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 the towers HAD to fall

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Motive ???

we all saw the planes and the collapses, but there are
stories pre-dating 9/11 which needs to be told and it kinda
puts a different perspective on WHY the towers had to fall.

#1 - Asbestos Law Suits :

As most all of us know the WTC Towers had Asbestos used
on the floor trusses for fire-proofing material. New York's
building codes did not allow buildings to contain Asbestos.
However, the WTC Towers were owned by the Port Authority
and were NOT restricted to those building codes due to it's
interstate status. However, this was not the only problem with
the Asbestos. Several law suits had been filed by workers
in and around the towers who claimed they had became ill
due to this Asbestos and sued based upon their individual
cases. As we've seen from a lot of 9/11 videos that it would
have cost more than a billion dollars to remove and replace
the Asbestos. That would be more than the buildings were worth
in Real Estate Value. So a solution was needed to prevent future
law suits from occurring. So to get rid of the complainant would
be an easy solution to the problem. No more law suits if they were
dead and couldn't file a suit. As this court case finally sided with the
Port Authority to dismiss the pre-9/11 case of Asbestos poisoning
in 2005.

#2 - Galvanic Corrosion

As Thomas Scott Gordon's story describes another reason why
the towers had to fall before 2007. During it's construction, galvanized aluminum
had been used in the interlocking steel joints of the towers. This practice
was entirely new at the time of construction and had not been thoroughly
tested or proven over a long period of time. Subsequent inspections
of the towers proved that the galvanized aluminum had indeed created
a process known as galvanic corrosion on the infrastructure's joints
and had made them vulnerable to weak spots and possible future collapse.
A team of engineers at the towers were assembled to figure out how
to fix this galvanic corrosion. Many theories were provided and cast
aside as being impractical and too costly and implosion was ruled out.
One such theory was to actually re-build each floor of the towers one
floor at a time using
an outdoor scaffolding around the building. The cost of this process
was to be estimated in excess of $6Billion and once again proven
to be of no use to correct the galvanic corrosion. This team of
engineers was disbanded after awhile and told not to discuss this
subject anymore and was made to sign a non disclosure agreement
before leaving the premises. The towers were given an ultimatum
to have this problem fixed by 2007 or face demolition.

#3 Towers lack of profits - Maintenance

Since the towers had been losing money due to un-occupied space
it began to lose money from profits. It it doesn't create profits then
there can't be sustainable maintenance to the building thusly rendering
the building obsolete.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above 3 factors are documented well before 9/11. Which
makes it pretty simple as to WHY the towers were chosen
for demolition on 9/11. And the list of possible Asbestos law suit
complainants were killed at the same time. 2 problems solved.

It is my theory that several parties killed 2 birds with one stone.
The owners of the Towers needed it demolished for the above 3
reasons AND the Bush Administration needed a New Pearl Harbor.
It's a perfect match.

One back scratching another .....


your thoughts




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
you want my thoughts?? You want thoughts on that!!!!

I love it. Great post.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays
 


Agreed, except I don't think they did it themselves.
They stepped back and let those that wanted to attack us anyway do so.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Old Motives that are not Accurate.

Simon, I can't blame you for your post. You received inaccuarate information and 1/2 truths. This is typically what happens when research is based on truther sites. IF your interested, I will try to show the errors within your OP.



Originally posted by SimonSays
Motive ???


#1 - Asbestos Law Suits :

As most all of us know the WTC Towers had Asbestos used
on the floor trusses for fire-proofing material. New York's
building codes did not allow buildings to contain Asbestos.
However, the WTC Towers were owned by the Port Authority
and were NOT restricted to those building codes due to it's
interstate status.


This is not 100% true.

The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated. There was no asbestos in WTC2 .

I personaly work in a very old building in downtown Boston. It is roughly 1Mil. sq. ft. The building is laden with asbestos. BUT it is encapsulated. This asbestos does not have to be removed unless it is disturbed, or if an area that is covered needs repair.

example: If there is a leak in a water pipe that has asbestos, we don't do anything. 1st Step is to call your abatement company to file for a permit and remove the asbestos safely. After the abatement is completed, you make necessary repairs.

