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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



You are correct. Buildings are built differnet ways. Some are steel reinforced concrete and others are steel framed with concrete floors, like the wtc buildings.

Different designs will require different methods of demolition and the charges would be placed in different locations.

The building in the OP video we don't know how it was constructed so its impossible to say if the demolition would look the same as wtc.

What is worth noting is the collapse looks similar, plus notice that explosives are required all the way from the basement to the top floor for the building to be brought down. If we are to believe the OS for wtc then all that is necessary to bring a building down is to blow a few components high up in the build and set a fire on the same floor then stand back for 45 mins and voila !

I don't think so.




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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



OOOOHHH!!! You are right! How silly of them to forget how long the fire burned before the steel failed. Well, let me fix that:


23:00 Fire started at the 21st Floor
00:00 All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report)
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Well, fire started about 11PM. All floors above 21st on fire about midnight (12AM). First failures of steel comes at 1:29AM about one and a half hours after being fully engulfed in fires. (Two and half hours if you count the start of the fire on the 21st floor). At 1:37AM the steel structure started failing all over, till 3:35AM. All from fire alone. No planes hit it, no jet fuel was spread over multiple floors, no buildings hit it. All that was burning in there? Office supplies and office furnishings. I wonder what would have happened if a plane was burning inside after impacting around 400mph?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Really, after all this time that is the best you've got? Whenever I post on this forum I routinely find myself in discussions with 2 or more people at a time. Some of them are polite and respectful but you hardline OS guys are like bees. When one of you gets squashed by proof or a question they don't want to answer or can't, several others will follow coming at you in all directions. Its a strength in numbers attack but just like bees its always predictibly painful...to see. Grown human beings have 5 senses the ability to think, remember, and even imagine; but bees are pests that can only react instinctively. There is no reasoning with pests instead one must choose to either ignore or eliminate them. I think about all of the dodged questions, ignored proof, name-calling, ignorance and shamefully bad manners and only one word comes to mind....pathetic.

Regardless of what the three or four of you (if its not just someone with multiple names
) think, more and more people are talking about it and figuring out that they don't believe the OS. No matter how much anyone believes in the OS its slowly but surely going down, ironically like burning buildings actually do. Anyone who can live in this forum and see the fantastic arguments and experiments that are routinely owning the OS at virtually every turn and still tow that line without question is....pathetic.

If you all referred to your tale as the "official theory" then I wouldn't be so offended, but for you it is the truth and the gospel as if G.O.D. (
) had wrote it himself. If I ask you to explain how the BBC reporter in a live broadcast stood in front of WTC7 and claimed it wasn't there; you will answer me by saying she made that report from a balcony and couldn't have been standing beside the building or she'd be dead...if you address me at all. We all know I mean in front of the building from the camera's perspective and that it was clearly visible in the background behind her, but you will pick some trivial detail and call me a liar when in fact I'm telling the truth. All the while also realizing that the timing of the report is really the issue at hand, but oh no things like that never ever get addressed. Its just...wait for it...pathetic.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



If I ask you to explain how the BBC reporter in a live broadcast stood in front of WTC7 and claimed it wasn't there; you will answer me by saying ...


... that this isn't unique , in that there were also other "live" reports from that day , that also had to be redacted . You act as though journalism and media have never ever reported anything that turned out later to not be true .

Dewey vs. Truman .



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I'm sorry but only an idiot does not see the significance of this. HOW THE HELL COULD SHE HAVE PREDICTED THE FUTURE?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


She didn't "predict the future" . Numerous people , on location , knew the building was unstable and subject to collapse at any time . NUMEROUS people knew this . The police were telling people to get back , because "that building is coming down" .

Are you suggesting those police officers were all in on this silly conspiracy also ?

Have you never heard news reports that had to be retracted later , because of false information ? What about the reports of bombs that day in D.C. ? Did D.C. blow up ?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by budaruskie
 

Numerous people , on location , knew the building was unstable and subject to collapse at any time . NUMEROUS people knew this . The police were telling people to get back , because "that building is coming down" .


