Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

The Italian Mafia should had been the ones sued for the faulty steel.

I don't know if the surviving families who lost their relatives in the WTC are aware of this.

a reply to: Informer1958

Steel was fabricated by suppliers from all over the country

Construction work began on the North Tower in August 1968 with construction beginning on the South Tower by January 1969. In January 1967, $74 million in contracts were awarded to the Pacific Car and Foundry Company, Laclede Steel Company, Granite City Steel Company, and Karl Koch Erecting Company to supply steel for the project. The Port Authority chose to use many different steel suppliers, bidding on smaller portions of steel, rather than buy larger amounts from a single source such as Bethlehem Steel or U.S. Steel as a cost-saving measure. Karl Koch was also hired to do all the work of erecting the steel, and a contract for work on the aluminum facade was awarded to the Aluminum Company of America. Tishman Realty & Construction was hired in February 1967 to oversee construction of the project.

Doubt that they were all members of the "MOB"

Local construction companies, particularly concrete and plasterers companies which were often "mobbed up"

Question is how well the fire proofing was applied to the steel of the building

It was failure of the steel do to heat that lead to collapse

Louis DiBono , a "made guy" in the Gambino family operated business. He was ordered "whacked" by John Gotti ....

mafia.wikia.com...

originally posted by: Informer1958
In all my years of research in the WTC, this was never brought to my attention. I had no idea.

It's some I and many from NYC have been saying for a long time.

In fact, I think somewhere in the deep aged recesses of ATS, where I offered a chronology of how the events went down in our office (Midtown Manhattan, a major client 2 blocks away, several employees with family in the buildings, watching the TV in the lobby), one of the older gentlemen in the building maintenance crew worked in the WTC construction. I related how, 20 minutes before the buildings fell, he said, "Those weren't built right, they're going to come down."

The organized crime involvement in substandard construction, and rapid removal of evidence, is plenty of fodder for many conspiracy theories.

If this is all true, then I can now except the OS of the WTC.

Not so fast. The official narrative white-washes these documented construction deficiencies. It relies on the designed structural requirements and specifications on tests of sample steel. So there are still issues, just not the same issues that sparked your doubt.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'm not a major contributor to the 9/11 forum, but can I just ask a question? (Obviously not the one I just asked lol)

So the "coverup" wasn't actually that the government blew the buildings, hired someone to fly planes or any of that. The ACTUAL coverup was the construction of the buildings themselves?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The official narrative white-washes these documented construction deficiencies.

That's kind of a moot point.
The buildings withstood everything nature threw at them for a couple of decades, shoddy or not.
It wasn't even the planes that directly took them down.

I've always had a hunch that if there had not been any structure damage, only fuel fires, the buildings would have been saved.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The official narrative white-washes these documented construction deficiencies.

That's kind of a moot point.
The buildings withstood everything nature threw at them for a couple of decades, shoddy or not.
It wasn't even the planes that directly took them down.

I've always had a hunch that if there had not been any structure damage, only fuel fires, the buildings would have been saved.

Likely the steel wasn't that substandard or it would have collapsed under the first wind load. As you know, engineers always add "safety factors" of 2 or 3 [or more] for unforeseen circumstances. In an earlier post, I showed the link to a plot of strength of materials to temperature. Steel melts at 2500 F; it weakens at much lower temperatures. At 1000 F structural steel has only 40% of its original strength www.engineeringtoolbox.com... Removal of structural members by the aircraft and heat weakening of the steel were too much to maintain structural integrity.
My bet about the construction is substandard bolts/nuts/welds [or fewer] and the concrete floors. Structural steel made by smaller companies is likely not an issue as their processes are standardized and the safety factor built into the design would cover any small discrepancies. I'd bet they just had to kick back and use certain trucking companies for delivery. As I posted on another thread, sand is cheaper than cement [concrete is Portland cement, sand, and aggregate[gravel] in a 1:2:3 ratio] so more sand and gravel and less cement can save money. Strength is compromised but this is one place that is easily cheated. Slump tests and weld inspections can be faked, inspectors bribed/threatened with a 90th floor accident, and so on. Collapse would be the only way to see the substandard concrete as it would crumble more readily and make a lot of dust. maybe you noticed that in the videos. The person that said that the buildings weren't built right may have referred to this and the fasteners rather than the steel, unless he was a steel inspector.
In my opinion, the towers were doomed regardless of the materials because of the loss of structural members and fireproofing due to the impacts.

originally posted by: pteridine
Likely the steel wasn't that substandard or it would have collapsed under the first wind load.

