Bush's connections and now a possible connection to controlled demo consulting and planning company

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 10:05 PM

First off if you would consult history books rather than truther sites you would know that in signing the Paris Peace Accords both the Republic of North Vietnam and the United States agreed that neither side knew just what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin. The agreement stated that by decree the incident was meaningless as neither side could prove the other was the aggressor. LBJ's Decision Points says the exact same thing.

What happened to the originating planes and the people on them is an unknown.

You can't debate in a vacuum. You simply can't cherrypick events and criticize them without working them into a solid time line. Who-What-When-Where and how.

All the phone calls were fake-the radar returns fake-all the air to ground and ground to air recordings-more than 90 min worth-are fake as well. If your going to debate that then where is your proof?

Highly decorated war hero's who are now professional pilots flying passenger jets just disappear off the face of the earth?

Well either way those pilots are regrettably dead right? So arguing rather they died in a building somewhere or on a plane is kinda useless. And doesn't prove a point either way. They were just more victims of a crime most want the truth for.

If you want proof, you are on the thread. This gives you a pretty well thought out timeline with info that a lot of people don't know about. Did they hijackers know about the upgraded floors then? Was that part of everything they had on them? Or did they have a guy inside Turner construction company?
Sure that is possible, but what are the chances?
I am sure you agree it was quite a feat to make the maneuvers the planes did, going the speeds they were going.
So with no practice they hit 2 nails on the head in the recently renovated parts of the building?
And shouldn't that have been a godsend?
Of ALL the levels to hit,they hit the ones with recent renovations!!! Should help with these fires that firefighters will not be able to get too. But sadly no, that great fireproofing was dislodged and made ineffective. And we all know the rest

And none of the info presented from a "Truther" stand point is ever redacted or stating the proof can't be shown due to national security. When they present a source it doesn't have black sharpie every where.

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:17 AM
Ha ha ha nice thread OP and I am so pleased that you had also posted this.

Seems like the veil is slowly but surely getting removed.
Just like a blindfold removed from the eyes of many.

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by tjeffersonsghost

there was a comptroller of the white house at the time
he was owner or ceo of a remote control air tanker company
2 trillion Dollars disappeared on his watch
he was a dual passport israely American...
and some israelis were arrested with advance knowledge that 911 was going to occur...dancing in celebration

the comptroller was Dov Zakhiem

thats remote control airplanes

edit on 2-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:35 AM
edit on 2-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by Danbones

Could you give a link to the vid? Not working here

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:53 PM
Bumping this for those who haven't see it and have been asking about it.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 07:41 PM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Good bump, was just thinking about searching for this for another thread.

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 06:58 AM
Why exactly did this building have fireproofing that needed to be removed if a plane hitting it full of jet fuel couldn't damage or destroy this impenetrable frame??

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 07:08 AM
Wow, thanks for bumping this thread. Can't wait to get home and watch the vids, etc.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:08 PM
a reply to: In4ormant

Why exactly did this building have fireproofing that needed to be removed if a plane hitting it full of jet fuel couldn't damage or destroy this impenetrable frame??

An internal inspection revealed that application of fire protection on WTC structural steel was substandard.



Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations. Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

However, the nature of the structures that were fireproofed and application methods used could also contribute to the problem. Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered. This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing. These are deficiencies that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM field quality assurance tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density had these test methods existed at the time of construction.


The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly. Would the material remain on the steel (adhesion), resist physical damage (cohesion), insulate properly (thickness and density), and behave as a fire retardant? Architects relied on the "testing" undertaken by Underwriters Laboratories. However, without field quality assurance tests, there was no way of knowing if the properties of the applied fireproofing matched those of the material subjected to the UL test. The previously discussed tests would not become available until years after the completion of the WTC. For example, the ASTM test for adhesion would have detected the bonding defects of the fireproofing on core columns. This test and the ASTM test for thickness and density would have determined the adequacy of the spray fireproofing on the floor joists.

The WTC should not be considered unique in this regard. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

Poor Fire Protection Application Photo 1

Poor Fire Pretection Application Photo 2


There is another important aspect to this issue. There is no existing requirement in any building or occupancy code to inspect the fireproofing in a building periodically to determine if it has degraded through gradual physical damage. This is even true for new construction where the fireproofing is installed and tested early in the construction process. Successive work by many trades often damages and removes whole sections of fireproofing. In the WTC, the fireproofing coatings had been damaged by later construction and renovation in many locations.


In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deficient firestopping

Deficient firestopping provides an avenue for fire spread. Columns, girders and beams are commonly protected with spray asbestos insulation or a composition material. Spray insulation has been tested to offer four-hour test ratings on columns, three hours on beams and girders.

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in