.


[edit on 15 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Take a look at the pile in the end...its got large chunks in it sure, but most of it seems to pretty small particulate material. As the say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end. Yet most of this stuff looks like it broke apart before it hit the ground. Shouldn't there be a pancake of large debris, not a pile of sand? Theoretically all they did was knock out the supports yet You can see and hear it turn to sand halfway down.

In the twin towers, it appeared like there was a cascading downward explosion of sand. Theres vids of the workers saying they didn't find any pices larger than the corner of a keypad on a phone. Everything was dust.

Maybe some sort of standing wave that traves through the building and vibrates it to dust?

Heres a vid of a building not turning to dust:




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grom0007
 


I think in all of your examples, to include the WTC collapses....there is, by the nature of the beast, always going to be a great deal of dust.

The amount of dust isn't a result of the explosive charges (the ones used in the actual controlled demolition examples), the dust is a result ofhte energies involved, as the structure collapses.


What I am guessing here...is TOO MANY Hollywood movies, which (before CGI was commonly used) relied on miniatures, to depict buildings blowing up, being destroyed, etc....those images )fake) have left an entire generation of people with incredibly false impressions, of how they "think" it "should" look, when a real building collapses.

AND, even in more modern movies, that use CGI...even they don't always get it right....



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by Orion7911
third, the naudets coverage including the first impact, is at the very least suspect, so any comparison is absurd and subjective.

So it's suspect because it doesn't show any evidence of explosions?


The FACT you actually think i'm referring to the explosions is far more comical



Originally posted by Soloist
I guess the fire chief that was standing there in the video, and all the others standing at the BASE of the tower when it starts to collapse, yet you can HEAR them talking over the collapse and no LOUD explosions.....hmm...they must all be suspect too, eh?


except once again, there's testimony from firefighters that contradict what you claim was never heard including secondary explosions, not to mention you've ignored addressing the SOUND recording equipment issue/speed of light vs sound issue, the footage that contains NO AUDIO (how convenient), the footage that passed through Fbi (perps) hands, and you also fail to offer any logical argument against military incidiaries, advanced demolition tech that can CONTROL the emission of SOUND, and on top of all that, i see no logical explanation for how explosions (if they weren't masked and assuming they were traditional) occurring TOP to BOTTOM could be heard or distinguished by EVERYONE in the immediate area (such as the location of the firefighters you're talking about) during the "collapse" which would itself mask any explosions that might be occurring.


Originally posted by Soloist
fourth, many witnesses reported explosions in each "collapse", which contradicts your premise there was no such explosions

Video and audio trumps witnesses. Explosions of the magnitude that the OP is suggesting would have knocked them to their feet, not allowed them to run into the tower for safety while yelling over the noise of collapse.


by that logic, i guess you'd have to be a closet no-planer SC fan too then since you're saying witnesses are trumped by video/audio which contain irrefutable evidence of fakery.

so the op is suggesting the CD charges would have knocked them to their feet etc?
Well thats true and false since it did happen and wouldn't necessarily happen…. lets see if you're smart enough to figure out why that might be the case.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
What about the 9/11 Pentagon plane crash?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Orion7911
so go ahead and explain the SPIRE disintegration anomaly then dave...

how does a STEEL SPIRE go from STEEL to DUST in a matter of seconds?

can't wait to hear this...

Easy- the steel didn't turn into dust and you're making that up off the top of your head. There are enough photographs of ground zero that shows gigantic piles of steel lying all over the place to shoot down any and all debate on the dustification of steel fable.


your point is moot until you can first explain the dustification/pulverization anomaly that occurred at wtc 1&2 and explain the dustification of the spire for starters. Just because there's steel that wasn't "pulverized" hardly invalidates the possibility of an unknown energy source which evidence suggests was some type of DEW.

so you're saying the SPIRE wasn't STEEL then right?



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have one question before you go any further with this thread- if such a weapon can destroy a building,


i nor anyone said it could "destroy" a building in the way you're implying.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
then why didn't it disintergrate all the people in the vicinity? The laws of physics apply to conspiracies just like they apply to the rest of us, you know.
[edit on 15-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]


which shows me you've done little or no research nor have any knowledge about something called FIELD EFFECTS...i suggest you educate yourself a bit more and hopefully you'll realize how ignorant your remark is.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
So the explosives kick up some dust that obscures the building's collapse. Big deal.

Notice how stripped out that building was. Notice how the explosions were spread through out the structure.

The WTC towers collapse started at the point of impact. To me this is the main evidence AGAINST a controlled demolition. How would somebody know where the planes were going to hit? How would the explosive charges have survived the impact and fire?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join