Top-Down Building Collapse Videos May Ruin Your Day

I discovered these videos in searches for other evidence regarding a 9/11 project video I am working on.

Now before you all go disowning me as friends, and calling me a truther turned Government Loyalist, beware that to be a true researcher means starting with the evidence, and looking objectively at the evidence- and not with a preconceived notion, and then finding selective evidence to support that notion. So in the spirit of neutrality I present these videos, for better or for worse.

What, did you want me to hide them, just because I have strong suspicions 9/11 was not what we were told? Sorry. I respect myself more than that.

These videos basically show that a top down pancake type collapse is possible, and can be initiated through failing floors. It is an actual technique used in France, as these videos will show, using a hydraulic system to collapse as little as one floor. And you will be surprised at the similarities to the WTC collapses.





So clearly the parallel here is that when the floors of the WTC failed on their own due to the damage of the planes and fires weakening the steel, a similar collapse occurred.

And considering the much larger scale of the WTC towers compared to these videos, it could be entirely possible the towers fell for the similar reasons provided by NIST.

I am merely stating here that it is possible. Do I believe it? No. For one, there is still evidence of explosives that we don't see in these videos. And the lateral ejection of extremely heavy material goes beyond what I consider to be acceptable.

Presented for discussion- so please don't shoot the messenger. Kinda ruined my day- maybe I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[edit on Mon Oct 12th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

Wow, S&F for you. I agree with your post, watch the Trade Center an watch this? It's almost chilling to how similar they are.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Chance321]

Thanks for posting these videos.

One difference that I noticed particularly in the first video was the behavior of the upper section of the first building, which stayed intact and acted as the crusher of each floor beneath it, all the way down. That didn't happen on 9/11. Personally, I don't think this technique would work on the WTC, even if it were to be tried in a legal demolition.

In my view, the buildings are too high for that style of demolition. Because inevitable asymetries would start to occur as each floor collapsed, I don't think a complete "to the ground" collapse would be achievable using the technique in the videos.

In addition I don't think the buildings in your video had a central core and in the case of the second video, I don't think that the building was a steel framed building.

Also you said a hydraulic system. Like the op said, add a core than watch the 9/11 videos again and notice the buildings just free falling the top portions. That's not like a pancake they start leaning. Also they fall too fast to be a pancake collapse,just over free fall speed. Impossible without some kind of demo tech which further supports the theory. Add to that, no other skyscraper has completely collapsed due to fire until 9/11 when three did one of which has been admited to be "pulled". No offense but how much research have you done?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Interesting Videos.
Just a few questions.
In the first video, there is no trail of squib like explosions visible preceding the top down collapse in Video 1. There are multiple video images showing these in the 9/11 videos etc. I understand that the argument is that it is shock waves or pressure, so- should these not be visible in these collapse too, even though no explosives were used in these videos.

In the second video. It is a partial collapse, due to a specific weakening of a section.

Anyone can take from these that there is now another method of collapsing the two towers. Hydraulic weakening of specific section of the towers to create a top down collapse.

Has there ever been a universal top down collapse inspired by structural weaken due to fire? As opposed to a deliberate and intentional collapse due to hydraulic pressure or weakening of sections?

I ask this because there were 3 universal top down collapses on 9/11.
Given this rate of collapse on just one day, caused by Fire, we should be seeing others, should we not?

[edit on 12/10/09 by atlasastro]

reply to post by TrueAmerican

This post may ruin your day. Were the buildings in the above videos steel-structure constructions? I don't think so. Makes a huge difference.

"... Some people still try to make the incorrect case that there was only a relatively weak hollow core structure, or that it had concrete columns, or none at all. Here is a diagram showing what they wanted us to believe about the structure: ... (see link).
The towers had a strong core structure and perimeter columns all around the outside. The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.

Source: 911physicstruth.wetpaint.com...

[edit on 12-10-2009 by DeepSea]

WTC1 & WTC2 steel-structure:





[edit on 12-10-2009 by DeepSea]

Originally posted by mkross1983
No offense but how much research have you done?

Enough to find these buried on YouTube somewhere. You need to re read my Op very carefully. Thanks.

