Building demolished from the top down.

Infoexcavator

Critical Thinker
Infoexcavator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
480
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97f_1297190596

This clip has a building being demolished by collapsing a section of the building quite high up, I thought it was fascinating.

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this looks a lot like the WTC collapse and no explosives were needed. The debris flies quite far away, there is a big cloud of "pulverized concrete" and the top of the building chooses to fall through the building instead of the path of least resistance and it seems to collapse at near free fall speed!
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
but did you see the flashes from the nanothermate?
Click to expand...

Didn't you notice the jump cut just as the collapse starts? They edited out the part where the remote-controlled plane loaded with nanothermate crashed into the building.

Srsly though, it's interesting to see that only the near half of the building is weakened and as it falls the floors are neatly "wiped" off the remaining structure. (<edit> though on looking closer the far side of the building doesn't collapse entirely)
 
Last edited:
Infoexcavator said:
I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this looks a lot like the WTC collapse and no explosives were needed. The debris flies quite far away, there is a big cloud of "pulverized concrete" and the top of the building chooses to fall through the building instead of the path of least resistance and it seems to collapse at near free fall speed!
Click to expand...

Yes, there's a lot to be learned from this video, and none of it good for truthers. Firstly, we see that a smaller top block can easily crush a larger lower block right down to the ground without any explosives destroying the lower block; Anders Bjorkman therefore owes the demolition company a million dollars. Secondly, we see that the initiation zone was gutted before collapse initiation, so that the structure was on the verge of collapse before the final wall was removed; this would have been noticed by anyone working in this building. Thirdly, we see that, although the collapse is very clearly initiated right at the extreme edge of the building, nevertheless the top section still collapses more or less straight down, rotating only very slightly before the support on the opposite side gives way.

It's not strictly applicable to the details of the WTC collapses, because this structure was obviously concrete framed, but it demonstrates a great many things truthers claim are impossible. And since these claims are never based on the physical properties of steel rather than those of concrete - not in any quantitative way, anyway - this video invalidates all those claims quite comprehensively, if any further invalidation were needed.

Dave
 
Those demolition guys were standing awfully close to that thing! And that's crazy, it looked so incredibly similar to the WTC. I would guess that twoofers would say "It didn't demolish the whole thing! There was still a lot of it standing at the end!
 
I'm waiting for ergo to come and make his normal mistake about into and onto... or to try to show us the "footprint."

Though to be honest, it looks like it wasn't contained within the footprint, but it was inside the collapse zone. (as laid out by the fence surrounding the collapse zone.)
 
What Dave said.

Clearly, gravity alone is all that's needed for total collapse once you get one story to drop on another. Which is why it is hard to distinguish intentional demolitions from accidental ones when looking at collapse progression only.

If you want to prove that demolition was intentional, you must focus on the initiating event. Do you see someone pulling cables? Hear any high explosives cracking mightily loud? Notice bright flashes? Find any wires, detonators, fuses in the rubble? If your answer is "no" to all of these, you don't have a case for "intentional".
Were there any significant fires prior to collapse? Did you see any significant masses causing structural damage? Were there earthquakes or the like? If your answer is "yes" to any of these, you have a strong case for "accidental".

In the above video, we see cables pulling. I guess it was intenional.
In the case of WTC 1,2 and 7, I saw massive fires and massive structural damage prior to collapse. I conclude "accidental" (counting the plane crashes as "accidents", of course).
 
Infoexcavator said:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97f_1297190596

This clip has a building being demolished by collapsing a section of the building quite high up, I thought it was fascinating.

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this looks a lot like the WTC collapse and no explosives were needed. The debris flies quite far away, there is a big cloud of "pulverized concrete" and the top of the building chooses to fall through the building instead of the path of least resistance and it seems to collapse at near free fall speed!
Click to expand...


I see that only half the building was prepared for the demolition (window pillars only removed on the half that came down.)

