The World Trade Towers "Must come down!"

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled, and were presented by the engineers to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."


Please, take the time and read TECHNICAL SUMMARY.
Befor posting thank you.

Through the continual effects of wind-sheer and [flex-fatigue] this process had eroded the bolt-holds at roughly floors #7 through #25, that fulcrum-point where the lateral pressures were inherently sustained. Photographs, taken after the disaster, reveal that it was only those lowest exterior column sectional groupings which do not appear to have shown severe de-coupling of the joinery, therein. This is evidenced by the bright 'shiny,' cage-like forms that served to contain the bulk of the physical contents among a burning rubble

The building was bid at $750,M, and cost$1.2B to build. It was worth about $4. to $5.B at its peak., but, would have cost nearly $15.B to un-build it in 2010 dollars, or as it neared its 1/2 'safe' life. Obviously, it was Imploded, because there was never going to be a 'break-even' point for either, the current, or future owners.

Recently I learned from Tommy Malley, who claims his family are involved in New York City construction, and his testimony sounded very possession of pre-bid information pertaining to the Towers. Mr. Malley encouraged me to revise my figures, which brings forth a startling, and potentially critical new discovery, which I will quote:

"The owners were fully aware of the problem and had been given the ultimatum that they could not 'implode' the buildings. They received the report stating that: Decommissioning was required by the EPA by no later than 2007, at a projected cost of $20.B"

ALUMINUM + STEEL = Electro-mechanical failure!

(as posted, online: 7/18/06)

The Controlled Demolition
of the World Trade Center; 9/11/2001,
and "National Security Breach"

A material, 'legal deposition'
by Tom-Scott Gordon

July, 5, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As presented to the U.S. Senate Oversight Committee, and others:

AFFIDAVIT:

"The destruction of the World Trade Center, as witnessed on September 11th, 2001, was the result of an elaborately planned, Controlled Demolition." This is the conclusion of thousands of witnesses and hundreds of forensics experts. Given due consideration, these findings imply, that *US MILITARY* personnel are responsible for crimes that led to the murder of an estimated 3,000 innocent Americans.

As a living witness to these actions, as I have described herein, I do hereby officially charge those responsible, both for the execution, and for the '9/11 cover-up,' with the crimes of: Conspiracy, Treason, Genocide and Murder. Additional criminal charges also apply.

My sole objective in composing this document is to publicize the *initial phase* of this covert operation at the World Trade Center, dating back to 1989. While I was employed by the WTC Architects of Record; Emery Roth and Associates, AIA, New York City, where I discovered both physical samples and written documentation concerning potential hazards with the physical integrity of the Twin Towers. After witnessing these events, I publicly expressed my concern for a thorough public safety-inspection of the Twin Trade Towers, to other architects and contractors.

To date, not one of our staff, nor the 40-or so full-time employees of the WTC building engineering team has spoken-out publicly, or provided a testimony under oath. A thorough investigation of these parties, named herein, will provide disclosure as to precise nature of these events as I have described. This shall serve as a complete legal record of my direct exposure to these *pre-existing physical, materials conditions* at the Twin Trade Center, that collectively support the *financial motivation* which had prompted the New York Port Authority, AND operatives within NORAD, (or NSA) to engage in this seditious act of "espionage."

No similar information has been provided by any other witness(es) that I am aware of, and no individuals have provided details that would serve to dispute my claims in any way. I remain hopeful that others, more closely connected with this property, and ideally, those having access to the City of New York Buildings Departments, will continue with the points of research as suggested by the information in this document.

www.investigate911.com...

www.investigate911.com...

redlineav.com...

Please befor posting Please read all the information, thank you.

One thing for sure is that the world trade center complex was designed with it's destruction in mind.

The 'what if' possibility was never glossed over and was implemented in it's design.

