WTC 1 and 2 Were To Be "Decomissioned" by 2007 Per: EPA for Safety Reasons - "Bridgeways Project

Originally posted by Pootie
I am wondering if Griff or LaBtop may be able to talk a little about "galvanic corrosion" and if this damage is possible.

Yes, it's possible. Galvanic corrosion occurs when the metals touch. In my line of work, we get this alot with rain gutters being steel (stainless) and aluminum copings. All we do is place resin paper or waterproofing material between them so they don't touch.

I'm starting to believe that the towers were constructed shotty and that helped fell them.

I was not trying to make a connection between the lower floors and the collapse, I was imiplying that if there was the degradation at the bottom, there may have been some up higher that was not seem. Therefore stating that it was to be decommisioned, which means scaffold up and repair, maybe it was too large of an undertaking at the time. Remember though, read the link I posted and this was a while ago, starting in 88.

It has always been in the back of my head that more lawsuits would have been established if the construction was found to be substandard in the WTC at any points, especially if not disclosed when Silverstien took control.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by Pootie
Here is a related ATS thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which is a conspiracy site. Now come up with a site that is an official government site the uses the name of the project

Originally posted by esdad71
I was not trying to make a connection between the lower floors and the collapse, I was imiplying that if there was the degradation at the bottom, there may have been some up higher that was not seem.

The fulcrum was between 7 and 25... this is where the wind shear would ahve caused the most extensive damage.

Originally posted by shots
Which is a conspiracy site. Now come up with a site that is an official government site the uses the name of the project

Only posted that as an "FYI"... It is not intended as some sort of proof of anything. I was just giving other members credit and more reading.

What is your issue with that?

Originally posted by Griff
Galvanic corrosion occurs when the metals touch. In my line of work, we get this alot with rain gutters being steel (stainless) and aluminum copings. All we do is place resin paper or waterproofing material between them so they don't touch.

I'm starting to believe that the towers were constructed shotty and that helped fell them.

Thanks for the explanation. I believe that the towers were a "money pit", may have had issues requiring future demolition and that they came up with an easier way than taking them down piece by piece. Hopefully one day we will find that answer. There were SO MANY "positives" for the government and their agenda, Larry, various corporations and individuals for the towers to be destroyed in the manner they were... this is just yet another angle.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Thank you for the explanation, that was what I had also read. What I am trying to get across is that if part of the building was damaged when it should not have bene, what other parts were not built or operating properly that were unknown, or that were concealed.

Originally posted by esdad71
What I am trying to get across is that if part of the building was damaged when it should not have bene, what other parts were not built or operating properly that were unknown, or that were concealed.

I do not know and that is not the topic of this thread. Maybe you can start a new one outlining the possible other issues?

Since 2001 I have always wondered about galvanic corrosion because if you see the structure of the towers they resembled a BIG battery, that is to say a huge center metal column and then the outside shell of metal also . interconected with floors made like slabs...

To me it was a feat of architecture to work aout all the metals and the interconection parts with no corrosion...

This info wheter real or not, gives some insight about:

posible problems due to metalurgy errors (or insulation)
The big trouble with asbestos.
The huge ammount of $$$ to demolish them would cost (somewhere in the future)

and if this is true it seems to me that this CT was planned a LONG LONG time ago....

I'm calling BS...

Finally, I received a 'blocked call' from a 2-star General with US Army intelligence, who instructed me as to how to file my statements as an 'apostle' document at the Hague. He said, "otherwise, you are very close to being killed, as this story has come to our attention, in the Intelligence Department!"

I doubt a two start General would threaten to kill someone over the telephone....

He didn't threaten him. He was giving advise on how not to get killed. At least that's how I read it.

Originally posted by elevatedone
I doubt a two start General would threaten to kill someone over the telephone....

[edit: griff and I were typing at the same time... beat me. LOL]

I didn't read it that way... he was telling him how NOT to get in 'trouble'. Re-read the quote... he taught him how to file "anonymously" or as he puts it "as an apostle". He does not threaten to kill him.

If you are going to call BS, fine but I think your interpretation is way off base.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by elevatedone
The buildings were old and "in danger"... so when the airplanes hit them, it caused enough damage to cause them to fall.

That is NOT the implication at all and I believe you are smart enough to see that.

The implication is that:

1. The buildings were not structurally sound.
2. They needed to be decommissioned/take down.
3. The only way to take them down would cost billions of dollars as they would need to be disassembled. Explosive demolition would not be allowed. Scaffolds would be built to surround the structures and they would be taken down piece by piece.
4. An easier and cheaper way to bring them down was found.

1. Okay, they were not structurally sound.
2. They needed to be decommissioned, which in this case was for repairs. They needed to build the scaffold to correct the towers, not bring them down. Besides, this was 12 years before 9/11. You would have done better to tie it to the bombing in 93.
3. There was no need to take them down, but to reapir them. The scaffolds were to be built to protect the people below. If you have ever waljed down a street in NYC you would know what I mean.
4. There was no easier way to take them down. IMprovements were made after the 93 bombing, so why did they not take them down then?


To me, this is another 'Northwoods' document, something that existed, did not come to pass and is used to push a propaganda that the towers were destroyed by the government.

Originally posted by shots
I also find it od that he would say decommissioned. What does he think the buildings were battle ships or something?

