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.

 

How to Collapse Without Explosives

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Somewhat on request and due to the lack of attention I was getting for my discovery in the thread, "WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)," I will post it in its own thread. It is something I found by simply searching for top down collapses in buildings.

What I stumbled across was a demolition method used by France in which a single floor is pulled out from a building to cause the systematic collapse of the entire thing. Naturally, the collapses will not be exactly the same as the WTC collapses due to the lack of substance within the building and the natural removal of windows for safety.

The point of it all is, however, that these are demolitions carried out with no explosives whatsoever and allow for the idea of the official story of the WTC collapses to actually become conceivable. Perhaps not for WTC 7, but at least the main towers can have a completely non-explosive related destruction.

Here are a couple videos. The first shows two skyscrapers being demolished from a distance. Even over the music, a person can easily make out the massive sounds of crashing from the building and the striking similarity to the WTC collapses:

www.youtube.com...

The second one here shows a shorter skyscraper with the same concept. It demonstrates how a building can be taken down from the top down:

www.youtube.com...

And then for anyone who wants a serious and scientific examination of how and why this happens, here is a PDF that includes the math and everything for the collapse situation:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Please review this with civility and let me know what you think. I would like to see how this can be argued away by truthers.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


interesting videos. but honestly, were there those who had the intentions of proving this could be done after the fact (after 9-11)?

was this knowledge/technology known and implimented on 9-11?

i don't know the answers to those questions.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
reply to post by Varemia
 


interesting videos. but honestly, were there those who had the intentions of proving this could be done after the fact (after 9-11)?

was this knowledge/technology known and implimented on 9-11?

i don't know the answers to those questions.


It is something to wonder. Some of the theories I have heard is that the government training that the terrorists had access to allowed them to understand the mechanics of inevitable collapse in tall buildings. All they had to do was fly the plane as far into one floor as possible so that the burning fuel would weaken the floors above and below enough to collapse.

I don't profess to know exactly what happened, but seeing threads that try to argue explosives with no evidence but "I heard thems, I swear!" just do not turn me on (figuratively speaking).



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thank you .

And I had the honors of being the first to flag this thread .

This ought to be good .



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Man these are great videos. I had never been exposed to this technique before! In the second link you posted... they could have gotten the entire building if they would have pulled more from the center. Learned something new today.




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
but at least the main towers can have a completely non-explosive related destruction.

Only in someone's fantasy world. I constantly wonder what kind of agenda a person has to have to ignore every single piece of evidence to make a post like this that is already debunked by said evidence.

The towers could not have had a "completely non-explosive" destruction when numerous witnesses and first responders heard the explosions and BOOM BOOM BOOM's associated with explosive demolitions. Not to mention the firefighters that saw the flashes in both towers which are also associated with explosive demolitions.

Then there's the puffs/ejections that are direct results of high-powered explosives that are also associated with explosive demolitions:





You were getting no attention in my thread because your "theory" is without merit. You have to completely ignore all witness and first responder testimony as well as the audio and videos for your "theory" to have any merit whatsoever. And we don't do that in the real world.

So, please: debunkers need to stop trying to come up with everything they possibly can to explain away the evidence and just accept the evidence.


People go so far out of their way to make themselves look ridiculously foolish by making up such silly "theories" when all they have to do is accept the facts and evidence. It's really not that hard.






[edit on 6-9-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I'll bite...

Ya but, the twin towers were steel framed buildings not steel reinforced concrete buildings, and like WHERE IS ALL THE STEEL?!

Me I don't care how they came down BUT there ought to be a lot more steel around.

Actually, this sort of might be what's behind building 7's collapse.

But the other two? Different story!!

You ever take an empty paper towel roll between two hands and force it together? Hard huh? Doesn't just crumple up like an accordian does it? No. Doesn't fold up neatly without any "kinks". The outer walls of the Twin Towers were like this, supporting them like an interconnected mesh - very strong. Those 47 columns in the center - steel, both towers, top to bottom - even stronger.

Something more than Nothing should've been left standing, and don't even get me started on the "Spire."

I'm just saying... you seem rather pleased with your vid find, but really, do YOU think that's all it was on Towers 1 and 2? Really?