Not precisely true. If construction is 80% to required stresses, and typical wind stress is 50%, then nothing would happen. But if airliner impact is 90% of stress tolerance, then we have a problem.

In any event, reports of substandard steel were only part of what the New York Times uncovered (trying to get some time to get to the NY Library Main branch, find the articles on microfiche again, and get printouts), there was, as you mentioned, rampant shortcuts in construction -- fewer rivets/welds than specified, and lesser fire protection than specified.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So the "coverup" wasn't actually that the government blew the buildings, hired someone to fly planes or any of that. The ACTUAL coverup was the construction of the buildings themselves?

The most likely scenario is that there are layers upon layers of coverups.

Since the substandard construction information is in the public knowledge (but not generally known), yes, it was to the advantage of several entities to speed the cleanup and sell off the scrap metal as quickly as possible. And for the most part, the waste management firms carting away debris at an astonishing pace (and were also the ones responsible for setting aside samples for investigators) were owned or controlled by the same organized crime families that owned or controlled the construction firms, and payed-off the building inspectors. This is but one layer of coverup.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So the "coverup" wasn't actually that the government blew the buildings, hired someone to fly planes or any of that. The ACTUAL coverup was the construction of the buildings themselves?

The most likely scenario is that there are layers upon layers of coverups.

Since the substandard construction information is in the public knowledge (but not generally known), yes, it was to the advantage of several entities to speed the cleanup and sell off the scrap metal as quickly as possible. And for the most part, the waste management firms carting away debris at an astonishing pace (and were also the ones responsible for setting aside samples for investigators) were owned or controlled by the same organized crime families that owned or controlled the construction firms, and payed-off the building inspectors. This is but one layer of coverup.

I'm actually surprised that after 14 years this is the first I've ever heard of it from either side of the argument.

I don't know about anyone else, but this certainly puts things into a bit of a new light for myself.

Edit to add

This would surely muddy the waters for both sides of 9/11?

1, Planes hit, fire, damage etc brought the towers down because of substandard building materials. Also the debris was whisked away quickly to cover the evidence

And

2, Explosives were used to bring the buildings down to cover up substandard building materials. Also the debris was whisked away quickly to cover the evidence.

I personally believe number 1, but I should also say I can understand number 2 (apart from the lack of evidence for explosives).

originally posted by: Informer1958
If this is all true, then I can now except the OS of the WTC.

Before you do, you may want to read this:

No matter how weak the steel may or may not have been, nobody will ever be able to explain away the ejections by anything other than explosives being detonated:




Those ejections have only ever been visible in controlled demolitions as they are a direct result of high-energy explosives being detonated causing dust/debris to be ejected.

And here we have steel columns with white smoke emanating from the ends as if just freshly severed by explosives.




At least three first-responders reported seeing flashes going off inside both towers during collapse. And the flashes had popping sounds associated with them.

Numerous survivors and by-standers reported hearing "boom, boom, boom" sounds as you would hear in a controlled demolition.

Ejections, flashes, booms, smoke emanating from the ends of steel columns: all signs of controlled demoltions. No amount of debate on how weak the steel was can explain away the signs of a controlled demolition.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Not only that, everyone concentrates on what was going on at the top of the buildings, impact areas. While ignoring what was going on at street level and below..

a reply to: _BoneZ_

As I mentioned [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1099110/pg12#pid20220527]on the previous page the sudden very-high kinetic energy of structural failure under insanely high load can cause an explosion, complete with dust clouds and flashes.

