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.
Do we really need to discuss the obvious use of explosives further?
because no such evidence exist
Demolition experts, structural and civil engineers and other experts have dismissed demo explosives as well.
So... if you can offer an educated guess on why we should find such amounts of asbestos on top of (and steel-wool in) the dust: go ahead! I'm curious.
FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS
APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES
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.
LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING
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.
Photo 1
Photo 2
ACCUMULATED DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING
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.
LESSONS LEARNED
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
Except the ones you didn't even mention as they don't comply with 'your' story.
Nice try! Deny ignorance much?
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
I can't see how and why that explains the sheer amount of asbestos on top of the dust, you seem to miss the point constantly.
Let me guess... you think they are just batsh!t crazy. Right?
Of course it is BS, and as proof, point out the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the videos as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed. If you are unable to provide the time lines, your case will be dismissed.
Secondly, the false flag claim is false because there was no reason for the United States to kill almost 3000 people during the 9/11 attack.
David Chandler is the man who forced NIST to admit the wtc 7 fell at free fall for the first 100 feet.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Yeah, that's right... they were actually discussing budget cuts before this "New Pearl Harbour" sort of transformed the states completely, as intended. Nothing to see here, move on!
Take a closer look at the military budgets, your mind is going to be blown.
Yeah, that's right... they were actually discussing budget cuts before this "New Pearl Harbour" sort of transformed the states completely, as intended. Nothing to see here, move on!
Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels
U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recommended drastic cuts of billions of dollars that would take American military forces to its lowest level since before World War II.
www.nbcnews.com...
Dozens of air shows cancelled after military jets grounded due to sequester
Dozens of air shows that draw tens of thousands of people and generate millions of dollars for local economies have been cancelled this year after the military grounded its jet and demonstration teams because of automatic federal budget cuts.
www.foxnews.com...
US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion
The decade-long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up costing as much as $6 trillion, the equivalent of $75,000 for every American household, calculates the prestigious Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
www.globalresearch.ca...
Now, what about the military budget and the so-called 'New Pearl Harbor?'
Check this for the embedding. Pretty funny though, there is a youtube-vid for youtube-vid-embedding on ATS.
Now what? Missing points again?