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.

 

What if the towers hadn't fell?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
But were merely damaged and the loss of life being contained to those lost in the crash itself, and not in the collapse?

What would have been the difference in death toll?

How important was it for the towers to collapse?

If we merely had two holes in the buldings and some fire damage, would it be enough to "justify" global conquest that resulted from the outrage of 3000 dead and a symbol of economic power crumbled to dust?




posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
For one,almost 5000 people wouldnt have died and you wouldnt be posting this right now.That bin laden would be staging his next sickening plan.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by alienstar]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
If the towers remained standing they would have had a huge clean up bill. The towers were full of asbestos and would have to have been dismantled very carefully, not demolished.

That's why I believe Silverstein was in on the plan, and needed to be to allow full access to the buildings to plant explosives etc...He got his insurance pay off, the problem with the asbestos solved, and his buildings demolished and cleaned up ready for re-building.

There was also the FBI offices in WTC7 that had evidence of tax fraud by various corporations including Enron.

They killed a few birds that day with three stones...

Don't ask for proof I have none, this is just me thinking out-loud and connecting dots.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If the towers remained standing they would have had a huge clean up bill. The towers were full of asbestos and would have to have been dismantled very carefully, not demolished.

That's why I believe Silverstein was in on the plan, and needed to be to allow full access to the buildings to plant explosives etc...He got his insurance pay off, the problem with the asbestos solved, and his buildings demolished and cleaned up ready for re-building.

There was also the FBI offices in WTC7 that had evidence of tax fraud by various corporations including Enron.

They killed a few birds that day with three stones...

Don't ask for proof I have none, this is just me thinking out-loud and connecting dots.


You're connecting dots that don't exist. The towers were not filled with asbestos. There was only one tower that had it. And it was not the complete tower.

You are accusing Larry Silverstein of not just WTC but WTC 1 & 2? By "allowing" the buildings to be wired? Wow... where did these dots come from?
The man owns the lease for 1 & 2 ...so that gives him the authoirty to allow demo crews inside to wire for destruction the largest in history? Wow...thats interesting.

The FBI - Enron link... so Silverstein went to the FBI and said.. "hey guys, I'm planning on blowing up a few buildings... you guys want it?"

Come on now find some real dots and connect them



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
so Silverstein went to the FBI and said.. "hey guys, I'm planning on blowing up a few buildings... you guys want it?"


That's not what I said, don't put words in my mouth.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Now now Yoghurt, you must know as well as anyone else that trying to find the single plausible antagonist of those attacks is like trying to find wally among a page full of wallys - infact i think they did that once.

They even had clues like "He's missing his left shoe" so you'd have something to go on - now and again getting excited because you found a shoe in a sea of wally.

He's just on a different page mate, seeing whether or not there are any hidden clues in the rest of the book.

In this case, he's merely looking at the activities of certain organisations during the time of the attack.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
**This is strictly my opinion

If the towers hadn't collapsed, then a crucial symbol of corporate America, of capitalism, would still be standing today. If they had not fallen, then the feeling of threat to the United States would not have been nearly so great. Then the surreal images of people running down the streets of New York, covered in dust and soot, crying and holding onto anyone would not have emerged.

I believe that the 'war on terror' would never have happened. Would Iraq and Afghanistan still have been invaded? Yes, because we need the one resource they've got loads of: oil. We would just have gone under a different pretext...perhaps a mission for the U.N.?

The Patriot Act would never have been implemented, nor would several executive orders curtailing freedoms made by President Bush hve been made. Because under any other circumstances, I highly doubt that the freedom loving people of the United States would have allowed such things. They would have taken a closer look at the fine print. They would have advocated more strongly against going into Afghanistan and Iraq.

As a result of the collapse of the towers, America was affected as I believe it could not have otherwise been. Bush came in as the knight on the white horse and did a lot of things which under any other circumstances, he would not have gotten away with.

Again, this is strictly my opinion which I have come to through a considerable amount of research. I acknowledge the fact that what I am saying is not without flaws and is not along the lines of the official story. I ask that you respect my opinion, regardless of if you agree with it, because I will do you the same courtesy by respecting yours.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   


I think this speaks for itself...

But regardless of how much was used, it doesn't change the fact that there was asbestos in the buildings, or even in just one building, they could not demolish without removing the asbestos which would have meant a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of expense.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I don't think 200 million for removing asbestos is much in light of how much money the property was generating.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   


But regardless of how much was used, it doesn't change the fact that there was asbestos in the buildings, or even in just one building, they could not demolish without removing the asbestos which would have meant a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of expense.


