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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 27
160
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat



You seem to forget that in those buildings all the windows, interior walls, carpet, furnishings, doors etc have been removed, whereas in the WTC buildings, nothing had been removed.....big difference in sound levels.


Question is, why are buildings pre-weakened before before demolition charges are detonated? A steel frame building will not collapse if not properly pre-weakened, and the 1993 WTC 1 bombing is a case in point.

Take a look at this building where a huge explosion failed to bring it down.

Explosions Fails to Bring Down Building

The cause of the explosion? Molten aluminum coming in contact with water. Was there water in the WTC buildings? Yes! Was there molten aluminum present in the WTC buildings? Yes!



Since it has been established that molten aluminum was present, any contact with water will cause explosions. That is another reason why I have stated for the record that the sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible.
edit on 11-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

And all 3 towers were weakened by their basements taken out by explosives first. All witness testimonies dtailed explosions in the basements of all 3 towers.

I will quote you:




Question is, why are buildings pre-weakened before before demolition charges are detonated? A steel frame building will not collapse if not properly pre-weakened


Exactly true! And the towers were pre-weakened for collapse!

Thanks for pointing out the obvious!



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Nova937



And all 3 towers were weakened by their basements taken out by explosives first.


That is obviously false considering that it was determined that falling elevators and jet fuel were responsible for what was experienced and explosives had nothing to do with it.

Now, let's take a look at the results of a bomb that was planted and detonated beneath WTC 1 in 1993, and explain to us why WTC 1 remained standing.

Huge Bomb Fails to Bring Down WTC 1 in 1993


...were responsible for the d All witness testimonies dtailed explosions in the basements of all 3 towers.


No one heard explosions in the lobby that were attributed to explosives. Check it out since you missed it before.



The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




An obvious rectangular area of windows is blown out just as the collapse starts. While many blown windows are explained by the bellowing of air escaping outwards as ceiling crash down onto floors, this clearly synchronized event suggests explosives being used to cut not only the load bearing members but to sever the lateral supports as well, causing the ends of the buildings to collapse in towards the center, minimizing damage to adjacent buildings.






NIST pseudo science is a gross incompetents to say these lease. WTC 7 fell 2 seconds faster than free fall meaning there was high constants of energy to blast every single floor and supporting structure simultaneously, instantly through out the entire building. No office fires on a few floors can logically or scientifically can cause a collapse to fall at record breaking speed. NIST fail miserably to explain the 2 second record breaking speed in their report. Architectures & Engineers force NIST to make the correct corrections in the NIST final report. Now with this fact the NIST Report cannot stand up to real science.

NIST Report was based on lies, to pull the wool over everyone eye's and government report was created to "try" to cover up demolition of WTC 7. This is not the first time our government has doctor their reports to hide their crimes.

Any 6th graders watching these videos can see WTC 7 was a classic demolition. OS supporters attempt to do damage control to support the OS narrative want us to believe are eye's are lying to us by watching a real classic demolition.

We are not that gullible and are not going to fall for their fallacies.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of any Internet forum.


Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt the forum readers, they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.


One operational mode I noticed, is new members analyzing a forum's staff, see if there's a strong presence of for example (ex)LEO's, (ex)Military, (ex) Civil Servants, strongly Left or Right biased mods, etcetera.
Then start "hugging" those sections with their former records within one or even more of these "establishment communities", to create bonding with like minded souls. That will give them a favorable position within the forum community and will exempt them from dangerous warnings and punishments.
The extravagant behavior of ATS member "Reheat", besides his obvious aerial expertise was a prime example. He deliberately used clear misinformation in his signature link, with his bank angles starting far in the 70 degrees and going even higher, while all NoC flightpath witnesses showed a standard bank angle of 30 to 35 degrees for the plane they saw flying NoC.
I showed him that was perfectly possible, you just had to accept that the airspeed was a lot slower for that NoC flying plane. Just as most NoC witnesses clearly indicated.
And there's a new forum star born every few months, utilizing the same still functioning techniques from that above link.

