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.

 

My doubts over bombs

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Hi All

This is my first post..

I have been reading posts on forums and looking at some of the websites about 9/11 for about 6 months
trying to come to my own conclusions over what happened.

1. WTC1 & WTC2 collapse
Why bother putting demolition charges in there? The plane crashes themselves would have caused huge loss of
life and public shock without the towers coming down. If there had been charges placed there would have been
a risk that somebody would have found them. Also if there had been charges there why wait to detonate them?
Why not set them off at the moment the planes impacted? That would have caused even more loss of life.

Some people point to the apparent explosions just below the level of the smoke and fire when the towers started
to collapse. How would it be possible to place charges at the same level as where the plane struck? How could they
be sure at what level the plane would impact. Also the triggering devices - radio controlled or the like - could have
been destroyed by the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires. Also if there were demolition charges set how could
they be sure that they had not placed too much and it would look too suspicious?

There was a post about the possibilities of small thermonuclear device being placed. In my understanding the thermonuclear
bomb was designed to create as big an explosion as possible. So I would tend to discount this idea. Also I would imagine
that something that this would have to be experimented with to ensure its success. Is there any evidence that anything like
this has been tried out before?

As to thermite being used, from what I have read this would have needed to be in contact with the steel structure to have
worked and the steel structure was encased in concrete.

On the other hand why did the remains of the structure stay at such a high temperature underground for several weeks?




posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoloco
 


I too am very confused and upset about details that unfolded after the events of 9/11.



Why all three buildings that fell as if they were "pulled" is because the order was given to bring them down. The fear of those buildings toppling would justify the "rigging" with "cutter charges". The previous attack was in the basment with the intent to topple. Our government had a "cure" in place to off set the danger of the domino effect of toppling buildings. Why our government choose to "pull" those buildings is questionable at best.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Try searching for asbestos and WTC. Maybe that will get you started on why.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Here, did it for you.

911research.wtc7.net...


The Twin Towers had large amounts of asbestos fireproofing which would have necessitated costly removal had they remained standing. The exact amount and distribution of the asbestos in the Towers remains unclear, like other details of the buildings' construction and history, but the evidence suggests that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   


Why all three buildings that fell as if they were "pulled" is because the order was given to bring them down. The fear of those buildings toppling would justify the "rigging" with "cutter charges". The previous attack was in the basment with the intent to topple. Our government had a "cure" in place to off set the danger of the domino effect of toppling buildings. Why our government choose to "pull" those buildings is questionable at best.


Seem to forget something about 2 massive airliners which smashed
into each tower. As original poster states how could be sure that
plane would hit correct location - UAL 175 almost missed South Tower
Only at last second did pilot pull radical maneuver to hit building - even
then hit corner of building rather instead of center. Again how does
one sneak explosives into occupied building and cut into walls without
leaving traces? Much less get detonators to function in large steel
building - real demolition experts lay miles of det cord and shock tubes
to insure detonation.

The WTC 7 - most kooks seen to think building suddenly fell down
one day - forgetting again that was struck by massive amount of debris
from Tower 1 which ripped open south face of building and set number
of fires on multiple floors.

One you lose the conspiracy fantasty and start looking on what happened, not what you want to happen takes on whole different meaning.....



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   


Try searching for asbestos and WTC. Maybe that will get you started on why.


Depends on what information you use - if go to kook conspiracy or
sites by structural engineers/construcion experts.

Asbestos was only in lower 1/3 of North Tower, Port Authority took
steps to isolate asbestos fire insulation. Was encapsulated by tough
outer coating and colored to indicated presence of asbestos.




Some lower floors of WTC 1 were originally fire protected with a spray-applied product containing asbestos, but this was later replaced or encapsulated. The rest of WTC 1 and all of WTC2 was sprayed with an asbestos-free was used. Each element of the steel floor trusses was protected with spray-applied material with average thickness of 20 mm. The FEMA report notes that “In the mid-1990s, a decision was made to upgrade the fire protection by applying additional material onto the
trusses so as to increase fireproofing thickness to 1-1/2 inches. The fireproofing upgrade was applied to individual floors as they became vacant. By September 11, 2001, a total of 31 stories had been
upgraded, including the entire impact zone in WTC 1 (floors 94–98), but only the 78th floor in the impact zone in WTC 2 (floors 78–84).”


www.civil.usyd.edu.au...




Each tower contained about 100,000 tons of steel and 4 in. of concrete topping on the 40,000-sq-ft floors, according to Henry H. Deutch, assistant to the chief structural engineer for construction manager Tishman Realty & Construction Co. Inc., New York City, during the construction of the WTC and currently head of HHD Consultants Inc., Osceola County, Fla.

Deutch says that originally, the north tower contained asbestos in its cementitious fireproofing as did the first 30 stories of the south tower. He believes the asbestos, which had been encapsulated, was removed after the 1993 bombing. In a press conference, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said the city's health department had tested the air in the area and found no undue amount of chemical agents.



www.public-action.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Actually, I went to the first link after i searched for asbestos and WTC because I was looking for a quick reference. If you had looked deeper down on the link you would have seen the same information you posted. I just took a quick snippet as for it being a possible reason with an estimated cost of $800,000.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under- tenanted, beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority, had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb.

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled by the engineers and delivered to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."
political-resources.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


under-tenanted? The building was at 98% occupancy rate on Feb 12,2001.

www.panynj.gov...


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.




You might want to check your facts, Cashlink...

[edit on 29-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled by the engineers and delivered to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."
political-resources.com...

Unfortunately this article is a nice story, but there is no evidence to back up the story. In fact he makes a few mistakes, such as claiming that extruded aluminium bore loads on the exterior of the towers. This is false.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


You need to learn to read before posting!
Fist of all I did not say the building had a low occupancy rate.

Therefore, “you” need to read before you start slamming other posters.
I know about the 98% occupancy rate and everyone else know as well, that’s done a little research.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Unfortunately this article is a nice story, but there is no evidence to back up the story. In fact he makes a few mistakes, such as claiming that extruded aluminium bore loads on the exterior of the towers. This is false.

Oh really! Can you prove this and do show your source?

Sadly enough, the end result of simple human error has now brought the entire world to a state of heightened alarm, to say the very least. I strongly encourage you to cross-reference these issues, as recorded in countless independent and government source documents pertaining to the critical stress-dynamics, and galvanic properties inherent in aluminium alloys.




[edit on 8/29/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
Oh really! Can you prove this and do show your source?

Sure, go look at any construction photographs of the towers. The cladding was not added on until later. Either that or go look at

  1. Leaked Blueprints
  2. NIST Report
  3. Post-Construction Photographs
  4. Steel debris post-collapse
  5. Any source other than this page



Sadly enough, the end result of simple human error has now brought the entire world to a state of heightened alarm, to say the very least. I strongly encourage you to cross-reference these issues, as recorded in countless independent and government source documents pertaining to the critical stress-dynamics, and galvanic properties inherent in aluminium alloys.

Oh I don't doubt that dissimilar metals can undergo corrosion, but do you know how the aluminium panels worked?

Even handwaving away my complaint there, it doesn't explain why you would build, demolish and rebuild scaffolding twice despite the fact the building was constructed without this ridiculous scenario. There are lots of strange mentions in this story, such as how there are references to WTC7 and quotes from the FEMA report.

It's all fine and dandy speculating, but this story has been around for years and no evidence has ever backed it up. It's just one of those claims that's out there and some people believe.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

You need to learn to read before posting!
Fist of all I did not say the building had a low occupancy rate.


Umm, scroll up, Cashola. This is what you said:


Originally posted by cashlink
Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under-tenanted, beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority, had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb.


Under-Tenanted. You DO know what a tenant is, correct?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Oh please! You are boring me with your opinions.
Please state your facts, that 'galvanic corrosion was “NOT” a problem at the WTC.
Your proof please that you “have” that none of it is true.
Are you a scientist or an engineer? Have you run tests on the WTC debris?
In addition, what is your scientific report conclude?
And “YOU” are who again?

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled by the engineers and delivered to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


Just think I am on your friends list LOL YA RIGHT!
Oh boy you still don’t get it.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Just trying to figure out why a friend would post something that is an out and out lie, just to sensationalize his post? It took me less than a minute to find out what the occupancy/tenancy was for the WTC complex prior to 9/11.

As a friend, I'm just asking that you do a little more research before posting such things.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


First of all I did not post a lie.
I ask you to show were “I” MADE THAT STATEMENT?
And stop, with you need to do your research antics!
You are making a fool out of your self.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Too easy! Click on the following links:

here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

or here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

or just scroll up on this thread.


Posted by cashlink, on August 29, 2008 at 21:49 GMT

Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under- tenanted, beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority, had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb.


Just admit you made up the statement, without any facts to back it up. Your lies are making your dog cry.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


Again these are copies from Articles that I pasted.
So far you are calling me a liar I have not wrote that statement anywhere and if you keep this kind of bashing up I will have to report you again!
And one more thing, take me off your friend list because you are no friend of mine.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join