If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: TheBolt
Damage and fire. Why is it that everyone forgets that each Tower had some spectacular damage done to it?

because the damage was entirely insufficient to account for the collapses.

I didn't mention specific damage no, but I did say the damage was different in all three buildings. To respond to the damage of a plane, I didn't allow for the weight of tce the plane, but I would think that if a column or a few were severed by plane impact, they would likely be the first to fail in which case the building would be bound to have an initial partial collapse, and I don't mean for a second or two like some will say. I mean half a floor caving in and then resting on the floor below for a noticeable period. I have a hard time believing that the columns were equally damaged all the way across simultaneously. Also I don't believe building 7 had a plane smash into it, and even if Debris caused damage, The NIST report itself says the damage wasn't a deciding compenent in the eventual collapse. Plus I didn't allow for the wieght of the plane added to the 10 or so floors, but I think this wouldn't compare even at all close to the wieght of 90 plus floors that were held up by the fire affected trusses in that case. I would also like to point out that in 1975 the fires didn't even do enough damage to have the exposed trusses replaced during clean up let alone damage them enough to weaken.
Like I said, I'm not a scientist and am not saying it's impossible. I really don't know what to believe, but I'm simply pointing out that it's a little unfair to call people who don't accept the collapse by fire theory "morons" or worse.
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

As an afterthought I'd like to add that even though no exterior columns were severed in 1975, my understanding of the collapse was that the beams were heated to the point of weakening or bending and as a result this pulled all the exterior columns inward. When the beams fully gave way the floors fell which overwhelmed the columns on the way down. To me the most significant part is the beams failing, not the columns. The beams should have given in 1975 as well, at least causing a partial collapse. If I'm mistaken please correct me.

It's safe to say that fire was the nail in the coffin of all three collapses.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

In your uneducated opinion you mean. There are plenty of trained experts who say different.

a reply to: TheBolt

The 1975 fire took place on the 11th floor of the North Tower. The first sixty four floors of the North Tower had a unique feature that the other 46 stories of the Tower did not have. During the construction of the Towers, the debate over asbestos flared up, leading the construction crews to switch to a different type of fireproofing compound, one that many questioned if it would stand up to a long fire. The first thirty or so floors of the North Tower had the old style asbestos fireproofing, it worked well in protecting the building in 1975, the rest of the North Tower and all of the South Tower had the new fireproofing. On 9/11/2001, we found out about the other fireproofing.

A side note, Herbert Levine, the man who invented the asbestos fireproofing that was used in the first thirty floors of the North Tower, had this to say when they stopped using his product and switched to the new stuff.....

"if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down.”

Can somebody please tell these people how such a covert mission is excecuted... what kind of people are needed to pull off a 911 without anybody blowing the flute?

Excellent information. I appreciate the post. Gives me some new info to research And consider. Cheers. a reply to: cardinalfan0596

"Major Findings of Interim Report (4)
Adhesion of spray-on fireproofing:
• Adhesion problems reported with Cafco D during construction
• A 2000 report also indicates that “existing fireproofing required so much patching that it was more effective to replace it with new fireproofing material”
• Construction audit reports associated with fireproofing upgrade to 1-1/2 in suggest that the minimum bond strength requirement for spray-on fireproofing was met"

The above is a quote taken from what I think is a NIST progress update report from 2003. I got it at www.nist.gov...
I'm asking for you or someone else to interpret and/or confirm what it says. I take it to mean that in 2000 some fireproofing upgrades were done to increase the fireproofing in the towers and that the old, not good fireproofing in the upper floors was in such bad shape as to be replaced with
New material. In any case it appears that it was at least covered over and increased from 1/2" to 1 1/2" with newer better quality product. This is just my initial interpretation and I literally just found this link about 15 minutes ago and am still reading/processing.

I did find one article that mentions the fact that the upper floors (from 30 up or something)were orginally different as you said and that this product was not very well tested. IF it was in fact covered up or replaced in 2000 that would no longer matter. That's a big if.


a reply to: cardinalfan0596

In a covert top secret compartmented operation, it is not possible to know how many were involved. But this is not relevant anyway since no single person would have access to any information, except the information very specific to their particular job. In these types of operations the people within usually have a very singular and specific job that by itself, doesn't show or reveal much about the entire goals or anything close to it, so a participant would only see a limited view of something and that view would not be enough to even let on that something bad was being done by them.

There can be hundreds or thousands of participants in an operation like this and no group, or single person knows enough to reveal anything about the whole plan, or even enough to reveal anything that might blow the operation in to the open.

After the event took place however, those who were involved as the building blocks of such an operation would be able to put 2 and 2 together, but would be under their non disclosure agreement to keep their mouths shut. To not do so is to invite violent reprisal by the government for them and their families.

For those who think something like 911 can't happen because of the number of people it would take to pull it off, are being willfully ignorant of how compartmented top secret operations are done.