The asbestos was only in North (WTC 1) Tower and then up to 38th floor
it was part of the SFRM (Sprayed Fire Resistant Material) used to coat
the floor trusses and undersides of steel floor decking.

Asbestos containing SFRM was coated with encapsulating agent to
contain and identify it.



"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"



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The twin towers fallen as they did made a big impact, especially when the
networks kept on replaying the towers collapsing.

Without the towers collapsing it wouldnt of been a done deal.

Asbestos in the World Trade Center



WTC Asbestos



Apparently by the time the second tower was constructed no asbestos was used because of the well known safety fears, also when theres been renovations over the years the asbestos has been removed from the sections, after the 1993 bombing there was extensive renovations on the lower floors at the very least.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

The Federal government placed a moratorium on the production of most asbestos products in the early 1970's, but these products continued to be installed through the late 1970's and even into the early 1980's. Asbestos cement pipe which would need to be cut, beveled, and grinded by pipe fitters had continued well into the late 1980s and sometimes the 1990s.

Source


On July 12, 1989, EPA issued a final rule banning most asbestos-containing products. In 1991, this regulation was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. As a result of the Court's decision, the following specific asbestos-containing products remain banned: flooring felt, rollboard, and corrugated, commercial, or specialty paper. In addition, the regulation continues to ban the use of asbestos in products that have not historically contained asbestos, otherwise referred to as "new uses" of asbestos. For more information read EPA Asbestos Materials Ban (ABPO Rule): Clarification (PDF) (3 pp., 10 K) - May 1999.


The Towers were finished in 1971. Asbestos wasn't banned until 1989. I think there could have been more asbestos in those towers than is now claimed.

[edit on 27/5/2008 by ANOK]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   


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.


While EPA did not finally ban asbestos in building products until 1989,
city of New York did in 1970. Fire resistive materials containing
asbestos were not permitted after that date for use in high rise buildings.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Isn't this is a bit of a dead-thread?

The towers DID fall, so speculating about them not falling seems to be a waste of time, energy and effort.

You would be better off putting your resources into finding out why the towers fell, rather than believing the flawed NIST report.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Again as I said earlier regardless of how much asbestos there were it was still in the buildings, or only one of them. Enough to be making people sick...


First responders and New York City residents are dying of mesothelioma and being sickened with other asbestos-related disease. Doctors and scientists have long predicted that, in years to come, we’d be seeing an onslaught of mesothelioma cases in greater New York City, caused by the tons of asbestos that rained down on fire fighters, police officers, paramedics, and those who lived and worked near the World Trade Center.

Source

Is there any real proof that the asbestos fire proofing wasn't in both buildings? And regardless asbestos is used in more than just the fire-proofing as the ad I posted shows. And talking about that ad, it was obviously done after the towers were built, are they lying? Why use the WTC in the add if asbestos was already banned in NYC and not used in their construction?

But also remember the asbestos was only a part of the towers problems. They were inefficient and not really making money, regardless of how occupied they were.

BTW the asbestos was banned in 1973, not 1970...


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned asbestos use in 1973. However the only products that were banned from manufacturing, use or importation were Sprayed-on Fireproofing, Pre-fabricated Pipe Insulation and certain types of Felts.

Source

And it wasn't all asbestos...

[edit on 27/5/2008 by ANOK]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DezertSkies
enough to "justify" global conquest that resulted from the outrage of 3000 dead and a symbol of economic power crumbled to dust?


"Global conquest"? You're not serious, right? We're talking two small countries in the big scheme of things, plus there has been no "conquest." Each country is being self-governed.

I think having a hole in the Pentagon combined with OBL taking credit for said hole in the Pentagon would have been enough to justify an aggressive military response.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
If the towers hadn't fallen....

I would probably still be watching ridiculous amounts of television and waving a stupid piece of cloth on a pole, and not giving a damn about whether every single thought I ever had was contrived or not.

Fortunately, they made the mistake of bringing down a relatively large building that was not hit by a plane in a fairly obvious way.

"Oopsies! I mean uhhh yeah there was lots of fire."

No there wasn't!

"Uhhh okay let me see...ummm.... there was lots of damage?"

Not enough damage.

"Okay then... ummmm then you're crazy and yes there was."

Thanks, I appreciate that, guy who watches the news.



[edit on 27-5-2008 by dunwichwitch]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DezertSkies

But were merely damaged and the loss of life being contained to those lost in the crash itself, and not in the collapse?

