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.
Additionally, as mentioned by Sceptic Overlord, there could have been a cover up by the Port Authority regarding substandard construction practices from corrupt contractors and building inspectors
in 1989 he was involved in a lucrative contract to install fireproof foam in the walls of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.He secured the contract through bribery. He pocketed millions from the funds for the project by cutting corners; in some cases entire floors of the Twin Towers had no fireproofing foam applied to the steel infrastructure. Louis DiBono's downfall later came when he had another disagreement with Gravano most likely the disagreement was over the Twin Towers contract, and Gravano selling his shares of the company when it was in financial difficulties. Gravano had finally found the excuse he was looking for to get revenge and have his old enemy killed. Gotti ordered his death because he was allegedly stealing from the family (by not giving Gotti a cut of the fireproofing money) and for refusing to attend meetings.
in 1989 he was involved in a lucrative contract to install fireproof foam in the walls of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.He secured the contract through bribery. He pocketed millions from the funds for the project by cutting corners; in some cases entire floors of the Twin Towers had no fireproofing foam applied to the steel infrastructure. Louis DiBono's downfall later came when he had another disagreement with Gravano most likely the disagreement was over the Twin Towers contract, and Gravano selling his shares of the company when it was in financial difficulties. Gravano had finally found the excuse he was looking for to get revenge and have his old enemy killed. Gotti ordered his death because he was allegedly stealing from the family (by not giving Gotti a cut of the fireproofing money) and for refusing to attend meetings.
originally posted by: pteridine
The OP was a question of why there are 911 conspiracy debunkers and the answer is one of correcting that which is misunderstood by the non-technical folks. The collapse was gravity driven. Clearing each floor in under 200 milliseconds would require a large amount of explosives such that their sound would be obvious. The only explanation most consistent with all the facts is the NIST report. Some who want a demolition claim silent explosives without realizing that the destructive effects of explosives are the result of impulsive loads from shock waves. Those shock waves also work in air which makes the bang. If there is no bang then there is no explosive demolition.
The main problem, as I see it, is the overwhelming desire for a conspiracy and the search is on the physical aspects because that is where the available information exists; videos, recordings, witness statements and public records. Those who desire such are often technically challenged and repeat their favorite version of events based on misinterpreted and misunderstood data.
The only explanation most consistent with all the facts is the NIST report.
Peer Review some of you claim?
Your post is very hostile, and condescending towards members who do not support the 911 fairy tales, so do not be surprised, if others respond, in the same manners towards you.
The reports themselves were not. However, papers that drew extensively on significant portions of them were published in Fire Technology, which is peer-reviewed:
Awesome post. Sad you are critized by those beyond reason and so biased they engage in intellectually dishonest debate.
originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee
originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux
Awesome post. Sad you are critized by those beyond reason and so biased they engage in intellectually dishonest debate.
There is no debate here, never was. You can not prove the OS narrative true, and the other side cannot prove their side true.
Fact being said, this all about who has the better supporting "opinions" and nothing else.
If you want to call everyone who disagree with you intellectually dishonest then you lost this argument already.
If name calling is all you got, then your done. No one care to read any further.
Another rant based on a straw man argument.
You are so biased and irrational you will not cite two WTC conspiracy collapse theories you think are total BS. Simple question?
What would you know about straw man argument? My understanding is that is a phrase used only in the art of disinformation.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Huge risk for Al Qaeda. If they took a shot like that and missed, they would look really stupid. If they hit, they could expect it to do no good at all. Just get a lot of their fellow muslims killed. Or what do you think they hoped to achieve by it?