The Secret Retrofit of the Citibank Tower in 1978

[bluedaisy211]

I worked in this building on 9/11. After it was a marked target in 2001/2002, lots of construction work took place at the base to provide additional support for the building. My firm moved out shortly thereafter because of safety concerns. Never felt safe, but my office had a kickass view to the east.

[Limerick9824]

"..World Trade Center's owners could not have installed explosives without being detected.." this conspiracy crap annoys the shit out of me!! if it really was the US government that master minded 9/11, why bother with planes? why install explosives on the upper structural members? why not quietly drive 30 inconspicuous differnt vehicles loaded with C4 or whatever type of explosives) into the basement and bring it down from there!!? they could just have easily blamed al qaeda??!!!!!!

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 ----> I think we can agree upon that the idea that rigging 3 huge buildings for demolition by terrorists - with no concievable ties to insiders - should be considered out of the box. And in addition to that, allegedly, even Mr bin Laden himself calculated on how the jet fuel fires would "melt the steel and then cause the upper stories to collapse", right..?

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 ----> Why airplanes..? Well, allegedly, why did the towers collapse? Because of dislogdement of fireproofing due to the impacts of the airplane crashes, and sagging of perimeter columns due to heating and then sagging of floor trusses, and the hypothesis then goes that this sagging pulled in the exterior columns of the buildings. Vast dislogdement of fireproofing was THE most crucial point for NISTs model to "work". ---->

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 How would "al-Qaeda" terrorists have had (such vast) access to the WTC buildings in order to place explosives there? I find it totally implausible (remember that secretive riggnig is one of the standard arguments against controlled demolition) . ---->

[Limerick9824]

@Funkadelic2

Oh gee..I dont know, maybe the same way "al-Qaeda" had such vast acccess to 3 different airports??

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 "??"...?

You haven't cleared my mind. Please develop on that "access" issue.

[Limerick9824]

@Funkadelic2 If they could gain access to 3 high security airports I don't see how they couldn't gain access to 2 relaitively low security buildings. I don't believe in ghost stories, just science so until hard evidence is put to me to suggest that this was in fact an inside job I will continue to believe in science and engineering..not fiction!!

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 Nobody is trying to take away your right to have your own opinion. If you have thoroughly studied the case of building 7 and still think fire did brought it down (science do not allow for actual free fall), and don't raise an eyebrow for any of the other anomalies to the official story, then there's nothing to discuss.

"They" (i.e. "outside" terrorists") did not have access to rig for controlled demolition. And regarding fiction - we already know Tenet lied to the commission.

[Limerick9824]

@Funkadelic2 That "lie" is your basis for this conspiracy theory? What I would've have done if i was head of al-Qaeda?? I wouldn't have wrongly taken the blame for 9/11...I would have said "eh, no America, we actually didn't carry out these attacks..it must have been your own government" But they accepted the blame and publicly declared it too. I wonder why? I reckon it would have caused more mayhem if Americans knew for a FACT that it was thier own government instead of grasping at straws..

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 ----> And then of course, NIST has not dealt with the implications of the free fall of building 7, nor have they explained many anomalous features of the collapses of the twin towers (not to mention that the evidence presented does not support even collapse initiation). I still think it is somewhat challenging to deal with the thought of secretive rigging for demolition in a deceptive manner, but the case of bldg 7 makes it all managable.

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 ----> summit where in the US as early as january 2000 (very thorough research done by Kevin Fenton "Disconnecting the dots"). Clearly some knew the attacks were coming - and did NOTHING to stop it. And that's bad enough. The 9/11 commission - which the White house obviously didn't want in the first place (how can you not want these crimes as thoroughly investigated as possible?!) - have omitted lots of information, and distorted a good portion of facts. These are not straws. ----->

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 ----> (highly unusual and suspect activity on the trade market in the weeks leading up to the attacks, which for some resaon have not been openly investigated). Able Danger obviously had some of the terrorists monitored (why was Able Danger terminated and the vast majority of it's intelligence data destroyed, as well as was the interrogation tapes of Khalid Shaik Mohamed..?), and the CIA knew that two main Cole bombing suspects who had attended the Kuala Lumpur ---->

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 ----> and of course for dealing with the attacks as "opportunities" (i.e. the war on terror), and a few high-ranking officials (Cheney for example? Rumsfeld?) must have had foreknowledge. That's about it. Then some very powerful people behind the scenes and within the intelligence community and the industrial-military complex the only ones reasonably complicit in the other parts of a domestic conspiracy.

