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.

 

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


I'm actually surprised that after 14 years this is the first I've ever heard of it from either side of the argument.

I don't know about anyone else, but this certainly puts things into a bit of a new light for myself.


Yes it does, and this changes everything for me. I had no idea the WTC were built with substandard steel and corners were cut such as less rivets and so on.

This now explains why it was possible for the steel to weaken so fast. With substandard steel that could not handle 2500 degrees heat, in fact the steel probably couldn't handle 1800 degrees heat to long.

Truthfully, we many never find out, however this changes everything for me, I was under the impression the WTC was built using the best materials of it time.

Now I am seeing a bigger picture to why there was a major cover up, it had nothing to do with demolition. These contracting firms who built the WTC did not want to be held accountable or the deaths of all those people that were killed when the WTC came down.

This also make sense to why the clean up company used tracking devices on their trucks to make sure there were no stops going to the landfill.




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Compressed air from pancaking floors will force its way down elevator shafts and even stairwells.



The Miracle Survivors
In Stairwell B of the North Tower, 16 people lived amid the avalanche of concrete and steel. But surviving was only the start of their struggle.

The building was pancaking down, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet.

nymag.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



This now explains why it was possible for the steel to weaken so fast. With substandard steel that could not handle 2500 degrees heat, in fact the steel probably couldn't handle 1800 degrees heat to long.


Any unprotected structural steel under load will fail at temperatures of 1400 degrees F. and below. That's why fire protection is added to structural steel and in many cases, structural steel is encased in concrete. That is why there are buildings that survived fires for long periods of time. In the case of the Windsor Building fire in Spain, fire raged for hours. However, the outer structural steel failed and collapsed in a heap of twisted and distorted steel beams, leaving only the concrete structure standing after the fire was extinguished.

There would have been no reason to add fire protection to structural steel if unprotected structural steel had the ability to withstand structural loads at temperatures of 2500 degrees F.

.
edit on 4-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Yes it does, and this changes everything for me. I had no idea the WTC were built with substandard steel and corners were cut such as less rivets and so on.

I finally found one of the few supporting photos that apparently shows the evidence of probable corners cut during construction.

The primary 14 by 14 inch columns were supposed to be bolted together with four A325 high-strength bolts. These unions were where the initial failure took place.

This image demonstrates the failure of the union.


This photo is the so-called smoking gun that was used as the argument for poor construction standards, many years ago:

The argument being, given the flexural forces at the union, there should be four bent bolts in those holes, certainly more than one. And if there were four bolts in place, the 1 3/8 inch end plate should be deformed, as the collective tensile strength of the four bolts exceeds that of the end plate.
edit on 4-1-2016 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Any links to show the 1/4 inch end plates?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You can see some stretching around the hole where the bolt is as well. The top two holes look like they MIGHT have some evidence of something similar, if you look really hard, but nowhere near the extent that one does. And the lower right hole is perfectly round still.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
Any links to show the 1/4 inch end plates?


I think you are looking at the end plates. What SO said is that if all 4 bolts were in place, the end plates should have torn off or been really distorted.
edit on 1/4/2016 by pteridine because: spelling



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
Any links to show the 1/4 inch end plates?


I think you are looking at the end plates. What SO said is that if all 4 bolts were in place, the end plates should have torn off or been really distorted.


I find a 1/4 inch end plate to be a bit thin, looking to confirm that..



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions . . .


prorev.com...

Absolutely amazing. If there is nothing to hide, why not give up the information.

Apparently there is. This is criminal and does support the early information that was given to me.

As I continue to research this I will post more to what I uncover.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

There is a lot on that page, what are you referring too ?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

In the November/December 2001 issue of Designer/Builder, Mallot gives a deeply disturbing interview to Kingsley Hammet who writes: "Prior to the advent of the World Trade Center towers, high-rise buildings shared two vital characteristics. They were supported by a grid of steel columns, generally spaced about thirty feet apart, and each interior column was encased in a tough cladding of concrete to create a fireproof skin designed to withstand a four-hour inferno. (The four-hour fire rating is the code rule for the columns and major beams in any large building.) As designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki, New York's Twin Towers incorporated neither of these traditional features.


prorev.com...

The WTC were supposed to have fireproof skins that would have stood four hours of fires. This was not incorporated. Proof that corners were cut to save money, which validates the Mob connections who were in control of certain NYC political opponents.

