• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Someone please explain to me how a slow-motion demolition is done

CHF

Illuminator
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
3,871
I keep hearing twoofers talk about these new kind of demolition jobs.

Now as far as I know, controlled demolitions normally involve months of prep work (in empty buildings) where charges are planted at key areas, especially on the lower floors. When detonated, these charges produce a rapid series of deafening bangs that are immediately followed by the collapse of the building.

Yet on 9/11 people heard explosions at the WTC and this, we are told, can only mean that demolition charges were going off....All over the place....For over an hour before the towers collapsed!

In other words, twoofers think they have uncovered a new kind of demolition that not even the folks in the demolition industry seem aware of.

I'm hoping that someone will be kind enough to explain how this method of demolition works, or at least how they think it works.

For example:

- Where were the charges planted? On every floor? Every 5 floors? Every 10?

- How was it decided which explosives were set off when? What's the point of setting off a charge on, say, the 37th floor well before the collapse? What exactly does this accomplish?

- How were all these bombs positioned just right so that detonating them didn't trigger the collapse too early or from the wrong spot? Seems like a rather pointlessly risky thing to do...

- What was the point of Willy Rod's basement bombs?

- How did all these bombs going off all over the place assist in a collapse that clearly starts at the impact zone?

- What kind of explosives were used? Why were they evidently so much quieter than, say, these ones? How did the explosives at the impact zone survive the fires?

Here's another puzzling notion: All those pre-collapse bombs were nothing compared to what was set off during the collapse itself. Apparently, once the collapse started the perps detonated enough explosives to blast the building into dust! :eek:

Isn't that overkill?
 
Last edited:
Now as far as I know, controlled demolitions normally involve months of prep work (in empty buildings)...
Not just empty buildings, but gutted buildings. There's quite a bit of time spent cleaning out the structure before they get around to planting the demolition charges.
 
If I was doing a slow motion demolition I'd probably capture it at about 100fps. That may seem extravagant but it's such a short period of time, why stick with a more typical 75fps?

-Gumboot
 
I just had a "journalist" inform me today that the "angled cuts" that were debunked so long ago are a "classic demolition technique". When I disagreed, he cited this material:

This excerpt is from the controlled demo of an Air Force Rocket Pad:

Controlled Demolition

Dismantling the massive MST and UT towers proved a manageable challenge for MARCOR. For the UTs, MARCOR recommended felling them in a procedure known as a "pullover," which MARCOR Senior Project Manager Mark Klotzbach described as an "impressive sight."

"We began by making angled cuts on each tower's front legs, which would permit the towers to buckle when the angled sections were pulled out using wire ropes," he explained.

After several hours of preparation, each tower was then toppled to the ground in a very controlled manner.

"Our demolition experts then used torches and well as several excavators equipped with shears and grapples to cut and pull free the structural members," Klotzbach added. The recovered steel was sized, stockpiled for loading and then transported to be recycled.

http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6479154.html

What he doesn't seem to get is that the "angled cuts" in both scenarios are just a bit different.
 
I keep hearing twoofers talk about these new kind of demolition jobs.

- What kind of explosives were used? Why were they evidently so much quieter than, say, these ones? How did the explosives at the impact zone survive the fires?

Here's another puzzling notion: All those pre-collapse bombs were nothing compared to what was set off during the collapse itself. Apparently, once the collapse started the perps detonated enough explosives to blast the building into dust! :eek:

Isn't that overkill?


The Landmark Tower demolition in your link was required the work of three different demolitions companies: D.H. Griffin of Texas, Midwest Wrecking of Texas, and Demolition Dynamics.

This article describes SOME of the preparation that went into it:

Brian Choate, owner of Midwest Wrecking Co. of Texas, said, "The Landmark Tower was the tallest building imploded in Texas, and the second tallest building ever imploded in the world."

The implosion was designed so that the building would fall into the two-level basement and into trenches dug on the north and west sides of the structure.

"The demolition of large buildings is a bit of a specialty market," Choate said. "Most of the work involved is typical demolitions work; however, blasters are needed to design the implosive layout."

Houston-based D.H. Griffin of Texas, Inc., was contracted for the pre-implosion preparation, including the required falsework. All structural supports, columns, clear stands, and transfer beams had to be isolated and it was necessary to avoid overloading any individual column to prevent tilting during implosion. False columns and wood cribbing were installed in the first floor of the two-level basement to improve structural integrity and direct the movement of the building because the existing columns were asymmetrical.

[...]


"Proper direction of energy is required to efficiently implode a building," explained Steve Pettigrew of Demolition Dynamics. "We try to do it with the minimum amount of explosive material required. Five days before the scheduled implosion, we did test shots with small explosive charges to judge the reaction of the structure. Test shot results don't alter the lay pattern of the explosives in the building, but rather are used to determine the proper ratio of explosive charge weight to the mass of the structural elements of the building. When doing test shots we want to undershoot the charge just so that we can see a crack in the structure. The cracks help us to determine the planes of weakness and create a plane of relief for proper rotation at the time of implosion."

The explosive charges used to bring down the Landmark Tower weighed only 364 pounds, consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative). The explosives were supplied by Buckley Powder Company.

