It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
Yeah, that even trumps approval of congress - the two part one-party corporate owned US political system that has been feeding you all those impossible fables for decades.
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."
Mighty big talk from an underdog in these discussions.
Work on reversing your underdog status by identifying issues and thus generating meaningful discussion.
This has been an evident shortcoming of yours so far resulting in meager support for your views. Kind regards, galdur
Structural design Main article: Construction of the World Trade Center The towers were designed as "tube in tube" structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans uninterrupted by columns or walls. Numerous, closely-spaced perimeter columns provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core. Above the tenth floor, there were 59 perimeter columns along each face of the building, and there were 47 heavier columns in the core. All of the elevators and stairwells were located in the core, leaving a large column-free space between the perimeter that was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors with shear connections to the concrete slab for composite action. The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short-span area. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were therefore on 6.8 feet (2.1 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to interior box columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The towers also incorporated a "hat truss" or "outrigger truss" located between the 107th and 110th floors, which consisted of six trusses along the long axis of core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed optimized load redistribution of floor diaphragms between the perimeter and core, with improved performance between the different materials of flexible steel and rigid concrete allowing the moment frames to transfer sway into compression on the core, which also mostly supported the transmission tower.  Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts The structural engineers working on the World Trade Center considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building. Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers working on the design of the World Trade Center, has since claimed to have personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner—a Boeing 707—which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport. However, Robertson has provided no documentation for this assertion. NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7. In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." In its report, NIST stated that the technical ability to perform a rigorous simulation of aircraft impact and ensuing fires is a recent development, and that the technical capability for such analysis would have been quite limited in the 1960s.[note 1]  Fireproofing In April 1970, the New York City Department of Air Resources ordered contractors building the World Trade Center to stop the spraying of asbestos as an insulating material. Fireproofing was incorporated in the original construction and more was added after a fire in 1975 that spread to six floors before being extinguished. After the 1993 bombing, inspections found fireproofing to be deficient. The Port Authority was in the process of replacing it, but replacement had been completed on only 18 floors in 1 WTC, including all the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fires, and on 13 floors in 2 WTC, although only three of these floors (77, 78, and 85) were directly affected by the aircraft impact.[note 2] and that the fireproofing was being replaced due to its asbestos content, in fact the builders had been informed of a proposed ban on using asbestos/vermiculite fireproofing during construction and had ceased using it. By this time, only the fireproofing of the lower 40 floors of the north tower had been completed, and more than half of this was later replaced before the building was completed. Although replacement fireproofing was specified at 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) in thickness, NIST found the average thickness to be 2.5 inches (6.4 cm). NIST concluded that "the existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role".
Please take the time to consider the events of that day, the events that followed, and the responses of people around the world and do you best to provide us with your opinions on the following questions.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
Call me crazy.
I'd have to get in a real long line.
Does it bother you that even on a conspiracy website, dedicated to the proposition of the existance of complex conspiracies, your particular brand of conspiracy is considered, well, crazy?
Originally posted by galdur
Continuing my discussion of 9/11, obviously it´s impossible to prove falsehoods and therefore by effect lies age very badly. So, it´s a function of time and its effects. It seems in the long run impossible to maintain lies but how long the fraudulent promulgation can last - is anybody´s guess at this point.
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by psyop911
Frankly, it´s totally beyond me why even one fifth of the clientele of this fine conspiracy site would lend any credence at all to the silly official fables. I would imagine that in these enlightened times purely faith-based bunk would be supported by maybe 1-2%.
Whatever. nonsensical views of 9/11 are still the deciding minority here which certainly is reassuring.