Did Silverstein buy a lemon?

[LastChild]

http://matrixscreamer.com/otherauthors/corrosion.html

PLANS TO DISASSAMBLE THE WTC TOWERS AND REBUILD THEM IN 1989

In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion

A rather more spectacular example occurred in the Statue of Liberty when regular maintenance in the 1990s showed that galvanic corrosion had taken place between the outer copper skin and the wrought iron support structure. Although the problem had been anticipated when the structure was built by Gustave Eiffel to Frédéric Bartholdi's design in the 1880s, the insulation of shellac between the two metals failed over a period of time and resulted in rusting of the iron supports.

Even a single type of metal may corrode galvanically if the electrolyte varies in composition, forming a concentration cell.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html

Some sense of the cost of removing the asbestos from the Twin Towers can be obtained by the example of 55 Broad Street. The removal of asbestos in that building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was five times the cost of the building's construction 15 years before.

According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal).

[Unsecured Coins]

he made like, 960 trillion off the insurance, so I think he can afford a lemon if he does choose to acquire one.

[RedIbis]

Only to make lemonade.

[jhunter1163]

There's no evidence that these alleged "plans" existed other than Schwarz's word. No links, no sources, no nothing. I'm getting a whiff of feces tauri.

Allegedly, this guy is an architect, though he claims he quit practicing in 1988. Now my BS detector is flashing full red.

[scissorhands]

Hmmm, an article by Karl W. B. Schwarz.

http://tinyurl.com/6mn876

I am now convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

[ryanebelhar]

The building was so weak it had to be torn down, but planes should have just bounced off of it?

[BenBurch]

Now, this is just my opinion, and I know a lot of people have reasons for other opinions on this;

He leased one dangerously-designed pair of buildings (the towers) and then commissioned another one (WTC 7.)

Had they both been more conventionally-designed, they likely would have survived what happened to them.

As an engineer, I attempt to avoid novelty as with novelty comes risk.

In the case of the towers, the fatal novelty was its most impressive feature; The VAST free-span floors! They were held up only at the edges and at the center, so they could not tolerate the sort of damage that the aircraft and fire inflicted. Had they been a lattice-grid plan building, there might have been a structural failure, there might have been a partial collapse, but I absolutely don't think the whole mess would have come down.

In the case of WTC 7, the fatal novelties were that the whole thing was cantilevered over that ComEd substation and at the same time had a floor that held a day tank system full of fuel that was replenished using a battery-backed pump system that started from a pressure drop in the system. Break the piping in just the wrong spot and you relentlessly pump thousands of gallons of fuel onto the floor. I believe then that this fuel fire fed a larger conflagration that heated a key element in the cantilever enough to fail. Again, a more conventional building would likely just have been written off and torn down rather than falling.

So, people may (and will) disagree with me, but I think that's what happened.

[twinstead]

Schwarz ROCKS!

[gumboot]

Silverstein didn't buy the WTC towers; he only leased them.

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
In the case of WTC 7, the fatal novelties were that the whole thing was cantilevered over that ComEd substation and at the same time had a floor that held a day tank system full of fuel that was replenished using a battery-backed pump system that started from a pressure drop in the system. Break the piping in just the wrong spot and you relentlessly pump thousands of gallons of fuel onto the floor. I believe then that this fuel fire fed a larger conflagration that heated a key element in the cantilever enough to fail. Again, a more conventional building would likely just have been written off and torn down rather than falling.

So, people may (and will) disagree with me, but I think that's what happened.
(bolding mine)

Ben,

Are specs or drawings available for theses fuel tanks/piping/etc.? As a safety engineer, I'm inclined to think that there would be some sort of safety shut off valve near the tank(s) to prevent just such a thing from happening.

I'm very interested in this aspect of the investigation, realizing of course that the building was constructed quite some time ago, and that standards are quite improved these days.

[BenBurch]

(bolding mine)

Ben,

Are specs or drawings available for theses fuel tanks/piping/etc.? As a safety engineer, I'm inclined to think that there would be some sort of safety shut off valve near the tank(s) to prevent just such a thing from happening.

I'm very interested in this aspect of the investigation, realizing of course that the building was constructed quite some time ago, and that standards are quite improved these days.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

Note that the underground storage tanks were found to be EMPTY and undamaged in site-clearing. The clay liners did not have fuel contamination.

[Mr. Skinny]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

Note that the underground storage tanks were found to be EMPTY and undamaged in site-clearing. The clay liners did not have fuel contamination.
Thank you, sir.

[Stellafane]

So what if he did? Only a mindless idiot would believe he rigged them with explosives and blew then up on the same day that (miracle of miracles) a self-confessed terrorist group flew airplanes into them.

[Bobert]

LC you should see if Wearechange can help you locate and harass Larry.
Maybe you could put him in a wheelchair and beat the truth out of him.

[BenBurch]

Thank you, sir.

More here; http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

This is where I got the (badly remembered) missing fuel from;

NIST reviewed the report of an environmental contractor hired in the months after the collapse of WTC 7 to recover remaining fuel and mitigate any environmental damage from the second system’s two 6,000 gal tanks. The tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty and the report stated that neither the underground storage tanks nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either underground storage tank. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil and contaminate it, and, therefore, could have been consumed in the building


So, not the WHOLE storage system, "just" 12,000 gallons, and the tanks were not undamaged as I remembered, but there was no evidence the fuel leaked out.

[BenBurch]

An earlier thread here on the missing fuel;

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88106

[Edmund Standing]

I'm confused. Are lemons the new thermite/thermate?

Citric acid brought down the towers? OMG inside job!!1!

