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

The article even states that the WTC would be too expensive to demo, that is why if it was to be dismantled, it would have to be done in this way as described. This is an assessment of what needed to be done to the towers at the time. IT also talks about repairs that were performed on specific floors with speacials bolts that casued resonance issues. I read the article. This 'information' is from 1989, so I do not see why it is revelant.

Originally posted by Hal9000

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.

When you stop and think about it the use of the term makes our case much stronger. If it were experts that had plans on removing the towers they certainly would not have used that term.

Further more if this was planned as alleged why is there no mention of the project by name on any websites other then conspiracy sites?

Wow, they knew of the structural weaknesses back in 1989? Considering the building is too massive to prop and then reinforce, that means those weaknesses have been there since... I wonder how long it would have taken before the lack of structural integrity caused some major problems, if the buildings hadn't been destroyed by the attack.

Originally posted by johnsky
Wow, they knew of the structural weaknesses back in 1989? Considering the building is too massive to prop and then reinforce, that means those weaknesses have been there since...

They are not stating they knew it had a weakness they are alleging there was a weakness. There is a Big difference between stating it as fact and speculating as is the case here.

Originally posted by shots
When you stop and think about it the use of the term makes our case much stronger. If it were experts that had plans on removing the towers they certainly would not have used that term.

Well I wouldn't rule this out solely based on that. I checked the definition and decommission usually does pertain to ships, but one of them was simply "take out of use".

defi ne: decommission

I think there are other reasons to doubt the story. One other part is how he describes all the secrecy and signing ND's about the problem. He makes it sound like they already started to plan the attack and they are starting to cover their tracks. He claims the FBI took over control of the project, which makes no sense at all. How could the FBI possibly get involved with the deterioration of a building? Since when do they get involved in real estate?

They didn't need to, they had real estate in WTC 7.

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.

Not in the least.

I immediately thought of NYC's Lever House, which is a modernist box and a landmark, which was totally reskinned at great expense for exactly the reasons cited.

Here's the link to a long 1996 NY Times article in which various leading NY architects discuss the problematic legacy of Modernist skycrapers and the serious challenges to their upkeep.

At worst, such buildings are hopelessly out of date. At best, they are challenging and expensive to maintain. (The owners of the Seagram Building pay roughly double the operating costs to conserve its deceptively simple luster.) Constructed with systems that are growing obsolete, to serve a corporate culture that no longer exists, they tend to be extravagant in their consumption of energy and their use of space, something few owners can tolerate....

"We're going to have to deal with functional obsolescence," said Theodore H. M. Prudon, an associate professor of historic preservation at Columbia University, partner in Swanke Hayden Connell and member of Docomomo.

That means finding new tenants for corporate headquarters that have been emptied, new uses for branch banks that have been superseded by automated teller machines and new layouts for airline terminals that have been pushed well beyond their capacity.

Essentially, that whole generation of large steel-frame Modernist buildings of the 50s-to-70s is suffering from the same problems. Many of them are white elephants. And the biggest, whitest elephant of all was the WTC, whose gargantuan proportions made reskinning it simply too expensive to consider.

The scaffolding alone would be akin to building one of the Pelli World Financial Center towers, which stand beside the WTC site, both in engineering and cost.

Lever House is tiny--really miniscule--in comparison with the WTC towers, at 24 floors and only
275,000 sq ft, but its curtain wall replacement cost $25 million.

From Wikipedia:

Decline

In 1982, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission designated Lever House as an official landmark. By that time, however, much of Lever House's original brilliance had been dimmed by time. The building's blue-green glass facade deteriorated due to harsh weather conditions and the limitations of the original fabrication and materials. Water seeped behind the stainless steel mullions causing the carbon steel within (and around) the glazing pockets to rust and expand.

This corrosion bowed the horizontal mullions and broke most of the spandrel glass panels. By the mid-1990s, only one percent of the original glass remained leaving the once glimmering curtain wall a patchwork of mismatched greenish glass.

This photographer's affidavit makes enormous sense; if the assertions are true--and I have no doubt the structural questions he raises are valid--then it's an extremely important part of the puzzle of 9/11 that has come to light.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by gottago]

[edit on 22-3-2007 by gottago]

When I was a teenager, too long ago to admit, we would make fun of the girls for listening to "Bubble Gum Music". Bubble Gum was Pop music that had the same couple of lines repeated over and over and over and over again. The guys listened to Rock N Roll which was always fresh and alive and had a message.

This topic has definitely reached the Bubble Gum phase. Thread after thread after thread with nothing new and nothing gained. I do not see how any progress can ever be made under those circumstances. The only way any of this is ever going to be proved is with feet on the ground. Trips to records depositories, faxes, phone calls, Freedom of Information requests. A man I had a great deal of respect for once chastised me for watching to much television during my free time. He said "Why do you sit there like a sheep watching successful people. They have theirs. If you want yours you have to get off your butt and turn that thing off". Truer words were never spoken and I think it applies here now.

Well... I contact T. S. Gordon and asked him if he could prove the US Oversight Committee received this affidavit and here is his response:

Hi *****;

The process of making my story known was broad and deep. First, I participated with the Science and Justice Alliance; Haupt, Webfairy, Walter, King and Tarpley. I was scheduled to speak at Confronting the Evidence, but Walter kicked me off the panel because of Nico. I then spoke with all the usual pundits; Jones, Rense, Kaminski, vyzygoth, and my story went out to about 117 links. A guy named Michael Stettner was running for office in California, and he made 100 copies, and he sent them to all the Washington Senators, et. al., as a promo-gimmick. Ostensibly he would have been the first '9/11 candidate' out of the gate.