There is plenty of evidence of forknowledge of the attacks ----->

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 ----> planned attacks on US soil (rather much evidence suggest just that), but to say what really happened on 9/11 was not carried out partially with help from insiders should not be considered more likely. However, to say "The goverment did it", is very telling misconception. The government was partially responsible for the cover-ups of the investigations, ----->

[Funkadelic2]

@Limerick9824 No, that LIE is far from the basis or grasping at straws.

It doesn't matter whether Osama and the "al-Qaeda" network took credit for the attacks or not (he has denied it too), there is room for domestic involvement either way. It's not unlikely at all that he would have ---->

[Seigu007]

Bingo! And yet your typical run of the mill shit head would rather believe fires can cause 3 buildings to implode in 1 day. Stupid fucking humans are cattle.

[Messerwon]

@Seigu007 Sheeple*

[grandmastershek]

@Seigu007 Awww...Seigu sad his twoof is broken again.

[Seigu007]

@grandmastershek People like you represent the idiocy of today. People like you deserve to be destroyed with impunity. I hope the Arabs have their way with you.

[grandmastershek]

@Seigu007 Yup..another truther who wants dissent silenced. And we're supposed to believe "the govt" is threatening our freedom.

[Seigu007]

@grandmastershek Fabulous--an ignorant fool invoking terms used in formal rhetoric. You know as much about logic as you know about engineering: NOTHING. What real evidence do you have for your idiotic fantasies? Still nothing?

[grandmastershek]

@Seigu007 "Fabulous..."

Oh well you say so Seigu. I love how you fools make all sort of claims then demand evidence.

[Seigu007]

@grandmastershek Typical kook response. I hope you're getting paid to be such a dumbass. I mean, even hookers get paid for it, right?

[Debalam1]

Bollocks.



[jimwinkler]

Gee, the New Yorker reported that this was made public before work started.  They tried to keep it out of the limelight, but it was reported in the paper and to professional societies. It looks like the Truthers are the ones hiding the facts.

[valereydyachuk]

@jimwinkler Would you be kind enough as to provide us the proof that this was made public before work started. You'd mentioned the New Yorker. I would like to know the date they wrote that article and where I could find it.

[valereydyachuk]

@jimwinkler OK, now I know you're just a fool. I looked up when it was published by the New Yorker. And, guess what? It was published in 1995: h t t p : / / en.wikipedia . o r g /wiki/Citigroup_Center#Enginee­ring_crisis_of_1978

Also, wikipedia says that when the retrofit work began in 1978, there was a press strike. So it made it far easier to keep the information from the public.

Now, you've learned your lesson: Before you open your gu-gu-gu-gullible American yap, you should check facts.

[davidmdonaldson]

No comments for 8 months?? It is Nov 03,2010 and I am 6,694 on the viewer scale. I would hazard a guess that more than that have viewed thsi video since Jan 17, 2008.

[toomanyaccounts]

Hilarious the 9-11 truthers "lol" don't put the entire program or what the program actually said about the welding namely was actually planned to be during office hours and it took weeks to do so.

The amount of explosives needed to bring down the wtc would have taken hundreds of vans and months to set up. We know how long it takes to do so because demo experts blow up buildings all the time and the amount of explosives needed was in the hundreds of thousands of tons.

[loccysmif]

"To avoid panic, they had to do this in secret...night after night, after office workers left the building..."

toomanyaccounts: perhaps you could upload a clip of the program that contradicts the verbatim quote from the clip above? That would support your assertion that "the welding was actually planned during office hours"?