More information on the WTC towers:


"Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D"
wtc.nist.gov...






Originally posted by SimonSays#2 - Galvanic Corrosion

As Thomas Scott Gordon's story describes another reason why
the towers had to fall before 2007. During it's construction, galvanized aluminum
had been used in the interlocking steel joints of the towers.


This is the first I have heard of this. I will have to learn a little more about this.



Originally posted by SimonSays#3 Towers lack of profits - Maintenance

Since the towers had been losing money due to un-occupied space
it began to lose money from profits. It it doesn't create profits then
there can't be sustainable maintenance to the building thusly rendering
the building obsolete.


Losing money? Sustainable maintenance? Building obsolete? This 3rd statement look more like an opinion.

Here is some information on the WTC:


May 31, 1998
As the market for office space in midtown has tightened and rental rates increased, tenants have been looking to downtown as a cheaper alternative. Over the last year, those seeking large blocks of space have been finding them at the trade center, which had many vacancies as a result of the 1993 terrorist bombing and the shrinkage of the financial industry in the early part of the decade.

''In January 1997 we had about an 80 percent occupancy rate,'' said Cherrie Nanninga, director of real estate for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the complex. Twenty percent of 10.5 million square feet of space is 2.1 million, which would be a substantial building by itself.

But as a result of the last year's work, Ms. Nanninga, said the complex is over 90 percent occupied and expects to it reach the 95 percent mark by the end of the year. That, she said, would be about as full as the center is likely to get, since there is almost always someone moving in or out. ''Ninety-seven percent occupancy would be full,'' said Ms. Nanninga, whose name is pronounced NAN-in-gay.

source


February 12, 2001

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent.

source


I hope this helps Simon. I will try to get some more information on the Thomas Gordon story.

Thank you,

C.O.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 

it is virtually impossible to determine the amount of Asbestos used
in the towers due to there were 3 different as-builts blueprints
for the both buildings. As far as you saying it's inaccurate, well
if only 1 floor had it, then it was grounds for a law suit. It was
still on the premises. Not to mention, tons of the stuff was found
in the dust particles after the collapses. So it is evidence that
Asbestos WAS IN FACT in the towers. How many floors is
irrelevant.

The towers had been losing occupancy in the towers for several years
before 9/11. The evidence for this was stated in the movie
Loose Change.

Just cuz the info comes from a truther or a truther site
does not make it fictitious.

You seem to think that only half of my research is correct
or either based on assumptions, they are not. They are based
on fact.

As far as you saying this was old motives. Please do tell me
what changes in the towers that were made that cleared up
the asbestos problem or the Galvanic Corrosion problem so that
it was not needed in 2001? If the motive was there in 1980's
or 90's, then it was still there in 2001.

As far as you saying it was encapsulated. Yea, right !!!
If it's in the building ..... it's a hazard. You seem to think
the asbestos was in an airtight container and could not
affect it's occupants. While this is the farthest from the truth.
Every floor truss had hatch access to inspect each level
for asbestos insulation. It was required. The truss space
was also used to run cables and wires so therefore people
had to have access to it. So how do you encapsulate any
level in an air bubble while still allowing human access for
inspection ?? You know this isn't NORAD we're talking about.

The towers had flaws. They had to be demolished.
Call it bad planning or bad design, but they had to come
down due to those flaws.

So whether 9/11 happened or not, they were gonna eventually
be demolished. It just seemed convenient to do it all at one time.
Demolish the towers, kill off the litigants, and get your new
pearl harbor ALL IN ONE DAY !!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays
it is virtually impossible to determine the amount of Asbestos used
in the towers due to there were 3 different as-builts blueprints
for the both buildings. As far as you saying it's inaccurate, well
if only 1 floor had it, then it was grounds for a law suit. It was
still on the premises. Not to mention, tons of the stuff was found
in the dust particles after the collapses. So it is evidence that
Asbestos WAS IN FACT in the towers. How many floors is
irrelevant.


