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.
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
Just listen to the first 10 seconds of this clip and tell me what frequency you hear?
This video is also similar but different. Different, because it miraculously didn't implode. Physics are different across the pond I guess.
This video is also similar but different. Different, because it miraculously didn't implode. Physics are different across the pond I guess.
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.
A single "explosion" from an unknown source is your proof?
Physics is the same, but buildings and circumstances differ, often drastically.
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.
The video I posted demonstrates an actual demolition, the video posted by the other member from a highly suspect source
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!
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 ?
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.
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.
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?