It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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... www.corrosion-doctors.org... see bimetallic corrosion to get to the two links above
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
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.
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
am familiar with WTC7 though I was not aware that Silverstien was outbid on the buildings. Do you have a source for this?
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 .