[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

latest false flag attack?

On 28/09/18 23:48, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:14:29 +0100
> Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:

>> In the video it was most probably cladding not scaffolding burning. It
>> was still outside the main structure. Not structurally threatening.
> 	cladding? Made of what?

Polystyrene foam. [3] cf Grenfell tower.

> 	you didn't seen any evidence of 'raging uncontrolled fire' in the 'center' of the WTC buildings either, so...

oh, but I did. I didn't see the fire itself of course, but I saw plenty 
evidence of it. Certainly enough to consider the fire structurally 

> 	where is the source for it being concrete? (or steel for that matter)

Beijing TVCC was widely reported as being steel, but according to the 
architects that's wrong.


I was going to suggest that it's confusion between the n-shaped tower 
and the hotel (finally sorted that out, the complex contains a n-shaped 
tower and a mostly-rectangular hotel with sloping lower parts - the 
hotel burned, the main n-shaped block didn't), but the  n-shaped tower 
is also composite with steel sections covered in reinforced concrete. [2]

Also if you look close at the wreckage you can see the concrete core.

Been browsing found this: Before 9/11 45% of buildings over 150m (about 
50 stories) were built of steel. Since 9/11 it's less than 5%. [1]

Out of the 100 tallest buildings built since 9/11, only 2 are steel.

It seems people who build tall buildings seem to think that steel 
buildings, especially new-style steel buildings, aren't worth the risk.

WTC was an urban renewal project, built on the cheap to substandard 
requirements - the Port Authority could and did overrule the NYC 
buildings code whenever it wanted to save money. It wasn't meant to be 
the jewel in the NYC skyline.

Structurally, it was a piece of crap. Tinsel with rocks.

-- Peter Fairbrother

[3] page 665 

[2]  page 45 image 17