Please back up your claim with a source as I did. Asbestos was NOT in ALL 3 Towers and THAT is a fact. Please see my above post with sources to confirm. Ignoring the facts does not make them go away.



Originally posted by SimonSaysThe towers had been losing occupancy in the towers for several years
before 9/11. The evidence for this was stated in the movie
Loose Change.




Lord Dylan has spoken... so it hath be true!!! Simon, I posted two different articles stating the occupancy levels of the WTC complex. What did you not understand?




Originally posted by SimonSays

Just cuz the info comes from a truther or a truther site
does not make it fictitious.

You seem to think that only half of my research is correct
or either based on assumptions, they are not. They are based
on fact.


Based on facts.... See now were are getting somewhere. "based" Thats what the truthers do. Take facts and "base" theories off them. So far you havent shown one.


Originally posted by SimonSaysAs far as you saying this was old motives. Please do tell me
what changes in the towers that were made that cleared up
the asbestos problem or the Galvanic Corrosion problem so that
it was not needed in 2001? If the motive was there in 1980's
or 90's, then it was still there in 2001.


No, YOU show ME that there were problems with asbestos in the WTC towers. YOU show ME that there was Galvanic Corrision present. I dont want a theory that it MAY have been present. You need to provide facts with your theory.

The rest of your post is pretty much a factless rant. You obviously do not have the knowledge to understand the hazzards of asbestos. PERIOD. Just because asbestos is present does NOT mean it is dangerous. Please do a little research on it. It CAN be dangerous if disturbed...

Now...you are saying the NY Port Authority and Larry Silverstein were in on it with the White House and the rest of the NWO and the PNAC?

Please do tell how this all came about.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Hi Simon Says ---

Quite a story re the WTC and the tremendous problems --
makes a lot of sense and, of course, this leaves a lot of people
out there who know the facts of all this - despite what they might
have signed. What America needs most is truth hearings!!!

Thanks for the information ---
I've read something of this before, but not anything so detailed.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
There is another aspect to this story.

It is the re-development plan that is going on in New York City.

Before 9-11, it was already decided that it was a big mistake to put up building seven.

It blocked off Greenwitch Street and messed up traffic for the whole area.

They pretty much wanted to be able to re-think the whole thing, using what they had learned was mistakes in the whole arrangemnt of buildings.

Getting rid of those buildings allowed them the ability to set things right, as far as city panning goes.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


I think "they" helped out quite a bit actually, but I do agree that suicidal extremists crashed jets into the towers.

I think it is possible that the Towers might have needed some more help to actually collapse, but not necessarily.

I do not believe that WTC 7 fell as the result of damage sustained during the collapse of the first two towers.

I think the Pentagon was hit by a missile and Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. I do not believe that foreign terrorists had anything to do with those aspects of 9/11.

In short, there are legit foreign enemies of the US, but domestic complicity was not passive in the perpetration of the 9/11 attacks.


[edit on 1/27/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Members here might be interested to read "They didn't think the buildings would collapse..." There is some similar material mentioned there, that is being dicussed here on this thread.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Larry Silverstein was most elated to accomodate David Rockefeller, by getting Deutsche Bank out of the competition running in the world of high finance:

findarticles.com...

"In late February 2004, the Port Authority, together with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), announced its intention to negotiate the purchase of, or, if necessary, seek condemnation of, the Deutsche Bank site immediately to the south of the original World Trade Center parcel.11 Such expansion of the site facilitates the rebuilding of the entire ten million square feet of office space obligated in Silverstein's lease.12 Consistent with the original lease, Silverstein will have a long-term leasehold interest13 in any office space developed on this new parcel, while the Port Authority will own the underlying land.14"

www.thefreelibrary.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TwelfthStreet
 


you're welcome

I'm glad I can be of assistance
I just thought the extra data would be helpful


[edit on 29-1-2008 by SimonSays]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join