I'd be very thankful. Or perhaps you have a torrent link? Otherwise I'm going to have to buy it, I guess.

[toomanyaccounts]

It was a written news article published years ago from internal documents written by the company that did the work as well as the board of the citibank tower. Use the frigging google.

[loccysmif]

Did you mean "The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis" in The New Yorker?

[toomanyaccounts]

That and other stories. Honestly it wasn't a big deal. Refits like that happen all the time they aren't secret. They were actually considered doing it during business hours until someone mentioned the health effect it would have on the regular office workers plus how it be would be a hazard.

[loccysmif]

toomanyaccounts, well it seems the sources say it was conducted mostly in secret. No office workers knew what was really going on..

And refits like that don't happen all the time at all....How many other buildings like the Citicorp tower had critical design flaws that required opening up the skeleton for emergency welding?

[toomanyaccounts]

Once again it was openly discussed at having the repairs during workers but it wasn't done because of certain reasons that make sense hence why it was done after hours.

Refits like that happen all the time it's called building maintenance. They do repair work a lot off hours since they won't be interupted or won't interupt the normal business day. Lots of buildings hide the enterances to the generator rooms, etc behind wood paneling. Unless you know what to look and where it is you just pass

[toomanyaccounts]

pass by thinking it is an ordinary wall when in reality there are corridors, rooms behind it that lead to staircases leading to the roof or basement. I have been in skyscrapers and seen those areas where they keep the geneators that supply emergency power as well as been on the roof where they have the microwave radar station to send signals out. These buildings are tall enough to scare a lot of people from going on them due to how high up it is.

[loccysmif]

This clip remains one of the most damning documents in 9/11 research.

[cantonear1968]

"This clip remains one of the most damning documents in 9/11 research"

I agree. Not that it is that damning at all, but compared to the rest of the "evidence" you have, it would rank high. What you won't acknowledge and skip over is that it would be impossible to keep it secret from the security detail that watched over the WTCs; that would be the Port Authority. SECURACOM AND KROLL DID NOT HAVE THE DAY-TO-DAY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY!

[cantonear1968]

If you continue to tout that lie it shows how far you will go to convince people of this falsehood.

[loccysmif]

"SECURACOM AND KROLL DID NOT HAVE THE DAY-TO-DAY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY!"

First you put words in mouth, then you call me a liar. Fantastic.

[cantonear1968]

Loccysmif, you have the annoying habit of implying something and then backing away from it and getting indignant when called on your bullshit!

"with a little help from Securacom and Kroll ... it can be done"

When we are having a discussion about security at the WTCs, and you post something like this, what the fuck else do you mean? Tell you what, stop trying to be clever and just post what you mean. Or at least own up to what you post.

[loccysmif]

Fucking Leslie Robertson is even involved in this secret retrofitting!!! I mean, come on, jesus christ. Leslie has in the past vehemently defended the notion that a building can't be infiltrated covertly like the 9/11 researchers are suggesting. That means he is conveniently 'forgetting' his own involvement in one!! For fucks sake what will it take for you people to WAKE UP.

[cantonear1968]

What you are missing with this scenario is that the people who owned the building and the security personnel were part of the plan to do the retrofit! What you are leaving out is that The Port Authority, who lost 39 of their members on 9/11, had responsibility for security in the WTCs. That part you conveniently left out but that is the half-truths and lies that make up "Truthers" arguments.

[loccysmif]

cantonear1968, yes, just like the WTC. So? Any convincing arguments that explain Leslie Robertson lying about the impossibility of doing things to a building in secret? He lied. You know it. All you have in return is reminding me of how many people died. I know how many people died you dick. Leave it out of the fucking argument unless you want to have an emotional discussion.

[cantonear1968]

Well I sometimes think that truthers need to be reminded that people died on that day and this isn't some cute classroom discussion. That 3000 people lost their lives on 9/11 and the victims families don't need you stroking your ego (among other things) as you attempt to "get the government".

[cantonear1968]

But my invoking of the 39 PA officers killed on 9/11 was not to start an emotional debate. What logic should have told you is that it is illogical for those 39 PA officers to be involved in an operation that would ultimately result in their deaths. But logic has never stopped truthers before.

[loccysmif]

Neither has logic stopped debunkers, cantonear1968. Coincedence and incompetence theory abound, and everybody responsible gets promoted after the fact.

Now, I distinctly recall Robertson riduculizing everybody who said explosives could be planted in the building. Well, with a little help from Securacom and Kroll (Jerome Hauer, who survived, ok?) it can be done. Besides, you ask victim's families if they are satisfied with the 'truthers' of the 9/11 commission.

[bweazel]

You really shouldn't talk like the family members are on your side. They are not. They want another investigation. They are skeptics. They do not agree with the official version. Those 3000 who lost their lives deserve a better investigation than what was done. We deserve to know the full truth and you're pathetic for being satifsfied with what we have received.

[cantonear1968]

"really shouldn't talk like the family members are on your side."

Really? And what poll do you have to suggest that the majority of family members are potitioning the govt for a new investigation? I guarantee it's a lot less than the family members who are disgusted at the suggestion that either their loved ones either didn't die that day or were part of the conspiracy.

What's pathetic is people who have absolutely no facts to speak of yet scream conspiracy merely for their own egos.

[bweazel]

Oh I'm sorry. Maybe I should have clarified more. When I said family members I meant the people that still have the legal right to petition the government, You know since the other ones gave up that right to know how their family member died when they took that check. It's as simple as seeing way more pissed off family members than I do supportive family members. Because the supportive ones took the money.

[cantonear1968]

"You know since the other ones gave up that right to know how their family member died when they took that check"

See? This is what I am talking about. When moronic imbeciles like you who need their egos stroked because they have nothing else in their lives start accusing the victim's loved ones of being paid off, that pisses me off!

You have no evidence, you have no facts, you have no experts, you have no witnesses, you have no life!

[cantonear1968]

And yet you feel justified, with absolutely nothing to back it up, of accusing people you've never met of covering up their loved ones' deaths. You are a prime pathetic example of everything that is wrong with the truthers.

[bweazel]

Haha. If you say so. If you don't already know, your opinion means absolutely dick to me. So shush. Run along now. You go ahead and tell me you'd take money for the death of your loved one, and I'll call you a sell out too. Fuck em all. They should be ashamed of themselves. Do know, like I told the last pompous fuck that tried supporting family members they didn't know either, a good deal of them are not on your side.

[cantonear1968]

"tell me you'd take money for the death of your loved one"

Yes! If my loved one was killed by a wrongful death and I was offered compensation for that, I would take it. It doesn't mean that I am letting the perpetraitors get away with it. The terrorists who actually hijacked the planes were also killed and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in Gitmo.

Your ignorance is astounding.

[bweazel]

Whatever. That's how trapped in the system you are. I think that is pathetic. Money for a loved one.

Terrorists? Ya ya. Whatever. Blah blah blah.

[cantonear1968]

"Money for a loved one"

So you don't think victims should be compensated in a wrongful death? There's something wrong with you.

"Terrorists? Ya ya. Whatever. Blah blah blah"

Yup! When you have no counterargument or anything intelligent to say avoid any sort of meaningful response. Pretty soon you're going to start shouting "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!" over and over as if that makes it true.

[bweazel]

Sure. They might deserve it. I think it's pathetic to accept money for the death of a loved one though. It's selfish and that is no way to honor your loved one.

I like your last paragraph. Funny. It's about as intellegent as bringing up terrorists. The family members got screwed. Period. Conditional money? It's disrespectful. They know they got screwed. You just don't want to open your eyes to it.

[cantonear1968]

"They might deserve it. I think it's pathetic to accept money for the death of a loved one though"

Nice contradiction. They deserve it but they shouldn't take it. You can't keep 2 thoughts in your head at the same time.