Nice example of crush up crush down as well.
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
and how long before Major Tom makes jerky gifs and measures it as close top free fall?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but since we can't see what was happening internally with this building we can't say for certain it wasn't CD. We'll need Major Tom's grainy videos and femr's pixel measurements to confirm it for us. :rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's not strictly applicable to the details of the WTC collapses, because this structure was obviously concrete framed, but it demonstrates a great many things truthers claim are impossible. And since these claims are never based on the physical properties of steel rather than those of concrete - not in any quantitative way, anyway - this video invalidates all those claims quite comprehensively, if any further invalidation were needed.
Click to expand...

There are two issues with this that have been brought up before. One is the difference between a concrete and steel structure that you mention. There is no certainty that an all metal structure would behave the same way as reinforced concrete. The difference in structure once brought up has never been pursued by debunkers as it seems to demerit their position. Nevertheless whoever supports that demolitions like these apply to the WTC should then prove that reinforced concrete structures behave just like steel ones. This would actually lock them into a pro truther argument. That is that a well analyzed and applied (also patented) methodology can be easily reproduced by aircraft crashing into buildings.

For example in the video you present, three walls are taken out. Two prior to the collapse and one to start the collapse. In the WTC only the entry wall was very damaged, the exit side was partially damaged and the others were not damaged at all. It is quite different and quite random. So it would still be necessary to prove that they can create the necessary preconditions to support a collapse that looks just like the controlled demolition you propose.
 
Just by the comments on this thread i knew exactly what video this was. In fact i used this video to counter the "small part can't destroy the large part" argument. And the twofers argument against the Bazant crush up following crush down theory. This video certainly does not help truthers.
 
A W Smith said:
This video certainly does not help truthers.
Click to expand...

Actually it helps truthers greatly. It simplifies things considerably. No need for nanothermite or any of those crazy ideas. Actually it proves that a very small set of explosives is actually needed to collapse the structure.
 
Java Man said:
Actually it helps truthers greatly. It simplifies things considerably. No need for nanothermite or any of those crazy ideas. Actually it proves that a very small set of explosives is actually needed to collapse the structure.
Click to expand...
except for the fact that a steady smoke stream due to the fires and no sounds consistent with explosive CD show no evidence of CD explosives at all
 
Java Man said:
Actually it helps truthers greatly. It simplifies things considerably. No need for nanothermite or any of those crazy ideas. Actually it proves that a very small set of explosives is actually needed to collapse the structure.
Click to expand...

In my experience, truthers never pursue an opportunity to simplify their arguments.
 
Java Man said:
Actually it helps truthers greatly. It simplifies things considerably. No need for nanothermite or any of those crazy ideas. Actually it proves that a very small set of explosives is actually needed to collapse the structure.
Click to expand...

This is correct. It also demonstrates the lunacy of using supposed "squibs" sightings in the lower floors as evidence. Plus, it puts the initiating demolitions squarely in the collapse initiation zone. Which is where the steel that NIST did keep to analyze was gathered from.

If truthers really want to make an argument about demolitions in the impact/fire/collapse initiation zones, they're welcome to try. But the preponderance of the evidence is already known, and none of it that was gathered from that zone supports the idea of demolitions use.
 
Java Man said:
Actually it helps truthers greatly. It simplifies things considerably. No need for nanothermite or any of those crazy ideas. Actually it proves that a very small set of explosives is actually needed to collapse the structure.
Click to expand...


And that simplification ultimately leads to, "The amount of explosives needed was so small that actually no explosives at all were needed." Then Truthers can try to explain why inside job conspirators used entirely unnecessary explosives that had no detectable effect on the outcome.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
And that simplification ultimately leads to, "The amount of explosives needed was so small that actually no explosives at all were needed." Then Truthers can try to explain why inside job conspirators used entirely unnecessary explosives that had no detectable effect on the outcome.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Well we can break it into different scenarios. One is the minimal use of explosives. If it is known that only a few floors can initiate a collapse then maybe only one or two in ten need to be rigged. That way you get a nice failsafe setup that ensures collapse even if the airplanes hit the rigged floors. You can just start the collapse on the next upper set of rigged floors. Since those are not clearly visible from the outside it is easy to initiate without bringing undesired attention.

The other is the case in which no explosives are needed and the WTC actually falls on its own. Then all you have to do to conspire and make a huge profit from the insurance is to let it happen, minimize human casualties and cash in.

So either way the video does not exclude a conspiracy it actually facilitates the existence of one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom