The WTC had the structural equivalent of osteoporosis.

[k-robjoe]

"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://www.rense.com/general60/scrap.htm

[ibegurpard]

1. I can't imagine any tall building, no matter how well-designed

being able to withstand the impact of a large jet crashing right into it and exploding. I'm surprised they stood as long as they did.

[Worst Username Ever]

2. Not the mention with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning

I'd say they were pretty damn strong.

[fryguy]

6. actually

the Empire State Building had a B-25 bomber crash directly into it on July 28, 1945...granted, not a jet, but the building not only withstood it but was open for buisness the following Monday....

[candy]

10. I actually remember the day the Empire State Building was hit----

I was on vacation on Cape Cod and that's all the "old folks" were talking about.

[MrUnderhill]

11. A picture of the damage.

Remember that the B-25 was a MUCH lighter plane and was traveling at around 225 mph preparing for a landing.

Also, the Empire State building is a much more substantial edifice with a very different construction style. Look at the pentagon strike for a comparrison... the plane virtually evaporated against that wall.

They just don't build 'em like they used to... :-)

[vpigrad]

14. Assuming it was a plane

> Look at the pentagon strike for a comparrison... the plane virtually evaporated against that wall.

That's a very convenient story! The plane just "evaporated." That sounds like BS!

BTW, has anyone ever seen a shred of proof that was a plane? I know when the discussion came-up here before, most people didn't believe the lies the Bushie administration was telling.

[MrUnderhill]

15. It was a plane.

Actually... the strike on the Empire State Building is the one that looked like a missile.

The only people questioning the Pentagon strike are people with little to no physics background. There are really only three parts of a jumbo jet that are going to "win" a battle with a reinforced concrete wall that thick... the keel and the two engines. The rest can be expected to do quite a bit less damage than people see in the "Die Hard" type movies.

Take a ball of steel hundredths of an inch thick and fill it with avgas and throw it against a reinforced concrete wall at a few hundred miles an hour and you'll see that there isn't much left of the ball... and not much damage to the wall other than needing a good pressure washing.

I remember studying explosives when I was in the Navy and calculating the amount of damage one of our 5" guns could do. I thought it was a lot watching the impact armor piercing rounds could do to target vessels... until I saw what the same size round had done to an armored turret on a battleship. I wondered "how much damage did it do?" and was told "see for yourself... it was never repaired". It was a dent perhaps .5" thick and a few inches across.

The Exocet missiles that everyone was so afraid of after the Sheffield incident would only force that ship to repaint that portion of the hull.

Not identical situations (obviously), but there's simply an issue of relative strength. The Pentagon and the WTC are not on the same level at all.

Additionally, the damage is WAY above what a fighter could do (with or without a missile) and too many eyewitnesses had the sucker fly right over them. You don't need to believe the Bush people are honest to believe there was a plane that hit the Pentagon.

[RH]

16. HMS SHEFFIELD

as a matter of fact was so badly damaged that she sank while in tow, on Monday 10th May 1982, six days after being hit, thus the first Royal Navy vessel to sink in action since the Second World War.

The trouble was not just that she was hit by an Exocet. She was built of aluminum, and aluminum burns.

[MrUnderhill]

17. Right.

In re-reading my post I can see that people might misread it to refer to the Sheffield. When I spoke of just having to "repaint" her, I was talking about a battleship.

You are correct... but it isn't just that Aluminum burns... it's that it doesn't take a whole lot to severely damage an unarmored hull like that. An Exocet actually has an embarrassingly small warhead (around 350 lbs) but still packs a punch against an empty tin can.

Lastly, the damage-control training of the crew matters a great deal. The Stark was hit by two Exocets fired by Iraqi jets (Mirages IIRC) and handled it a bit better - though it was still evidence that armor has advantages.

[tngledwebb]

19. Your Navy background is interesting

as is your other relevant expertise, in physics was it? How you have 400 posts since 11/17/04 is also interesting. You must be a very fast typist and/or thinker, unlike the great majority of us ill-educated and uninformed amateur civilians. Might I ask which forums you frequent?

[MrUnderhill]

23. Two years in the Navy is barely a "background"...

But Physics was my major (for the little time I spend on it now).

DU & LibertPost are the two political sites I spend the most time on. Though I read several of them for the latest news.

[MercutioATC]

24. Get used to the cheap shots, MrUnderhill.

If you don't post, you're a troll or a lurker. If you do, certain people here will make an issue of the frequency of your posts.

Good to have you here, by the way.

:hi:

[tngledwebb]

26. No, which forums ON DU?

How'd you get so many posts? What's the basis of this driving ambition to save the USA from the FASCISTS who just stole another election?

[MrUnderhill]

32. Ahh... I see. I surf around. Mostly "latest breaking" and GD politics.

I also have an interest in the economy/financial threads, and the NC forum.

