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

Here is an affadavit from a man namd Thomas Scott Gordon who claims to have been a WTC photographer and had inadvertently sat in on a meeting discussing the "Decommissioning" of WTC 1 and 2.

Sorry if this has a thread already, search did not find it.

It would be easy to prove or disprove his story had the EPA not closed all of their research libraries last year. I do believe I still have a copy of some of this information in the cache on my home PC... I will check tonight.

Please read the provided affidavit... Fantasy or reality? You help me decide. He does not claim to know HOW the buildings were brought down... only why.

Here is his affidavit, for the sake of time start with part 2: www.redlineav.com...

Here is part one:
www.redlineav.com...



[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Nice Find!
This piece fits nicely into the 911 puzzle.

It had been talked about often how good portions of the towers were outdated and the ownership was losing money because clients were in and out quite a bit.

Then I have seen people get on and debunk that by stating they had offices in the building and all of the floors were filled.

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.

They were old and would have cost too much to upgrade. The easiest way to demolish them was through the attacks. Plus, the ownership gets to rebuild for free because of his 'terror' policy that he made tons of money off of.

ahhhh I see now....

The buildings were old and needed updating..... so when the airplanes hit them, it caused enough damage to cause them to fall.

All along everyone thought that it was "controlled demo" that brought them down.

Great Find... now what CT'rs


[edit] to remove my first comment "in danger" and added "needed updating"....

wrong choice of words...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by elevatedone]

More rubbish is all it is. Can anyone produce the alleged orders that called for their demolition by the year 2007. I doubt it :shk:

A brief technical summary:

The structural integrity of the massive World Trade Center Towers was contingent upon the combined -value of *both* the internal, perimeter STEEL columns and the adjoining ALUMINIUM fascia-panels.

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

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.

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

Finding someone that was in the towers in the late 70's or earliy 80's who could verify the following "coring" operation and the associated noise would be nice too. They would have needed to have been in the lower portion of the towers as these operations were performed somewhere between floors 7-25:

There were a total of about 15 floors which had received new bolts, each bolt-hold requiring a noisy core-drilling which had caused the project to cease. The procedure caused a 'ringing' that transferred the noise, vertically throughout dozens of floors. This infuriated the tenants, beyond belief, and thus it became an unacceptable and impractical approach.

Experts? help?

THe only thing that this proves, if anything, is that the WTC were in a state that would enable them to coallapse easier based on structural integrity dminishing over the years. Therefore trying to compare the structure when built and in 2001 would not be revealing the true capactiy of the building, correct?


link

This is a good article to read about him.

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.

Originally posted by esdad71
THe only thing that this proves, if anything, is that the WTC were in a state that would enable them to coallapse easier based on structural integrity dminishing over the years. Therefore trying to compare the structure when built and in 2001 would not be revealing the true capactiy of the building, correct?

Saying that the buildings were weaker does not mean they were in danger of collapse.

They weakened floors were at the bottom anyway (read the affidavit) so the connection between this weakening and the collapse that initiated 60+ floors above does not seem to exist.

The implication is, again, that the buildings would need to be taken down and that it would be VERY expensive and time consuming to do so. Hence, an easier way was found.

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.

exactly.... except for #4

I'm stating that due to the condition of the buildings they fell down on thier own after impact of the planes... no controlled demo... IMO.

Originally posted by shots
More rubbish is all it is.

Solid response. -20 points for me.

This is a difficult "story" to confirm.

In my mind, the best way to confirm the validity of this report would be to, somehow, see whether this "affidavit" was ever filed with "the U.S. Senate Oversight Committee, and others:"

I'm fairly adept at doing searches but, frankly, at this moment I don't have a clue how to possibly confirm whether or not such a presentation was ever made.

Prove that this "presentation" was filed with the U.S. Oversight Committee and this story "has real legs"

[edit on 3/22/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

Originally posted by elevatedone
exactly.... except for #4

I'm stating that due to the condition of the buildings they fell down on thier own after impact of the planes... no controlled demo... IMO.

Weakening in florrs 7-25 would not have allowed the buildings to collapse from the top down.

The fear, as I understand it, was a "tree fall collapse" at the fulcrum. Far below the collapse initiation.

Funny that you are quick to believe that the buildings were weakened, but disregard everything else the man says.