The local FBI wouldn't take my call seriously, but I sent it to them anyway. Finally, Rense re-published it after this final edit and I received 360,k hits in 2 months.

I got a call from a Colonel named George xxx, who asked me to certify it with the State Atty General, and another original to him in Huntsville. He said watch my back, but as long as I would file this accordingly, he in turn would pass it to the Oversight Committee. So, far as I know, they had plenty of chances to read it. Boeing, and several blind-poll .gov's did log-in, but I lost count and interest since little has come to pass in the real public awareness.

Today, America is practically finished. I see no chance of 9/11 Justice, but there is another trial pending for the wrongful deaths of the citizens. Frankly, I see no reason to vote, and fewer reasons to stay...

Here is what he said when asked if I could share this information:

Hi *****;

Feel free to spread my story about the "FBI take-over of the World Trade Towers" -far and wide! Herein, I have named the names of several perfectly ordinary, 'honest' upstanding Americans, who like I, were 'unwittingly' caught in this web of deceit.

In order to assure the preservation of the United States, and to restore the values we have built into the US Constitution, I feel that a full --Public Trial-- concerning the events of 9/11 is absolutely essential.

We are currently witnessing yet another dog-n-pony show concerning Gonzales, next it will be yet another 'uncontested' -electronic election in 2008.

Originally posted by shots
When you stop and think about it the use of the term makes our case much stronger.

Right... But when Larry said "Pull it" and W said "I saw the first plane hit and thought man that must be one bad pilot" they were misunderstood.

Semantics prove nothing for "your case"... what is this a tag team event?

Originally posted by esdad71
I read the article. This 'information' is from 1989, so I do not see why it is revelant.

Yeah... and the blueprints are from the sixties... are those relevant? Is anything you have posted in this thread relevant? Seems like you are looking for an easy derail... that is your MO.

They don't use decommissioned for buildings eh?

www.whygreenbuildings.com...

Building Decommissioning

Demolishing a building is necessary in some cases, where the cost to retrofit outweighs the cost (environmental and economic) to start a new. However, many new green buildings have utilized existing buildings as a shell or material source for the new efficient building.
Keyword(s)

decommissioning, recycle, reclaim

Introduction

Prior to any building decommissioning, the following steps should be taken.

That took about 2 seconds on Yahoo search engine.

Pootie, can you ask Mr. Gordon why he thinks the FBI was used to take over the project? He said in his affidavit that the security people were probably military. Why would the FBI and the military get involved with somebody's private property? He should show a connection otherwise this doesn't make sense.

Also ask if the galvanic problem only pertained to the outer facade or if it affected the main steel structure supports.

Thanks.

I agree that the structural deterioration raises suspicion, but IMO he blows it by accusing the FBI. This is just another 9/11 theory that lost credibility because the story was taken too far. There could be truth there, but when lies are mixed in the message is lost.

I’ll look forward to his reply.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Pootie, can you ask Mr. Gordon why he thinks the FBI was used to take over the project? He said in his affidavit that the security people were probably military. Why would the FBI and the military get involved with somebody's private property? He should show a connection otherwise this doesn't make sense.

The towers were owned by the Port Authority (a government agency) until Silverstein bought them I believe. That could be the reason for other government agencies to get involved.

[edit on 3/23/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Hal9000
Pootie, can you ask Mr. Gordon why he thinks the FBI was used to take over the project? He said in his affidavit that the security people were probably military.

I will ask.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Also ask if the galvanic problem only pertained to the outer facade or if it affected the main steel structure supports.

If you read the article you will see that the Al "facade" was allso part of the support structure in the sens that it provided elasticity... Bsbray, Griff or LaBTop can probably provide a more technical answer to this than I can.

Originally posted by Hal9000
I’ll look forward to his reply.

I will post it when I get it.

Originally posted by Griff
The towers were owned by the Port Authority (a government agency) until Silverstein bought them I believe. That could be the reason for other government agencies to get involved.

I thought he said he was working for a Mr. Roth whom I took as the owner of the WTC at that time. I don't know. Maybe someone can look that up. I don't have time at the moment.

Originally posted by Pootie
If you read the article you will see that the Al "facade" was allso part of the support structure in the sens that it provided elasticity... Bsbray, Griff or LaBTop can probably provide a more technical answer to this than I can.

The outer columns were load bearing and made of steel. The covering of those columns were aluminum. The galvanic reaction took place were the outer cover or facade was bolted to the outer steel columns. I think the problem was the aluminum cover was in danger of coming off the steel columns, but would not affect the strength of the column itself. The aluminum did not support any weight. It was only for decoration. At least that is how I understood it.

Originally posted by Pootie
Well... I contact T. S. Gordon and asked him if he could prove the US Oversight Committee received this affidavit and here is his response:

That does not prove anything. I can claim I got something from anyone but that will not make it true. Surely one could think if there is a sworn affidavit there would be a photocopy of the original that could be posted.

Originally posted by shots
That does not prove anything.

Where did I claim it PROVED anything? You really have issues. I am trying to INVESTIGATE this mans claims, I share what he has to say and you go on at least to wild tangents in this thread... what is your agenda here?

Originally posted by Griff
The towers were owned by the Port Authority (a government agency) until Silverstein bought them I believe. That could be the reason for other government agencies to get involved.

You were right. It was owned and operated by the New York and New Jersey Port Authority. They sold it to Silverstien in 2001.

Still though, the port Authority is a local agency and I doubt they would like a different agency like the FBI taking over one of their assets. The government does not always operate as a homogeneous entity. I just think that a connection needs to be made instead of assuming there is one.

Originally posted by Hal9000
I just think that a connection needs to be made instead of assuming there is one.

I agree. I only put it out there as an option.