Video of demolition looks eerily like 9/11

[BoneZ]

here's video of the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth, Texas that was imploded today. looks eerily like 9/11 after the towers fell with all the smoke and dust:

http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.html

and here's many pictures of the demolition:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1171&st=250

[Gold9472]

Holy shit... that is eery.

[Partridge]

That one tilts. And I see only two people in the video had the sense to wear dust masks. After all the 9/11 health problems, shouldn't they be mandatory at controlled demos?

[Gold9472]

Did you notice the pyroclastic cloud?

[aceace]

Did you notice the pyroclastic cloud?The cattle won't know what you are talking about. Remember 911 was caveboys from M.E.:headsmash

[BoneZ]

That one tilts. And I see only two people in the video had the sense to wear dust masks. After all the 9/11 health problems, shouldn't they be mandatory at controlled demos?
they had to tilt it to keep it from damaging other nearby buildings. the point of the video is to look at the pyroclastic cloud. or basically all the smoke and dust flowing through the streets. looks identical to the implosion of the 3 WTC towers.

[ZachM]

I saw this collapse on several videos, but didn't realize this video was so recent. I discussed this implosion with someone in another forum, and he saw the bright flashes as evidence that this is not the same thing that happened to the WTC.

[911TRUTH]

There was clearly different method used to bring down the towers, if explosives were used. From what I've read the main support of towers 1&2 were in the steel columns in the center of the structure. Trusses connected those with the exterior columns, which were only secondary supports. This means that the explosives would have been placed in the core of the building, possibily hiding the flashes.

As for the external downward wave of explosions - this could have been additional explosives placed to make it seem more like a total collapse.

Any Opinions?

[BoneZ]

There was clearly different method used to bring down the towers, if explosives were used. From what I've read the main support of towers 1&2 were in the steel columns in the center of the structure. Trusses connected those with the exterior columns, which were only secondary supports. This means that the explosives would have been placed in the core of the building, possibily hiding the flashes.

As for the external downward wave of explosions - this could have been additional explosives placed to make it seem more like a total collapse.

Any Opinions?
there are reports of the flashes being seen by witnesses and fire personnel. if you've seen the video 9/11 Eyewitness, you can hear the explosions going off in the towers and see smoke rising from the bases of the towers, indicating explosions going off in the basements to weaken the central support columns. furthermore, when the towers are collapsing, you can see detonation squibs shooting out of the sides of the towers. these squibs are further evidence that the support columns are being severed with explosives.

as for the difference between a known implosion and the wtc implosion, the perpetrators of 9/11 were trying to simulate the towers' collapse from the impact point of the jets. that's why we see the tops of the towers explode and start falling first, then the total collapse of the towers follows. if you haven't seen this video yet, this is a great video about the explosions going off in the towers:

www.911revisited.com/video.html (http://www.911revisited.com/video.html)

here's a little collage i made of the detonation squibs. the picture at top left is a known implosion of 2 towers from implosionworld.com that are pretty identical to the trade towers when they fall:


http://usera.imagecave.com/BoneZ/911-2.jpg

[911TRUTH]

Much respect brother, but yea, I've seen just about every video and read the Scholars for 911 Truth hypothesis. The best video for this issue seems to be "9/11 Eyewitnesses" in conjunction with some of the more close up views. I still believe the controlled demolition in towers 1 and 2 were exceptionally strange. In the video above, the explosions were very sudden - and then collapse. Pretty straight forward. As seen in 9/11 Eyewitnesses, there were several explosions (i think 8 in total) far before the explosion that was immediately followed by collapse. Also, the videos make it seem like the detonations are going off while the towers are collapsing. Typically in controlled demolitions, the collapse is after all of the detonations have gone off. But again, there must have been some type of complex system set up.

Then theres the dramatic nature of the explosions. A normal demolition, as shown above, is virtually clear of smoke until it completely collapses. This is why I say that there must have been a secondary external explosion system or, the explosives in the core would have to be much stronger than ususal to cause that kind of cloud on collapse.

Theres no doubt in my mind that explosives must have been used, with proof being in the unexplained total destruction of the central columns, the free-fall decent, plus the molten steel beneath the rubble. If a building simply had a structural collapse due to fire and relatively minor damage...obviously it would be much more gradual and would not have been so symmetrical. So I'm with you, but there's some issues here.

**Another point about the flashes - in the detonation video above, the building is completely gutted, so the flashes would be seen much more easily seen. I realize that many saw flashes, but there are none that are exceptionally clear on video, espcially WTC7**

Opinions welcome - I realize this is nitpicking, but it is something that will come up if this surfaces to public debate.

[BoneZ]

As seen in 9/11 Eyewitnesses, there were several explosions (i think 8 in total) far before the explosion that was immediately followed by collapse. Also, the videos make it seem like the detonations are going off while the towers are collapsing.
the perpetrators of 9/11 were trying to make the public think that the buildings fell from the jet impacts and subsequent fires. of course the buildings were laced with explosives from top to bottom. that being said, the perps could simulate the collapse at impact point no matter where the jets impacted. i assume that the perps didn't want to set off the explosives all at once, so they blew core colums in the basements every now and then over a period of time. and because the perps wanted to simulate the buildings collapse from top to bottom, the explosives had to be set off as the building was collapsing. building 7 was different, however. it was a standard implosion.


