PLANS TO SCRAP WTC TOWERS IN 1989.

Plans To Scrap WTC Towers For $5.6 Bn In 1989! From Karl W. B. Schwarz kw.schwarz@worldnet.att.net 12-6-4 To Jimmy Walter Hi Jimmy, your comment completely misses the point. That is why, in 1989, they planned a $5.6 billion takedown and rebuild, it was tanked. The witness came to me...and we are protecting them. The building had the structural equivalent of osteoporosis. I am about to fund $25-50 million to THE LAWSUIT - United States Citizens v United States Government. Something major happened over the past several days. Karl -----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Walter Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:49 PM To: 'Karl W. B. Schwarz' Subject: RE: galvanic versus flying beams No amount of galvanic action will hurl steel beams straight out horizontally and cause the building to fall at the speed of gravity. However, it would be cause for insurance fraud! But keep trying _____ From: Karl W. B. Schwarz Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM To: Jimmy Walter Hello Jimmy You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-) The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components - erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed. """The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier.""" In 1989 - 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. 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. That could explain why there appears to be explosives set only about every 25 floors. Once the failure started, the brittleness of welds, rivets, bolts, etc would fail much easier as the loads became progressively greater on the way down. That same process would also explain why the concrete was "powderized" over time because electrolytic processes weaken concrete too by "debonding" the Portland that causes concrete to bond in the first place. However, bear in mind that the "concrete floors" were not load bearing reinforced concrete. They were supported by what was a weakening by the day superstructure and cross members. 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. http://www.npl.co.uk/ncs/docs/the_electochemistry_of_corrosion_figures.p df http://www.npl.co.uk/ncs/docs/the_electochemistry_of_corrosion.pdf http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/galvdefi.htm see bimetallic corrosion to get to the two links above http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Landmarks/statue-saddle.htm 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

FLIGHT 93 LANDED SAFELY AT CLEVELAND HOPKINS AIRPORT.

UAL Flight 93 Landed Safely At Cleveland Hopkins Airport Plane Lands In Cleveland - Bomb Feared Aboard 8-7-4 Reported by 9News Staff Web produced by:Liz Foreman 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles. On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. "United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said. ______ Reply to email commenting on Flight 93 using link http://www.wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html No Body Parts Found At Flt 93 Crash Scene http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html#2nd http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=193 better: http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/print.php?storyid=193 Dulce Decorum Dulce still points out, that something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING. 591UA and 612UA. Dulce argues, that though N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer serial number CANNOT be transferred. According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA. According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145. Something is fishy.