"The family members got screwed"

How? How did they get screwed? They agreed to a settlement instead of suing. That was their choice. It happens everyday in a multitude of different cases.

HOW DID THEY GET SCREWED EXCEPT BY THE TERRORISTS? THOSE ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE?

[bweazel]

It's not a contradiction dumb ass. Do and might are very different. I wouldn't take it. You probably would.

Anyways. You've backed me into a hole. Haha or I dug one myself. I can't argue out of it. I still think you falsely think more of the family members are on your side than there really are. I wouldn't be so sure, but oh well, since neither of us can back that up, I'll leave it at that.

[cantonear1968]

"It's not a contradiction dumb ass"

Why should they not take what they deserve? How is that not a contradictary statement? How am I a dumb ass when I've "backed you into a hole"? What does that say about you? The "last pompous fuck" you came up against must not have had much to offer when you can't answer basic questions or do minimal research.

[toomanyaccounts]

@cantonear1968

Funny how this supposed payoff of the victims was never found out nor any of the reporters who were paid came forward. Do you think people can hid millions of dollars in settlements? Do you understand how much would have been needed to pay off the people? It would be in the trillions of dollars and people would have noticed all these people's famileis being very wealthy very quick.

[cantonear1968]

@toomanyaccounts

Not sure why you directed this reply to me. I do not support truther claims; in fact, I enjoy refuting them. I do not believe the attacks were conducted by the US govt and my comments below were directed at bweazel who felt the victims' families did something wrong by accepting compensation for their family member's deaths.

[bweazel]

You do know they received checks not to bring legal action against the US Government? It's not a lie and it was highly publicized.

Haha. I love when people that will argue with others on here tell them they have no life. What are you doing that's so much better? ; )

But oh well. Back to the initial topic. You do realize they had the option to take money don't you? Please tell me you're not just being ignornant.

[cantonear1968]

"You do know they received checks not to bring legal action against the US Government"

Actually, it was more not to bring action against the airlines in an attempt to salvage the industry, so they were paid from a federal victims compensation fund, but why should facts bother you. And you were aware that 98% of those eligible signed up for the compensation? So where is your majority of family members who were against this? And how is a settlement instaed of suing being part of a cover up?

[cantonear1968]

" love when people that will argue with others on here tell them they have no life. What are you doing that's so much better?"

I'm sitting in my home at my desk making money. I'm NOT spouting off about things I know nothing about and making accusations against victims I have never met with no evidence to back it up. That's the defintion of a douche bag!

[bweazel]

I'll say the same thing Wiki did. Cite your information ; )

It was not just about the air lines. You belielve Wiki just like you believe the gov eh?

[cantonear1968]

"Cite your information"

USA Today:

usa today. com/ news/ nation/ 2003-12-19-victims-fund_x. htm

And the NY Times:

ny times. com/ 2004/ 06/ 16/ nyregion/ after-weighing-value-of-lives-­9-11-fund-completes-its-task. html

[bweazel]

Thanks.

[loccysmif]

I love it. Keep denying this is possible, even when faced with a video such as this. You motherfuckers make me want to throw up.

[iLOVEyoumorons]

9/11 conspiracy theory is an absurd string of loosely bound logic, and everyone who believes it is far past clinically retarded.

[iLOVEyoumorons]

This has NOTHING to do with 9/11 or WTC. He had an innovative design that was improperly tested by non-innovative standards. The strengthening of the beams was done without public knowledge as to keep the business running, but the owners of the building certainly knew about it. Somebody would know if bombs were being put in a building. Nobody would allow bombs to be installed in their building.

[TOOBola]

iLOVE - re. "Nobody would allow bombs to be installed in their building."

Do you honsetly believe there's ANYTHING a Zionist like Larry Silverstein wouldn't do for a cool $17 Billion?

cnn. com/2008/US/03/27/wtc. suit/?iref=mpstoryview

[proudfootz]

I always knew bedunkers were way off base when they say nothing can be done to a major skyscraper in a major city without everyone knowing about it.

Now here's evidence bedunkers and shrills are full of crap.