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: 50
160
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Do we really need to discuss the obvious use of explosives further?


There is no reason to discuss explosives at ground zero because no such evidence exist. That is no sound of demo explosions in the videos as the WTC buildings collapsed and no seismic evidence of explosives in seismic data and no explosive hardware was ever recovered from the WTC rubble.

Demolition experts, structural and civil engineers and other experts have dismissed demo explosives as well. I have challenged truthers to poiint out time lines in the WTC videos where demo explosions are heard as those buildings collapsed, and yet, they refused to take up my challenge and instead, they posted Eddy Current's hoaxed WTC 7 video as a response.

What better way to discredit truthers than to let them do it themselves.
edit on 7-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




because no such evidence exist


So... if you can offer an educated guess on why we should find such amounts of asbestos on top of (and steel-wool in) the dust: go ahead! I'm curious.



Demolition experts, structural and civil engineers and other experts have dismissed demo explosives as well.


Except the ones you didn't even mention as they don't comply with 'your' story.
Nice try! Deny ignorance much?

Obey a nice day!




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



So... if you can offer an educated guess on why we should find such amounts of asbestos on top of (and steel-wool in) the dust: go ahead! I'm curious.


We can go 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.

Photo 1

Photo 2

ACCUMULATED DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING

There is another important aspect to this issue. There is no existing requirement in any building or occupancy code to inspect the fireproofing in a building periodically to determine if it has degraded through gradual physical damage. This is even true for new construction where the fireproofing is installed and tested early in the construction process. Successive work by many trades often damages and removes whole sections of fireproofing. In the WTC, the fireproofing coatings had been damaged by later construction and renovation in many locations.

LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deficient firestopping

Deficient firestopping provides an avenue for fire spread. Columns, girders and beams are commonly protected with spray asbestos insulation or a composition material. Spray insulation has been tested to offer four-hour test ratings on columns, three hours on beams and girders.

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html


Now, you know where the asbestos came from.



Except the ones you didn't even mention as they don't comply with 'your' story.
Nice try! Deny ignorance much?


They are correct by the fact they were operating seismic monitors in the area and by the fact that no demo explosions are seen nor heard on video nor even detected on seismic monitors.

Add to the fact that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began at the points where they were struck by the aircraft, which is further proof that no explosives were planted because there were no secondary explosions after the aircraft slammed into those buildings, a point that even Danny Jowenko made when he said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not brought down by explosives.

Now, where is your evidence that demo explosives were used?

edit on 7-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
"Now, where is your evidence that demo explosives were used? "

And, how and when were they placed there?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


I can't see how and why that explains the sheer amount of asbestos on top of the dust, you seem to miss the point constantly. And if we look into the other findings, with regards to the composition of the dust, things really start to look strange. Well, nevermind.

You seem to care a lot about things other people say.



Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

www.bushstole04.com...

Let me guess... you think they are just batsh!t crazy. Right?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



I can't see how and why that explains the sheer amount of asbestos on top of the dust, you seem to miss the point constantly.


What do you think asbestos was used for? In addition to fire protection, it is also used as a pipe insulator and even in brakes among other uses.



Let me guess... you think they are just batsh!t crazy. Right?


Of course it is BS, and as proof, point out the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the videos as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed. If you are unable to provide the time lines, your case will be dismissed.

Secondly, the false flag claim is false because there was no reason for the United States to kill almost 3000 people during the 9/11 attack.


edit on 7-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   


Of course it is BS, and as proof, point out the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the videos as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed. If you are unable to provide the time lines, your case will be dismissed.


www.youtube.com...
edit on 7-9-2015 by wildb because: cant embed video



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I asked for time lines where demo explosions can be heard and you provided a video that has been debunked. BTW, you should have done a background check on David Chandler before you posted that video. You would have noticed that his claim about seismic data was fabricated.

Now, let's take a look at this video and tell us, what time lines can demo explosions be heard.




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

David Chandler is the man who forced NIST to admit the wtc 7 fell at free fall for the first 100 feet. I don't think I have to do a background check on him. He has done good work. The video speaks for it self, the reporter and the woman clearly heard something before the collapse started. They were many blocks away. Did you even watch it.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Well... now you know why I was asking myself "WTF?".