If i were to buiild a 110 story building i would also like to know how long it would last and how can we bring it down safely in case of fire or airline crash. I would have explosives and or a design which would allow global collapse. Then I would build smaller building around WTC 5,6,4 to act as buffers for the collapse.

If you want to get conspiratorial then once can see that the Rockefellers built the towers and if you know their history then you will understand the some of the picture as to why this is all happening.

I still say after the bombings in the parking garge.93 bombingThey sat down had a meeting and decide the destruction created by one of these buildings tipping from an explosion was to much to dill with in the aftermath and the loss of life and property from the surrounding buildings were to high. So they devised a way to limit the damage by placing explosives perminently in the buildings in case of emergency. On 911 emergecy was declared and the owner of the building in his own words said "pull it" meaning blow the structure so there would be less chance of tipping buildings and a controlled in its own footprint collapse. Im not saying they were part of 911 just they had a secret emergency plan for less destruction. I think even them involed with this emergency planning never had any idea how much chaos and destruction would be involed but couldn't imagine how much more there could be with a tipping building collapsing on neigboring buildings the domino effect was to scary to allow.

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


Do you want to know what there hiding poor construction.The families of 9 11 victims should sue that building was structurally unsound.My brother is an architect and stated that the building designer was an idiot trying to go against conventional wisdom.

1:Longspan floors supported by external columns are inherently weaker than the traditional box frame column/girder arrangement with internal walls.
2:The bunching of all internal columns in a relatively narrow center shaft in a building is an "all your eggs in one basket" configuration-- if that region on any floor is catastrophically damaged (as it certainly was by the fire in the north tower), the entire building is doomed. This stands in stark contrast to earlier generations of skyscrapers which utilize full skeletons of stepped columns, usually one row approximately every 25 feet (7.6 m) from the center to the perimeter.
3:The World Trade Center exclusively used lightweight materials, especially in the facade. Had the WTC facade contained even minimal masonry elements and/or traditional heavy steel outermost column rows, it is unlikely the aircraft would have cleanly penetrated to the core of each tower— a significant portion of debris and jet fuel would have remained outside, a much different scenario.
4:Single-bolt connections binding the longspan floorplates with the load-bearing external columns were extremely lightweight for their assigned task. One study group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has concluded the proximal cause of the south tower collapse was failure of these bolts in the southeast corner of the building. Double-bolts should have been used.
5:The use of gypsum cladding instead of reinforced concrete to shield stairwells. Almost all skyscrapers, including those built since the WTC, shield stairwells in reinforced concrete. On September 11th, it was the collapse of all stairways above the impact level that consigned all people above the impact zone in Tower One to death. Tower Two had two of its three stairwells taken out above the impact area by the plane. Some people above the impact zone survived, as they used the third stairwell. Computer models have shown that most of the stairwells in both towers would likely have remained usable until the general collapse had they been shielded in concrete.

This is why i laugh when people say it would have taken explosives no just a bad design was more than enough.The worst part they knew prior to 9/11 that the bolts were being damaged and quite frankly the only way to gain structural stability would have been more support on outer walls to take on more of the load.This type of construction would have been fine on a building with half as many floors,most people don't understand the effects wind has on a tower and just how much a sky scraper sways back and forth.

Ps It still would have cost less to redisign the building then demolish them.

[edit on 8/15/09 by dragonridr]

Originally posted by JBA2848
I still say after the bombings in the parking garge.93 bombingThey sat down had a meeting and decide the destruction created by one of these buildings tipping from an explosion was to much to dill with in the aftermath and the loss of life and property from the surrounding buildings were to high. So they devised a way to limit the damage by placing explosives perminently in the buildings in case of emergency. On 911 emergecy was declared and the owner of the building in his own words said "pull it" meaning blow the structure so there would be less chance of tipping buildings and a controlled in its own footprint collapse. Im not saying they were part of 911 just they had a secret emergency plan for less destruction. I think even them involed with this emergency planning never had any idea how much chaos and destruction would be involed but couldn't imagine how much more there could be with a tipping building collapsing on neigboring buildings the domino effect was to scary to allow.