I guess it could be anything.

Yeah... I post a lot. I've actually been around awhile. I think I was signed up in the 15,000th user range with several thousand posts. Got "excused" for a "time out" a few weeks before the election and told to wait till after the election to come back. Got a little heated on a couple issues. More than one of which I can now see I was wrong on.

[tngledwebb]

20. Had that failure of imagination thing too.

Once. Dig deeper.

[one_true_leroy]

3. that is a true process...

galvanic corrosion, but what proof is there that the two metals were in contact with one another? That is a fundamental No-No in engineering, and has been forever and a day.

[fryguy]

4. plans to dissemble the building in 1989????

Is this for real?

"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."

"MIB" = Men In Black? Will Smith?

[benburch]

5. Fascinating.

I never considered this aspect.

Usually this is not ignored by architects. Usually the whole building is wired to a huge zinc ingot buried in the ground and known as a "sacrificial anode", and which will corrode instead of the building.

I will do some checking to see if indeed there was no sacrificial anode or active electrical anti-corrosion system on WTC.

I would really be amazed were there not.

[aquart]

9. "Sacrificial anode"???

[Old and In the Way]

12. Yes, there are such things.

Used on steel hull boats in the ocean. They mount blocks of zinc which react with the ocean water to attack/dissolve the anode instead of the steel on the hull.

[MrUnderhill]

13. The corrosion is essentially a "battery" - but you don't realize it.

Whenever two dissimilar metals are in contact with each other (particularly in a seawater environment) a current (however small) will be generated. That current is caused by one of the metals "giving up" electrons to the current flow... essentially corroding the metal.

The way you avoid this is to add a THIRD metal that is MORE likely than the other two to give up these electrons... and, assuming you size it correctly, the other two metals will not corrode at all until that sacrificial material is worn out.

Kinda cool.

[aquart]

18. Yeah. Truly cool.

[whistle]

7. WTC was an architectural dinosaur from its inception and I . . .

. . . don't believe ever made money or broke-even during any of its 30 year history. This was a white elephant for the NY/NJ Port Authority and was going to have to come down sooner or later. It seems like someone may have come up with a novel idea of how to do this and not cost New York City or the state of NJ a lavish amount of money. The trick was to pull it off without anyone suspecting insurance fraud. More shall be revealed!

[Old and In the Way]

8. When was the building end-of-life?

I've read somewhere it was 40 years....which means they were closing in on it. Also, what would be the costs to dismantle today? Again, I've read somewhere it was $20BB....but I'd like to see a mainstream source that's reputable on both these questions.

Kind of makes you wonder....

[tngledwebb]

27. Some don't have any questions, oh maybe 1 or 2 teensy little points

but overall no serious issues or doubts, no disagreement with official reports or investigations, no need to ask for anything more. As if this gov't and media could still be trusted. Makes me wonder.

[Abe Linkman]

28. Why would a bushco9-11version supporter have any questions?

Questions about the Official Conspiracy Theory, that is. They'd only be concerned with folks who don't believe in their fairy tale. (after all, some of the sheeple might be within earshot)

[LARED]

21. See here

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc42466/nrcc42466.pdf

See page 8

[k-robjoe]

22. Could you elaborate a bit? (n/t)

[LARED]

25. Sure

If you look at the bottom image on page 8 you will see a cross section of a perimeter column with some decent detail.

A few things come to mind when looking at the image that are pertinent to the collapse theories that float around here.

1. The space between the aluminum facade and the box beam is filled with vermiculite. According to some sources there was 8 million pounds of vermiculite in the towers. Also, I think it is interesting that having a cavity filled with vermiculite in each perimeter box column explains all sorts of dust "phenomena" that CT'er like to make hay of.

2. Another thing of interest is the connection of the aluminum facade (note the use of the word facade) to the box beam. There seems to be only a small conact area, just enough to attached the facade to the beam. The point being that the facade was just that, a facade, and was not intented to provide structural support. Which flys in the face of the posted "article" (amazingly this happens all the time) pretense the the WTC was getting weaker everyday. So weak it needed to be demolished.

[k-robjoe]

29. Noted

I don´t know enough about it to say anything.
Never heard about a "sacrificial anode".
Will just have to wait and see, what comes out of it.

[k-robjoe]

30. But one thing

Is it like, a "sacrificial anode" wouldn´t be needed because of the vermiculite?

[Old and In the Way]

31. Dissimilar metals do create a small electric current, I think it's

called a galvanic reaction. Anyway, I suspect that it would have been addressed in ways to minimize the effect in the construction.

