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.

 

What do the Statue of Liberty and WTC Towers have in common?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I brought this subject up in another thread Yesturday and I would like to know why no one is interested in this .

This might hold the key to what happened that day.

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.

whatreallyhappened.com...

political-resources.com...

www.corrosion-doctors.org...

groups.msn.com...








[edit on 8/19/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 8/19/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 8/19/2008 by cashlink]




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
yeah nice post, but what does that have in common with the statue of liberty?

I don't see the connection



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
One thing that really bothers me is Why did Larry Silverstein really want the lease on the WTC.

Larry Silverstein knew about the galvanic corrosion and He knew of the short building life span only 30 years.

So why a 99 year lease?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Yeah i completely missed the whole Statue of Liberty part. Could you possibly include some information on the Statue of Liberty? Are you hinting that the Statue of Liberty is slowly corroding and might break soon or something?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by screamo
 


The Statue 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.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
So it becomes MORE vunerable to failure if a jetliner crashed into it..right cashlink?

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I see the connection since I went to the links you provided. I only had a chance to skim over them. So far, I've gathered that the structural integrity of the Towers was seriously compromised because of the grave mistake of not taking this galvanic corrosion into account.

I've gathered that there was a plan to most likely just start all over with the Towers which required them to be taken down of course this would naturally mean by a controlled demolition.


So is it being suggested that they instead killed two birds with one stone and let the planes crash into the building (which there is ample evidence they knew of an impending attack), which would take care of the problem of saving face for not taking into account the galvanization, and it would also help move along their agenda to start wars for oil and drastically limit freedoms?

Is this what is being suggested?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Did NIST not even know about the galvanic corrosin?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Great post, facinating articles

thanx
makes you wonder who the hell was in on this alltogether, and how so many could have so little concience



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
One thing that really bothers me is Why did Larry Silverstein really want the lease on the WTC.

Larry Silverstein knew about the galvanic corrosion and He knew of the short building life span only 30 years.

So why a 99 year lease?


Didn't he ake out a mega money insurance and collect every penny ?

Chances are he would have had a hand in the put option scam?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Why are the debunkers not interested in this information?

This might shed some light on the weakness of the WTC.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by nunya13
 


Did NIST not even know about the galvanic corrosin?




I'm still confused even by your response, sorry. I'm a "truther" too (funny title, but fitting) but with my previous post I was just trying to understand exactly what is being implied is all. I don't want to jump to conclusions.

I think I'll just go back over the articles and fully read them and get back to ya



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
wow. I didn't know about the 99 year leash on the wtc


I know that he leashed it but for 99 years


very good points made here that make too many coincidences with the rest.

Star and Flag



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
hmmm...after looking at the enitire article written by T.S. Gordon and also researching a bit of background and some minor (or seemingly minor) details of his account I am very very intrigued.

This is an entirely different take on what happened that day and why. There are now more sound, strong motives for why they did what they did.

Very good find and I really hope more people start reading your story.

I will continue to come back to this thread. I will also post some more conclusions that I have come to. there are still some open ends to this but I'm pretty dang sure I'll find them out.

Is there a way we can get more people to look at this thread?

Maybe perhaps if you change the title of it more people will pay attention to it. Linking the Statue of Liberty to the Towers isn't really of much importance, thought the connection is obvious, but it really has nothing to do with the main issue at hand here.

I really would like more people to get into this debate here to see what others can pull up about this.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 

Good point about changeing the name I will look in to it.
I am surprised that their is little interest in this.

I believe if all this is true and it sure looks like it is then it dose change everything incuding NIST report.
It would mean that NIST didnt know, and they never did any study on galvanic corrosin.

It may explaine that the WTC was weeker than we thought.

Anyway this really needs to be look in to.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
Why are the debunkers not interested in this information?

This might shed some light on the weakness of the WTC.


Because his conclusions are wrong.

The aluminum would corrode before the steel, same as a zinc anode on steel hulled boats.

Also a part of his story is that the aluminum was a structural component - namely, he believes that the aluminum helped hold the weight of the building.

in short, he's wrong, like all trooferz.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Thats not what he is saying.
It was the reactions of the two that ate at the steel.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman

Originally posted by cashlink
One thing that really bothers me is Why did Larry Silverstein really want the lease on the WTC.

Larry Silverstein knew about the galvanic corrosion and He knew of the short building life span only 30 years.

So why a 99 year lease?


Didn't he ake out a mega money insurance and collect every penny ?

Chances are he would have had a hand in the put option scam?



Silverstein, tried to take out LESS insurance when he took over the complex. His bankers forced him to take out MORE insurance.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
Why are the debunkers not interested in this information?

This might shed some light on the weakness of the WTC.


Hi Cash,

I really didn't think it was necessary to rain on your parade. The dude is bat sh*t crazy.

There's no evidence that these alleged "plans" existed other than Schwarz's word. No links, no sources, no nothing. Smells like poop stew to me.
The guy claims to be an architect, though he states he quit practicing in 1988.

Come on Cash... you don't smell that??

This part is classic:


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.


Interesting how the Port Authority had no idea this construction was about to go on. No media was made aware...the MIB (laughing at that one) and told them no. Don't you think scaffolding going around the WTC would make news? You compare the Statue of Liberty to the WTC. I remember the media blitz months (if not a year) prior to this happening. If you are old enough to remember, Lee Iococa in 1983 had a promotion that for each purchase made with an American Express card, American Express would contribute one penny to the renovation of the statue. The campaign generated contributions of $1.7 million to the Statue of Liberty restoration project.

See, projects of this magnitude generate publicity. Do a quick (or extended) search on this phantom project. I simply did not exist.



Thanks,

-TY-



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Well, the steel core girders didn't have an aluminium shell. The building exploded throwing 20-50 ton steel beams laterally, it didn't fall apart like one would expect from natural corrosion. Even if it were severly corroded, why would we expect a total collapse in 10 seconds after an hour of fire? Sure, I believe the building may off been weakened by corrosion but someone still blew it up!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join