I know they even had a damn count-down over the radio...just like they do when buildings are demo'd. Regardless, you are doing exactly as I predicted you would do trying to discredit everyone else. Face it buddy, they were told to report the news before it happened, and there is no way that anyone thought that building was going to implode and that is widely known and accepted. The only way it was coming down was in a pre-planned demo, period! Why they decided to do it is what is unknown, but we all know that it happened.


Are you suggesting those police officers were all in on this silly conspiracy also?


No, but you obviously do. What about all the ones on video that claimed "bombs" and "explosions" were going off? Again, you lend credence to my views...thank you.


Have you never heard news reports that had to be retracted later , because of false information ? What about the reports of bombs that day in D.C. ? Did D.C. blow up ?


Well, I can't say D.C. blew up...but I can say that I've never seen any proof of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:35 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


different "frequency" is probably the answer. Besides, 50 stories is alot different than 110. The brightest engineers in the demolition business could not bring the WTC towers down. Thats why i have a problem with people in the truth movements saying WTC towers were controlled demolitions. WTC7 was clearly a controlled demolition but the towers were most likely brought down by an exotic method...something beyond thermite, thermate, or conventional demolition methods.

Something that size would have to be dismantled at least to a manageable size to use conventional methods.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

that this isn't unique , in that there were also other "live" reports from that day , that also had to be redacted . You act as though journalism and media have never ever reported anything that turned out later to not be true Dewey vs. Truman .

Whether or not they reported it accidentally, you have to admit, it still is an amazing coincidence. WTC7 was the least structurally damaged by falling derby out of all the WTC-complex buildings, and yet they just happened to pick the right one. The fact that the building subsequently comes down in a manner indicative of a controlled demolition probably doesn't point to a mere broadcasting accident. Ultimately I don't think the reporting of WTC7 before it collapsed can be presented as evidence for anything because the BBC can put it down to a cock-up (which they have done) and the ordinary public will have no idea when Auntie Beeb is pulling a fast one. The BBC don't strike me as the sort of outlet that edits its programme-content for truthfulness before broadcasting it. I remember a few years ago they were saying that they would only be presenting one-sided debates on CAGW because they thought the science was settled and having real debates would apparently be meaningless and waste the public's time. That gives you some insight into the mindset of the BBC.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



you are doing exactly as I predicted you would do trying to discredit everyone else. Face it buddy, they were told to report the news before it happened, and there is no way that anyone thought that building was going to implode and that is widely known and accepted. The only way it was coming down was in a pre-planned demo, period! Why they decided to do it is what is unknown, but we all know that it happened.


I'm not trying to discredit anyone at all , other than those of you who constantly repeat lies and half-truths , because it is the politically-correct thing to do within the truth movement . You guys can be shown hard evidence that proves you wrong , and you will STILL turn around and repeat a lie that has been proven to be a lie .

"There is no way that anyone thought that building was going to implode ..." ? You may be right , as the building did not implode . Also , none of the firefighters or police officers used the word implode , they just said the building was coming down , in other words , the building was collapsing .

The ever-elusive "truth" that you so desperately seek , has been shown to you repeatedly , even in this thread . So , you "face it" , buddy . And , how very mature of you to list me as a foe , simply because I don't agree with you .



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Here are some experts , who found nothing suspicious in the "manner" that WTC7 fell . Nor did they find evidence of explosives . Do yourself a favor and read this article .

www.implosionworld.com...

A mind is a terrible thing to waste .



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I'm not saying either or in the debate.
Just want to point out in the OP Video, the building has been gutted and has no windows. Therefor, sound and light will travel freely and unhindered opposed to being absorbed by elements of an interior and blocked by the windows and treatments.
edit on 30-11-2010 by mantic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

Here are some experts , who found nothing suspicious in the "manner" that WTC7 fell. Do yourself a favor and read this article www.implosionworld.com...

Nothing suspicious? Surely, you are joking? You don't consider it suspicious that WTC7 is the first building in history to collapse symmetrically, spontaneously and at freefall acceleration ostensibly without it being a controlled demolition suspicious? What piece of evidence in particular in the article you presented convinces you that WTC7's collapse was not suspicious and which unimpeachably rules out controlled demolition? In other words you don't just believe what they say because they're experts? If you want real expert advice you need to seek it from someone who you perceive to possess the knowledge or wisdom that you seek, not from someone who carries a title and a piece of paper that declare he has it.


