Some WTC History You Might Not Know

Did galvanic corrosion cause the early demise of the WTC?

Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical process in which one metal corrodes preferentially to another when both metals are in electrical contact and immersed in an electrolyte. The same galvanic reaction is exploited in primary batteries to generate a voltage.

A rather more spectacular example occurred in the Statue of Liberty when regular maintenance in the 1980s showed that galvanic corrosion had taken place between the outer copper skin and the wrought iron support

Source

Some WTC History
You Might Not Know

from a video-talk on the Dawson-Perry Report
at the Portland Central Library, 7/12/05,

I lived in New York in the 1960's, when the World Trade Center and the twin towers were going up. The 60's was an era of intense urban destruction and frantic build-up in New York. Some of the areas targeted for "development" looked like they had been bombed, while other outlying areas, redlined by the banks, decayed into abandoned free-fire zones. The downtown mega-development known as the World Trade Center was the brainchild of the Rockefellers. I remember photos in The New York Times of Nelson and David glowing over architect's models of those obscene towers.

You never see the name "Rockefeller" in any of the official post-911 WTC histories. The golden name has been disassociated from the dark imagery of 911. (Also, what is a conspiracy theory without a Rockefeller in it?)

The Rockefeller clout teamed up with the powerful New York and New Jersey Port Authorities, and this urban-removal juggernaut destroyed 75 blocks of historic lower Manhattan.

Farewell, Radio Row.

This targeted area included a neighborhood I loved called Radio Row. The district began in the 1920's and grew into an experimenter's dream world of many blocks where exotic surplus electronics, the fall-out of defense technology, spilled out into the street. The electronics storekeepers organized. God knows how many other downtown communities organized. They got little coverage in The Times. All resistance was crushed.

Did the Rockefellers sign off on the 911 demolition? I don't know. One slender Rockefeller connection (through NBC and 911) is Paul Bremmer, the protege of Henry Kissenger, who, in turn, was the protege of the Rockefellers. Interviewed on NBC that momentous morning Bremmer was so on-message with the official propaganda line that I have speculated (in my NBC Spins 911) that the bin Laden memo all the media was reading from that day may have originated at Bremmer's own desk.

WTC already doomed.

That grandiose Titanic called the World Trade Center, which had been planned to last for at least a century, soon revealed itself to be an engineering stupidity and technological embarrassment. The facade, made of cast aluminum, had been directly connected to the steel superstructure. This caused a battery-like electric flow between the two metals resulting in what's known as galvanic corrosion. This problem had been text-book predictable in the marine-air environment of lower Manhattan, hence the embarrassment.

The formidable-looking facade, weakening day by day, was in danger of peeling off and falling into the street. Another built-in irreversible problem was that the WTC buildings were full of asbestos. They may have been "sick buildings" in other environmental ways. The twin towers were white elephants waiting for replacement. The entire WTC complex, including Building 7, had become, prematurely expendable. Consider, though, that the WTC had paid for itself and profited the investors and profited various landlords, public and private, over and over during its life. Also consider the pressure of insatiable New York developers to raze anything in sight on any pretext and to build anew the latest gleaming office structures for the corporations and luxury condos for the new booming yuppie class.

WTC demolition planned in '80's

A demolition was actually planned out in detail for the twin towers in the 1980's. The planners engaged architects, developed estimates for a complete take-down and rebuild, and the architects drafted conceptual drawings.

The demolition of such gigantic steel structures, with their thick concrete floors, if lawfully performed in conformance with New York City codes, would have been an immensely arduous and expensive task and was estimated back then at $5.6 billion. (This included the slow and laborious task of cutting, with oxy-acetylene torches, the giant hardened steel members of the high-rise structures. In those days you could not so easily melt steel, as for example with kerosene, the official physics for this process having not been in place until a few weeks after September 11, 2001).

I watched such a New York demolition proceed on an old steel and concrete high-rise from my midtown office window at Third Avenue and 51st in the late 1960's. Using cutting torches, workers laboriously severed the old steel members into manageable sections one-by-one. Then they drilled holes into the thick concrete floors and placed small dynamite charges within. A huge ponderous steel net was laid down over the floor area to be blasted.

When the shrill warning whistle blew, I knew to swivel my chair toward the window. Then, bang, and the heavy steel net jumped. The net contained all the shattered concrete debris within. Workers hosed down the area with water to suppress the dust. Then the workers had to gather up the concrete chunks and cart them to funnels that conducted the debris down into dump trucks below. This went on for months, floor by floor.

The same slow, expensive, labor-intensive procedures would have been required had the twin towers been lawfully deconstructed.

In 1989 the architects assigned to the WTC demolition were told that the entire project had been cancelled and that their office, located in the WTC, was to be closed. One source states that someone told the architects that, "In 10 to 12 years they are going to blow it up and start over."

Source

reply to post by septic

Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical process in which one metal corrodes preferentially to another when both metals are in electrical contact and immersed in an electrolyte. The same galvanic reaction is exploited in primary batteries to generate a voltage.

Galvanic corrosion wikipedia

Galvanic has to do with electricity traveling between two points. In the Statue of Liberty case it's because the internal iron and external copper have different ionozation properties. The WTCs did not have this varied types of metal. It was made of steel (MUCH hrder and less reactive than copper and iron).

so... no, WTC did not suffer from this.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by septic

 

Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical process in which one metal corrodes preferentially to another when both metals are in electrical contact and immersed in an electrolyte. The same galvanic reaction is exploited in primary batteries to generate a voltage.

Galvanic corrosion wikipedia

Galvanic has to do with electricity traveling between two points. In the Statue of Liberty case it's because the internal iron and external copper have different ionozation properties. The WTCs did not have this varied types of metal. It was made of steel (MUCH hrder and less reactive than copper and iron).

so... no, WTC did not suffer from this.

Nasa would disagree:

Galvanic Corrosion

Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical action of two dissimilar metals in the presence of an electrolyte and an electron conductive path. It occurs when dissimilar metals are in contact.

It is recognizable by the presence of a buildup of corrosion at the joint between the dissimilar metals. For example, when aluminum alloys or magnesium alloys are in contact with steel (carbon steel or stainless steel), galvanic corrosion can occur and accelerate the corrosion of the aluminum or magnesium. This can be seen on the photo above where the aluminum helicopter blade has corroded near where it was in contact with a steel counterbalance.

Source

Come on now thats reaching a bit. What about building 7? Wait,nevermind, Im tired of having to argue reality and pseudo-pyshics to be honest

Originally posted by AllUrChips
Come on now thats reaching a bit. What about building 7? Wait,nevermind, Im tired of having to argue reality and pseudo-pyshics to be honest

FUDGING THIS!!! I don't even post in the 9/11 section anymore because it starts off as ohh cool new stuff. Then it turns into a debate about who can get the most Wikipedia articles copy & pasted faster.

Screw it. 9/11 was an inside job - how? the CIA knew it was going to happen and let it happen, NORAD was told to stand down. Here's another "funny" coincidence. The Air Traffic Controller that day was the same one in charge when an Egyptian plane crashed. But hey! That's just another coincidence.

I bid you good day 9/11 forum.

reply to post by septic


No, the poster was basically correct it is electrochemical, electricity chemically generated, when dissimilar metals are in contact with each other and water (the electrolyte) gets to them.

The only place there was dissimilar metals was the aluminum cladding against the steel. They obviously knew about galvanic corrosion in the 60's, so the aluminum would not have been directly against the steel but separated with spacers.

That space between the cladding and the steel mesh columns btw is the 'bowing' NIST claimed. The aluminum got hot and bowed inwards.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by septic

 

No, the poster was basically correct it is electrochemical, electricity chemically generated, when dissimilar metals are in contact with each other and water (the electrolyte) gets to them.

The only place there was dissimilar metals was the aluminum cladding against the steel. They obviously knew about galvanic corrosion in the 60's, so the aluminum would not have been directly against the steel but separated with spacers.

That space between the cladding and the steel mesh columns btw is the 'bowing' NIST claimed. The aluminum got hot and bowed inwards.

edit on 10/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Yes, I'm aware what we've been told, and contractors never lie, and never make mistakes, right?

I find ATSers are pretty limited in thinking outside the box. There are those who are married to the "inside job", but refuse to consider just how deeply inside that job may have been, and those who are married to the "terrorists". Neither camp appears able to consider any other option. Let this thread be for those who are able to consider all options.

A BRIEF TECHNICAL SUMMARY, WHY:

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, and were presented by the engineers 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.

Physical evidence verifies that incendiary 'explosive' material(s), such as 'thermate,' had come into contact with numerous STEEL structural members throughout the entire structures. This has now been verified by independent research scientists from actual samples that had been collected from the site. Witnessed by their locations within the burning pyre, these supporting columns had fallen from the upper-most portions of the two building core-sections.

A description of my assessment, those of a non-engineer, concerning the chronic construction "flaw(s)" in the World Trade Towers, follows at the end of this document, in section IV. I strongly encourage readers to cross-reference these issues, as recorded in countless independent and government source documents pertaining to the stress -dynamics, and galvanic properties inherent in aluminium alloys.[*see addenda] Furthermore, I was a witness to numerous, "highly suspicious" activities that took place at WTC, building #7, shortly after the structure was erected, and thus concurrent to the events that I have described.

Source

Originally posted by AllUrChips
Come on now thats reaching a bit. What about building 7? Wait,nevermind, Im tired of having to argue reality and pseudo-pyshics to be honest

Alright...what about building 7? What about the Pentagon?

This thread is about the twin towers and the concept that they may have been planned for demolition in the 80's.

Originally posted by R3N3G4D3

Originally posted by AllUrChips
Come on now thats reaching a bit. What about building 7? Wait,nevermind, Im tired of having to argue reality and pseudo-pyshics to be honest

FUDGING THIS!!! I don't even post in the 9/11 section anymore because it starts off as ohh cool new stuff. Then it turns into a debate about who can get the most Wikipedia articles copy & pasted faster.

Screw it. 9/11 was an inside job - how? the CIA knew it was going to happen and let it happen, NORAD was told to stand down. Here's another "funny" coincidence. The Air Traffic Controller that day was the same one in charge when an Egyptian plane crashed. But hey! That's just another coincidence.

I bid you good day 9/11 forum.

I feel your pain...on ATS it is more important to discuss the same old subjects that have not progressed for a decade, than to discuss alternative explanations.

reply to post by septic


I think a couple of the first posters only read your first paragraph. I get your point, and that is that the towers were going to fail eventually due to faulty engineering and/or design, not to mention, not to code anymore due to all the asbestos. The owners had a demolition analysis and found it to be more expensive than the buildings were worth most likely, and being the buildings were directly linked with the Rockefellers it seems rather plausible this kind of power could pull off just such a "disaster". Also the insider source that commented in 1989 of hearing that the demo plan was canceled because "they" were going to demolish the buildings now in 10 to 12 years, makes sense, if not provable.

For me this just goes with what I've thought all along. 911 was a well and long planned act, to conveniently take out 3 buildings that were more expensive than their overhaul was worth. And when you think that this had been in the planning 10 plus years, you can accomodate a lot of other plans into the scope of it to create great paradigm shifts in society.

A) Galvanic corrosion almost certainly was present in the structure. The aluminum outer sheath was connected to an internal steel skeletal structure, and with the towers being so monstrously large there certainly was enough static electricity to cause electrical current to flow between the metals.

B) This process has been known ever since they invented steel buildings, and this process was one among many processes of deterioration (I.E. rust from water seepage, flexing of the building from wind causing metal fatigue, etc) that the NYPA's full time staff of engineers and inspectors were constantly on the lookout for. Ironically, this is the very reason why these "controlled demolitions" claims are bogus; an inspector looking for water damage after a storm is going to be poking around in the exact same areas where these "secret hush-a-boom thermite charges" would be planted and they're going to stand out like a sore thumb.

There's simply no way controlled demolitions can be planted in an occupied building without anyone in the building noticing. It simply cannot be done.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

There's simply no way controlled demolitions can be planted in an occupied building without anyone in the building noticing. It simply cannot be done.

Agreed. One way to accomplish this was to replace the real tenants with CIA "brass plate" companies, the perfect tenants to clear out existing office space, fixtures, ducting, etc., not to mention the rigging of demolition charges.

@sunnydee: BINGO, especially last paragraph

@goodoldave: "Aw, jeez, not this crap again!"

Connect the dots.

Nice try.