Originally posted by elevatedone
exactly.... except for #4

I'm stating that due to the condition of the buildings they fell down on thier own after impact of the planes... no controlled demo... IMO.

Weakening in florrs 7-25 would not have allowed the buildings to collapse from the top down.

The fear, as I understand it, was a "tree fall collapse" at the fulcrum. Far below the collapse initiation.

Funny that you are quick to believe that the buildings were weakened, but disregard everything else the man says.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
This is a difficult "story" to confirm.

I agree. He does point out so many companies and individuals by name that there should be some way to track down one of them.

I have e-mailed Mr. Gordon asking for a copy of any responses he recieved from the Oversight Committee.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie

Solid response.

-20 points for me.

Feel free to furnish supporting documentation that proves orders were issued. Until then I am not holding y breath. Everyday that goes by some one some where comes up with theories. What I want is proof not talk.

Originally posted by shots
What I want is proof not talk.

I think we all agree on that. This is the START. So many names and companies are listed that finding corroborating evidence that will satisfy you and myself will not happen in five minutes. He used to have more diagrams, etc. up on his site that I believe I have...

Getting the EPA to release their recommendation for deconstruction and demand that the buildings NOT be imploded will probably be a little harder as it would be the proverbial "nail in the coffin".

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie


This is the START.

LOL the start you have to be kidding. The only way it could be a start as you put it would be if he had the alleged papers that suggested it was to be decommissioned a he worded it.

I also find it od that he would say decommissioned. What does he think the buildings were battle ships or something? You do not decommission a building you
• destroy
• annihilate
• decimate
• dynamite
• pull down
• raze
• smash
• tear down
Ore
• wreck them


Here is another little tidbit to throw a moneky wrench into his alleged theory. Why is there no mention of the projects name on any other site/sites then conspiracy sites?

[edit on 3/22/2007 by shots]

A blog response from Mr. Gordon:

Tom here. Actually, I am a fine-artist with a 'B.A.' from 'SAIC.' All sorts of weird things started happening to me when I actually listed that on my resume, back in 1986. Evidently, the folks at "Brown & Root," in Denver, thought I meant something other than 'School of the Art Institute of Chicago.'

They spent two weeks searching my background, which came up squeaky-clean, (and still does) before giving me the assignment to photograph the nearly completed "Columbine High School." Then, I was approached by the Air Force to shoot their facilities at "Falcon Air Base," which is a matter of Federal record. Although I do not have, and cannot release 'unapproved' images of the interiors by sworn oath, Dr. Bill Deagle worked there at the time and confers that my recollections were spot-on!

By the end of the 80's, I was competing with the top ten Western US interiors specialists, like Mary Nichols, and Tim-Street Porter, a dear friend. Nearing the ten-year point in my photo-career, I decided to try NYC, where I got the job to shoot the properties surrounding the Trade Towers. This story is completely True, and while I am dyslexic, (and certainly not an accomplished writer,) this ordeal has forced me to read these blogs and to become a part-time literary pundit. Nico, and Jimmy Walter have helped me immensely, so did Michael Ruppert.

Eventually, they have all said that I probably needed to go to NY to do the missing research for myself. My contention, is that you (Emery Roth) simply cannot engage ALL of the adjacent property-owners in a project like the"BRIDGEWAYS PROJECT," and not leave a paper-trail. My boss was in possession of most of the plans for all of those buildings, which alone generates a healthy log of 'transmittals.' Also, they told me that most of their key employees (credible, high-profile published witnesses) were being "shipped to Seattle." They probably meant these people would be working with either 'Boeing,' or 'Skilling & Associates.' That alone generates another thread of positive ID opportunities, further coroberating my story, if you will, since I have not frequented any of these places, since.

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!"

He went on; "Not to get your hopes up, but it is standard practice for us to file this sort of document when we are worried about the security of any whistle-blower, like yourself. The actual 'case' we have against President Bush, is for his potential involvement in War Crimes."

No, 'Officer Jack,' I have issued NO statements which conflict with the general body of knowledge about the "9/11 Conspiracy."...

Sounds like this is the guy to talk to to start the hunt for the other two sets of WTC blueprints? He says there were three.

He also lists so many MORE names for others to follow up on to find the "paper trail" for "Project Bridgeways" that some of us will need to get to work.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Here is a related ATS thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...