Plans To Scrap WTC Towers For $5.6 Bn In 1989!

An interesting article by an architect I had read a few years back describing the corrosion of the WTC due to it's exposure to salt water and how they were to be demolished simply due to being structurally unsound. They used the term of "The building had the structural equivalent of osteoporosis".

It's actually easier on the eyes reading the original article but here goes.

Here is the article, a series of emails in their entirety:

To Jimmy Walter Hi Jimmy, your comment completely misses the point. That is why, in 1989, they planned a $5.6 billion takedown and rebuild, it was tanked. The witness came to me...and we are protecting them. The building had the structural equivalent of osteoporosis. I am about to fund $25-50 million to THE LAWSUIT - United States Citizens v United States Government. Something major happened over the past several days. Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Walter Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:49 PM To: 'Karl W. B. Schwarz' Subject: RE: galvanic versus flying beams No amount of galvanic action will hurl steel beams straight out horizontally and cause the building to fall at the speed of gravity. However, it would be cause for insurance fraud! But keep trying

_____ From: Karl W. B. Schwarz Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM To: Jimmy Walter Hello Jimmy You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-) The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components - erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.

"""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier."""

In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.


Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.

The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day. That could explain why there appears to be explosives set only about every 25 floors. Once the failure started, the brittleness of welds, rivets, bolts, etc would fail much easier as the loads became progressively greater on the way down. That same process would also explain why the concrete was "powderized" over time because electrolytic processes weaken concrete too by "debonding" the Portland that causes concrete to bond in the first place. However, bear in mind that the "concrete floors" were not load bearing reinforced concrete. They were supported by what was a weakening by the day superstructure and cross members.


There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm [Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings] that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over". Consider that - and consider that NYC and the US Govt could not stand the global embarrassment of being so stupid or negligent that they did not consider the effects of galvanic corrosion on the superstructure. That is structural design 101 in architectural school and why they want architects to take physics and chemistry for Christ's sake. I did. I am an architect by the way, quit practicing in 1988.

www.npl.co.uk... df

www.npl.co.uk... www.corrosion-doctors.org... see bimetallic corrosion to get to the two links above

www.corrosion-doctors.org...

Guess what? The fat lady HAS SUNG. You know, the one in New York Harbor with the torch of Liberty and Freedom held high. I want to find the sick bastard that thought it would be a cute idea to have close to 3,000 in the building and use that as an excuse to go take on a whole new energy policy, war policy, and lining the pockets of just certain people. I think a Statute of Liberty hanging for that person would be most appropriate. best regards,

Karl W. B. Schwarz President, Chief Executive Officer Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC

www.rense.com...



[edit on 22-5-2010 by nh_ee]

Okay, I could buy this explanation, maybe, for the twin towers collapsing, however this still leaves building 7. What then could have caused the collapse of building 7? I never put to much stock in the collapse of the first two buildings because there are just too many empty variables, however building 7, at least to me, is what screams government conspiracy. If anything, this revelation if true, only supports the theory of government involvement because of the high cost to repair or rebuild these buildings.

Just my 2 cents.

--airspoon


[edit on 22-5-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by airspoon


This reads to me as a reason for destroying the buildings, not as the actual means of destruction - ie. falling down. That obviously wasn't the case. Those emails suggest something similar to the arson of old buildings, which couldn't be removed owing to their historical status.

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by airspoon

 

This reads to me as a reason for destroying the buildings, not as the actual means of destruction - ie. falling down. That obviously wasn't the case. Those emails suggest something similar to the arson of old buildings, which couldn't be removed owing to their historical status.

In the town where I live, there are at least six buildings over the last thirty years, that all had "Grade 1 Listed Status". Meaning that they could not be demolished or 'significantly altered'. However, all of them suffered fires in critical areas of the buildings, and as a result had to be brought down for "safety reasons".

It is common knowledge here, that our local "authorities" have been doing this for years. A supermarket wanted to build on farmland just to the North, but the farm was a Grade 1 Listed building... guess what happened six weeks ago. Guess what sort of building has just been granted permission to build on the now "dangerous" site...

And people still think that "governments" are innocent of such accusations.

reply to post by Northwarden


I got the intent of the OP, however, with this knowledge, if true, that would suggest why they fell so easily and as they did. A debunker could easily argue that this was the reason for the complete and sudden collapse. I really put the cart before the horse here but that's what I immediately thought while reading the OP. I did however flag the thread .

--airspoon

The deconstruction was because the EPA denied the use of explosives, When explosives were finally used, where was the EPA? Bought off & silent.
You don't have to follow EPA rules anymore. Bought & paid for.

It's just another reason they had to take those buildings down. They already applied for demolition permits and were turned down. The buildings weren't weak enough to collapse through themselves into a nice neat pile. They would have at most fallen over at the impact areas.

Both buildings in one day. Oh and what a coincidence that building 7 not hit by a plane collapsed from fire on the same day also. Into its own foot print. First time in history. A few of the News channels announcing its collapse ahead of time? Silverstien was part owner of all three buildings and recently purchased terrorist insurance??? Fox News admitting that it was common knowledge Silverstien knew building 7 could quickly be taken down? Called the insurance company to see if it would be ok to bring the building down to save other structures in the area??? And then later denied it and said "Pull it" meant just the firemen when they were already out of the building?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

magiciansfor911truth.org...


And the forgotten by most other fact that the FBI was involved with the bombing of one of the buildings years before?

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 23-5-2010 by Doctor Smith]

reply to post by airspoon

Okay, I could buy this explanation, maybe, for the twin towers collapsing, however this still leaves building 7. What then could have caused the collapse of building 7? I never put to much stock in the collapse of the first two buildings because there are just too many empty variables, however building 7, at least to me, is what screams government conspiracy. If anything, this revelation if true, only supports the theory of government involvement because of the high cost to repair or rebuild these buildings. Just my 2 cents. --airspoon

Following the money, back to Silverstein. He was actually outbid on the WTC complex by a leading NYC Real Estate firm, but WON the WTC lease anyway.

WTC 7 was only part of the overall scam. It was most likely wired for demolition when WTC 1 and 2 were. And was most likely intended to have taken much more damage, justifying it's collapse. As the Marriot had sustained.

Not to forget that inside WTC 7 were the offices of the SEC that were investigating several cases related to the Trillions of dollars that were missing from the Pentagon as well as several other cases related to Enron and eve going back to Iran Contra.

More on that later.




[edit on 25-5-2010 by nh_ee]

reply to post by nh_ee


I am familiar with WTC7 though I was not aware that Silverstien was outbid on the buildings. Do you have a source for this?

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon

am familiar with WTC7 though I was not aware that Silverstien was outbid on the buildings. Do you have a source for this?

Unlike rest of WTC complex which was leased from Port Authority, Silverstein owned WTC 7 outright.

It was built between 1983 and 1987 some dozen years after rest of WTC
was built.

So the statements about being rigged with explosives same time as
WTC is false as is rest of paranoid garbage

reply to post by airspoon


" A debunker could easily argue that this was the reason for the complete and sudden collapse."

Which is exactly what I will do now . Thanks OP .

This info only further supports the probability that the towers fell due to structural damage sustained due to the impacts and resultant fires .

I see no way that it would support the claim of explosions or government involvement tho' .

Originally posted by okbmd
This info only further supports the probability that the towers fell due to structural damage sustained due to the impacts and resultant fires .

No it doesn't, even IF the towers had been degraded they would still not have defied physics and collapsed symmetrically and globally from asymmetrical damage, all three buildings amazingly did this. Amazingly the first three steel framed buildings to ever do that, even if you don't understand the physics of why, that should be throwing up red flags.