What would have been the difference in death toll?


Possibly none, or not much, as those who died were predominantly stuck above the floors where the fires were raging and unable to descend.

Preventing the top floors above the fires from collapsing once the steel frame had weakened from heat was almost certainly impossible. The controversy has always been about whether the global collapse of the floors beneath the fires was possible or likely given the circumstances of engineering stress and design of the buildings.


How important was it for the towers to collapse?


Important to whom? It has always been my opinion that had the remainder of the towers not collapsed then the impact on popular consciousness would have been at least as great, with ruined buildings disfiguring the skyline visible for months or years for miles around, and the repair/clean-up would have taken much longer. There would still have been one hell of a mess.

For this reason, 'controlled demolition' from a MOTIVE point of view has never made any sense. From an engineering point of view to explain the collapse is a different question. But if any kind of demo were used, then someone took one enormous and quite unnecessary risk in doing it. Again, this begs the querstion, why? If you want a terror attack, then take as few risks of discovery as possible.


If we merely had two holes in the buldings and some fire damage, would it be enough to "justify" global conquest that resulted from the outrage of 3000 dead and a symbol of economic power crumbled to dust?


If 'we merely' had this result, then the answer is an emphatic 'yes', it would have been enough. And there would be one fewer CT for alleged perpetrators to worry about.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Is there any real proof that the asbestos fire proofing wasn't in both buildings? And regardless asbestos is used in more than just the fire-proofing as the ad I posted shows. And talking about that ad, it was obviously done after the towers were built, are they lying? Why use the WTC in the add if asbestos was already banned in NYC and not used in their construction?


Seem to have problem understanding - NYC banned asbestos fire
proofing starting in 1970. At that point North Tower was about 1/3
complete, Port Authorithy was forced to make major changes in
construction to find similar fire proofing materials. Used reformulated
product which substituted mineral fibers for asbestos in the fire
proofing. I don't why you keep insisting that both buildings were
constructed using asbestos despite all the evidence. The Port Authorithy
kept detailed records of how each floor of the building was constructed.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
ASBESTOS AT THE WTC:

Some facts to erase some dots.(sorry Anok)


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 12, 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

NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, WTC Investigation, Passive Fire Protection Executive Summary page xxxv

There was no requirement for undisturbed asbestos SFRM to be removed from the north tower! Whenever a tenant space was vacated and renovation work was to be done in the asbestos-containing portion of the north tower, licensed asbestos-abatement firms removed the asbestos SFRM, which was replaced with SFRM that was up to code. This work continued when necessary until September 2001. I have worked with on company called LVI. They are the same company that did the CD in Vegas. (Stardust?)

In 1991 the Port Authority sued its past and current all-risk property insurers for what it predicted to be the cost of removing asbestos from all of its properties in New York and New Jersey. Those properties include the World Trade Center, Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK airports, harbor, rail, bridge, and tunnel facilities, and the PA's HQ on Randall's Island. The potential cost calculated by the Port Authority for work at all of those properties was $600 million. That was the amount claimed in the lawsuit.

In May, 2001, the court ruled against the PA, for these reasons:

A) The asbestos at the properties didn't pose a health threat that would necessitate the evacuation of the buildings for abatement work. The abatement work that had been done was safely accomplished while the buildings were occupied. In his ruling, Judge Bissell gave this example of work that was not covered by the PA's loss and damage insurance policies:


"The express purpose of (a Port Authority abatement project) was to stem lost revenue resulting from a loss of new tenants who wished to 'rebuild office space to their desired specifications but who would not do so unless (asbestos-containing materials) were abated.' "


B) The PA was claiming actual losses on 69 asbestos abatement projects, although it had only incurred costs on 13 projects.

The PA appealed the decision, and lost its appeal. You can find the judgment of 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Weis here:

vls.law.villanova.edu...

In part:


The District Court held that unless asbestos in a building was of such quantity and condition as to make the structure unusable, the expense of correcting the situation was not within the scope of a first party insurance policy covering "physical loss or damage." We agree and will affirm.




The Port Authority’s policy on the asbestos present was to "manage [it] in place and to abate it only when required." The record in the District Court established that none of the plaintiffs’ structures violated applicable regulations, and asbestos levels inside the buildings were comparable to background levels on the streets. In the more than 1,000 locations alleged to contain asbestos or an imminent threat of its release, plaintiffs assert claims for 69 abatement projects, which the record shows had been carried out in only 13 instances. During this time, all of plaintiffs’ structures continued in normal use.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join