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.

 

the 9/11 memory hole

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That was blown off, Griff. It was not part of the interior structure. It was attached to the outside of both building. They were three stories high and would not have fit inside either tower.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
That was blown off, Griff. It was not part of the interior structure. It was attached to the outside of both building. They were three stories high and would not have fit inside either tower.


That is what Cladding means in construction. Why do you keep saying there was no aluminum cladding? Unless I'm misinterpreting what you are saying?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

That is what Cladding means in construction. Why do you keep saying there was no aluminum cladding? Unless I'm misinterpreting what you are saying?



Griff, I understand what cladding is. I explained, in more than a few prior posts, the only steel clad in aluminum was the facade. That was attached to the outside of the building with steel to steel not aluminum to steel. Each facade section was three stories high. As were the perimeter steel frames (not clad in aluminum) of the primary primary load bearing walls. One sat vertically parallel to the other on the outside of the buildings.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
I mean i hate resorting to # slinging but..... ANYONE who believes the above statements to be true is nothing more then a complete retard with no critical thinking skills.


Hey come on, we've already established that all non-Truthers are brain dead retards with little to no ability for detailed thought.

That's like shooting fish in a barrel man!

Now all we have to do is sort out why a bunch of all-powerful and thoroughly wealthy individuals would risk high treason for the sake of power and money, and we should have George W. Bush in CHAINS by the end of the week!

Oh and we have to deal with the fact that, if we're saying the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled a day or two before 9/11, we're indirectly saying that it's possible to prepare the three largest controlled demolitions in history in two days...but once we prove that BLAM!! The cabal falls!!

Oh and why would you risk crashing big planes into the buildings you just meticulously wired for demolition...once we nail that down we'll HANG Dick Chaney in Time Square!! Is it Cheney or Chaney dude I don't even know he's SCREWED though dogg YEAH!!

And then there's the part about how the collapsing buildings on 9/11 didn't sound anything like controlled demolitions...but once we figure out the top secret next-level no-sound demolitions they used we'll MARCH ON WASHINGTON.

Stand aside all complete retards!!
You don't stand a chance!!



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
It was not part of the interior structure. It was attached to the outside of both building.


That's exactly what he just said!

Man, do you like to argue, or do you like to argue?





There's a picture. Meditate on it.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Power down of the WTC one to two weekends before 9/11. David Ray Griffin

Lack of reporting of major news stations? What exactly do they report on, Lindsay, Brittany and Brangalena?

The total lack of any superstructure left on either WTC buildings.

Some of those beams were manufactured in Elmira New York; I believe it was America Lafrance. A worker from that plant assured me that the beams could not have totally failed as we were led to believe. The design was such that they could under extreme conditions bend but never collapse.

If you look closely at the collapse you will see hundreds of beams exploding into space. They are all uniformly cut and of uniform size. How is that possible without some planning and professional detonation?

Why was all the scrap metal quickly spirited away without any significant independent testing done?

Unfortunetly most people have gone on with their lives and the lies and malfeasance of the government will most likely go unpunished. How do they call themselves Christians and claim to be bringing democracy to the world when they have faided so miserably here at home.

Apparently no government official was to blame for anything that day. In China there would be mass suicides after such a debacle.


[edit on 18-1-2008 by polanksi]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Griff, I understand what cladding is. I explained, in more than a few prior posts, the only steel clad in aluminum was the facade. That was attached to the outside of the building with steel to steel not aluminum to steel. Each facade section was three stories high. As were the perimeter steel frames (not clad in aluminum) of the primary primary load bearing walls. One sat vertically parallel to the other on the outside of the buildings.


Most of the facade was covered in aluminum except for the windows & the spandrel plates.



2PacSade-



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SR
 


With all due respect, perhaps the person saying it should explain it. No planes were inside either WTC building. The hole people can see into alleged to be on WTC 1 is self-evident of that.


I meant the shell of the building. An Aluminum alloy that was supposedly weakened by metal on metal corrosion as stated in the linked website.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


I know that. I explained that many times before. Did you miss it all those times then?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


That is what I thought you meant. It was not inside either building. There is no evidence any facade steel section was compromised by any aluminum cladding. If someone has a certified metallurgy report that is was upon examination after 9/11/2001, I would be interested in seeing it. However, it still would have nothing to do with what happened to either twin tower, concerning the specific way they would not be felled by nature or planes and/or jet fuel.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I know he meant when he wrote. He just confirmed what he meant in a post appearing after yours. Perhaps it is you wanting to argue. Since you took it upon yourself to speak for someone else, by your own interpretation. Why? I have no idea.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
The alleged structural degredation was a motive to knock the towers down. OrionsStars you might want to check out the link on the first page and read through it so we are all on the same page.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Essedarius
 




Your sarcasm is unwanted and irrelevant to what my post pointed out.