Too many pages in this thread are a perfect example of this technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'.
By all posters. Simply avoid answering these trivial posts, then it has to quickly die, or it becomes too obvious what the real objective is. Posters are suspiciously far too long stretching out a totally uninteresting topic, for which no one will ever be capable to give conclusive evidence.
It looks more like a pissing contest between juveniles, then any form of serious debate about serious subjects.

I think too many posters underestimate the IQ rating of the average ATS reader.
They obviously know its crap, when they see endless crap being posted, that has nothing to do with the thread subject. The board's star system in this case is indicative evidence enough for such clear understanding of what's going on.

edit on 11/8/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

s1.zetaboards.com...

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


You are correct, I see this behavior in this thread. And that is why I step in. The fallacies are disturbing to say the lease.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Let's see if we can still get a decent discussion going in this forum.

Perimeter Wall Collapse Model

There's a curious model rule attached to this theory of Major Tom and friends. First observe some facts they found.
(MER = mechanical equipment rooms. ROOSD = Runaway Open Office Space flooring Destruction ) :
I hope it will stop the endless stream of "time-traveler" posts about that long forgotten by anyone, but them, pancaking floors theory.


Stiff vs flexible:
Each wall is stiffened by the corners and the MER panels. Even during and after collapse, MER panels and corners remained stiff while the large sheets of standard panels were flexible and bendable along spandrels plates."" --snip--

Uneven ROOSD as reality:
The simple truth is that we have witnessed 2 twin skyscrapers collapse and both did so through uneven ROOSD.
We have never seen a case of even ROOSD. As far as we know it can't happen.
The principle of uneven ROOSD is simplified below but there is no organized, stacked "pancaking". There is shattering and total disfiguration of OOS flooring, always unevenly according to the pattern shown :
( femr2.ucoz.com... )



It doesn't matter whether WTC1 or 2, the same uneven progression applies. OOS long span trusses are destroyed with a 10 to 20 story differential between leading region and lagging region.
The sides with short span trusses (WTC1 east and west faces, WTC2 north and south faces) are always stripped from the building unevenly creating a twisting motion in the sheets being shed. --snip--

If the towers were constructed 1000 stories tall and the same 12 story section as in the case of WTC1 starts to fall, it could destroy the whole building.
According to ROOSD, if the tower was 10,000 stories tall and of the same design, the top 12 stories could "crush" the 9,988 stories below.
Also, amazingly, bulky debris within the perimeter would stay confined to the tube while perimeter sheets opened outward and broke off at the base like petals of a tulip.
The ROOSD paradox is that the height of the building does not matter. This is why 12 stories of WTC1 could "crush" the lower 98. The same 12 stories could have "crushed" 198 stories had the earth not stopped the process. There is no paradox, obviously, but it is for those who see the buildings as "blocks" or a great buckling accordion.

It also shows how easy it is for a demo team to use the ROOSD process. They really do not care how high they are in the building, the higher the better.

Fundamental conditions for ROOSD :
The most fundamental number relation for ROOSD is that...
Floor connection strength...... is much, much less than........ column buckling strength.
This is why ROOSD erosion can strip wall and core. They never compete because ROOSD stripping never threatens the column strength.


And then their conclusion, the same as I and many with me, have pointed out for so many years already :


Observation of core and perimeter columns within the rubble

The overwhelming majority of core and perimeter columns within the rubble were were seen to be relatively straight, showing no evidence whatsoever of having been buckled. The almost complete absence of buckled columns is a vital clue to the true collapse progression mechanism, though the NIST seems oblivious to this fact, not having mentioned it once in in it's reports on the collapses. Dr Bazant, to whose expertise the NIST refers concerning WTC1 collapse propagation, seems equally oblivious to the actual condition of these columns since no mention of this fact appears of his papers on the subject of collapse propagation (Bazant and Verdure or Bazant and Le). Dr Bazant formulates equations to describe the rate of collapse propagation based on continuous column buckling and rebuckling in Bazant and Verdure, even though there is a clear absence of buckled columns within the rubble.