Secondly, the false flag claim is false because there was no reason for the United States to kill almost 3000 people during the 9/11 attack.


Take a closer look at the military budgets, your mind is going to be blown.

Yeah, that's right... they were actually discussing budget cuts before this "New Pearl Harbour" sort of transformed the states completely, as intended. Nothing to see here, move on!



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



David Chandler is the man who forced NIST to admit the wtc 7 fell at free fall for the first 100 feet.


Nothing to do with explosives, which is why there are no demo explosions evident as WTC 7 collapse, not to mention that WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed. Check it out.



Now, where are the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the WTC 7 video. If you are unable to provide the time lines, then your case is dismissed by lack of evidence.
edit on 7-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Yeah, that's right... they were actually discussing budget cuts before this "New Pearl Harbour" sort of transformed the states completely, as intended. Nothing to see here, move on!



That report is dated: November 2010

In the real world 2010 comes after 2001 not before.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

My bad, transposed digits. You'll catch the drift anyway, just look it up.
edit on 7-9-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Where do you come up with this stuff, all one has to do is look at the media that morning , people were talking about bombs going off everywhere, some before the planes hit. as for free fall and NIST..

www.youtube.com...

Is there a link to how to embed UT videos?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Take a closer look at the military budgets, your mind is going to be blown.


What about the military budgets? Do you mean where the military budget was cut to the point that some units in Afghanistan had to cut back on breakfast items?



Yeah, that's right... they were actually discussing budget cuts before this "New Pearl Harbour" sort of transformed the states completely, as intended. Nothing to see here, move on!


Do you mean where the military budget was cut so far that I was told by the Air Force that it did not have enough money to supply my workers on an Air Force contract with safety gloves?



Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recommended drastic cuts of billions of dollars that would take American military forces to its lowest level since before World War II.

www.nbcnews.com...


You will notice that was just last year.

Do you mean where the military budget was cut to a point where the Air Force could not afford to provide me with a C-5 or a KC-10 flyover during my Tuskegee Airmen Memorial Ceremony for Interstate 80 in California?

Do you mean the military budget cut where the military had to cut back on airshows for lack of money?



Dozens of air shows cancelled after military jets grounded due to sequester

Dozens of air shows that draw tens of thousands of people and generate millions of dollars for local economies have been cancelled this year after the military grounded its jet and demonstration teams because of automatic federal budget cuts.

www.foxnews.com...


Now, what about the military budget and the so-called 'New Pearl Harbor?' I was employed by the Air Force before, during, and after 9/11 and I saw our financial situation at Travis AFB go down the drain because of 9/11.

In case you didn't know it, the 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost the United States over $6 trillion over the next few decades.



US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion

The decade-long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up costing as much as $6 trillion, the equivalent of $75,000 for every American household, calculates the prestigious Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

www.globalresearch.ca...


Incurring over $6 trillion in debts and huge cutbacks in the U.S. military is not a valid reason for the United States to concoct a false flag operation.


edit on 7-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Be prepared for a wild (b)ride and welcome to ATS!



Check this for the embedding. Pretty funny though, there is a youtube-vid for youtube-vid-embedding on ATS.




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you very much,, Oh I have been here for a long time , just decided to join..



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Now, what about the military budget and the so-called 'New Pearl Harbor?'


Now what? Missing points again?

PNAC didn't work out the way it was intended then? Care to elaborate?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Check this for the embedding. Pretty funny though, there is a youtube-vid for youtube-vid-embedding on ATS.


What is comical is the fact that truthers continue to make a mockery of themselves because they don't bother to do homework. If they did their homework, they would find that the 'New Pearl Harbor" claim is a joke.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Now what? Missing points again?


The reason for the increase was not to build up the military, it was to support the wars in Afganistan and Iraq and even then, there were massive cutbacks in goods and services within the military that went beyond just food cutbacks. Some squadrons didn't even have money for their flight crews to replace their worn flight suits.




top topics



 
160
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join