And that a plane hit the Pentagon too?

I'm genuinely asking. Like where is the cut off? You still think it was planes but the 'French Method' (due to the planes) explains Towers 1 and 2?

Good find, keep digging. Get me something on the Pentagon and something on the "Spire" that explains how a nonexplosive gravity collapse causes it to seemingly disintegrate before our eyes in mid air! Steel!! Where did it go?!!

Cheers



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Although these videos are interesting in their own right, the question is; did these buildings have a steel framework like the twin towers? In video 1, I honestly don't know. In video 2, no; these are typically not used in these types of building which are made of concrete.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
They don't have to be exactly the same, the mechanics and physics of it are the same concept. Read through the PDF extensively. I guarantee it will raise some eyebrows.

As for Mr. Bonez, it is still just "hearing" explosions, and as many, many people have represented, a lot of stuff could have been exploding within the towers that was not controlled demolitions explosions. As my post shows, you don't even need explosives to demolish a skyscraper. The PDF file lists a number of buildings prior to 9/11 that experienced the same kind of collapse.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Just wanted to say thank you, Veremia. I just noticed you posted AlienEntity's videos. That tells me YOU are AlienEntity peddling your videos since you were banned from ATS before. I don't remember your old screen name at the moment, but rest assured I'll find out.

Those same videos were posted elsewhere on the internet, but you just had to post them from AlienEntity's account.

Busted, dude.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


thank you for the response.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Just wanted to say thank you, Veremia. I just noticed you posted AlienEntity's videos. That tells me YOU are AlienEntity peddling your videos since you were banned from ATS before. I don't remember your old screen name at the moment, but rest assured I'll find out.

Those same videos were posted elsewhere on the internet, but you just had to post them from AlienEntity's account.

Busted, dude.






I can honestly say I've never even heard of AlienEntity before. Rather than accuse me of being someone I've never heard of, please focus on the topic I have started.

There is nothing I am saying that I do not earnestly feel needs to be reviewed. It is simply coincidence that I have found a banned member's videos.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
As my post shows, you don't even need explosives to demolish a skyscraper

You mean concrete skyscraper. Concrete crumbles like the buildings in your videos. Steel-structured buildings do not. Nobody bought this the last time these videos were posted here before, nobody is going to buy it now.

Those concrete buildings in your videos aren't even close to comparable to any steel-structured highrise. Keep trying, AlienEntity.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Varemia
As my post shows, you don't even need explosives to demolish a skyscraper

You mean concrete skyscraper. Concrete crumbles like the buildings in your videos. Steel-structured buildings do not. Nobody bought this the last time these videos were posted here before, nobody is going to buy it now.

Those concrete buildings in your videos aren't even close to comparable to any steel-structured highrise. Keep trying, AlienEntity.







The essence isn't in the material, but the forces involved.

I'm not AlienEntity, and I will not stand to be accused of it with no evidence other than a couple videos I found that seemed very reasonable to me.

Edit: Is there any way I can speak to a mod or someone who can find a way to verify that I am not AlienEntity? I would rather not have my post credibility reduced by baseless accusations.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Varemia]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   


I'm curious, why would they need to blow out that part of the building? It was already on it's way down by that stage.

It looks more like air finding the least resistance on it's way out through a window from a dramatic pressure change, IE dozens of floors collapsing above.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
The essence isn't in the material, but the forces involved.

It absolutely is in the material. A concrete building and a steel-structured building will not fall the same way.



Originally posted by Varemia
I'm not AlienEntity

Apologies if you're not, but I have my sneaking suspicions. I'll leave it to rest for now.



Originally posted by Varemia
I would rather not have my post credibility reduced by baseless accusations.

Your credibility was already reduced by trying to compare a concrete building to steel-structured building.

And if you think it's the "same concept", then you know nothing about physics or building mechanics.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I'm curious, why would they need to blow out that part of the building? It was already on it's way down by that stage.

It's called weakening the structure below the collapse wave to eliminate resistance.



Originally posted by Chadwickus
It looks more like air finding the least resistance on it's way out through a window from a dramatic pressure change, IE dozens of floors collapsing above.

