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.

 

WTC 7 Collapse and Controlled Demo/ Side by side comparison....Comments?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I did a search, and did not find this, so if it has already been posted in the past, I apologize...Lot's of new members that may not have seen this, though.

I have been searching for videos comparing Controlled Demolitions to the WTC collapse. I basically was trying to compare the dust clouds that form after each.

I admit, there is a lot of dust thrown into the air by both. I don't know if this is caused by the explosive force of the timed explosions, or is a normal product of the collapsing of all the concrete floors, smashing into each other, as they fall.

Either way, there is a hell of a lot of dust produced by both. I was trying to see if a controlled demolition produced less dust, than the dust clouds created by the collapse of the WTC towers. I see that controlled demolitions produce much dust. I am just trying to figure out if a free-fall collapse would cause as much dust.

Anyway, while watching this video of WTC 7 going down....what caught my eye....was the zooming in of blasts of debris coming out of the top back corner....going upward, as if there were blasts timed to start low, then go up, just as a building that is demolished is done. If, as some have said, it is from air pressure building up as the floors fall....would not the blasts of debris coming out....not go in a downward progression.....not upward? I realize some will say the video was edited to make it appear this way....I assume that is possible....but if this is an unedited film....then somebody has got some explaining to do. I still do not know how to imbed a video...so if someone would like to do that it would be greatly appreciated.

This is not a very long video. Hope to get some comments....both sides......Thanks

www.youtube.com...




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
How in the world anyone,
cannot see that this was "Pulled" is in a very
high state of denial or..........
They work for the people who
carried out this "Controlled Demolition".
Period. IMO

The BrainGarden



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 


Comment:

Two things look similar, ergo they must be the same thing.

Think there just might be a logical disconnect there.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrainGarden
How in the world anyone,
cannot see that this was "Pulled" is in a very
high state of denial or..........
They work for the people who
carried out this "Controlled Demolition".
Period. IMO

The BrainGarden



Do you really think the governmetn would kill its own citizens ? This is absurd!

Sure there are many examples of confirmed false flag operations


but this is 2010 !!!! its out of the question that a government would do this willingly or atleast knowingly to its own people!!!!!

Use milar instead of tin foil for your hat !



The reality and truth of 9/11 would shatter so many hearts and almost spit and step on american pride . Whatever that pride may be and the little of it thats actually left.


the problem is if 9/11 is exposed then it means we have to go back to every major event in u.s history and open those up and expose them also. Do you think the american public could handle there empire is nothing but smoke and mirrors with a tinge of lies?


We been fooled this long , and you can bet your ass there is more to come.

The problem here is what it always has been


ignorance.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I dont see how. There is no other known cause to achieve what we see in the video, other than controlled demolition. I never heard of taking down a building in that fashion by starting a few fires. The only alternative would be a scenario that has an insignificantly low degree of probability to occour.

But it isnt us you have to convince, it is the many experts who came forward and cried foul.

But you are entiteled to your own thoughts, may they make you happy long time.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Yes Sir, they do look similar. No, I did not say they were the same.

What caught my attention.....was the zoom in of WTC 7.....at the beginning of collapse....and the debris, and smoke being expelled....in an upward motion. Yes, that is how a controlled demolition is started. Explosives are timed to begin the bottom support structures failing first....the the next floor up.....and so on....untill the building collapses in on itself.

I am not saying WTC 7 was imploded.......but when one sees a similar process....as a demolition.....a normal thinking person...would say.....What the Hell!!.....or it's just one more of the endless number of COINCEDENCES....that keep people....searching.

Could you explain the upward bursts of debris and smoke in the video in the top back corner of WTC 7?? Did you view the video I linked to?

I am not trying to make enemies with anyone.....I am just a common person.....that has a lot of questions. Thanks



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



I dont see how.

Yeah, I know.

There is no other known cause to achieve what we see in the video, other than controlled demolition.

Anything that causes critical members of a structure to fail will have the same result. Over a long enough timeline rust will eventually cause those members to fail. So may earthquakes. Or fire or anything else that will degenerate a crtical members capacity. Controlled or not.

I never heard of taking down a building in that fashion by starting a few fires.

Thats because its a stupid and dangerous thing to do. But it has been done. For instance, to take down old brick smokestacks, you can judiciously remove sections of block and replace them with wood telephone posts, you do this at certain intervals, basically perforating the base then you start a fire inside the base of the smokestacks and as the replacement poles burn out the stack comes down. Don't know if there is any video on the internet that shows this method or not.

The only alternative would be a scenario that has an insignificantly low degree of probability to occour.

Here we go with order of probability. Moot point. Terrorism is an event with a very low order of occurence, particluraly within the border of the US. That does not mean that the results of an infrequent event are then infrequent themselves. I have never heard a gunshot inside my home. That means that the chances of you coming to my house and hearing a gunshot are very low. However, if you are at my house and someone triggers a gun then that does not mean the chances of the gun making a noise is very low.


But it isnt us you have to convince, it is the many experts who came forward and cried foul.


I am not really worried about all those "experts".



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 



I dont see how.

Yeah, I know.

There is no other known cause to achieve what we see in the video, other than controlled demolition.

Anything that causes critical members of a structure to fail will have the same result. Over a long enough timeline rust will eventually cause those members to fail. So may earthquakes. Or fire or anything else that will degenerate a crtical members capacity. Controlled or not.

I never heard of taking down a building in that fashion by starting a few fires.

