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.

 

Building collapse from one floor removal IDENTICAL FREEFALL to WTC tower collapse.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Hiya,
I'd not seen this video before nor have I seen reference to it in this forum, despite the clip being a year old.

Its a clip of a high-rise building demolition using a technique I was not aware of. It appears they just physically pull out the supporting features of one floor, a third of the way down the building, then let the top floors fall and compact the lower floors.

The impact of the top floors falling and the explosive nature of the subsequent pulverising of the lower floors looks, to my untrained eyes, very similar to the collapse of the two WTC towers.

It looks like 'FREE FALL' to me... at least as exact as one can say from videos. Exactly like WTC.



I've been hovering between the natural disaster/ planted explosives camps for many years now... but seeing this video and seeing that this kind of damage is possible from a top floor collapse has made me think that extra explosives needn't have been involved.

I have seen some excellent simulations of the damage the plane would do to the central struts going at that speed and I believe the initial impact followed by the intense heat (which weakened rather than melted the steel) caused the top of the towers to fall, and looking at the attached video it proves that only the momentum generated from one missing floor will be enough for the upper mass to completely obliterate the lower portion of the building.

On another thread about weather a plane could bring down the tower a poster correctly identified the B-52 bomber into the Empire State Building as an example that a plane can enter such a building and leave a 'cut out' hole. But the big difference being that due to the mass and velocity of the planes into the WTC that the impact would be the same as LOADS of B-52's impacting at the same instance. Thinking about that made it easier for me to visualise the sevre damage these planes can cause at that momentum.

So basically... I say I believe the OS, as in planes brought the towers down... but I know, as has been documented, that the USA was aware of the terrorists plans and let them get away with it so that the USA could invade the middle east (again).

I think that is why George Bush had that strange look on his face when he was told... "Sir... good news, they hit the towers.. bad news... it collapsed" kind of thing.

I hope to be proved wrong.. as in the USA did plant explosives because that is just so mental and would be the story that brings the US government down... and I would like to see that from my armchair In England.

Peace Off.


edit on 8-2-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



+1 more 
posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Yeah, I believed the official story that my parents told me about Santa Claus. But then I grew up and found out that their OS was a fairytale. Much like this poppycock you're trying to pass off as closure and confirmation.


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


NIce find, but that is not the same at all. The whole building didn't even fall down. They even weakened the side that did fall. That building was not built up to code like the WTC was. The WTC was built to withstand the collision of an airliner. The building in your video did not have the same steel beam reinforcement as the WTC. I can go on for ever but I will stop now.

I hate to be a jerk, but that video doesn't prove anything at all.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Few others vids also



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


Oops... that's exactly what I'm saying... kind of. Sorry I missed that thread.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Some slight differences in that the cables were pulling from the exterior but very interesting. Wonder why they decided to start from the top as opposed to the bottom. Possibly requires fewer explosives (if any) once a large section at the top has initiated the collapse bringing down the remaining structure underneath of it?

I assumed that they rigged the WTC towers from the top down to be blamed on the plane strikes, seemed to be the most logical whereas they demolished WTC 7 in the more traditional fashion.
edit on 8-2-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
thats actually a really good video. I've been thinking like you that even if the planes did bring the towers down alone, which seems likely, that the government knew what was going on behind the scenes.

Create a moral panic, invent a scapegoat, whip up a media frenzy and the public will want imediate action. This is not a new thing, it has been going on for years, and governments use this to their advantage all the time. Stops people focusing on the real problems they face and can set agendas for government to push their policies that no one would have wanted before the moral outcry of such an event.

Even Hitler had the Reichstag fire



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


1) no plane hit WTC7.


2)

Google Video Link


3) grab a beer & enjoy the show from your armchair..
edit on 8-2-2011 by reeferman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


B-25 WW2 light bomber in 1945 not a B-52 heavy bomber. The Empire State building was of a completely different construction than WTC 1 and 2.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Dude, that is not a steel column building. It's a prefab, concrete building that's only several stories high, not a skyscraper/highrise with a steel structure.

Try comparing the demolition of a mud brick house next...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by manmental
 


B-25 WW2 light bomber in 1945 not a B-52 heavy bomber. The Empire State building was of a completely different construction than WTC 1 and 2.


Well said.. it was a LIGHT bomber. Check out the hole it made.

Now on another thread someone had worked out that the mass and speed of the planes that impacted the towers was equal to about 100 B-52 light bombers impacting all at the same time.

looking at the B-52 damage its easy to see the damage that would do to a building stronger than the Empire State.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
-
edit on 8-2-2011 by TechVampyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


Yeah... that's why i didn't mention Building 7.

But as you mention it. I think building 7 might well have been a controlled demolition... as in I heard a lot of New York buildings have to be built with controlled demolition explosives in place in case they need to 'pull' the buildings. I haven't got a source to this apart from stuff I've read on ATS etc.

