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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post 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's what it looks like , because that is exactly what it is .

Hmmm , still don't see any flashes either .




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Now BoneZ, I know you to be respectful and quite intelligent, if a little arrogant (who isn't?) but to suggest one is unknowledgeable is a bit presumptuous.

Now you probably have fielded these questions before and if it's easier to point in the right direction of your threads/posts on the matter then please do.

There a few things that are carried out in a controlled demolition, things such as physically weakening key points of the structure before any explosives are even placed in the building, sometimes small charges are even used to weaken key structures before the main blast. (this is normally to allow directional falling of buildings)

Your images really don't show any similarities, we can see what appears to be a two stage implosion on a dual core building, the WTC is a similar core construction building, the main difference being between where the large portion of the damage has been done. The controlled demolition example is clearly being dragged down by an internal structure (the core has been destroyed by the explosives - it therefore drags the floors down with it as the core provides most of the structural strength). In the WTC the external sections have been damaged and floors are collapsing onto the floors below them, this causes the anomaly you are pointing to in your WTC pictures. Fact is that large sections of the core are critically damaged too, but not to near the same extent that it would be in a controlled demolition. If the WTC had not had weakness in the sheer struts and issues with global failure in the floor beams there is a good chance it would have withstood the incidents.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


" If a controlled demolition doesn't need that high-powered of an explosive, then the ejections won't be seen. "

Do you just make this stuff up as you go bonez , or do you like , have an exclusive monopoly on nonsense ?

Do you even realize the implications of the above ? I'm sure you don't so , I will explain it to you .

If the collapse of the towers was , in fact , the result of controlled demolition , then according to your statement above , we should see absolutely NO ejections/squibs .

You wanna know why ? Well , I'll tell you anyway .

The towers were 'tube within a tube' designed . The outer box columns were held in the vertical position by lightweight trusses running from the outside columns to the core columns . The trusses were bolted to the box columns with 5/8" bolts . The trusses were bolted to the core columns with 5/8" bolts .

There was a sheet of corrugated metal (the pan) on top of the trusses that held 4" of lightweight concrete (the floors) .

You know all of this already .

Once the floors collapse , there is not a damn thing that holds the perimeter columns to the central core columns . Period . No need to even try to debunk that . You already know this is true .

So , with that in mind , the only thing that would need to be accomplished for a controlled demolition is to disengage the trusses from the perimeter box columns and the core columns and presto , you have a collapse in progress .

So , in order to demo the towers , all you would need to do is blow the 5/8" bolts that connect the trusses to the columns .

Now , you are claiming that we are seeing ejections/squibs that were caused by high-powered explosives , because if the demolition didn't need high-powered explosives , then we wouldn't be seeing the squibs .

Therefore , because we are seeing squibs , then high-powered explosives were used .

Which brings me to my question . Bonez , do you honestly believe that a high-powered explosive is needed to blow a 5/8" bolt ?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

I didn't read the PDF but watched the second video. I agree that the type of construction will have a different effect. I say that from experience and the differences between a brick chimney falling and a wooden one. I have no experience in steel but can extrapolate from my rudimentary analogy and understanding of different materials. Masonry crumbles rather easily, even from short distances. Wood doesn't crumble but piles up easily and sometimes breaks. Steel being stronger with different properties will also react differently in my opinion. Observing physics in action in the field leads me to my beliefs.

The other issue is free fall. The building in the video appears to be about 20 stories, or less than a fifth the height of the twin towers. I'd love to see someone do some free fall calculations on that. My very unscientific calculations see the building falling in about 4 seconds versus 10 seconds for the twin towers. Four seconds for 20 stories to fall and only 10 seconds for 110 stories to fall? Using this video as a model I would expect the twin towers, which were over 5 times taller, to have taken over 20 seconds to fall using my very simple math. That doesn't seem correct either.

I'm not a scientist but those are my observations. I'd be surprised if I wasn't wrong somewhere in here; let me know where.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
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 ?

I've never demanded someone "take my word" regarding the flashes. I posted a link to the First Responder Oral Histories in my thread where some of the firefighters have testified to seeing the flashes. And a video by Dr. MacQueen was posted numerous times in my thread and Dr. MacQueen reads at least one of those accounts of firefighters talking about the flashes.

So, the sources were posted in my thread numerous times, you just chose to ignore it numerous times.



Originally posted by okbmd
You have posted NOTHING , NADA , ZILCH , that would even remotely prove controlled demolition .

Actually, flashes, BOOMS and puffs do prove controlled demolitions. I invite you to show a video of a fire-induced collapse of a building that shows these characteristics. I'll be waiting until the end of time because I know there are none that exist.



Originally posted by okbmd
Unlike yourself , Varemia has posted some convincing material

If you are convinced that crumbling concrete structures are even remotely comparable to steel structures, then you know absolutely nothing about physics or building mechanics.

If someone were to try to bring down a steel-structured highrise with the same equipment in the above videos, one of 2 things would happen:

1.) the cables would snap because the steel structures are too strong to move

or

2.) that buildings would topple over, slamming into the ground.

No steel-structured highrise has ever completely collapsed to the ground due to fire, and neither has any steel-structured highrise ever progressively collapsed to the ground by any means.



Originally posted by okbmd
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 .

It proves it in concrete structures, not steel structures. Big difference there.



Originally posted by okbmd
PROVING that no explosives were needed to have the towers collapse in the fashion that they did .

I would agree with you, had the towers been constructed solely with concrete. I'm not sure what part about that you don't understand. If it proves it for you, then great. Whatever you gotta tell yourself. But that's not how things work in the real world.



Originally posted by okbmd
It's not that you don't understand bonez , it's simply that you don't want to understand .

You're correct. You don't want to understand that the OP's videos show concrete buildings crumbling and that a steel structure will not and cannot react in the same fashion because steel-structured buildings are far stronger and more durable.

That's why especially in earthquake regions, buildings are built out of steel and not concrete because the concrete would break up and crumble, just as is seen in the OP's videos. Steel structures do not and have not.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
That's what it looks like , because that is exactly what it is .

Really? That's exactly what it is? Seriously? Can you find another video anywhere in the world that shows the same concentrated puffs and that are not from a controlled demolition? Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'll have to ask you to show proof, just as you have demanded others to do. I'll put any kind of money down that you will never find those concentrated plumes in any other building collapse that is not a controlled demolition, ever.



Originally posted by okbmd
Do you just make this stuff up as you go bonez , or do you like , have an exclusive monopoly on nonsense ?

You ask others not to focus their posts on people and instead focus on the evidence, yet you type stuff like the above. Hypocrite much?



Originally posted by okbmd
So , with that in mind , the only thing that would need to be accomplished for a controlled demolition is to disengage the trusses from the perimeter box columns and the core columns and presto , you have a collapse in progress .

You are absolutely 100% correct and I will not disagree with that. However...



Originally posted by okbmd
Which brings me to my question . Bonez , do you honestly believe that a high-powered explosive is needed to blow a 5/8" bolt ?

Nope, but they certainly were needed for the cores. If not, you would've had a quarter-mile high core structure standing while the outer walls and floors were laying all over the ground.

Many controlled demolitions use at lease 2 types of explosives, high-powered one's for the cores, and smaller one's for the floors. Nice job, though. You were half-way there.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
There a few things that are carried out in a controlled demolition, things such as physically weakening key points of the structure before any explosives are even placed in the building

You're talking about professional controlled demolitions where life and property are concerned. Buildings do have to be weakened at certain points so that they are prepped to fall in the direction that is needed to keep from falling onto/into other buildings.

The controlled demolition of the WTC was what you could call "sloppy" demolitions because life and property (other buildings) were disregarded. There was no need to do any prepping or have those buildings fall in a way as to not damage other buildings because it would've been just that more obvious.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
_boneZ_

Speaking as a civil engineer myself, I would tend not to rely wholly on the video footage commonly used to help 'prove' some of these theories as we so often see on Youtube. Though, there is, without question, some quality footage out there, but it's not [in my opinion] enough to 100% refute or prove anything without much further investigation.

My admission is that I have not followed previous threads composed by the OP nor do I confess to being an avid 9/11 forum follower, but the sense of perspective here seems, literally, polar by very nature. I do not share that same left to right swing I'm afraid. So when I read these threads, I tend to take a back seat and read with detached interest.

It's hard for me to attempt to respond when most of what we read in here, especially on the 9/11 forum is just complete bollocks purported by those that would ''claim'' to be in the know of such subjects.

I'm not questioning your credentials here, but if you were a professional, you wouldn't be here fervently defending a point that you cannot yet prove yourself. Anyone professional in our industry would know that it is prudent that one accepts all possibilities in the likelihood that unknowns can occur at any given time.

It is very possible that the spurs (exloded debris) were caused by purposefully placed explosive devices. It is also perfectly plausible that the spurs were generated by compressed air. Let us not forget that the draw of air within the building would also have reached enormous pressure prior to the floors above collapsing too, just by the heat build up alone, so you must not rule out that the force (mass) of the above floor levels collapsing did not cause displacement of said pressure via huge spurs and 'blow outs' at certain (albeit erractic) locations on the building.

As someone very correctly suggested earlier (apologies for not quoting you) the pressure would 'release' via the path of least resistance. This is also very plausible, and you must at the very least try to recognise that.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Very Interesting and it made me do some extra research once again.
I knew what other ATS members were posting had validity, but I needed to verify it myself. This is what I found


a new generation of buildings has come into existence at the end of 60s - namely steel-framed buildings.
Despite common misconception, there were no steel-framed skyscrapers ever been demolished by an implosion anywhere in the world.
Primarily, because most of skyscrapers are new buildings and their time to be demolished has not come yet.
The tallest building ever demolished by an implosion was only 47-strories high - it was the Singer Building in New York City that was built in 1908 and demolished in 1968 due to its being obsolete.
This building was a much weaker structure compare to incredibly strong hollow-tube type steel-frame skyscrapers being built today.
So, despite common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building by a commonly known controlled demolition (implosion) scheme.
In bygone days when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-paneled, their bearing structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders.
Sometimes these concrete bearing structures were reinforced by insertions of metal bars, but sometimes they were plain concrete. In either case it was possible to calculate right amount of conventional explosives to be attached to these bearing structures at right spots (or to be placed into holes drilled in bearing structures) in order to break them all at once and to cause the building to collapse into its footprint.
However, it is no longer possible with modern steel-framed buildings - such as, for example former Twin Towers of the New Your World Trade Center, World Trade Center building # 7, or the Sears Tower in Chicago. Here is an example of steel structure of the WTC Twin Tower:






The point is you cant's get around taking down the internal spire of the WTC using the method in the video, it would either be twisted or bent or just still be standing while the rest of the building structure broke free of it.

The WTC spire is one of the key components as to why the OS story is bunk.
It was always impossible for the spire to free fall with the rest of the building, but magically it did.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Great work Bonez, i love the way you show pics of the lateral ejections of squibs that go off multiply times all the way down in the collapse of the building and yet the OP says and i am paraphrasing 'no you're wrong cause there is no sound'

It's like trying to prove the earth is round to these people. Imagine a person who is really awkward in their argumentative style who refuses to believe the earth is not flat. You can show photos, use science, fly them round the world and they will just say its an illusion and its not proof.

Eye-witnesses, evidence, science and history all point to a terrible inside job scenario, oh but we can trust the MSM and politicians to tell the truth


Peace



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Yes, and quite right too.

I also do not believe that the mechanics demonstrated within the videos presented by the OP are plausible theories of how WTC buildings collapsed either.

...I promised myself I would refrain from contributing to 9/11 threads!



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The thing about the inner spire is that there is evidence in video form of the inner spire remaining intact for a moment while the outside collapsed downward. Then, without the outer support, the inner spire inevitably collapsed as well. The airplane that hit the building took out a good portion of the floor and I have seen this in many videos. The plane really came in fast and upon impact did a lot of instant damage. The fuel burning at around 400 degrees against the outer floors which had been exposed on impact caused them to weaken. The way the tower initially begins to fall supports this. It tilts slightly, showing where the floor was weakest when it began to collapse.

After that, it's all physics. Regardless of being steel or concrete, the momentum is enough to cause it to continue collapsing. I recall there being eyewitness reports of the steel bending like it was nothing from the force of the tower collapse. I don't understand why this makes sense to so few people.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No Way!

I present this more detailed photo of the massive amount of steel that was being used to construct this building.



It amazes me that people think that a large flying aluminum can destroy this internal spire made of huge steel beams.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Varemia
 


No Way!

I present this more detailed photo of the massive amount of steel that was being used to construct this building.



It amazes me that people think that a large flying aluminum can can destroy this internal spire made of huge steel beams.



It's not the flying can that brought down the glued together metal toothpick building. It's the highly explosive contents of the can setting a small section of the construction on fire for a number of hours at 400 degrees. T_T

Plus, there's the Einstein thing that says something about any object traveling fast enough with enough mass can penetrate anything? (I think that's how it goes). Regardless, it was a big plane with a lot of tin-can-ness to it. If you propel a can at say 50 mph at a tower of steel toothpicks, it will penetrate the structure. What brings it down is the fire that the can blows up into the section it managed to penetrate.

Oh, and I have an explanation for the flashes, btw. Guess what? There was glass, and a LOT of it in the towers when they were collapsing, etc. Glass happens to refract light and make flashes that would be subjective to the viewers at the time and where they are positioned. In order for flashes to be relevant, they would have to be able to be seen on the cameras from multiple angles.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Varemia]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





glued together metal toothpick building


You look at that picture and then make that statement.


It's rare to see a post that so effectively epitomizes the huge totality of emotional denial the trusters have.

Congratulations.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Varemia
 





glued together metal toothpick building


You look at that picture and then make that statement.


It's rare to see a post that so effectively epitomizes the huge totality of emotional denial the trusters have.

Congratulations.


I was using a metaphor you dinky head. I used it to give an idea of a similar structure in relation to your "tin can."

It's rare to see someone that rather than argues a point, just points slander and calls it evidence of debunk.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BAZ752
 


So, you are a civil engineer. That should inspire your curiosity to get some physical data about the collapse of the buildings. Please get in contact with Richard Gage and also spend some time at www.ae911truth.org for the information you need.

Over 1200 architects and engineers doubt the OS. There are pilots, patriots and many other organized groups who feel the OS is false.

I challenge you to spend a mere 24 hours of accumulated time searching the net, reading correspondence, studying data. You may feel compelled return to the ATS 911 forum after you have increased your knowledge of the subject and post your impressions.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another Vodka
reply to post by BAZ752
 


So, you are a civil engineer. That should inspire your curiosity to get some physical data about the collapse of the buildings. Please get in contact with Richard Gage and also spend some time at www.ae911truth.org for the information you need.

Over 1200 architects and engineers doubt the OS. There are pilots, patriots and many other organized groups who feel the OS is false.

I challenge you to spend a mere 24 hours of accumulated time searching the net, reading correspondence, studying data. You may feel compelled return to the ATS 911 forum after you have increased your knowledge of the subject and post your impressions.


Yes, I am a civil engineer and currently working toward my chartership to gain AMICE and not IStrucE.

If you had taken the time to read what I actually wrote in my original post re: _BoneZ_'s comments, you might actually discover that I neither agreed or disagreed with his or her theories. I merely questioned that surely he or she must be open to the fact there are number of possibilities in question with respects to the spurs. I didn't go into further detail or draw enquiry to any other matter on the subject. Please don't presume to point me out on something I didn't even bring into question, it's bloody ridiculous and typical of this forum.

Many things invite my curiousity and at times, seldom as they may be, so has the collapse of the WTC towers. I would offer that I have only read excerpts of the OS but what I have read doesn't resonate quite as soundly as I would have thought. I do believe it should be questioned.

I would love to spend a 'mere' 24 hours of accumulated time researching information on it, I genuinely would, but that's not going to happen. There's a good deal of information online that is purely subjective and to wade through it takes a level of dedication that I simply cannot commit to. I value my family life, social life and working life far too much to be on the internet for hours on end. I afford myself the luxury of reading some threads on this website during a lunch break when I have finished reading the news I want to read.

I digress. Let me bring you back to my first point. I neither agreed or disagreed with the theory that _BoneZ_ suggested was the reason for the spurs. Since I have a good understanding of the basic principles of physics together with a knowledge of structures and engineering, I merely questioned that there must surely be other possibilities that _BoneZ_ should be prepared to accept not just those that are apparent ''facts'' to him or her.

I haven't once mentioned that I support the OS nor have I questioned the theories of the 1200 Architect's and Engineers either. I don't post on 9/11 for a good reason. When someone brings into question the physical science of said event, whatever that might be, does it make them credible or knowledgeable because they 'researched' and read about it on the internet? No, it does not. I would rather bring into question someone qualified enough to make those assertions or comments and then question them. There are too many presenters of 'facts' and online experts in 9/11 forum that are not qualified to make the assumptions they do and that's precisely why I say [offer] nothing in there. It's easier to avoid that it is to flame.

Please take this correspondence in the soft tone I intend it to be.

Baz



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BAZ752
I merely questioned that there must surely be other possibilities that _BoneZ_ should be prepared to accept not just those that are apparent ''facts'' to him or her.

Baz, firstly, I'd like to convey my appreciation for your mostly unbiased comments, and for your professional opinions.

I would just like to say that I was prepared for other possibilities years ago. I've been researching 9/11 for many years and have even had CNN do a story based on some of my 9/11 research years ago (unrelated to the WTC).

When someone researches for so many years, looks at every possible angle, learns every possible thing they can, they don't need to be prepared to accept other possibilities. They already looked at all available possibilities based on the information and evidence available.

There's only one possible way that three WTC buildings could have came down and that is with explosives, based on all available evidence. That's why so many (1200+) architects and engineers have banded together; so many scientists, scholars, and PhD's have banded together; and have came out and said that their research and education have also told them that the only way three WTC buildings could have came down is with explosives.

I do hope that one day you will have a little more free time to take a look at the evidence for yourself.









[edit on 7-9-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
The thing about the inner spire is that there is evidence in video form of the inner spire remaining intact for a moment while the outside collapsed downward. Then, without the outer support, the inner spire inevitably collapsed as well.


That really is a stretch to come to that conclusion.

The spire was a corner of the inner support structure, most of the rest if it had already disappeared into dust, which is what 'the spire' does, as many people refuse to except.

The spire lost all it's own support structure, it had nothing to do with the rest of the building causing it not to support itself.





Oh yes falling objects leave dust images of themselves after they have fallen...

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join