To break structural steel, 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were required. Concrete columns were broken with the larger charges of RDX ranging from 2 ounces to 12 ounces at a density of 600 grains to 4,000 grains per lineal foot.

Three companies whose sole business is making structures fall down combined efforts and took months to prepare for demolishing a 30-story building.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that those guys didn't get their expertise from watching YouTube videos. Therefore, it's telling that what Pettigrew called "the minimum amount of explosive material required" turned out to be 364 armor-piercing charges. FOR A 30-STORY BUILDING. There are numerous videos of the Landmark implosion from different distances and angles, and in several of them you can easily discern that the pressure waves created by the charges was sufficient to set of car alarms in cars that were several blocks away, outside the cordoned-off area. UNFORTUNATELY I couldn't be there, but to me that smells like loud stuff.

Now why wouldn't these experts, who don't have to be secretive about anything, choose to use similar "technology" that was supposedly used to bring town the WTC towers? From what the truthy goofers teach us, a the WTC was wired in a weekend. Taking scale into account, I'd suppose they could have done the Landmark with 3 day laborers and been finished before lunchtime.
 
In other words, twoofers think they have uncovered a new kind of demolition that not even the folks in the demolition industry seem aware of.
one of the best truther quotes i can recall was someone trying to reconcile danny jowenko's statement that WTC1+2 were definately not CDs, he said jowenko was not an expert in the top-down style of demolition

naturally truthers apparently ARE experts in this style of demoliton, lol
 
one of the best truther quotes i can recall was someone trying to reconcile danny jowenko's statement that WTC1+2 were definately not CDs, he said jowenko was not an expert in the top-down style of demolition

Are you thinking of this idiot? (at the 1:10 mark)
 
Last edited:
I just had a "journalist" inform me today that the "angled cuts" that were debunked so long ago are a "classic demolition technique". When I disagreed, he cited this material:



What he doesn't seem to get is that the "angled cuts" in both scenarios are just a bit different.

What's clear from your quote, in fact, is that the angled cuts are a classic technique in demolitions that don't use explosives. Is your "journalist" claiming that the angled cuts show that the WTC towers were brought down by pulling away low-level sections with wire ropes? No, I didn't think so.

Dave
 
"Someone please explain to me how a slow-motion demolition is done"



.........O.....................K.................


Just.............A..............Min.............ute.........

........
 
Here's another puzzling notion: All those pre-collapse bombs were nothing compared to what was set off during the collapse itself. Apparently, once the collapse started the perps detonated enough explosives to blast the building into dust! :eek:

Isn't that overkill?
[/SIZE][/SIZE]


As a 'debunker', you are claiming that there were no explosives used, but also that lots of explosives must have been used to create the concrete pulverization...
Now, as we all know, the concrete was pulverized, as is perfectly evident.
So which is it? Was it pulverized with or without explosives?

If it was achieved without, why do you claim explosives were required?
 
As a 'debunker', you are claiming that there were no explosives used, but also that lots of explosives must have been used to create the concrete pulverization...
Now, as we all know, the concrete was pulverized, as is perfectly evident.
So which is it? Was it pulverized with or without explosives?

If it was achieved without, why do you claim explosives were required?

Again, sarcasm waisted on the troofers...

*siiiiiigh*
 
Three companies whose sole business is making structures fall down combined efforts and took months to prepare for demolishing a 30-story building...

... it's telling that what Pettigrew called "the minimum amount of explosive material required" turned out to be 364 armor-piercing charges. FOR A 30-STORY BUILDING.

According to the OT version of 9/11, all you have to do to demo a 110 storey building is take out a few columns of ONE STOREY near the top, and BINGO- it all falls down perfectly...
( And it wasn't a fluke because it happened again with the second tower...)

Sp why bother with MONTHS of prep. etc ?
 
The truth is that all demolitions are in slow motion. Its just that the NWO has sped them up on video and film tp appear to fall fast. Hypno-rays convince onlookers that the buildings fall an hour or so after the blasts.

The NWO is very talented.
 
According to the OT version of 9/11, all you have to do to demo a 110 storey building is take out a few columns of ONE STOREY near the top, and BINGO- it all falls down perfectly...
You have a strange definition of "perfectly." From the numerous times I've seen various videos of the collapse of the WTC twin towers, they most certainly did not fall down perfectly. The collapses were highly chaotic events with debris falling everywhere and covering a considerable area. How on earth does that rate as "it all falls down perfectly"?
 
According to the OT version of 9/11, all you have to do to demo a 110 storey building is take out a few columns of ONE STOREY near the top, and BINGO- it all falls down perfectly...
( And it wasn't a fluke because it happened again with the second tower...)

Sp why bother with MONTHS of prep. etc ?

Well according to the truth movement the building could not have fallen unless all floors were rigged.
 
According to the OT version of 9/11, all you have to do to demo a 110 storey building is take out a few columns of ONE STOREY near the top, and BINGO- it all falls down perfectly...
( And it wasn't a fluke because it happened again with the second tower...)

Sp why bother with MONTHS of prep. etc ?

Fall down PERFECTLY?!

ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg


BIG version: http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg
 

Back
Top Bottom