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.
Jon
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.
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?