Nor did they find evidence of explosives.

Did they carry out any chemical testing for explosives or examine any steel?


A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I agree.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 



If you want real expert advice you need to seek it from someone who you perceive to possess the knowledge or wisdom that you seek, not from someone who carries a title and a piece of paper that declare he has it.


This type of truther logic simply amazes me . This describes truthers in a nutshell . They "seek it" only from those whom they "perceive to possess the knowledge or wisdom" , and straight-up dismiss those who actually possess that knowledge .

You didn't even read the article , did you ?

Here I showed you the analysis of experts in the field and you simply dismiss it because it doesn't support your silly conspiracy that the sky is falling .

Pardon me for disturbing you , go back to sleep .



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mantic
 


It isn't an issue or a factor. This is due to the fact that the area had to be cleared priot to demolition so the entire block was clear & free from traffic, people and other noise making aspects. This allows for a full concentration of the associated sound of the demolition.

This not withstanding, if this amount of demolitions had been set off in the WTC Towers there would have no doubt as to them being imploded on purpose along with the remaining tower clearly depicted as such on national tv. This turned out NOT to be the case.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

This type of truther logic simply amazes me . This describes truthers in a nutshell . They "seek it" only from those whom they "perceive to possess the knowledge or wisdom" , and straight-up dismiss those who actually possess that knowledge.

Our logic is fine and in accordance with good scientific practice. If you believe that, for the first time in history, a steel-framed building could have collapsed through itself at freefall acceleration in a way that mimics a controlled demolition due to thermal expansion, which according to NIST, is a "new phenomenon" never before observed in a high-rise building, the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof lies with the advocates of each and every new proposition. If NIST and the government wants the rational public to accept WTC7 collapsed from fire, the onus is wholly upon them to rationally prove it to us. So far though, NIST's evidence has not been checked or tested comprehensively and independently since they have resisted subjecting their models (which is the only evidence they have) to critical objective testing.


You didn't even read the article , did you? Here I showed you the analysis of experts in the field and you simply dismiss it because it doesn't support your silly conspiracy that the sky is falling.

Yes, I looked at the paper and their arguments don't objectively refute a controlled demolition in any way. Unless you can point to something I missed. But before you ask, I do not have the time to do a point-by-point refutation, though I am happy to debate one "Assertion" in the paper if you want. Also, you are not the only one here who can link to experts. I can link you to numberless papers and analytical observations by experts coming to entirely different conclusions. In any case, none of us here are under any moral or logical obligation to accept anything that self-styled experts say just on their say-so. My opinions are not swayed by experts or the qualifications they hold, but by evidence. So, I ask again, where is the overwhelming evidence WTC7 collapsed from fire?


Pardon me for disturbing you, go back to sleep.

Oh, the irony.
edit on 1-12-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

This not withstanding, if this amount of demolitions had been set off in the WTC Towers there would have no doubt as to them being imploded on purpose


For the majority of people who I have personally met, the majority of people who visit this site, and the overwhelming majority of "experts" around the world....there is no doubt. You asked me earlier if I understood the consequences of using discredited evidence to prove my points, which I completely deny doing. But even if I did, this would be the most glaring case of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever known. Time and time again people on this forum point out the glaring problems with your story, the whistleblowers who say the gov't fixed their experiments, and the independent research that always opposes the gov't findings.

I don't really care that you choose to believe in a lie, but unfortunately a few of the same people always come into the 9/11 threads to derail, disrupt, and often disrespect those of us here to learn and discuss. That is what I have a problem with. Isn't there a site for you people who don't agree with any "conspiracy theory" where you can all go and pat each other on the back for being so naive? You always claim that any shred of evidence that ever gets presented to you has been unequivocally disproven yet every time I've ever taken the time to look that has not been the case. You draw your own conclusions while picking and choosing the facts and/or opinions of others while ignoring crucial pieces of evidence that often destroy your entire case. This, along with every thread I've ever seen is a perfect example of this.
edit on 12/1/2010 by budaruskie because: too many beens



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


OK.

Superflous but OK.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join