Let me get this straight - you think intelligent people sat down and decided, FOR THE SAKE OF SAFETY, to permanently install explosives in the World Trade Center. Really? Wow.

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


Is that the only way you can think of to bring down a building? In building demolition implosion is actuall very rare and done only as a last resort. The majority of building demolition is done mechanically.

Same with the WTC 1 and 2. Erect a crane, clear a shaft and begin disassembly. Materials are dropped down the central shaft and handled on the ground. $400m tops, with asbestos abatement.

When making towers of this size, wouldn't that have been anticipated? Galvanic corrosion isn't a new discovery.

Or was it a new combination of metals that they hadn't expected?

I could see the wind shear, and joint wearing, stripping off the insulation between the two metals as well.

That was what they repaired on the Statue of Liberty in the 80's as well, no?

This is a great post and adds extra fuel, to show those that still believe the towers fell just because of the planes, that THAT isn't entirely accurate. haha

I was pretty sure I watched a controlled demolition that day.

I thought it was the terrorist's back up plan, because the planes failed to do significant damage.

This can also show how the cost of fixing something, can spiral into an elaborate plan to just destroy it, collect some insurance, benefit the George and his daddy's oil conquering, and go to war making sure the bankers elite grab some cash too.

Anyways, sorry for spinning off topic there. haha. Great post.

S&F

reply to post by hooper


Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. So putting thermite on structual beams in the building would be safe. Structural beams are wrapped in a fire wall using several layers of 5/8 inch thick layers of fire rock. Repairs of structural beams were done all over the building after the 93 bombing. Allowing them access to all structural joints in the building.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by JBA2848]

Originally posted by dragonridr
if that region on any floor is catastrophically damaged (as it certainly was by the fire in the north tower), the entire building is doomed.

I find it disturbing that debunkers to this day continue to falsely say that fire was the cause of catastrophic failure in the towers and WTC7. No steel-structured highrise has ever globally collapsed due to fires in our entire history before 9/11 or after.

It is false and inaccurate to conclude that fire can bring down steel-structured highrises as there is no precedence, nor comparison to the WTC collapses other than controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Had the WTC facade contained even minimal masonry elements and/or traditional heavy steel outermost column rows, it is unlikely the aircraft would have cleanly penetrated to the core of each tower— a significant portion of debris and jet fuel would have remained outside, a much different scenario.

This is also false. The only way your scenario would have played out is if the outer columns were continuous from top to bottom. There was nothing wrong with the outer columns and none of the outer columns failed upon impact from the planes. The bolts and welds connecting the columns together and to the floor trusses are what failed upon impact, along with the thin and lightweight floor trusses themselves. Don't forget that we're talking about a 300,000 pound object travelling at or near 500mph.

Not to mention, the Empire State building has a masonry facade with heavy steel support columns. A much slower and smaller B-25 penetrated the building at only 175mph. Imagine if it had been doing 400-500mph.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Computer models have shown that most of the stairwells in both towers would likely have remained usable until the general collapse had they been shielded in concrete.

What caused the damage to the stairwells was the parts of the plane that were nearly indestructable like the landing gear and engines. That concrete shielding around the stairwells would have to be very thick to withstand an impact from landing gear or the large and heavy engines travelling nearly 400-500mph.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by hooper

 

Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. So putting thermite on structual beams in the building would be safe. Structural beams are wrapped in a fire wall using several layers of 5/8 inch thick layers of fire rock. Repairs of structural beams were done all over the building after the 93 bombing. Allowing them access to all structural joints in the building.

So you really think putting thousands of tons of thermite in a building is safe? And then letting that building be occupied by people? You're not even allowed to store thermite in the same building as people. Thermite does not require "very high temperatures" to initiate. We use propane/oxy torches.