"Haha oh yea and they "found" one of the "hijackers" passports inside the pentagon too. I mean come on, how stunned do you have to be to believe this.

They positively identified 99% or passenger and crew by "finding" their dna, yet the black boxes vaporised. "


i said nothing about bush, cheny and high treason
i said nothing about bomb sniffing dogs (in the above statement)
I said nothing about the buildings having been wired with explosives(in the above statement)
i said nothing about "next-level no-sound demolitions" (although MANY eyewitnesses would call you on that)


Soooo are you just trying to deflect? or are you in bed with the brain dead ones?

I lean towards the latter.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


And your certified metallurgical proof is.....? Opinion simply does not cut it. Facts do. I have no idea why anyone is bringing up the facade. The facade had nothing to do with anything. It was not even primarily supporting either building.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


And your certified metallurgical proof is.....? Opinion simply does not cut it. Facts do. I have no idea why anyone is bringing up the facade. The facade had nothing to do with anything. It was not even primarily supporting either building.


Hey look, I mentioned the TS or TC Gordon link and today was my first time seeing it. If you want to discuss it you will simply have to look at what I am talking about. Last I checked this was a public bulletin board and not doctoral review board.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
After 9-11 I no longer trust my government. So what? A lot of people feel this way. In the past we (US) have pointed fingers at many other countries and world leaders for abusing their own populations. Now we join the crowd. Again, so what?

Well, look at the current financial market situation in the US. Unrelated, you say. But in the years since 9/11we have spent lives, money and intellectual capital on the "War on Terror", maybe we could have used this time helping ourselves.

Now too soon the economy staggers, (the bees are gone, yikes!) and we are left trying to cough up a new solution. 2012 is drawing near, and the new question of the day is "Will we even make it to 2012?" Let alone past it. --------------------------PC



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
wow!

i understand the cladding also had nickel in it. an aluminum/nickel/silver?/metalX? alloy. i haven't heard much metallurgy discussed concerning tower collapses.

galvanic corrosion would not occur in the core, though. and even on the perimeter, the bolts which held together the columns were inside the box columns, and not directly touching the cladding. in my mind, the structural integrity would unlikely be compromised by the corrosion between the aluminum ALLOY(alloys have different characteristics than the base metals that make them up) facade and structural steel columns.

does every (non-structural engineer) "get" that the photographer said the stretching and loosening was happening near the bottom pf the towers? think of a tree bending in the wind, and where it breaks when it breaks.....near the root, where the most stress is concentrated(because of leverage).

did everyone get that they couldn't continue with the core restoration because the drilling could be heard for several floors above and below, and so was unacceptable to the tenants?

so, already, i have confusion about this story, because, the core was WELDED all the way up, and not touching any aluminum. perhaps, "core" refers to the "re-coring" of the bolt holes in the perimeter(which STILL shouldn't have been touching any aluminum).

and, ALSO, and more importantly(to me), i now know that there was likely heavy duty work done on the cores. is there any reason this could not have been A DEMOLITION TEAM?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I believe what people are confusing is this (not saying anyone in particular but everyone including myself until I thought about it more):

The aluminum cladding would be bolted to the structrual steel making up the facade. I believe those bolts are what needed to be fixed from galvanization. Not the interior bolts holding the building together. Just the bolts holding the facade together.

There is what is called Local Law # (last year was 11) in NYC. It is basically their law of facade inspections and maintenance every 5 years to make sure nothing is going to come loose from the facade and kill people (it actually happened and that is why they made such law). Now, if last year was 11, that means that 2001 would have been 10 and 1996 would have been 9. We should have those inspection reports on file somewhere (just like every building in NYC) but we don't.

That is probably were this galvanic corrosion thing came about. Again...speculation on my part.

If I am mistaken, please point it out.

BTW, if anyone is interested in viewing some nice pictures of NYC while I was hanging off the side of the buildings (up to 34 stories) last year, U2U me and I'll show you them.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


I understand. What we are doing is sifting through any information that is not correct and eliminating it. I was explaining why the facade had nothing to do with why the twin towers were dropped.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


The aluminum cladding was not bolted to steel. It never would have held up under high winds if aluminum was bolted to the steel. It would sheared off under high winds. The facade was bolted to the perimeter steel wall frames.

However, coming into contact with the exterior steel walls was not going to hurt the exterior walls, or steel clad in aluminum, or it would have done it years ago. No signs of that happening ever occurred. The strength of winds, for over 30 years, would definitely have started to show the facade was being torn away from the rest of the building, particularly the more the twin towers started to rise above other high buildings surrounding them.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join