It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Port Authority's OSP Unit assesses WTC Towers for attack, 1984

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I thought this was an interesting bit of information that was at least worth sharing:


The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).


www.cooperativeresearch.org...


What I think is important to note here isn't that Robertson said the buildings weren't likely to collapse no matter what. What's interesting is that the Port Authority had a special unit in 1984 just to find vulnerabilities in the towers' structure, all the way back in 1984, and they were finding vulnerability upon vulnerability. Notice that these relate to explosives, too, and how they can be planted here or there, and I'm assuming that they're talking about external groups and not someone that has special clearance.




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Bump. Nice find BsBray. It shows that someone with clearance could have infiltrated the buildings.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Although not directly related to the original post, there was allegedly another project being undertaken in the mid-80's. This one concerned the longevity of the WTC structures. It was called 'The Bridgeways Project' I have found it hard to discovcer that much about it. It seems most of the stuff out there is uncorroborated and, therefore, not particularly reliable. However, it is another possible part of the puzzle.

Here's an extract from a piece giving some of the operational details.


"The fact is, we all know that the buildings can't stand safely for over 40 to 60 years. It's not the sub-soil, that's granite. They must have received the completed demolition report, which we all knew to expect. It was supposed to be finished months ago. Clearly it looks bad. Well, I'm damn sure we all know the real implication- that the owners can't ever get their money back! That's what we all learned today. -Thanks, _(no knowledge of person he named)_, -screw you!"

I asked: -"Why? What do you mean;- how Much too much?"

"It's $2.6 Billion just to erect the two scaffolds to surround both buildings, and that's only the beginning. They literally have to re-build them, then un-build them, twice! -Now it's obvious, bottom-line is that the developer will have to sell soon, or take a serious bath; ...Total?- You tell me, $4.5 Billion, or so!" (I forgot his figures.)


The full atricle can be viewed here

[edit on 10-2-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I have some more information that might potentially be linked to 'The Bridgeways Project'. NIST NCSTAR 1.2 refers to 'the most complete and detailed' structural analysis of the towers, which was carried out by a firm called Worthington, Skilling, Halle and Jackson. Here is the relevant page, with the interesting information in the box.



You'll note that, although the building was designed to withstand a hit by a slow-moving 707, the analysis found it could withstand a hit by a 707 travelling at 600mph without collapsing.

Anyway, this survey may well be the one undertaken by those involved in 'The Bridgeways Project' in the mid-80's. This excerpt, from my earlier link, refers to a company called Skilling & Jackson.


Aware of the neighboring Manhattan building 'security' protocols, I was well prepared as I entered the building, during the morning rush, at about 9:10am. However, I was singled-out from the ordinary building patrons, and immediately escorted to a secondary check-point by the lobby guards, which entirely caught me by surprise.

I explained my interests politely, assuming that I would be allowed free access to the general 'public' areas, such as "Windows on the World," where, "I was just looking forward to seeing the view." -Evidently, someone had provided them with my photograph because I looked indistinguishable amongst the usual patrons at that time of day. However, I was immediately told that I was on a list of persons who were explicitly to be escorted upstairs, "to insure that I would arrive at the engineering office in time for Our meeting." - What meeting, I thought?

The suite was listed on the Guard's ledger as: "Skilling & Jackson, P.C.," -a name I had seen somewhere in print, but I had no prior relations with. I thought, being fully aware that Emery Roth had NOT maintained an office in the building for many years, so clearly this was NOT a situation vaguely pertaining to me! Two regular WTC official guards came from the nearby service area (rear) to escort me upstairs. As we arrived at the 'skylobby,' two, different guards accompanied me from there.


EDIT: it turns out the survey was carried out by John Skilling and published in a white paper sometime in the mid-1960's.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Do you mean the mid 70's?

Because the buildings didnt open until 1970 and 1972. They were still in the design phase in the 60's.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
bsbray11

good find, although now Les Robertson has changed his tune somewhat, saying that the speed of the craft made the difference.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I believe the white paper was produced in 1964, during the design phase. It seems that its author, and WTC lead architect, John Skilling, had great confidence in his buildings. In an interview at about the same time with The Engineering News Record, he said:



live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
I believe the white paper was produced in 1964, during the design phase. It seems that its author, and WTC lead architect, John Skilling, had great confidence in his buildings. In an interview at about the same time with The Engineering News Record, he said:



live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.



Oh, sorry... I thought the guy was describing a meeting IN the towers...



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
bsbray11

good find, although now Les Robertson has changed his tune somewhat, saying that the speed of the craft made the difference.




A 707 and 757 have similar masses, sizes, and speeds.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
sp00n1

Yes you are correct, they are very similar actually in terms of size an speed etc, but Les is trying to say that they were thinking of this plane 'lost in the fog' travelling at 200-300 mph.

But obviously this is false, since I read elsewhere that they did prepare for a plane travelling at 600 mph.




top topics



 
1

log in

join