Thats because its a stupid and dangerous thing to do. But it has been done. For instance, to take down old brick smokestacks, you can judiciously remove sections of block and replace them with wood telephone posts, you do this at certain intervals, basically perforating the base then you start a fire inside the base of the smokestacks and as the replacement poles burn out the stack comes down. Don't know if there is any video on the internet that shows this method or not.

The only alternative would be a scenario that has an insignificantly low degree of probability to occour.

Here we go with order of probability. Moot point. Terrorism is an event with a very low order of occurence, particluraly within the border of the US. That does not mean that the results of an infrequent event are then infrequent themselves. I have never heard a gunshot inside my home. That means that the chances of you coming to my house and hearing a gunshot are very low. However, if you are at my house and someone triggers a gun then that does not mean the chances of the gun making a noise is very low.


But it isnt us you have to convince, it is the many experts who came forward and cried foul.


I am not really worried about all those "experts".



I dont think you get the reasoning. You have never heard of gunshots in your home, but if there is evidence of bulletholes in your home that must have occoured at close distance, then guns must have been fired in your home. You are the guy who tries to convince the police that the obvious explanation to the gunpowder and holes matching those of gunshots are not gunshots at all, but something else and due to a freak chance, they just happen to resemble gunshots. Thats the reasoning of 911 deniers.

And yet AGAIN you try and prove your point with controlled demolition. Replacing bricks in keypoints with wood and setting them on fire at the same time, so that they all fail at the same time, is a far cry from random fires which shouldnt be able to sufficiently weaken the steel columns. I have seen a youtubevideo, a steele column had to be exposded a significant ammount of time to fire before a weight placed on top bent it and that column wasnt bolted in with other columns, so there was no way for the heat to dissipate.

But I am sure something that is sorta kinda like it is good enough for you.

And if you think thousands of architects engineers and chemists can be dismissed as "experts" then may your happy thoughts make you happy.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



And if you think thousands of architects engineers and chemists can be dismissed as "experts" then may your happy thoughts make you happy.


Thousands?? Better check your demographics. I think you may be a little high with that number.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I meant put toegether, not thousands of each, though I wouldnt be surprised if the total number is several thousands. Anyway here is more stuff for you to dismiss as coincidence, talk away or ridicule.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I still have not seen anyone help to explain the upward motion of debris being expelled at the beginning of the collapse.

Anyone?? Thanks ahead of time.
Here is another short video.....showing the same thing. Watch beginning at 30 seconds into video.

I REALLY would like to hear an explantion for that. If no one explains it.....then as they say....SILENCE...says a lot.

Thank you
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Of course they are similar because buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down in a controlled explosion.
If this helps anyone here is Larry Silverstein's p.b.s. interview, He's the man who owned the lease on the towers and he confirms giving the orders "pull it" which is a demolition term which means detonate.

www.youtube.com...

Now even if they had to bring the building down because of the loss of its structural integrity, Why does the government still deny the demolition?
edit on 23-12-2010 by alphaphysics because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2010 by alphaphysics because: mispelling



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeta55
reply to post by hooper
 


I still have not seen anyone help to explain the upward motion of debris being expelled at the beginning of the collapse.

Anyone?? Thanks ahead of time.
Here is another short video.....showing the same thing. Watch beginning at 30 seconds into video.

I REALLY would like to hear an explantion for that. If no one explains it.....then as they say....SILENCE...says a lot.

Thank you
www.youtube.com...



I made a video that looked at the collapse step-by-step. I feel that the initial burst was in-fact a main column failing, and then as the penthouse caved in, there was a progressive downward pop-pop-pop-pop as the windows broke out on the debris' way down. When the rest of the interior fell in, many windows on the right-hand side busted out, and the whole building came crashing down.

Keep in mind that you are not seeing anywhere near the base of the building in any of the videos. You can only see approximated the top half of a 47 story building, which means you also see only half the collapse.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeta55
reply to post by hooper
 


I still have not seen anyone help to explain the upward motion of debris being expelled at the beginning of the collapse.

Anyone?? Thanks ahead of time.
Here is another short video.....showing the same thing. Watch beginning at 30 seconds into video.

I REALLY would like to hear an explantion for that. If no one explains it.....then as they say....SILENCE...says a lot.

Thank you
www.youtube.com...



So, basically, any claim you make, eg; "upward motion of debris", is automatically assumed to be a valid observation and if a non-conspiracy explanation is not forthcoming immeadiately than you reserve the right to assume any conclusion that you can imagine is therefore correct.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
it was controlled demolition, especially when that building was put together with the most advanced engineering formulas for its time. the feds are lying and 9/11 was in fact a black op inside job.....FACT



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
My problem with wtc7 is its symmetrical collapse. I just have a hard time believing that highly asymmetrical damage could cause such a well timed and symmetrical collapse.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BrainGarden
 



They work for the people who
carried out this


So , you are saying that everyone in the world , who is not a truther , works for the "insiders" ? Must be billions of people on the payroll , as truthers are still in the minority .

You people crack me up .



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaphysics
 



"pull it" which is a demolition term which means detonate


No , it does not . You are less than fully informed on what "pull it" actually defines . You are also , less than fully informed when you think that Silverstein had any authority whatsoever to issue an order to "pull" , or detonate any buildings .

The "pull it" comment , refered to pulling the operation , not the building itself . Furthermore , Silverstein did not have the authority to issue an order to "pull" the operation .

Total mis-information that has been supplied to you .



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Silverstein was given press privileges to keep the entire situation diverted

pull it means , PULL IT DOWN. it has no other meaning
edit on 23-12-2010 by aliengenes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Two things look the same, sound the same, and have same fingerprints in dust.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, has duck feathers on it....well its clearly a racoon.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join