It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A deposition

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:54 PM
I did a search here for the author of this deposition, and found nothing... So maybe this bit of info has not been addressed here. Here is the link:

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.

Physical evidence verifies that an incendiary 'explosive' material, 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.

There's a lot more there, as well. Any comments?

Better Thoughts: The guy SEEMS legit. But I am not in a position to state so for a fact. [shrug] Anyone who is, please speak up. If this is true, there is a good reason Port Auth. sold the place off, they got a policy against terror, and brought down the towers the way they did. It would have cost billions to take it down lawfully.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by Amaterasu]

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:53 PM
Well, either tht is a marvelous work of fiction or this guy needs to be put on TV.

Is there any verification of any of this? Any of the other names and people?

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:00 PM
Not that I have seen... But I do find it interesting that this has come out - whether truth or fiction.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:17 PM
This information would have been part of the Local Law 11 (or 10 or 9....whichever was the last one before 2001...probably 10) reports done by an engineer/architect. For some reason, I can't find any information on these.

Just so people know what I'm talking about. Every building's facade above 6 stories in NYC has to be inspected for safety reason (pieces of the building becoming unsafe) every 5-7 years....depending on the time lapse between the last report and the new one. I know this for a fact because while in NYC that is what I do.

It is EVERY building, so even owned by Port Authority buildings have to have this done. Where's the reports? Or is that "national security" also? I'm sick of getting turned away by "national security" of buildings that don't exist anymore and never will.

Edit: Sorry to go slightly off topic.

[edit on 9/21/2006 by Griff]

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:26 PM
Not really off topic at all. So let me see if I understand what you're saying... There should be reports available about WTC 1 & 2 that are...missing? Inaccessable?

Did I get that correct or did I misinterpret what you said?

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:48 PM
Not sure if they are missing but I'm having a hard time obtaining them. LL11 reports are not really veiwable by just anyone. The way we get the old report is from the owner. You have to review the old report to access the new and relevant stuff. Not sure if even I could get the old report unless I knew who did the last one.

But, what I'm saying is that there is a site called NYCBuildings that you can view at least the last report's conclusions...i.e. Safe, Safe With A Maintenance And Repair Program (SWARMP) or unsafe. I have yet to see anything listed for the towers. BTW, the records go as far back as 90 (at least one of the buildings I'm working on). These records include but not limited to: permits, complaints, certificates of occupancy, elevator records, DOB violations, ECB violations, facades etc.

Here's the site if you'd like to check for yourself.

Edit: If someone comes up with something for the towers on this....PLEASE let me know.

[edit on 9/21/2006 by Griff]

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:03 PM
Thanks Griff!

BTW, the only thing on this deposition - well, related to it - that isn't just a rehash was on Rense here:

More interesting stuff.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:27 PM
Interesting. I agree with the guy who said that no amount of galvanic corrosion would hurl beams and such. It would weaken supports. But bear in mind that the only supports it would weaken would be the supports between the aluminum and steel...not the inner supports that we are told that failed.

Also, it would be false that galvanic corrosion of the concrete would have happened. Corrosion of concrete happens when the reinforcing bars act as anodes and cathodes (esentially becomming a battery of sorts). This wouldn't happen because suppossedly the concrete flooring decks didn't have reinforcing bars.

I know this because I did my final report on corrosion of concrete in my "strengths of materials" class. Hope this helps.

[edit on 9/21/2006 by Griff]

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:04 PM
I don't think the guy on Rense was trying to in any way give fodder to the "it just collapsed!" croud. If you read all the way to the bottom, you can see that he, in fact, gives full credit to a deliberate takedown:

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. df 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

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:02 PM
Been trying to find anything about the WTC towers at that site - and the only things that come up are fron 2002 - well after the fact and useless for verifying issues prior to 9/11. A fair number of things from 2002, though. Kinda weird.

top topics


log in