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 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.
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.
Try searching for asbestos and WTC. Maybe that will get you started on why.
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).”
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.
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.
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...
Originally posted by cashlink
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.
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.
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.
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.