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.
From How stuff works.com
You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.
source
You have voted Psychoses for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
Originally posted by Paul
Very good footage of the collapse there. I don't think it proves that WTC7 was deliberately demolished though, the fact that the building collapsed in such a way could also support the idea that the WTC buildings were designed to collapse in such a way rather than topple over, in the event of their untimely destruction. Shortly after 911, a guy I know said he recalled seeing a TV documentary (y'know 'superstructures' type shows) years ago about the WTC, and, while the TV news showed the towers collapsing, he pointed out that they were in fact designed to collapse like that if disaster struck.
[edit on 9-3-2005 by Paul]
Originally posted by Psychoses
If you built buildings that were designed to collapse you would never get insurance coverage, or tenants to occupy them because no-one would be stupid enough to go inside them.
Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Your a fool! Decieved by your own government for god sake do RESEARCH before even attempting to post silly thoughts!!
by Frank A DeMartini, Manager, WTC Constuction and Management
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
source
Originally posted by Paul
Ok, let me clarify my point. I wouldn't suggest that 'buildings are designed to collapse' as you say. What I would suggest, is that it makes sense to design such a tall building so that should it collapse, it collapses vertically rather than toppling over, minimising damage to surrounding areas and property.
Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
I do not just pick a something and stick to it.
I have looked at 911 in many diferent ways and come to the same conclusion, "Either the attack was made by the american government or Hijackers really did take control of these planes and destroy two of the most monumental buildings in history but one thing is for sure, you do know that the american government inc. GW knew about this attack a long time before it had taken place and also why was FEMA sent in the day before the attack.
Another thing why was america playing war games on the morning of 911 when they knew fully an attack was close and if thats not enough why does rumsfeld face go bright red and anxious EVERY time a senator or other authority fugures asks a "controversal" question about 911???? And yet another anomoly is ALOT of powerful men got messages before 911 saying "Be very careful traveling around US on the 11th".
Now c'mon you've got ask yourself what is this going on?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Paul
Ok, let me clarify my point. I wouldn't suggest that 'buildings are designed to collapse' as you say. What I would suggest, is that it makes sense to design such a tall building so that should it collapse, it collapses vertically rather than toppling over, minimising damage to surrounding areas and property.
OK so just how would they do that?
(WTC building 7 is the first building of it's size anywhere to have ever been bought down by fire alone)
With overwhelming evidence people still can't accept the truth.
Rather than face up to what really happened we create excuses for it.
We'd rather believe half ass attempts at covering the truth (popular mechanics) and lame theories, than have to face what is really going on.
Because facing the real truth means you might have to re-think your whole belief system.
Because facing the truth might make you have to actually do something about it.
It makes it very hard to get up in the morning and go work for the system, when you know that system is built on lies.
America is in classic denial mode, the truth is staring us in the face but we choose to ignore and deny. You can go down with the ship or wake up and try to make sure the ship don't sink. You don't realize that your support of the government is not a support for America, but a support for corporations. Corporations don't have an elegance to any country, they go where they can make the most profit. They don't care about you or me, only what we can do for them. Corporations are the NWO, the one world government. They'll let America burn and die if they feel it's necessary for their survival.
Like I said HV, I don't buy the 'official version' of 911 events. There are a lot of unanswered questions and suspicious circumstances, such as the good examples you mention.
I wasn't questioning the nature or pretext of the attacks, I was merely raising a small issue of an engineering/structural nature. This was because if you can take a hypothesis (the towers were pulled), analyse an antithesis (that maybe they weren't pulled), then whatever the outcome, you are nearer to proving what happened.