No amount of fire is going to cause a building to collapse into itself through the path of most resistance, symmetrically, without slowing down due to the basic laws of motion.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by okbmd


Hey, I'm all for whatever outcome the evidence supports. If the evidence suggests that the official conspiracy theory is correct or at least on the correct path, I have no problems with admitting that and moving on in life. However, this does not explain building 7. This does not explain the lack of fighter interceptions. This does not explain the famous "insider trading" with the put options. This does not explain the government's blocking of a proper investigation. This does not explain the Bush administration's stonewalling. This does not explain the Patriot Act. This does not explain the military's preparation for war in Afghanistan before 9/11. This does not explain the 1996 W. Bush - Taliban - UNOCAL meeting in Texas about the proposed pipeline through Afghanistan. In fact, this does not explain much, other than WTC 1 & 2 being prone to collapse, if indeed this information is true.

I have no problem with bringing attention to the evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory. I simply want to get to the truth, whatever that truth may be. So far, we have not had a proper investigation so none of us really knows the truth, unless we were involved somehow, which is highly unlikely. I like to stay objective in my own research because my ultimate goal is to get to the truth, regardless of what that truth is. According to my own research and experiences, I know that the official conspiracy theory is not the truth. I may not know what exactly happened, why it happened or who pulled it off but I do know what didn't happen and the official conspiracy theory didn't happen. While I appreciate the piece of the puzzle, I care not how building 1 & 2 went down, however I do really care about why it happened and who did it.

If the debunkers were so confident with the official conspiracy theory provided to them, then what would be the harm in a proper independent investigation? What could you lose, besides ignorance of the events that unfolded in the months or years leading up to that infamous date, including the day itself? I find it truly amazing that so many people are willing to buy the official explanation with out any credible evidence or even a logical explanation to support that official explanation, especially since there is so much evidence pointing against the official story. They base their entire beliefs on faith alone.

We know that Bush & Co. has lied to us on numerous occasions. Why on Earth would you take their word for such an improbable series of events that have resulted in the loss of life, freedom, liberty, justice, money and the American spirit? What's wrong with demanding a real investigation or at the very least, a logical explanation? Our brave young men and women are dying; our freedoms and liberties are being taken away one by one; our tax-dollars are being handed over to corporations for a security apparatus that is dubious at best and we are killing our reputation around the world, all because a known liar has told us a story that doesn't add up and then asked us to trust him on it. Since when do we trust anyone on word alone for such a high price, much less a known liar who has a vested interest in the story given.

It's like a convicted child molester asking to babysit your kid, though he won't tell you what for, where they are going and how long they will be gone... but he does want you to trust him. Would you just hand your child over because he asked you to trust him? What if this convicted child molester kidnapped your child and you all but watched him do it, yet he tells that he didn't do it but he knows who did though he won't tell you how he knows who did it or what evidence he has to point to your child's kidnapper. Hey, he gives you his word, why on Earth wouldn't you believe/trust him? The police refuse to investigate because this convicted child molester said he didn't do it. No worries, he gave you his word.

That is preposterous.



--airspoon

reply to post by okbmd

If the towers were in such bad shape,or structurally unsound so to speak,why did they continue to let people work there?They should have been condemned.

I believe that they wanted those towers to come down for a number of reasons.

As for building 7,nh_ee hit the nail on the head IMHO.


BTW,I starred your last post airspoon.Great post man!

[edit on 27-5-2010 by crowpruitt]

"I am familiar with WTC7 though I was not aware that Silverstien was outbid on the buildings. Do you have a source for this?"

www.wtc.com...

"The Port announced in February 2001 that Vornado Realty Trust won the lease by outbidding Silverstein Properties by $50 million. When Vornado later withdrew, Silverstein’s bid was accepted on July 24th, 2001. The $3.25 billion deal for the 99-year lease was the largest real estate transaction in New York City’s history."

www.nytimes.com...

"Bernard H. Mendik, the chairman of the Real Estate Board of New York and a longtime force in the city's commercial real estate market, died Monday (May 27, 2001) at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

In April 1997, Mr. Mendik folded his company holdings into the Vornado Realty Trust, a real estate investment trust with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. He became Vornado's co-chairman."