Access to "all structural joints"? You mean after the 93 bombing they strip down the entire interior of the whole building? That would be the only way that you would have access to all the joints. I take it you have some hard and fast reference for this work.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by JBA2848]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Your right there is no pretense for this because there was no one that attempted to build a hi rise of this magnitude using this construction technique heres a challenge find one. As far as the facade it was hung on the building this again was an unusual construction technique which obviously failed miserably. Most hi rise buildings before and after are built by placing boxes one on top the other the outer walls support as much weight as the inner walls. In this building it was built more like a christmas tree a main supporting column with branches coming off that supporting the floor and the buildings out walls. The outer walls were no more than ornaments hanging on a branch on a christmas tree.

From that day I have always believed that it was a deliberate demolition.

But I also believe that these devices could have easily been placed within days of the event.
All you'd need is a box, marked up as something like "communications equipment". Hire a few people to install said "equipment", then when the moment comes just flick a switch.

It's really not that difficult.

However they did it, I am without a doubt when it comes to those buildings coming down in a controlled manner. That is something I know I saw.

reply to post by hooper


Key structural joints are not behind ever wall in a building sorry to say. And have you ever seen how a structral column in a building is wrapped to portect it from fire. Also after the 93 bombing there was years of repairs done and supposed upgrades of structural connections through out the building. Not just the repairs to the under ground parking garge.

reply to post by JBA2848


Sorry, I was replying to someone who specifically stated that "all" structural joints were addressed. And exactly which and how many joints in this tube-in-tube construction would be considered failure critical?

Also, I've watched all the videos, were is the one that shows the blinding light that would have been the result of initiating tons of thermite?

reply to post by detachedindividual


You obviously know very little about demolitions first if your going to use explosives which is not the best way just so you know. First you have to prep the sight bu cutting support beams floor joists and weaken the structure just short of collapse. Then you would use explosives set off to time a rocking effect you want to get the internal structure rocking to get it to shear the weakened points you already made. The explosive going off is not enough to cut through a steel beam the trick is to weaken it beyond its threshold causing it to fail. To bring down a building like the world trade center they would have had to evacuate the building strip all the inner walls to get to the support beams. Do alot of cutting and even disassembling part of the building just to get it to the point explosives could take it down.

This is the reason that many people switched over to saying thermite was used because they weren't aware of how difficult it is to bring down a building with explosives. Now here the problem with thermite no one has ever used it to take down a building a bridge yes building no. Bridges are entirely different structures you can burn through horizontal beams causing a bridge to collapse. but a building is different thermite which is gravity driven could not have cut the beams horizontally or even diagonally.And to bring down a building the only way to do it is to somehow cause the vertical supports to fail.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

You obviously know very little about demolitions first if your going to use explosives which is not the best way just so you know. First you have to prep the sight bu cutting support beams floor joists and weaken the structure just short of collapse. Then you would use explosives set off to time a rocking effect you want to get the internal structure rocking to get it to shear the weakened points you already made. The explosive going off is not enough to cut through a steel beam the trick is to weaken it beyond its threshold causing it to fail. To bring down a building like the world trade center they would have had to evacuate the building strip all the inner walls to get to the support beams. Do alot of cutting and even disassembling part of the building just to get it to the point explosives could take it down.

Hey. Agreed on most points.

In one of the countless videos available on multiple theories, I watched one that discussed with workers in both towers, that for nearly a year, (I think that was the term) there were construction workers closing off certain areas and working to "fix" beams and joints etc...

I know just saying it is spewing hearsay and not really an efficient contribution here. I'll sift through some videos and see if I can find it. But that could add some fuel to the above statement.

Heres a link to another thread with pictures of beams that sure look like they were cut with thermite.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thernite charge patent

Originally posted by JBA2848
Heres a link to another thread with pictures of beams that sure look like they were cut with thermite.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thernite charge patent

Come on don't show pictures of them cleaning up the ruble and say thermite was used i don't know how about a cutting torch.I don't know why I'm having this discussion i should know better people are going to believe whatever they want and no amount of facts is going to change that.