The true conditions of core and perimeter columns as they were positioned in the rubble can be seen by using the largest photo collection of the original layout of the rubble publicly available. Debris photos are grouped by region to allow the reader to get a sense of the rubble layout in each region without being overwhelmed or disorientated.


RUBBLE LAYOUT

As shown in Appendix B, the debris for each building was found within and near the footprints and was pushed, or fanned outwards from the 4 exterior walls.

If we ignore WTC7 and consider only debris from WTC1 and 2, all debris exists in 8 natural regions as shown below.



Southward from WTC1 and westward from WTC2 share a region (we'll call it "southwest complex") and eastward from WTC1 and northward from WTC2 share a region (the plaza area). Hence 8 natural regions total.


I took the liberty to stretch the last picture a tad bit, to show the real form of both Twin Towers, which were square with all 4 sides having identical lengths of 209 feet, and not rectangular as wrongfully pictured by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

The ones I post this amazing stuff for, from that superb Major Tom's site, will be eager to read the full article and then view all the other explanatory drawings, pictures and animated GIFs.

Let's concentrate on many more of his site's articles, as I said before, it's a goldmine, a treasure trove for hardcore 9/11 OS doubters AND trusters.

edit on 11/8/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

I would like to add, there is no concrete in the rubble. If the WTC 7 just fell at it's least resistance, we would see tons of broken slabs in the rubble. There is none.

Only one thing can cause concrete to break up to dust and that is a significant amount of energy. And not the kind of energy from a building just falling down from a few office fires.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


From your reference.



The overwhelming majority of core and perimeter columns within the rubble were were seen to be relatively straight, showing no evidence whatsoever of having been buckled. The almost complete absence of buckled columns is a vital clue to the true collapse progression mechanism, though the NIST seems oblivious to this fact, not having mentioned it once in in it's reports on the collapses.


Now, let's take a look here.



WTC 7 Collapse

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it.

With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.

WTC Facade



Buckling of WTC 7 also reminded me of the other WTC buildings.



NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

www.bloomberg.com...


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

www.representativepress.org...


The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

www.representativepress.org...




edit on 11-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


The only reason those facts and evidence .....as you put it, are still standing after 14 years is because there hasn`t been another investigation into 9/11 so we are stuck with an official theory that just doesn`t hold up.

Your whole argument is based on the official theory and it`s not really getting you anywhere in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
WTC Progressive Floor Collapse Model

Now, that's real 9/11 SCIENCE, not some stale truster sites.

It's loaded with pictures, drawings and explanatory text. HAVE A GO with it.
Eternal thanks to Major Tom and femr2 and his other members. He should re-open his forum...now, for the necessary feed back of newly discovered facts.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I do not know where you got this photo?

WTC Facade

It could be from WTC 1, or 2 please show your sources.

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

Propaganda News to support the OS narrative, I love how some people search the internet to find News stories with no scientific evidence to support one claim.


Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.


Cherry picking snippets.

Even if there was some sagging WTC 7 the concrete would not have been blasted into dust. A few office fires cannot do this.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: lambros56



The only reason those facts and evidence .....as you put it, are still standing after 14 years is because there hasn`t been another investigation into 9/11 so we are stuck with an official theory that just doesn`t hold up.


There is no need for another investigation because it is very clear in the videos, on audio and in the seismic data that explosives and thermite were not responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings. Explosives make a lot of noise yet there are no sound of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. By that fact alone, we can dismiss explosives.

Planting explosives inside a steel frame building is not going to do anything except blow out windows and walls, which was evident in Iraq where some buildings were struck multiple times by JDAM bombs and cruise missiles yet remained standing as was the case with WTC 1 in 1993 where its steel columns were left sitting within that huge bomb crater.