That may be what it "looks like" to the unknowledgeable or lay person, but I also included an image of a known controlled demolition with the same "air". That "air" or puffs/ejections are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated in controlled demolitions.

You will never find those concentrated puffs in any other building collapse besides controlled demolitions. Only those in denial have made up the fairy tale of escaping air so that they don't have to believe in an alternate conspiracy.

To each their own, though. Whatever people have to tell themselves so that they can sleep at night.







[edit on 6-9-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I'm curious, why would they need to blow out that part of the building? It was already on it's way down by that stage.

It's called weakening the structure below the collapse wave to eliminate resistance.



Originally posted by Chadwickus
It looks more like air finding the least resistance on it's way out through a window from a dramatic pressure change, IE dozens of floors collapsing above.

That may be what it "looks like" to the unknowledgeable or lay person, but I also included an image of a know controlled demolition with the same "air". That "air" or puffs/ejections are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated in controlled demolitions.

You will never find those concentrated puffs in any other building collapse besides controlled demolitions. Only those in denial have made up the fairy tale of escaping air so that they don't have to believe in an alternate conspiracy.

To each their own, though. Whatever people have to tell themselves so that they can sleep at night.







I found a video with a number of controlled demolitions and only perhaps 2 or 3 of the buildings demolished showed any kind of ejections. By your logic, I would imagine that all of them would be ejecting on the way down, no?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I found a video with a number of controlled demolitions and only perhaps 2 or 3 of the buildings demolished showed any kind of ejections. By your logic, I would imagine that all of them would be ejecting on the way down, no?

No, because it would depend on the type of explosive used. Not every single controlled demolition has ejections because they may not use the type of explosives that cause ejections.

You really are trying your hardest to debunk something you can't. The ejections seen in the WTC and other controlled demolitions are from high-powered explosives being detonated. If a controlled demolition doesn't need that high-powered of an explosive, then the ejections won't be seen. But the ejections most certainly will not be seen in any other type of building collapse.

That is what people need to realize. Nobody will ever find an image or video of a building collapse that is not controlled demolition that exhibits ejections because it cannot happen without high-powered explosives being detonated. The "air escaping" fantasy is just a cop-out for those that can't grasp the reality of the evidence, plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Hey bonez , you are constantly talking about "flashes" . Why don't you post some video that shows those alleged flashes instead of demanding that everyone take your word as gospel ? You act like all of us should just take your word as god's gift to the world and not explore other possibilities .

And , the only "said evidence " you have posted is exactly that . You "said" it is evidence so we should just take your word for it . You have posted NOTHING , NADA , ZILCH , that would even remotely prove controlled demolition .

Unlike yourself , Varemia has posted some convincing material and , he has conducted his posts in a civil and courteous manner ., again , unlike yourself .

So, please: truthers need to stop trying to come up with everything they possibly can to explain away the evidence and just accept the evidence.


Truthers go so far out of their way to make themselves look ridiculously foolish by making up such silly "theories" when all they have to do is accept the facts and evidence. It's really not that hard.

You see how that works now bonez ? It goes both ways .

Be assured bonez , when you come up with actual evidence of controlled demolition , I will sing your praises right here in front of the world . Until then , stop attacking the poster and try attacking the post instead .

The vid in the op proves that if one floor is removed , the top portion of the building can and will fall on to the lower part of the building crushing it all the way to the ground , and then , the top portion of the building can and will be crushed from the bottom up .

PROVING that no explosives were needed to have the towers collapse in the fashion that they did . Floors were damaged , supports were compromised and fires resulted , from the impacts . Basically the same principal that is being evidenced in the OP .

Once the supports were compromised , the towers reacted EXACTLY as the buildings in the OP .

It's not that you don't understand bonez , it's simply that you don't want to understand . You feel like you MUST prove CD . You won't have it any other way and you will certainly never consider anything but CD .

Would you like for me to post a video of a concrete and steel building that collapsed due to an aircraft plowing into it subsequently causing fires and explosions ?

Or would you just claim 'already debunked' , like you are notoriously known for , and attack me instead ?

You should really take a break dude .




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join