Originally posted by greenWeenie
@sunnydee: BINGO, especially last paragraph

@goodoldave: "Aw, jeez, not this crap again!"

Connect the dots.

I've already connected the dots...

Dot #1) government agencies know they [censored] up royally from not stopping or responding to the 9/11 attack as they should have so they're keeping quiet becuase noone wants to be recorded in the history books as being the idiot who alowed 3000 people to die.

Dot #2) their keeping quiet creates a vaccuum of information for the public as well as a lot of frustration

Dot #3) armies of con artists and crackpots attempt to take advantage of the vaccuum by creating a blizzard of conspiracy web sites that instigate abject paranoia while making a few bucks from t-shirt sales off of gullible people

Dot #4) armies of knows it alls who think they're oh so sophisticated becuase they know how to surf the web come across these web sites and they get suckered in by this drivel. An impressive web site with Java graphics and slick multimedia features makes them think it's being operated by an office building in Washington D.C. full of lawyers when in reality it's a bunch of college kids making internet videos in their dorm room.

"Connect the dots" sums it up pretty well, actually.

Originally posted by septic

Yes, I'm aware what we've been told, and contractors never lie, and never make mistakes, right?

Not sure what you mean? A mistake of putting the aluminum directly against the steel? That would not be a mistake, that would be a complete failure to follow the design of the building. It would have been noticed, trust me, engineers are not stupid.

But even so there is no evidence of galvanic corrosion. It's a very slow process, and the amount of steel in those towers would hardly be effected by galvanic corrosion on their surfaces.

There are plenty of pics of WTC steel to look for evidence, I don't see anything but normal surface rust that is always present on iron.

These columns look like they were heated because there are no stress cracks on the bend, that would have taken far more heat than office fires can supply...



No galvanic corrosion here...




This one also shows signs of very high temperatures, not corrosion...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

armies of knows it alls who think they're oh so sophisticated becuase they know how to surf the web come across these web sites and they get suckered in by this drivel. An impressive web site with Java graphics and slick multimedia features makes them think it's being operated by an office building in Washington D.C. full of lawyers when in reality it's a bunch of college kids making internet videos in their dorm room.

Are you describing you and ATS here? This is the fanciest so-called conspiracy site there is.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
A) Galvanic corrosion almost certainly was present in the structure. The aluminum outer sheath was connected to an internal steel skeletal structure, and with the towers being so monstrously large there certainly was enough static electricity to cause electrical current to flow between the metals.

Where is the evidence for this corrosion?

You do realise that the aluminum would not have been directly against the steel right? That is a big no no that all engineers know about, dissimilar metals are never put directly in contact with each other, unless for a specific reason. There would have been spacers between the steel and the aluminum.

reply to post by ANOK


The point is that if galvanic corrosion was afflicting the aluminum cladding at an accelerated rate, there would be a real concern that they could fall off. If there is truth to the report that there was an attempt to repair the condition by re-drilling and re-sealing the connections, it would make sense that the noise of the the "ping-ping-ping" would be intolerable for tenants. The Port Authority's logical step would be to demolish them, but the EPA wouldn't allow it.

However alien this hypothesis sounds, it is much more grounded than trying to explain away all the missing contents, bodies and concrete; as when buildings are planned to be demolished, all of those contents are removed.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ANOK

 

The point is that if galvanic corrosion was afflicting the aluminum cladding at an accelerated rate, there would be a real concern that they could fall off. If there is truth to the report that there was an attempt to repair the condition by re-drilling and re-sealing the connections, it would make sense that the noise of the the "ping-ping-ping" would be intolerable for tenants. The Port Authority's logical step would be to demolish them, but the EPA wouldn't allow it.

However alien this hypothesis sounds, it is much more grounded than trying to explain away all the missing contents, bodies and concrete; as when buildings are planned to be demolished, all of those contents are removed.

No matter how good the hypothesis sounds it has no evidence, at all. I never can understand this desire to stubbornly stick to an opinion when there is no basis for it.

The aluminum is not going to fall off from some rust on it's surface. If the corrosion was that bad you would see it, as it would be eating through the aluminum if it was that bad. You would see white powder all over the aluminum.

And what has it got to do with missing bodies, I don't understand your point on that, maybe I missed a post?