In my freshman year in engineering, we built balsa wood bridges to stand up to high loads. I and a couple friends decided to risk a potential failing grade in the lab to push the limits of balsa wood by using laminated members and disallowed glue. It was very strong, with the finished bridge failing at nearly 1,000 pounds. The first point of failure was mid-truss, where the stress was so high, the wood was burnt. Just a small example of how very high stresses on a single point can create an explosive event. (The professor gave us a failing grade in the lab, but a B+ extra credit for creativity.)

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: pteridine
Likely the steel wasn't that substandard or it would have collapsed under the first wind load.

Not precisely true. If construction is 80% to required stresses, and typical wind stress is 50%, then nothing would happen. But if airliner impact is 90% of stress tolerance, then we have a problem.

In any event, reports of substandard steel were only part of what the New York Times uncovered (trying to get some time to get to the NY Library Main branch, find the articles on microfiche again, and get printouts), there was, as you mentioned, rampant shortcuts in construction -- fewer rivets/welds than specified, and lesser fire protection than specified.

You're right. I was being dramatic about the wind loads.
Companies would likely only deliver what was ordered. If the steel spec was substandard, USS and Bethlehem would have noticed and called somebody on it but smaller companies could be kept unaware or just looked the other way. I'm still guessing that smaller companies are more pliable w/resp to kickbacks and selective transport and that the concrete, site controllable, was substandard. Labor costs associated with fasteners/welds can be greatly reduced, also. Both concrete and labor are site controlled and leave no paper trail. It could be all of the above.
The hustle to get rid of the steel and rubble is interesting. There are many people who would have a vested interest in that happening, especially those who oversaw the project and might have accepted bribes. NYC would also get a general black eye and sympathy could turn to finger pointing and legal liability. Imagine the costs for civil suits alone. Say $1million for each death plus the buildings and collateral damage plus legal costs.
Now this will make a great conspiracy topic to explore. Imagine that the "truth" organizations were co-opted and fed disinfo to keep the focus on the demolition side of things.

originally posted by: pteridine
Now this will make a great conspiracy topic to explore. Imagine that the "truth" organizations were co-opted and fed disinfo to keep the focus on the demolition side of things.

There are many who believe this is exactly what happened. Including myself. I was there when the group that became "9/11 Truth" was co-opted by such people (Nico Haupt), and pulled away from getting the attack investigated as a criminal act, toward what you describe.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

No matter how weak the steel may or may not have been, nobody will ever be able to explain away the ejections by anything other than explosives being detonated:

Since when does an explosion only blow out ONE window on a floor?
You would expect debris to blow out many windows per floor.

The hustle to get rid of the steel and rubble is interesting.

Hustle? The sections of interest were hauled to holding area for examination.
If I remember correctly there were over 200 experts examining the steel in question.
You realize that there are still many examples of the steel to examine.

Yes they signed contracts to deal with the steel quickly.
What would you do in their place?
They didn't have room to store all those buildings for years worth of research.

originally posted by: samkent
Hustle? The sections of interest were hauled to holding area for examination.

Yes, on Staten Island and New Jersey. More than 80% of the steel was recycled before anyone was able to examine it. This has long been a common complaint of the families of the victims. It was generally up to the waste management firms to select large/interesting pieces to be examined by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers. FEMA admits that 340,000 tons of steel it never saw was cut up and hauled away for recycling.

originally posted by: samkent
Since when does an explosion only blow out ONE window on a floor? You would expect debris to blow out many windows per floor.

Have you ever looked at some of the higher-quality videos available around the net of the collapses? At minimum it appears to be 3 windows.


The rest of your comments about steel removal did not come from my post. Might want to direct your response to that person.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: _BoneZ_

No matter how weak the steel may or may not have been, nobody will ever be able to explain away the ejections by anything other than explosives being detonated:

Since when does an explosion only blow out ONE window on a floor?
You would expect debris to blow out many windows per floor.

There is no way to explosively clear a floor in 150 milliseconds without so much explosive that it would be really obvious. Gravity is faster.

How does air pressure selectively blow out windows only in the middle of the building and on all four sides, and manage to do this 5,6 and 700 feet below the collapse wave ?

a reply to: wildb

That's generally why I see it more as explosive release of extreme structural failure at those points... which would be localized and intense.