[AZCat]

33. You can use dielectric coatings or fittings to bar the current

A dielectric is any substance that is highly resistant to the flow of electric current. In plumbing, dielectric unions are used to change piping from iron to copper (and vice-versa). They contain plastic parts that prevent the two metals from touching. You can also use a metal that isn't "friendly" to either of the two metals. I think brass works for iron and copper.

This problem has been around ever since metal became common in construction. There was a period in the 1800's where lots of metal structures were failing and it took a while to understand the various causes, but they figured it out quite a while ago. Long enough that I think it would have been taken into consideration in the WTC construction.

[k-robjoe]

35. Is vermiculite such a substance?

Apparently mistakes have been made.
In the interview Karl Schwartz says that with the Statue of Liberty they put an asbestos pad between the copper and the iron skeleton. "Over the years, the asbestos either rotted, fell out or it changed composition. It was actually dipped in a shellac, is what they call it. I don't know if shellac is the right phrase. But that was the separator between the copper skin and the iron skeleton."

[MrUnderhill]

36. Vermiculite is an insulation and fire retardant.

I don't think it's used to avoid corrosion.... it's puffed up as a loose fill.

[k-robjoe]

37. coating

benburch said he´d check if there "was no sacrificial anode or active electrical anti-corrosion system on WTC."

Would such a coating be an "active electrical anti-corrosion system"? And you wouldn´t need a sacrificial annode? And is it so thin that it´s not drawn in in the cross section of a perimeter column in the PDF?

[AZCat]

38. Sure.

Galvanized steel is an example of a material that has a non-corrosive coating (zinc).

Here is a link from the American Galvanizers Association that describes galvanized steel.
They say:
Hot-dip galvanized steel has been effectively used for more than 150 years. The value of hot-dip galvanizing stems from the relative corrosion resistance of zinc, which, under most service conditions, is considerably better than iron and steel. In addition to forming a physical barrier against corrosion, zinc, applied as a hot-dip galvanized coating, cathodically protects exposed steel. Furthermore, galvanizing for protection of iron and steel is favored because of its low cost, the ease of application, and the extended maintenance-free service that it provides.

For a list of galvanizing-related answers (technical stuff also), go here.

[k-robjoe]

39. So

the talk about buildings usually being "wired to a huge zinc ingot buried in the ground and known as a "sacrificial anode"" was just BS ?

And one more question; If there wasn´t a problem with corrosion, and no plan to errect scaffolding to mend it ( in 1989 ), then either Karl Schwartz or the witness that approached him is lying. What would be the motive?

[AZCat]

40. Sacrificial anodes are one way to tackle the problem

There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. Coatings may not always be an option. I don't know enough about structural engineering (I am a mechanical) to be able to tell you more than that.

It is possible that there were problems with the WTC regardless of methods used to combat corrosion. Sometimes solutions are not applied correctly and work must be done to bolster the structure.

An excellent example of corrective work can be seen in the Citicorp Tower. Although it does not have to do with coatings or corrosion, it still serves as notice that not all problems are solved prior to construction. One article covering this is here.

[k-robjoe]

41. When I google

for WTC / sacrificial anode I get ten hits, and none of them seem to say that the WTC had a sacrificial anode system.
Maybe there was just the coating. The poster who said he´d look for it, didn´t return.

But I also wonder about the question, why would Schwartz or the witness lie about this?
(Because their story leaves no room for any misunderstanding about the problem.) The witness will be somebody who has held that kind of position.

[AZCat]

42. I don't know.

Is there more information than what is in the link in the lead post? I cannot tell if Schwartz is joining an existing lawsuit (what he refers to as "United States Citizens v United States Government") or if he is planning on filing a new one.

Schwartz says he is a retired architect, but I don't know what kind of information the witness provided him regarding the corrosion of the WTC. I would hope that he would ask for solid evidence before making such statements, but I don't know anything about him.

[k-robjoe]

43. Haven´t got all that much either

Karl W. B. Schwarz, President, Chief Executive Officer Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC

From his open letter to Bush ( 10-13-4 ) :

"Mr. President,

I am a Conservative Christian Republican that has no intentions of voting for you in this year's election and many other Conservative Republicans are following me.(...)"

http://www.evolutiesprong.net/Striking%20stories/info/I%20demand%20...%20Mr%20President.htm

[k-robjoe]

45. Samples

"Even several Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports cite galvanic corrosion effects in both concrete and rebars in reinforced concrete / de-bonding between the rebar and concrete.

We have found another building, similar design, similar mistakes. Going to get some samples under court order."

Guess we´ll just have to wait and see.

[LARED]

34. Galvanic Corrosion

Form those interested.

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/galvdefi.htm

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/InternetResources/NPL.htm#Bimetallic

http://www.msc.gr/olympic-sun/electrolysisen.html

[MrSammo1]

44. That explains it!

That's what gave the steel in the Towers the density of air!

Got it!