The South Tower Tilt was when the top part of the Tower came apart from the lower part, yet the collapse kept proceeding and the part that came apart didn't fall as a whole piece but exploded in air on the way down. That is very, very different.

The actual damage inflicted by the planes didn't collapse the buildings, according to the official story it is damage plus fire over time. The problem is that structural steel is too strong for an office fire to weaken as such.

The other issue here is that the Towers were designed for the impact of a plane travelling at 600 mph, with a very similar size and fuel load.





[edit on 12-10-2009 by talisman]

I'm not intending to derail the thread. I'm glad the OP posted his video finds, as I said above. But on the subject of demolitions and hydrolics, I thought some might not have seen this technique being carried out in Japan.

You might call it "Dealing From the Bottom of the Deck".



On the main topic, I'm sure the OP realizes, but some may not, that critics of the pancake collapse theory are not saying that such collapses are not possible. They are possible. There are photos on the web from different collapses where it is obvious a pancake collapse occured. The stack of pancakes is right there in front of you.

We just think that the WTC was not an example of a pancake collapse.

You are showing us deliberate demolitions. The buildings shown in this thread have been rigged to fall down. The question is would they have fallen so symmetrically if they were hit by planes?

Probably not one would think.

Great videos showing that all that was needed for the towers to come down was one floor being blown. So much for the "the entire building would have to have been rigged" arguement then.

Also, as stated previously, these were not steel structures. Steel tends to bend before it snaps. Causing assymetry.

So what happened to tower 7?

reply to post by Dermo


According to NIST it was fire that brought down WTC 7....





Fire my arse

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Solomons]

"These videos basically show that a top down pancake type collapse is possible, and can be initiated through failing floors. It is an actual technique used in France, as these videos will show, using a hydraulic system to collapse as little as one floor. And you will be surprised at the similarities to the WTC collapses."


Yes A technique of a "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION" in France
Thank you

Nope, didn't ruin my day.

Please try agian.

Originally posted by blankduck18
Yes A technique of a "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION" in France
Thank you

what's your point? Did you read the OP?
Your welcome

Great videos btw. I can see how the planes carved out the areas needed to initiate such a collapse. The core column iss is still there followed by the asymmetry point, but the weight of the top is extraordinarily more than these videos have so alot of the debunking that's tried without any science to back it up is speculation.

Just like it's been in most of these threads anyhow.

I'm on the "truther" side of things, but these videos definitely throw a wrench in mix which I have to thank you from the side of neutrality also. Being a "truther" means finding the truth. no matter where it may be.

To me, these videos show that this technique was used with the help of a lot less explosives than previously needed for a full demolition. Probably a 100th less explosives needed than before. (purely speculation)

b

(sorry to Bspiracy above, you posted just before I did)
Folks, nobody is looking at the big picture here.

IF (a BIG if) in fact this did happen at WTC, it solves many problems and further contributes to the ease at which a covert operation could have been carried out.

The biggest problem is the time it would have taken to place that many explosives without anyone noticing.
THIS TECHNIQUE solves that problem, don't you folks get it?

We all know the architects had built such precautions into the design of the towers in case the towers were hit, just like the empire state building was before in the 1940's.

We also all know that Mossad agents were in the towers the day before as "art students" with construction permits working on abandoned floors in the towers and the office workers could hear large machinery being moved above them the day before the collapse.

If that is new to you, then read this thread:
14 Art Students with Construction Passes were in WTC before attacks

So do you now see how easy it would have been to carry out this operation?
My god, it all makes sense.

But remember: you can't just stop at the mossad agents because *somebody* authorized them to be there and pushed for this initiative. For all we know, these mossad/art students could have been planted there to deflect the true origins of the initiative.

Therefore, we now need to be probing deeply into those behind authorizing those construction permits.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by SpookHunter]

reply to post by Bspiracy

Then maybe take another look at the explosive destruction of the north tower on 9/11.

reply to post by OmegaPoint



Good point. I forgot to mention the explosive nature of the collapse, that there isn't anything driving the collapse downward, but something is driving it "outward."