I found this interesting

That is quite interesting and will probably be as close to a confirmation as I'll find that the fireproofing upgrades asked for in 2000 actually did take place. a reply to: jazz10

Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse

By JAMES GLANZ with MICHAEL MOSS

Excerpts:

"Large areas of fireproofing are missing from the core columns in some of the photographs, and the architect who took them, Roger G. Morse, a consultant in Troy, N.Y., said his work had shown that the fireproofing did not stick properly. But Mr. Reiss said the problems were caused by the swaying of the buildings in the wind and the impact of elevator cables against the beams. "It was an ongoing maintenance headache," he said. Although measures were repeatedly taken to prevent the problem, he said, "every March and April when you had these windstorms and the building rocked back and forth, you would still knock some of the fireproofing down."

In an interview, Mr. Morse said the problems were far more widespread than that, probably because the fireproofing had been applied improperly to rusty steel. Mr. Morse, who at the time of his inspections was a consultant to the manufacturer of the fireproofing, said his examinations had never reached above the 78th floor in either tower, but that the nature and dimensions of the problem convinced him the failings of the fireproofing would be found on virtually all parts of the buildings. Investigators think the planes struck around the 90th to 94th floors of the north tower and the 78th to 84th floors of the south tower.

Mr. Morse said his inspections on several floors also found problems with the fireproofing of the lightweight, weblike trusses that held up the floors. He said his inspections, which began in 1986 and continued intermittently until June 2000, showed stretches of the tubelike structural steel supporting the trusses without any fireproofing, and other areas of extremely thin fireproofing.

Port Authority officials dismissed those allegations, saying that they doubted the photographs were representative of the entire building and that fireproofing on the trusses was regularly replaced and upgraded whenever there was a major renovation or a change of tenants."

I love it. That's a nice article. It confirms a lot of the stuff I've read about inspection results even from the port Authority. Mr. Morse referred to says he stopped his inspections in June of 2000 if I'm reading that right. If it's not the same report from 2000 that the upgrade recommendations were from it was defintiely from the same year and reported the same information. Throughout the years as you say there was mention fr the port Authority themselves also of friction and vibration related corrosion of metals and disruption of fireproofing. The NIST report I was referring to from 2003, which being the most recent of the information I've read and would consider all of the above, had this to say:

"Major Findings of Interim Report (3)
• Fireproofing requirements and guidelines upgraded in the 1990s:
• Study performed by Port Authority in 1995 concluded that 1-1/2 in. of
fireproofing was required for chords and web members
• Port Authority issued guidelines in 1999 for fireproofing repairs, replacement, and upgrades adopting the 1-1/2 in. thickness
• Status of fireproofing upgrade in 2000:
• Fireproofing upgraded in about 30 floors of aircraft impacted region
• WTC 1: Floors 92-100
• WTC 2: Floors 77-78, 88-89, 92, 96-97
• Construction audit reports suggest thickness requirements were met
• Blaze-Shield II used for upgrade, not Blaze-Shield D C/F"

For those "truthers" out there it's important to note that NIST is not saying the upgrades happened for sure, they are just saying they have no evidence to say for sure that they did not. Also, I work in construction and I can't say it's completely out of the question that the workers didn't hit every nook and cranny in those two large towers with miles of webs and chords. I also think it's a bad defence on the part of the port authority to claim the photos aren't representative of the entire structure.
Based on all I've read today, which is quite a bit including the information you took the time to provide, I'm going to conclude that the upgrades took place. Even though I believe firmly that not every single inch of the steel was adequately upgraded, enough of the beams and columns and specifically those in the impact zones even, were sufficiently coated to prevent all of them from giving way simultaneously.
I'm open to new information and will change my opinion accordingly if something more definitive comes up so please keep convincing me because unlike most, I actually want to be convinced.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

What does everyone make of this as well? 911blogger.com... I came across that after following the trail started by the link from jazz10 in the message a couple above this one. It's more documented evidence that the upgrades were at least underway and no one can really say how far they were into the process.

a reply to: TheBolt

If you're legitimately asking then I apologize, but if you're asking rhetorically to prove a point then I have to say I'm not even a real Truther and I still think this is a bad argument. One question: do you think the public knows about every single covert operation that's ever taken place? I'm not saying that this answer in any way proves 9/11 was an inside job, but to believe the government didn't do it simply because you don't think they could pull it off without being tattled on is not a sound reason. I hope you have others.
I must have erased part of this so FYI this is a response to Zatara.

Either way, it seems pretty sketchy that as far as I understand the company hired to do the work was turner Construction who happened to have offices in the towers. It is said that all records possibly proving what stage the work was at were all destroyed in the collapse. a reply to: cardinalfan0596

The answer to thread title is
One......
the rest were led astray.

Is that reasonable enough answer?