Building the WTC to some who had their hands in it was about making a lot of money for their contracting firms. Now we are seeing the signs of Greed.


edit on 4-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb


There is a lot on that page, what are you referring too ?


Scroll down until you see this:


BILL MANNING, FIRE ENGINEERING MAGAZINE



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
Any links to show the 1/4 inch end plates?


I think you are looking at the end plates. What SO said is that if all 4 bolts were in place, the end plates should have torn off or been really distorted.


I find a 1/4 inch end plate to be a bit thin, looking to confirm that..


1/4" column plates; 1 3/8" end plates.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

And as far as Malott is concerned, it was the failure of their substitutes - not the initial crash, not the exploding jet fuel, and not the subsequent fire alone -that lead to their collapse and the enormous loss of life . . . "As Malott watched the tragedy unfold, he surmised that the sequence of events went something like this. when the planes slammed into the exterior of the buildings, the fuselages and engines broke through a number of the outside columns while the wings disintegrated as though being forced through a cheese grater. The bodies of the planes crashed across the unobstructed floors, smashed into the central cores of the buildings, and blew the sheetrock off the supporting columns and from around the stairwells, completely destroying the elevator shaft wails. Thus, in the first seconds, the four-hour-rated fireproofing was stripped from the steel core structures and with it went all hope that the buildings could survive a fire.

"After an hour of this inferno, the now-naked steel columns of the central core at the impact floors were heated to about 1,600 degrees, which is the point at which steel loses almost all of its structural strength. The relatively skimpy floor system, with hung sheetrock, small-diameter steel bar joists, and the thin layer of concrete, offered little barrier to the raging flames despite having been rated as fire-resistant for four hours. Three floors may have collapsed within the impact area, further tearing fireproofing away from the core columns.

Once the first couple of core columns began to buckle, Malott speculates, they threw all of their load not onto a neighboring ring of strong columns protected with fireproofing (which in this design did not exist), but onto the adjacent columns in the exposed core, which were similarly denuded of fireproofing by the initial impact and also were failing under the intense heat. 'The outside of the building did not fail. It did not get hot enough,' Malott says. 'It was the core that failed.'


prorev.com...

Now this make much more sense to me why the WTC fell. I agree there are a lot of unanswered questions. As for WTC 7 I do not have answers yet.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

"A building of this scale, in Malott's opinion, should never have been built in this way. The best proof is what happened to the 102-story Empire State Building when rammed by a B-25 in 1945. The plane, loaded with gasoline, hit between the seventy-eighth and seventy-ninth floors. The resultant fire burned for twenty-four hours and gutted five stories of the building. But the accident did not cause any catastrophic collapse of the structure because the tower had been built around a grid of interior columns and everyone had been clad in concrete."


I also wanted to add one more comment to Malott's opinion for the ATS readers that do not have the time to read all of this source.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   


However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.


rense.com...


This from UL, saying the same thing, Ok fine, I'll buy that no problem, however it does not explain a complete collapse to ground level, that pesky 3rd law keeps getting in the way..


ETA What about the fire in 1975 that spread to six floors and burned for three hours starting on the 11th IIRC.
edit on 4-1-2016 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Even if the steel did melt, and its proven it didn’t, the building would never have fallen down so uniformly, that is a physical impossibility the way the buildings fell


Its NEVER happened and it will never happen unless it’s another false flag


911 to me was like the Kennedy murder.

Kennedy wasn’t assassinated he was executed

They don’t even try to hide this obvious fact as they don’t even try to hide the mass murder on that day.


They will just deny it and rely on American people like Bill O’Reilly who won’t even listen to any idea of this


And also rely on people into denial



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
911 Research


Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. . . . Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year. . .

Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carrying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each. . .


prorev.com...

The Port Authority are criminals, it was them in my opinion who ordered the crime scene cleaned up as fast as possibly to cover up what they really knew about the substandard steel. They did not want any outside agencies getting their hands on that steel to do any testing. This make sense to me now.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




Even if the steel did melt, and its proven it didn’t, the building would never have fallen down so uniformly, that is a physical impossibility the way the buildings fell


This is a part of my point, apply the 3rd law and the OS becomes false, I don't see any way around that.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
You either believe in magic or the events on 911 are clearly a false flag

And I don’t mean this next statement as a joke

If this wasn’t a false flag then aliens did this




top topics



 
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join