Your whole argument is based on the official theory and it`s not really getting you anywhere in my opinion.


My argument is based on my own experience and knowledge. My 46 years experience as a pilot is how I determined that "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" was posting disinformation and lies, and as a result, I confronted the founder of that website, Rob Balsamo in another forum. Conspiracy theorist were using his website as a reference in their arguments against me.

I don't have to rely on NIST to know what happened, because I knew that ordinary office fires can generate temperatures high enough to weaken steel to the point of failure. These photos will underline what I mean.

Photo of Steel Beams that Failed in a Fire

Photo of Twisted Steel Beam

The fact that structural steel cannot withstand a typical office fire is why they are encased in either concrete or have fire protection added to protect them from high temperatures.
edit on 11-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


There is no need for another investigation because it is very clear in the videos, on audio and in the seismic data that explosives and thermite were not responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings. Explosives make a lot of noise yet there are no sound of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. By that fact alone, we can dismiss explosives.


We all know that there was a major cover up in the investigations into 911, & WTC 7. NIST was used in that cover-up to create pseudo report that does not stand up to real science. Anyone reading the NIST report and support it's contents needs to have their heads examine. It defies real science and physic.


Planting explosives inside a steel frame building is not going to do anything except blow out windows and walls, which was evident in Iraq where some buildings were struck multiple times by JDAM bombs and cruise missiles yet remained standing as was the case with WTC 1 in 1993 where its steel columns were left sitting within that huge bomb crater.


So now you are a demolition expert? Bombs dropping in Iraq has nothing to do with WTC 7 demolition.


My argument is based on my own experience and knowledge. My 46 years experience as a pilot is how I determined that "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" was posting disinformation and lies, and as a result, I confronted the founder of that website, Rob Balsamo in another forum. Conspiracy theorist were using his website as a reference in their arguments against me


Pilots for 911 truth has nothing to do with WTC 7 stop moving the goal post, and stick with the topic ( WTC 7 )


I don't have to rely on NIST to know what happened, because I knew that ordinary office fires can generate temperatures high enough to weaken steel to the point of failure. These photos will underline what I mean.


Now your an expert in Architects and Engineers? Your "opinions" are not the facts here.


The fact that structural steel cannot withstand a typical office fire is why they are encased in either concrete or have fire protection added to protect them from high temperatures.


The problem with your theory is there is firer proofing on the steel then how could it burn? Your theory does not stand up to any known science in world history.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



We all know that there was a major cover up in the investigations into 911, & WTC 7. NIST was used in that cover-up to create pseudo report that does not stand up to real science. Anyone reading the NIST report and support it's contents needs to have their heads examine. It defies real science and physic.


We all know that you are not telling the truth, given the fact that after 14 years, there is still no proof of a government inside job, which means you made that up.



So now you are a demolition expert? Bombs dropping in Iraq has nothing to do with WTC 7 demolition.


In fact, it proves that no explosives were used in WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.



Now your an expert in Architects and Engineers? Your "opinions" are not the facts here.


Aircraft structures following the same principals. Just thought that you would like to have known that.



The problem with your theory is there is firer proofing on the steel then how could it burn?


Who said anything about burning steel? Fire protection is used to protect steel structures from the weakening effects of fire. Case in point in the following photos

What Fire Can Do To Steel 1

What Fire Can Do To Steel 2

What Fire Can Do To Steel 3



Your theory does not stand up to any known science in world history


Considering that you actually confused burning steel vs. the weakening effects of fire points out the fact that you haven't a clue as to what is going on.

BTW, were you aware that stored iron can generate temperatures high enough to start fires?
edit on 11-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Even if there was some sagging WTC 7 ...


Which is proof that fire was slowly weakening the steel structure.


...the concrete would not have been blasted into dust.


What do you think is pulverizing concrete into dust in this video?




edit on 11-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


We all know that you are not telling the truth, given the fact that after 14 years, there is still no proof of a government inside job, which means you made that up.