Another point about the flashes - in the detonation video above, the building is completely gutted, so the flashes would be seen much more easily seen. I realize that many saw flashes, but there are none that are exceptionally clear on video, espcially WTC7
i guess it would have to do with the type of explosives used, and where they were placed in the buildings that would indicate whether we could see flashes or not. have you went to implosionworld.com and watched the implosion videos? you can't always see the flashes. seeing flashes has nothing to do with whether explosives were used or not. just the detonation squibs and free-fall time alone are sufficient enough. on top of all the witnesses to hearing and seeing explosions before collapse. and then the 9/11 Eyewitness video where you can hear the explosions and see the smoke rising from the bases of the towers.

[beltman713]

Seems like I posted this story last week, nobody was interested then...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9075

This video is better though.

[Gold9472]

Seems like I posted this story last week, nobody was interested then...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9075

This video is better though.

Not interested. :)

[911TRUTH]

Bonez - I completely agree...that would have to be the case.

One thing I have been thinking about though...where are the eye witness reports of wtc 7 collapsing? I know there has been video evidence of an explosion before collapse but I would love to hear some eyewitnesses of wtc 7 going down..

[BoneZ]

One thing I have been thinking about though...where are the eye witness reports of wtc 7 collapsing? I know there has been video evidence of an explosion before collapse but I would love to hear some eyewitnesses of wtc 7 going down..
the only witnesses i know of are the news reporters that reported about building 7 collapsing like Dan Rather, and then videos of firemen watching the building fall.

as far as civillians, there probably weren't any around that late in the day. i don't know of any documented eyewitness civillian accounts of building 7 collapsing.

[beltman713]

Steven E. Jones had a video that showed explosions taking place in building 7. Remember if you watched the video of his presentation, he showed where explosions took place in the building right before it collapsed.

[beltman713]

Go here the see the video and some stills from the video that clearly shows puffs of smoke coming out of the building right before the building starts to fall, and also as it is falling.

Go here (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm)

[beltman713]

The charges go off from the bottom up, just like that demolition video at the top of this thread.

[alexands]

This implosion is fundementally differnt than WTC. This building implodes from the ground up, WTC imploded from the top down. I'm no expert, but I haven't seen other demolitions where the top floors fell first. It always seems to me the legs are knocked out from the building and the rest just falls on top it. This was not the case for WTC. If you have any links to videos where a building is destroyed from the top down please post them.

Thanks

[911TRUTH]

Hey, we were actually just talking about this in this thread...read from the beginning...if still confused, we'd be happy to answer any questions, or at least direct you to the right place..

[BoneZ]

This implosion is fundementally differnt than WTC. This building implodes from the ground up, WTC imploded from the top down. I'm no expert, but I haven't seen other demolitions where the top floors fell first. It always seems to me the legs are knocked out from the building and the rest just falls on top it. This was not the case for WTC. If you have any links to videos where a building is destroyed from the top down please post them.

Thanks
if you read this thread from the very beginning, my first post says that this looks like 9/11 as far as the pyroclastic cloud (smoke and dust) is concerned only. WTC imploded from the top down to simulate the buildings' collapse due to impact and fires. i don't know of any links to videos of a building being destroyed from the top down except for WTC1 and 2.

[Gold9472]

if you read this thread from the very beginning, my first post says that this looks like 9/11 as far as the pyroclastic cloud (smoke and dust) is concerned only. WTC imploded from the top down to simulate the buildings' collapse due to impact and fires. i don't know of any links to videos of a building being destroyed from the top down except for WTC1 and 2.

Actually, it was ME who said the pyrojiggawhatsis first...

"Did you notice the pyroclastic cloud?"

And this isn't even MY thing... :)

[alexands]

if you read this thread from the very beginning, my first post says that this looks like 9/11 as far as the pyroclastic cloud (smoke and dust) is concerned only. WTC imploded from the top down to simulate the buildings' collapse due to impact and fires. i don't know of any links to videos of a building being destroyed from the top down except for WTC1 and 2.

You mention smoke and dust in your first post with no reference to pyroclastic cloud. Maybe that was what you MEANT, but not what you wrote. Someone else mentioned the pyroclastic clound. The way I read your post is the implosion looks like WTC, which it does not.

I have another question regarding the explosions. Many people have made reference to how well the building came down, just like it was planned. No other buildings were destroyed. A demolition team couldn't have done it any better. Does anyone think it was intentional not to harm the other buildings? If these were planned explosions then why would the perpetrators care that other buildings weren't damaged? It's not like they weren't already killing 3000 people on purpose. What's a few more?

[BoneZ]

Actually, it was ME who said the pyrojiggawhatsis first...

"Did you notice the pyroclastic cloud?"

And this isn't even MY thing...

You mention smoke and dust in your first post with no reference to pyroclastic cloud. Maybe that was what you MEANT, but not what you wrote. Someone else mentioned the pyroclastic clound. The way I read your post is the implosion looks like WTC, which it does not.
oops!!! :) maybe i should go back and read my OWN shit before i spew! lol


I have another question regarding the explosions. Many people have made reference to how well the building came down, just like it was planned. No other buildings were destroyed. A demolition team couldn't have done it any better. Does anyone think it was intentional not to harm the other buildings? If these were planned explosions then why would the perpetrators care that other buildings weren't damaged? It's not like they weren't already killing 3000 people on purpose. What's a few more?
i don't think the government wanted to pay to rebuild half of Manhatten due to sloppy building collapses.

[ZachM]

I just watched 911revisited again. It turns out that one of the reporters describes a "cascade of sparks and fire" in the first bulding to collapse. Perhaps flashes like those in the Landmark tower were seen after all.