View Full Version : Tom-Scott Gordon - any info
17th August 2006, 02:12 AM
He seems to be claiming that, because of the construction of the metal frames of the WTC buildings they would have to come down by 2007. The style of his articles doesn't exactly boost confidence (man, they make my head heard) but does anyone have any more sensible to him than my 'ugh...hasn't he heard of copy editing'. You can find some examples of his work here http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/07-21-06/discussion.cgi.97.html http://redlineav.com/tsg.deposition.contd.2.html
17th August 2006, 02:53 AM
What I gather from a brief read of the links, is that he believes the WTC was suffering from galvanic corrosion. This is where two different metals are in contact, forming an electrolytical cell. Or in English, they form a circuit, and because of differnces between the two, a current flows, and this causes corrosion.
This requires water to be present between the two metals, which would be a bit suspicious if the WTC was leaking. Also, because aluminium is higher than steel in the galvanic series, the aluminium will be the metal to corrode. As aluminium was merely a cosmetic facing, it is hard to see how this would require the demolition of the towers.
Usually in cases like this, what is know as a sacrificial anode is use. This is where a block of a more reactive metal is connected to the structure, so that block of metal will corrode instead of the structure, hence it being termed sacrificial.
Metals also have corrosion resistant coating, such as galvanising to protect them.
That's just a rough understanding though, there may well be more to it.
17th August 2006, 02:57 AM
Thanks - that makes sense :) Even if this were taking place, is this something you could demonstrate through photographic evidence? And, presumably, they would have known about and tried to avoid this when WTC was built?
17th August 2006, 03:25 AM
There would be visible evidence of corrosion, but it would be around the contact points. This kind of thing usually happens with fixings like bolts and screws, so if you had a steel bolt through an aluminium panel, then the corrosion would occur around hole where the bolt was. Or if you had an aluminium pipe connected to a steel pipe, the corrosion would occur at the join. I found some examples of corrision on pipes, although because these are often between brass and iron, the corrosion rate is higher, because there is a greater difference between brass and iron in the galvanic series, than there is between steel and aluminium.
There are more pictures at http://www.corrview.com/corr_06.htm
Unless the WTC architects were the worst in the world, then I imagine steps would be taken to avoid this. Although as advertised by the CT crowd, Larry Silverstein reinsured the complex, and I can't imagine this occuring without a building inspection, not for the sums of money involved.
17th August 2006, 05:30 AM
Just a garden-variety moonbat who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. For instance, he claims that these events took place in mid-1989, and his recollections of details are very specific:
I gazed down on the un-finished looking iron-work of building #7, which I knew had just been 'topped-out' the day before.
Problem is, WTC 7 was "topped out" in 1986, and was opened in March, 1987.
How about this doozie, about the exterior aluminum cladding on the towers:
The alloy specifications were critical to the stability of the "tubular column design." Corrosion should not have diminished its ability to withstand the perpendicular impact of a Boeing 727He thinks the aluminum cladding was a load-bearing structural element! Boeing 727?
Moonbatypically, he says he was followed for two years by two men.*
He also includes a photo of a building which he describes as "Central Command, Headquarters for the bogus "9/11 Air Drills." The building is the satellite control center for the U.S. Space Command, which observes objects in outer space. If he is being followed, it's no doubt by them, because he's that far out there.
The galvanic corrosion claim is one that Karl Schwarz promotes. That alone means it's wrong.
* "...but only out of curiosity." :D
17th August 2006, 07:25 AM
Thanks. I've already responded to the e-mail that forwarded me the article(http://redlineav.com/tsg.deposition.contd.2.html) - roughly (edited to take out names and irrelevent details etc):
The article does not demonstrate that orders had been given to take the buildings down: it only states that "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". It doesn't even allege itself that Giuiliani had received such an order: it just reports the allegations of others. The allegations appear to come from Tommy Malley, "who claims his family are involved in New York City construction" (so the author didn't even check up on Malley's family do work in construction, and in what role; at any rate, if his family did work in construction - many do in NY - that doesn't necessarily give Malley insider information). So far as I can tell, this story hasn't been followed through, either: the obvious course of action would be to place a Freedom of Information request with the Mayor's office and the Port Authority to check if such orders had been received (a tactic that the National Security Archive, for example, has used to reveal some interesting info); however, it doesn't look like this has been done.
At any rate, galvanic corrosion requires water to be present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_electrode_potential). It would be very surprising if not one but three buildings of the WTC were leaking. The WTC was reinsured before the attack - if it was in the state Gordon claims, it's hard to see how it could have passed a building inspection (and, given that the insurers argued a lot about the post-9/11 payout, if the buildings had been in such a state you would expect them to have picked up on this). The only photographic evidence attached to the story is some fairly generic diagrams of this type of corrosion, and of some metal after the towers fell (which looks about as damaged as you'd expect). There's photos of galvanic corrosion here - http://www.corrview.com/corr_06.htm - but the article has no photos of anything like this from the wreckage of the building (and I have certainly never seen any).
I don't have the knowledge of engineering, metallurgy etc. to deal with all the points in the article. However, the fact that it's so easy to pick holes in (the above took me about five minutes to figure out) and the author doesn't seem to have bothered with even basic fact checking really does not exactly inspire confidence.
PS: One other thing - even if the structure of the building was compromised - and I don't see evidence that it was - why would this make you think that the buildings were imploded? If anything, this makes it more likely that the damage done by the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 would have been sufficient to bring down the buildings.
The above will be really helpful if I need to add to this (or realise I've made some glaring mistakes...).
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.