But, I've watched lots of building 7 stuff recently.. especially the very recent FOIA released videos from street level looking up, close to. The building is severely damaged and properly on fire. I can believe that from the opposite angle, where all the video is from, that its collapse due to constructual damage gives the wrong impression. If the part of the building on fire crumbles first, out of camera view (the opposite side to all collapse videos), then I can see how the last part of the building falls at what looks a freefall speed.

I believe building 7 was terribly damaged... but I also know it housed many state secrets and so that I see the logic that once they knew the building was beyond hope then they decided to blow it up.

Building 7 DOES look like a controlled explosive demolition. WTC towers do not, to my mind.

So... as for building 7.. I am still on the fence.
edit on 8-2-2011 by manmental because: bad spelling



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
Yeah, I believed the official story that my parents told me about Santa Claus. But then I grew up and found out that their OS was a fairytale. Much like this poppycock you're trying to pass off as closure and confirmation.


Hi Mr.War

I never believed in Santa Clause myself. That story is nutty. But seeing how many stars your witty comment recieved it seems perhaps others shared your nutty beliefs.

My thread is about how the demolition in the video creates a FREEFALL that looks identical to the WTC tower collapses, which has been a major factor in many people thinking the towers needed extra explosive help to get pulverised as they do.

So, with that in mind, do you think the freefall speeed in the video I posted resembles the freefall speed of the two WTC towers?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandalph
Dude, that is not a steel column building. It's a prefab, concrete building that's only several stories high, not a skyscraper/highrise with a steel structure.

Try comparing the demolition of a mud brick house next...


Hi Gandalph,

I totally agree with you, great point. Well observed.

The WTC would have MUCH MORE MASS to pulverise the bottom.

Do you think that the freefall speed demonstrated by the collapsing top portion of the building in the video I posted resembles the freefall speed of the top portions of the WTC towers as they collapsed?


edit on 8-2-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
but seeing this video and seeing that this kind of damage is possible from a top floor collapse has made me think that extra explosives needn't have been involved.

Well don't think about it too hard. The video you posted was of a concrete structure being felled. Not even in the same ball park as comparable to any steel-structured highrise, let alone the WTC towers.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
It looks like 'FREE FALL' to me... at least as exact as one can say from videos. Exactly like WTC.


You call that "Exactly like the WTC"?

Did you notice any STEEL CONSTRUCTION in the building?

We never see the lower portion of that building before or after the collapse. Three stories were dropped through a height of TWO STORIES onto how many? And we never see what was left.

The way the strength and therefore weight of steel in a really TALL building has to be distributed is very different from what is done in short buildings under 20 stories. The CN Tower shows how the support mass must really be distributed. But notice how it doesn't change much in the top 10% as it would not change in a SHORT BUILDING.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by manmental
 


NIce find, but that is not the same at all. The whole building didn't even fall down. They even weakened the side that did fall. That building was not built up to code like the WTC was. The WTC was built to withstand the collision of an airliner. The building in your video did not have the same steel beam reinforcement as the WTC. I can go on for ever but I will stop now.

I hate to be a jerk, but that video doesn't prove anything at all.


What was the steel in the WTC reinforced with?

This demolition is simmilar to a technique called Verinage. It is a French born technique for demolishing the building. Usually rams just push over an entire floors supports, and they let gravity do the rest.

It shows that a small portion of a structure can in fact cause the complete collapse of a structure. Which is essentially what happened in the WTC Towers.

In fact, this technique requires NO pre-demilition of the building at all. It is more safe than using explosives, and gret for buildings that are unsafe, as there is minimal human prep done to the building.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by reeferman
 


But as you mention it. I think building 7 might well have been a controlled demolition... as in I heard a lot of New York buildings have to be built with controlled demolition explosives in place in case they need to 'pull' the buildings. I haven't got a source to this apart from stuff I've read on ATS etc.


This is a load of bullocks.

There is NEVER a case where a building is designed to be demolished with explosives pre-planted.

Few reasons.

1-Insurance companies would NEVER insure the building.

2-Explosives do not have a long shelf life. It is measured with a clock, not a calender.

3-Explosives do not like radio waves of any kind. Cell phones, 2 way radios, andything that transmits and receives RF signals can set the off prematurely.

So no, what you read what a crock of steaming bull.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by manmental
but seeing this video and seeing that this kind of damage is possible from a top floor collapse has made me think that extra explosives needn't have been involved.

Well don't think about it too hard. The video you posted was of a concrete structure being felled. Not even in the same ball park as comparable to any steel-structured highrise, let alone the WTC towers.




You're right. A concrete structure is MUCH stronger than a steel building when it comes to vertical loads.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join