Oh and by the way having seen thermite in action the patent you showed is stupid if used on a door maybe a wall never you would either just start a fire or melt apart of the outer wall.Basically the design you showed is throwing thermite out like a squirt gun and i think the results on steel would be almost useless.You would find it burned a whole at the floor where it pooled after hitting the wall.Theres lots of patents most don't work so it proves nothing.My favorite part is in the paten says can be used to breech doors c4 is much more effective 4 small charges in case there are 3 hinges and the lock and your in. Would take me all of about 20 seconds to set it up. Having this thing hang in position off a door would be stupid.


If you want to have a serious talk about explosives we can if you want to go into the world of fantasy then count me out.

reply to post by JBA2848


Picture of Iron Worker on lift cutting columns with Thermic lance



Another picture of ironworker cutting columns



Demonstration of slicing heavy steel with thermal lance



Description of themal lance

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by dragonridr
Your right there is no pretense for this because there was no one that attempted to build a hi rise of this magnitude using this construction technique heres a challenge find one.

Do you actually do any research, or do you just sit in your chair and resemble an armchair debunker?

The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which (Fazlur) Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963. This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis (Sears) Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.

Wiki

You read that correctly: most other skyscrapers since the 1960's have tube structures. Following are a few structures that have identical construction as the WTC towers:

The first building to use the tube-frame as Wiki stated is the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building in Chicago:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a6892e90582.jpg[/atsimg]


And also the Aon Center building in Chicago:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5de77521bc2a.jpg[/atsimg]


And now, something that not many people know about, the Lone, Shrunken WTC:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7995aa70974.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7ee53989a39.jpg[/atsimg]


The last two images above are images of the Bank of Oklahoma, designed by Minoru Yamasaki, the Twin Towers’ architect. The Bank of Oklahoma is identical to the WTC towers except everything was halved. The height, number of columns, etc. were all halved, but the building itself is a mini WTC tower. You can read more about it here:

www.believermag.com...

The above images are just a few examples of the many buildings that were constructed identically as the WTC towers were. A simple Google search would turn up more, but you get the idea.

Originally posted by dragonridr
First you have to prep the sight bu cutting support beams floor joists and weaken the structure just short of collapse

You would be talking about a conventional CD where life and property are being protected from falling debris. There was no such concern for that when the towers were brought down.

Originally posted by dragonridr
To bring down a building like the world trade center they would have had to evacuate the building strip all the inner walls to get to the support beams. Do alot of cutting and even disassembling part of the building just to get it to the point explosives could take it down.

That is also false. There are over 1000 different types of explosives that can be used in CD. The right size and type of explosive can be used to where minimal or no prepping needs to be done to a building.

In the weeks prior to 9/11, though, there are reports of heavy construction work being done in at least one of the towers that sounded like jack hammers and pneumatic drills. There were also reports in the weeks leading up to 9/11 about thick gray dust on the registers around the window sills. Could it have been concrete? Could the work leading up to 9/11 have been the actual prepping? It is plausible, but we'll probably never know.

Originally posted by dragonridr
This is the reason that many people switched over to saying thermite was used because they weren't aware of how difficult it is to bring down a building with explosives.

This is total BS. First and foremost, anybody that says the buildings were brought down solely with thermate/thermite has no idea what they're talking about. If thermite was used, it only would have been used in the impact areas to weaken the structure in those areas to give the appearance of the building starting to collapse due to fire. Conventional explosives brought the towers and WTC7 down.

You claim that people aren't aware of how difficult it is to bring a building down with explosives, but you would also have us believe that planes and/or fire can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost.

Buildings do not do this from fire:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]

If fire could do the above, CD companies would use fire instead of explosives at a fraction of the cost. That is BS. Those buildings did not collapse from fires.




[edit on 15-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]