Calling me a lair is not helping your cause . Care to demonstrate where I have told lies? I didn't think so.


So now you are a demolition expert? Bombs dropping in Iraq has nothing to do with WTC 7 demolition.



In fact, it proves that no explosives were used in WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.


No it does not. You being in Iraq dropping bombs proves nothing, now your being silly.


Now your an expert in Architects and Engineers? Your "opinions" are not the facts here



Aircraft structures following the same principals. Just thought that you would like to have known that.


No it does not. Anyone who thinks that needs their head examined.


The problem with your theory is there is firer proofing on the steel then how could it burn?



Who said anything about burning steel? Fire protection is used to protect steel structures from the weakening effects of fire. Case in point in the following photos


You did. How can fire proofing steel melt in a few hours. The point I am trying to make to you is, why bother coating the steel with fire proofing if it doesn't work. You cannot have it both ways.


Your theory does not stand up to any known science in world history



Considering that you actually confused burning steel vs. the weakening effects of fire points out the fact that you haven't a clue as to what is going on.


Your moving the goal post again. How is my alleged of being confuse about burning steel vs. the weakening effects stand up to your answer that your OS narratives do not stand up to any known science?


BTW, were you aware that stored iron can generate temperatures high enough to start fires?


I am aware of that. However you are trying to push the OS narrative of the WTC 7 steel being weaken by simple office fires and that just can not happened this defies simple logic and physic. No airplane hit WTC 7. furthermore many OS supporters are claiming that WTC 1 & 2 fell on Tower 7. I have not seen any evidence to support that fallacy. Yes I have seen some photos on the internet claiming there was a big gash on one side of WTC 7. However after I examined these photos all I could see was a shadow hidden by smoke. There were no clear images to support such claims.



edit on 11-8-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: lambros56



Your whole argument is based on the official theory and it`s not really getting you anywhere in my opinion.


It is based on what I know about the affect of high temperature on metals. Ever wondered why the SR-71 cannot hold fuel while sitting on the ground? What are expansion joints? Why do they apply fire protection on steel structures of buildings?

Now, let's take a look at these buckled railroad tracks that was caused by high temperatures.

Heat Buckles Railroad Tracks
edit on 11-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Calling me a lair is not helping your cause


I said that you made it up.



No it does not.


I am correct and 14 years and no evidence of explosives nor planted thermite proves my case.



You did.



No I didn't and to prove my case that you made that up as well, try to find where I said such a thing and repost it for all to see.



How can fire proofing steel melt in a few hour.


Fire didn't melt fire protection, the impacts dislodged fire protection from the steel columns. We can also take a look here.


FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS

APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES

Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations.

Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

However, the nature of the structures that were fireproofed and application methods used could also contribute to the problem. Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered.

This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing. These are deficiencies that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM field quality assurance tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density had these test methods existed at the time of construction.

LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly. Would the material remain on the steel (adhesion), resist physical damage (cohesion), insulate properly (thickness and density), and behave as a fire retardant? Architects relied on the "testing" undertaken by Underwriters Laboratories. However, without field quality assurance tests, there was no way of knowing if the properties of the applied fireproofing matched those of the material subjected to the UL test.

The previously discussed tests would not become available until years after the completion of the WTC. For example, the ASTM test for adhesion would have detected the bonding defects of the fireproofing on core columns. This test and the ASTM test for thickness and density would have determined the adequacy of the spray fireproofing on the floor joists.

The WTC should not be considered unique in this regard. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

WTC Structure: Poorly Applied Fire Protection 1

WTC Structure: Poorly Applied Fire Protection: 2



edit on 11-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Which is proof that fire was slowly weakening the steel structure.


No it is not, that is your "opinion" and you have no science to support such nonsense.


What do you think is pulverizing concrete into dust in this video?




The video you display here is not WTC 7 this demolition is not the same that was used to bring down WTC 7.

Again you are comparing apples & orange and calling it the same.



new topics




 
160
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join