Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

ergo said:
...I understand this is an incredibly cynical and horrific way to view the chain of events....
Click to expand...
The military engineer in me comprehends the cynical viewpoint.

Sadly for the ergo claim which follows:
ergo said:
... Unfortunately the facts speak more toward a scenario such as this than they do toward the story you claim to defend.
Click to expand...
...is pure faeces of the male bovine.

Stick to trolling ergo. You are moderately competent in that arena. :rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
Now, assume the insider jobbers couldn't care less about human life and so they don't factor those losses into destroying the buildings via false terrorist attack. In fact, it does cost them nothing in dollars to murder people, as long as they get away with it. Can you think of any dollar costs incurred in having the buildings demolished via terrorist attack that would not be incurred by taking full responsibility for them and dismantling them as they should have been?

I understand this is an incredibly cynical and horrific way to view the chain of events. Unfortunately the facts speak more toward a scenario such as this than they do toward the story you claim to defend.
Click to expand...

Murder thousands, shut down air traffic, commence a war, send clouds of dust all over NYC, because of Asbestos Removal costs???

You

Cannot

Be

Serious.
 
LSSBB said:
Murder thousands, shut down air traffic, commence a war, send clouds of dust all over NYC, because of Asbestos Removal costs???
Click to expand...

I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
 
ergo said:
I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...
19 terrorists did 911, and you have delusions. 10 years and all you can do is post lies about 911. Idiotic lies at that.

Unfortunately 911 truth has no idea Silverstein meant pull the fire fighting support. Morons in 911 truth can't figure out 911 due to ignorance and an inability to understand English, what people mean. Why are you unable to be rational on 911? Do you support 19 terrorists by apologizing for them murdering people on 911? You don't do physics, you spread lies.

Your logic is delusional at best. 10 years of 911 truth failure, locked in for eternity. You are part of the biggest losers since Hitler; 911 truth.
 
ergo said:
Well, maybe he had to pitch in for the hijackers, who knows.

At some point, those buildings would need to come down, though, right? At some time in their lifespan? They would have to come down. Correct?
Click to expand...
Yes. But most likely not until after Larry was dead.

The Port Authority was forbidden from demolishing them because of the asbestos hazard and perhaps for other reasons. Right?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should find out.

So to bring the buildings down, back in 2001 or in 2011 or in 2021, they would have to be dismantled floor by floor. How much do think it would cost to do that, keeping in mind the time it would take to let tenant leases run out and empty the building, and the time it would take to dismantle 110 one-acre, steel-framed stories. How much, all tolled, do you think that would cost? And do you think it would get any cheaper to do as the years wore on and the value of the buildings continued to depreciate?
Click to expand...
Assuming they needed/wanted to bring down the buildings in 2001.

Now, assume the insider jobbers couldn't care less about human life and so they don't factor those losses into destroying the buildings via false terrorist attack.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the fake attack was the best plan they could come up with.

In fact, it does cost them nothing in dollars to murder people, as long as they get away with it.
Click to expand...
And if anything goes wrong, they get lynched. Possibly literally. We are talking about thousands upon thousands of random factors here. Any plan that requires that much happenstance is not a good plan.

Also, this is an operation that requires a ton of money. Appropriating charges and wiring, hiring people, security, surveillance, installation, probably a test run somewhere; with the risk involved, this is an incredibly poor ROI. It's certainly not "free".

Can you think of any dollar costs incurred in having the buildings demolished via terrorist attack that would not be incurred by taking full responsibility for them and dismantling them as they should have been?
Click to expand...
Ignoring the incredibly substantial risk of being discovered, which alone puts it past the cost of removing asbestos. I'm pretty sure the chance of a few thousand charges of murder might cause them to balk.

I understand this is an incredibly cynical and horrific way to view the chain of events. Unfortunately the facts speak more toward a scenario such as this than they do toward the story you claim to defend.
Click to expand...
And here I thought you could make it a whole post without some sort of snipe at someone.
 
Last edited:
Why not just go floor by floor, and remove the asbestos? I mean, it's not like it 'aint never been done before......
 
ergo said:
I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

Wow, I rarely submit Stundie nominations but this is so worth it. I'm normally offended by the poor quality of work and failure to apply intellectual rigor demonstrated by truthers on a subject that deserves better than their feeble efforts. This however is so far gone it's actually funny.
 
ergo said:
Well, maybe he had to pitch in for the hijackers, who knows.

At some point, those buildings would need to come down, though, right? At some time in their lifespan? They would have to come down. Correct?

The Port Authority was forbidden from demolishing them because of the asbestos hazard and perhaps for other reasons. Right? So to bring the buildings down, back in 2001 or in 2011 or in 2021, they would have to be dismantled floor by floor. How much do think it would cost to do that, keeping in mind the time it would take to let tenant leases run out and empty the building, and the time it would take to dismantle 110 one-acre, steel-framed stories. How much, all tolled, do you think that would cost? And do you think it would get any cheaper to do as the years wore on and the value of the buildings continued to depreciate?

Now, assume the insider jobbers couldn't care less about human life and so they don't factor those losses into destroying the buildings via false terrorist attack. In fact, it does cost them nothing in dollars to murder people, as long as they get away with it. Can you think of any dollar costs incurred in having the buildings demolished via terrorist attack that would not be incurred by taking full responsibility for them and dismantling them as they should have been?

I understand this is an incredibly cynical and horrific way to view the chain of events. Unfortunately the facts speak more toward a scenario such as this than they do toward the story you claim to defend.
Click to expand...

So Larry was behind the whole thing?
 
ergo said:
At some point, those buildings would need to come down, though, right? At some time in their lifespan? They would have to come down. Correct?

The Port Authority was forbidden from demolishing them because of the asbestos hazard and perhaps for other reasons. Right? So to bring the buildings down, back in 2001 or in 2011 or in 2021, they would have to be dismantled floor by floor. How much do think it would cost to do that, keeping in mind the time it would take to let tenant leases run out and empty the building, and the time it would take to dismantle 110 one-acre, steel-framed stories. How much, all tolled, do you think that would cost? And do you think it would get any cheaper to do as the years wore on and the value of the buildings continued to depreciate?
Click to expand...

Your time line is off a bit. The towers were designed to last 100+ years. They were just then becoming profitable (that's why Larry leased them). There was no reason to remove the asbestos until the effected floor(s) needed remodeling.

Tall buildings get upgraded for new technology all the time, just look at the Empire State building (yes, it's loaded with asbestos).

Where you need to start in your quest is finding a good reason they would want to do something they wouldn't need to do for another 70 or 80 years.

Good luck with that.

:rolleyes:
 
tsig said:
So Larry was behind the whole thing?
Click to expand...

And if he wasn't, how did he come to be 'in on it'? Did he overhear Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld batting around a few ideas for a false-flag attack against the U.S. and have a eureka moment.

Did he then approach them and say, "Guys, you need an iconic target and I need something doing about this asbestos, let's see if we can work together."

Having then gone on to plan and execute the most complicated and audacious mass murder in history, he goes and blurts out his complicity in a T.V. interview, even though you'd imagine the threat of he and his co-conspirators being put up against a wall and shot for their part in it all would have been weighing heavily on his mind.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Well, maybe he had to pitch in for the hijackers, who knows.

At some point, those buildings would need to come down, though, right? At some time in their lifespan? They would have to come down. Correct?

The Port Authority was forbidden from demolishing them because of the asbestos hazard and perhaps for other reasons. Right? So to bring the buildings down, back in 2001 or in 2011 or in 2021, they would have to be dismantled floor by floor. How much do think it would cost to do that, keeping in mind the time it would take to let tenant leases run out and empty the building, and the time it would take to dismantle 110 one-acre, steel-framed stories. How much, all tolled, do you think that would cost? And do you think it would get any cheaper to do as the years wore on and the value of the buildings continued to depreciate?

Now, assume the insider jobbers couldn't care less about human life and so they don't factor those losses into destroying the buildings via false terrorist attack. In fact, it does cost them nothing in dollars to murder people, as long as they get away with it. Can you think of any dollar costs incurred in having the buildings demolished via terrorist attack that would not be incurred by taking full responsibility for them and dismantling them as they should have been?

I understand this is an incredibly cynical and horrific way to view the chain of events. Unfortunately the facts speak more toward a scenario such as this than they do toward the story you claim to defend.
Click to expand...

Ignored by the debunkers is the fact the towers were no bargain but more of an eventual liability. Why would a real estate shark like Lucky Larry bother?



Thanks for the eggcorn. It's not often I learn something here.

http://www.word-detective.com/2008/04/11/all-told/
 
ergo said:
I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

But, in your view, he wanted to demolish the building so as not to pay for asbestos removal, right? So it comes back around again to asbestos removal.

It would seem that you sincerely believe a man would murder thousands, including friends in all likelihood, to avoid paying for asbestos removal. Or do you think he had no friends whatsoever in any of the buildings in the World Trade Center?
 
ergo said:
I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

So Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania because a real estate mogul in New York couldn't foot the bill for asbestos remediation.

:jaw-dropp


Ergo - every retarded theory you and your kind come up with has to include flights 77 and 93. You are woefully short on that.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Ignored by the debunkers is the fact the towers were no bargain but more of an eventual liability. Why would a real estate shark like Lucky Larry bother?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if he'd care if he's dead by the point it becomes a liability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom