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.

 

Skyscraper demolition (not WTC's)

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The video below demonstrates what an actual demolition of a skyscraper looks & sounds like. This is the closet video I have seen that strongly resembles the WTC's on 911 when they were falling.
I still have not seen, read about nor found any conclusive evidence to this day for me to step out and say without any doubt that the WTC Towers were brought down by anything but the terrorist attacks that day, however this video for me anyway rebukes much of what some claim about "controlled demolitions" on 911.





posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The explosions in this video are not the same noise as heard in NYC. The explosions in this video are clearly from demo charges where the sound heard in NYC are of a noticable different frequency. Also notice how many charges had to be set off for the skyscraper to fall, this was not heard in NYC. In addition, observe how many flashes were going off in the main portion of the building as well as in the foundation portion too. Clearly a different animal altogether. Similiar but different.
edit on 11/28/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Yes, but this footage was from above the building in a isolated zone with everyone expecting the building to go down. At this angle you´re looking into the building from above. I understand the OP´s point that there seems to be a similarity between the two incidents and the way the buildings are going down.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by linkshot1000
 


With everyone expectring it to happen means that attention can and should be paid to the sounds and all other attributes. Just because no one expected the events in NYC on 911 does not discount nor take away from these points. I'm sure that people who lived near this building in the video included some who did not know or forgot that it was going to come down. Especially people who further away from any areas that would/might be impacted.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
The explosions in this video are not the same noise as heard in NYC. The explosions in this video are clearly from demo charges where the sound heard in NYC are of a noticable different frequency. Also notice how many charges had to be set off for the skyscraper to fall, this was not heard in NYC. In addition, observe how many flashes were going off in the main portion of the building as well as in the foundation portion too. Clearly a different animal altogether. Similiar but different.
edit on 11/28/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling



This video is also similar but different. Different, because it miraculously didn't implode. Physics are different across the pond I guess.


Just listen to the first 10 seconds of this clip and tell me what frequency you hear?


That must have been the office furniture, carpet, computers, etc.
edit on 11/28/2010 by budaruskie because: I wanted to



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


True. But that building didn't have two airliners flying into it at 500 plus miles an hour. Nor did it have any jet fuel to raise the temps of the fire. Two aspects that played a role in the collaspe of the twin towers.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 





Just listen to the first 10 seconds of this clip and tell me what frequency you hear?


A single "explosion" from an unknown source is your proof?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



This video is also similar but different. Different, because it miraculously didn't implode. Physics are different across the pond I guess.


Physics is the same, but buildings and circumstances differ, often drastically.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



This video is also similar but different. Different, because it miraculously didn't implode. Physics are different across the pond I guess.


Here we go again . Why do you truthers always leave out the part about how the Windsor fire was being actively fought by firefighters ? Why did you not include any images of the firefighters battling the blaze from several different locations ?

But , more than anything else , Why did you not include images of what the Windsor looked like after the fire was out ? Is there a particular reason that you didn't include the images showing that the Windsor did indeed suffer from collapse , and the only sections that didn't collapse were those sections that were constructed with re-inforced concrete ? But the sections constructed solely of steel did indeed collapse .

Is there a reason that you didn't give readers the entire story ? Or , did you fail to see it as relevant ?

Furthermore , from the video you provided , from 0:22 - 0:26 , you can clearly see a part of the steel structure break away and fall down the side of the building , where it momentarily catches , as it impacts with the side of the structure , causing what appears to be an "explosion" , before it breaks free and falls to the ground .

And , did you fail to hear the part where the narrator says that large chunks of the burning building were "plunging" to the ground ?

Using the Windsor as a valid comparison , no longer works on this site , as I and others are making sure the entire truth about the Windsor gets told , when it is brought up . A fly-by post that says" hey , the Windsor didn't collapse" , will no longer suffice . You will have to do better than that .
edit on 29-11-2010 by okbmd because: ETA



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Apparently many of those who continue to support theorys based in strict conspiracy guidelines do not have the capacity nor willingness to consider more realistic causitive reasons for the collaspe. I understand how convincing many conspiracy claims can be. But to simply stand steadfast on theorys or a hunch then call it "the truth", "evidence" only demonstrates one inability to get to the truth.

The video I posted demonstrates an actual demolition, the video posted by the other member from a highly suspect source demonstrates the willingness to use whatever to back up conspiracy theorys that are not based in truth but based in conspiracy rhetoric.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

source: 911 Swindle

Windsor showing portions collasped....Caused by the fire. Had an airliner flown into it the collaspe would have been more catastrophic for sure.
edit on 11/29/2010 by mikelee because: Source photo



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Anyone have a close-up video like the OP's demo video, but of 911? I've seen several of them from a distance, but nothing within a range that I could reasonably hear explosives on video.

This demo video was filmed nicely, quiet background to hear the explosives and overhead close-up view of the demolition!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Well, although I'm gonna feel like I'm showing my dog a new card trick....here we go.


But that building didn't have two airliners flying into it at 500 plus miles an hour. Nor did it have any jet fuel to raise the temps of the fire.


Niether did WTC7, but of course you will say that's different. Which building had two airliner impacts again? 500+ mph huh, where exactly is proof for this?


A single "explosion" from an unknown source is your proof?


You showed me a known controlled demolition that looked and sounded very similar to the WTC collapses, then told me it was a different frequency (with no proof of such) and that made it different. Even Linkshot said as much, but you told him he was wrong too, again with abosolutely nothing provided as proof.


Physics is the same, but buildings and circumstances differ, often drastically.


Very good point hooper, the Windsor building was not nearly as meticulously engineered as the WTC buildings, probably because it wasn't meant to be a symbol of national pride for the greatest country in the world and known as the greatest feat of engineering in high-rise construction of its time. I know you are eluding to the plane impacts, and I'm not ignoring them. But the fact that the buildings didn't crumble immediately from impact, the fact that kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, and the fact that buildings literally exploded and fell through path of most resistance (not how physics work any other day, anywhere) instead of falling over to the side makes it pretty obvious that the planes could not have caused what we saw alone. Think about, if in the OP video someone flew a flippin' plane into that building what would you expect to happen? Of course...it wouldn't FALL OVER no no it would collapse into a cloud of dust and smoke, exactly as it did. In fact, I don't believe those were demo charges at all I heard in that video, instead that was clearly the sound of multiple planes impacting the building, albeit invisible planes!


Using the Windsor as a valid comparison , no longer works on this site , as I and others are making sure the entire truth about the Windsor gets told , when it is brought up.


Windsor during fire and after:



WTC during fire and after:





oh and just one more, what exactly is this fellas, different circumstances? Looks exactly like molten steel, but I'm sure you'll tell me its carpet and office furniture.



The video I posted demonstrates an actual demolition, the video posted by the other member from a highly suspect source


Classic move Mikelee, just say that my source isn't credible and that will make it all better. For anyone who is looking, my video doesn't provide commentary or original videos of any sort, it only shows known clips from 911 so there isn't even any way for it to be discredited. Of course, you could just attempt to discredit every single eyewitness, firefighter, police officer, and news reporter in my video instead.

How you guys don't see that every time you post what you think is evidence to support your claims, it actually supports mine, every single time. You know why, because what you are saying is obviously not the TRUTH. You're fighting a losing battle, everyone who knows anything, knows that science is not backing up your story.


edit on 11/29/2010 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



Very good point hooper, the Windsor building was not nearly as meticulously engineered as the WTC buildings, probably because it wasn't meant to be a symbol of national pride for the greatest country in the world and known as the greatest feat of engineering in high-rise construction of its time.

Its very nice that you have an opinion with regard to the engineering that went into the buildings, however, it really doesn't mean anything.

I know you are eluding to the plane impacts, and I'm not ignoring them. But the fact that the buildings didn't crumble immediately from impact,

So? Just because someone doesn't die immeadialtely from a bullet wound doesn't mean that bullets can't kill you.

the fact that kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel,

And kerosene can't make ice cream, either, but just as irrelevant.

and the fact that buildings literally exploded

Again with the opinions.

and fell through path of most resistance (not how physics work any other day, anywhere) instead of falling over to the side makes it pretty obvious that the planes could not have caused what we saw alone.