[BenBurch]

I'm confused. Are lemons the new thermite/thermate?

Citric acid brought down the towers? OMG inside job!!1!

Sunkist is a CIA front operation.

[Dave Rogers]

This whole line of argument falls down on one very simple point: If Silverstein wanted to destroy the towers as an insurance job, why did he negotiate the insured value down from what was originally suggested?

LC, when you get back from suspension, maybe you'd like to explain that one.

Dave

[eeyore1954]

Last Child you said
PLANS TO DISASSAMBLE THE WTC TOWERS AND REBUILD THEM IN 1989

In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion.

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
Do you honestly believe the Port Authority could have seriously considered something like this without it being all over the Wall Street Journal , Cranes and the NY Times? Do you honestly believe something like this could be seriously considered without the bondholders knowing about it ?

By the way I know the answer. If it supports your view then you believe it no matter how ridiculous it is.

I especially found this laughable from the article you posted
http://matrixscreamer.com/otherauthors/corrosion.html
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".


If you don't recognize that as a bunch of contrived donkey manure there is very little hope for you.

[Alferd_Packer]

(bolding mine)

Ben,

Are specs or drawings available for theses fuel tanks/piping/etc.? As a safety engineer, I'm inclined to think that there would be some sort of safety shut off valve near the tank(s) to prevent just such a thing from happening.

I'm very interested in this aspect of the investigation, realizing of course that the building was constructed quite some time ago, and that standards are quite improved these days.

As I understand it, the system in question was designed with double contained piping. The annular space drained back to a tank with a float switch for leak detection.

The system itself was designed with a pressurized supply and return loop. Fuel circulated through the loop at a flow rate greater than the maximum consumption rate of all the generator sets hooked up to it combined. There was a valve box that was attached to the underside of the floor slab on the generator floor. I know that NIST looked into the vulnerability of the pressurized piping where it was connected to the rigid box, based on past experience with piping failures related to earthquakes.

The generator sets were controlled so that they could be automatically switched on or off depending on the load conditions. Under basic load conditions only a few generators. Would need to run at a time.

The fuel pump was designed to be powered by the generator output, which suggests that there had to be a battery back up system for it to maintain pressure while the generator sets were starting up.

The main fuel tank for this system was found to be empty afterwards, even though the tenant had a contract with a fuel supplier to keep the tanks topped off. Proper maintenance of emergency generator equipment includes start-ups and short runs of each of the gen-sets on a regular scheduled basis. Thus the tank should have been either full or nearly so.

No evidence was found that the 13,000 gallons leaked from the tanks.

Another issue is the question of how the dust from the collapse would have effected the air filters of the gen-set engines (which were located well above ground level but they certainly would have been expose to the dust cloud in the first few minutes after the collapse of WTC 1.

This is all from memory, so I could be wrong on a few details.

[Alferd_Packer]

Most of the above can be found here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

Ooops, sorry, Ben, I missed your follow up

[Alferd_Packer]

in 1990, to 1992, all the marble cladding was stripped off the 83 story Aon building in Chicago and replaced with granite.

They should have just demolished it, right?

[BenBurch]

in 1990, to 1992, all the marble cladding was stripped off the 83 story Aon building in Chicago and replaced with granite.

They should have just demolished it, right?

Had to! It was popping off the building when the sun heated it!

[Alferd_Packer]

Speaking as someone who has had to deal with underground fuel spills, 100 gallons is a huge deal. 1000 gallons will generally result in free product on top of the water table.

12,000 gallons would have probably resulted in one of the biggest LUST cleanups in New York ever.

[Alferd_Packer]

More here; http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

This is where I got the (badly remembered) missing fuel from;



So, not the WHOLE storage system, "just" 12,000 gallons, and the tanks were not undamaged as I remembered, but there was no evidence the fuel leaked out.

Don't forget about all the fuel in the day tanks and the Mayor's OEM tank.

[Alferd_Packer]

According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal).[/i]


Abatement is removal.

[BenBurch]

Don't forget about all the fuel in the day tanks and the Mayor's OEM tank.

Correct. But I already presume the day tanks were involved. But another 12,000 gallons changes matters significantly!

[moon1969]

Why does it allways have to be a joo? Why can"t it be some arab guy? Whatabout Bandar bin Sultan? Or maybe Yasser Arafat was involved? Why allways a joo who is a businessman? Or maybe Ahmadinejad was involved? He talks funny about 9/11. Is he hiding something? weneedachange better go and ask Ahmadinejad. or maybe they were all involved? All are reptiles? :D

[LashL]

Abatement is removal.

Abatement can also be containment rather than removal, as I understand it.
(But the OP is still stupid, unfounded, and wrong.)

[Alferd_Packer]

Abatement can also be containment rather than removal, as I understand it.
(But the OP is still stupid, unfounded, and wrong.)

Yes, and no. Contaiment or encapsulation were interim methods propsed to allow cash strapped schools to deal with asbestos hazards without resorting to the full cost of removal.

It's a moot point, however, as the asbestos contianing fireproofing was only applied to the bottom 36 floors of WTC 1 and was not used in WTC 2 at all.

[LashL]

Yes, and no. Contaiment or encapsulation were interim methods propsed to allow cash strapped schools to deal with asbestos hazards without resorting to the full cost of removal.


Yes, and other public buildings, including a courthouse that I used to work in, although it wasn't cash strapped and those of us who worked there insisted on removal rather than encapsulation and eventually, the PTB capitulated. ;)


It's a moot point, however, as the asbestos contianing fireproofing was only applied to the bottom 36 floors of WTC 1 and was not used in WTC 2 at all.


Agreed. As I said above, the OP is still stupid, unfounded and wrong.