I agree that the term decommissioned is not normally used for a building. I would expect the term "condemned" to be proper. Furthermore, the galvanic reaction was only on the facade of the building where pieces falling off would be a danger. I don't see how the steel structural joints would be affected and would not weaken the whole building. Maybe I missed something.

If it is true what this guy is saying that the building had flaws and the cost to fix the problem would have been more than the value IMHO does justify further investigation. The purchase of the buildings and the insurance taken out on them is very suspicious.

It would of cost billions to remove the asbestos in WTC 1 & 2. The buildings themselves were money losers. So why would Larry Silverstein purchase them a mere six weeks prior to the "attacks"? He is not dumb.
He made out pretty good for a six week investment.

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair.

If that is the case, Are WTC 1, 2 & 7 the only buildings to be susceptible to this "phenomena"? That is preposterous.

No steel buildings have EVER collapsed due to fires burning, especially considering the small amount of active fire, not to mention at free fall speeds.

Originally posted by esdad71
1. Okay, they were not structurally sound.

Correct... They would have been considered "unsafe for occupancy" some time in the next decade according to the affidavit.

Originally posted by esdad71
2. They needed to be decommissioned, which in this case was for repairs. They needed to build the scaffold to correct the towers, not bring them down. Besides, this was 12 years before 9/11. You would have done better to tie it to the bombing in 93.

Incorrect... They would be manually dismantled. This would require a very large scaffold around both towers as the implosion was not an option per the EPA.

Originally posted by esdad71
3. There was no need to take them down, but to reapir them. The scaffolds were to be built to protect the people below. If you have ever waljed down a street in NYC you would know what I mean.

Incorrect according to the article. It does not state why emptying the buildings and doing the repairs was not an option but one can assume that having them sit empty for years while the exceedingly loud repairs were completed would cost too much in rental revenue, then you have to get tennants back in the same old crappy buildings. It was probably also cheaper to tear it down once the scaffold was up than to repair it. The scaffolds were to allow manual deconstruction. I know the "shield" scaffolds you are talking about and this is not what the article references.

Originally posted by esdad71
4. There was no easier way to take them down. IMprovements were made after the 93 bombing, so why did they not take them down then?

Yes... the easiest (and highly illegal) way to take them down was CD. Because of the materials and size the EPA would never allow this.

Also, Larry did not own it in 93...

Originally posted by esdad71
To me, this is another 'Northwoods' document, something that existed, did not come to pass and is used to push a propaganda that the towers were destroyed by the government.

Believe what you will, but it seems from your answers that you did not thoroughly understand the articles.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by jblaze
If that is the case, Are WTC 1, 2 & 7 the only buildings to be susceptible to this "phenomena"? That is preposterous.

Maybe not...

...aluminum had not yet been tested as a combination-layered structural material in this type of application.

The exterior Aluminum panels were designed to meet an unusual set of technical specifications. Those criteria were published in various trade-periodicals at that time. This information has not been released by NIST, or otherwise been widely discussed of late. We know that this material was custom manufactured to exacting specifications.

Typical examples from that era had similar alloy compositions, though none were exactly the same as we use today. By varying the percentages of Silica and Alumina, and lesser quantities of Nickel, Tin and Zinc, this material appeared to meet their needs. (I felt it with my hand, and I have handled dozens of unique samples at dad's request.) Uniquely, I thought it had a very coarse-substrate,(6-8g) as though it were cast, but otherwise it appears to have been an extruded profile with a smooth outer finish, having a good-quality brushed sheen. It literally appeared to be brand-new, and far more durable that any of your contemporary aluminum-laminates, such as "Aluccabond I, and II."

This was formally stated as the key to creating an "elastic membrane," that much I remembered as my project began. Materials experts will attest that the entire composition qualities are important to the integrity of this compound.The 'clear,' electro-metallic plating, (then unproven,) may have contained Sulfur, and was pronounced to have; "effectively prevented oxidization and withstanding the elements, performing better than anyone had expected, over time." -(Architectural Record.)

Special 'elasticity' requirements were weighed against the shear-resistance as required to support the vertical, and lateral loads. Experts did not know what alloy mix would ultimately provide the best solution at the time the project was put out to bids. They had certainly evaluated the known "inter-granular corrosion," statistical guidelines, yet this material had never been subjected to this extreme application for civilian use. I had followed some of this in the trade-journals at the time. Choosing the right mixture was sort of a work in progress right up to the final days before the delivery due date. Certainly today's composites exhibit increased qualities in every regard. However, I will cite this photo example from NIST, because it may well be idemnical to the cause, and it certainly serves as an effective visual aid.

Originally posted by Pootie


Correct... They would have been considered "unsafe for occupancy" some time in the next decade according to the affidavit.

Don't you mean alleged affidavit? You have yet to produce one and several of us are still waiting

Anyone have any way to find rental/lease records for the towers and how full they were on average throughout the final years? That would settle this altogether.

Have a look at night-time shots of the towers taken towards 9/11. Count the lights in the building. Empty offices will be dark.

All the engineering and analysis aside...Have you ever thought that the WTC towers were originally built to ultimately be brought down in the fashion we all saw.?...The nwo's been hot and heavy in this country since 1947 some 23 years before the towers were built...It's certainly plausable!