You're confusing water flow and falling. Least, most, some whatever, gravity likes to work in a straight line. Did then, does now.

Think about, if in the OP video someone flew a flippin' plane into that building what would you expect to happen?

Depends on things like the size of the plane, the direction of travel, the speed of the plane and exactly where the point of impact was. Also can include variables like plane cargo and building contents. Like I said, different circumstances may result in different outcomes, your mileage may vary.

Of course...it wouldn't FALL OVER no no it would collapse into a cloud of dust and smoke, exactly as it did.

It did what it did because of the particular circumstances. There is no rule regarding planes and buildings and fires.

In fact, I don't believe those were demo charges at all I heard in that video, instead that was clearly the sound of multiple planes impacting the building, albeit invisible planes!

I am sure if someone came up with that scenario (invisible planes) as long as the narrative support some nefarious US governent conspiracy, you would would keep an "open mind"



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by budaruskie
 



This video is also similar but different. Different, because it miraculously didn't implode. Physics are different across the pond I guess.


Here we go again . Why do you truthers always leave out the part about how the Windsor fire was being actively fought by firefighters ? Why did you not include any images of the firefighters battling the blaze from several different locations ?


OMG, complaints about LEAVING OUT INFORMATION.

How many HOURS did the Windsor tower burn? How long was it into the burn that the outer steel portions collapsed? But since those steel portions were connected to CONCRETE doesn't that mean they could not conduct heat away to other steel. And since this steel was near the top of the building doesn't that mean it did not have to support much weight and was therefore NOT VERY THICK?

It was steel! It was in a fire! It collapsed!

That explains EVERYTHING!

You just accidentally FORGOT to mention how long the fire was going before that weak steel collapsed.



Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005.

www.911myths.com...

psik



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Frequency...meaaing a different sound. Not that I had a frequency spectrum analyzer to analyze the sound pitch. Of course you types wouldn't believe the results anyway. Sounds that sound different are known to have a different "frequency" just FYI.

Your fishing around and pouring out a bunch of symantic rhetoric which is common for people who think they know what they are talking about when they use or cite unscientific "evidence" as their "proof" regarding 911.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



500 mph, kinda well known fact. Perhaps you need to do some more research instead of demanding "proof" when it isn't MY JOB to do your research. Many times when folk such as yourself spouts out all of these unproven theories I go do MY OWN research, somehting you types need to do on your own because it is obvious you haven't done anything but fall for the slick edited videos that abound on the internet and are promoted here by a select few.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 





Classic move Mikelee, just say that my source isn't credible and that will make it all better. For anyone who is looking, my video doesn't provide commentary or original videos of any sort, it only shows known clips from 911 so there isn't even any way for it to be discredited. Of course, you could just attempt to discredit every single eyewitness, firefighter, police officer, and news reporter in my video instead.


I don't have to post that your source isn't crediable because its another well established fact. I do not wish to discredit people who on that day were simply scared and acting on their instincts in order to survive. But I will and do discredit many who make such ignorant claims as the ones you are attempting to make. People on that day did not have any experience around buildings that were impacted by airliners so all they could do is describe events as best they could using common factors such as "explosions", "sounded like a bomb" etc.

In my video you can hear (and see) the many demo's going off and that simply did not happen in NYC on 911.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



And since this steel was near the top of the building doesn't that mean it did not have to support much weight and was therefore NOT VERY THICK?


Finally !!!

Finally , someone vaguely recognizes a little fact that I have been trying to point out , and no one wants to listen .

Now , take your above statement , and apply it to the towers . SAME fact , different day . The columns of the towers decreased in thickness from the bottom to the top of the towers . What started out as wall thickness of 4-5 inches at the base of the towers , decreased all the way down to 1/4 " wall thickness towards the top of the towers . NOT VERY THICK .

It is becoming more apparent , in this thread as well as others , that you actually Really don't know alot about the design and construction of the towers . That's not meant in any offensive way . It just helps me understand what level of knowledge I am dealing with when I reply to you , as concerns the structural integrity of the twin towers .

There is much you apparently need to inform yourself of .



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join