Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

000063 said:
I forgot something. With the tons of people the bad guys would've had to hire to plant the explosives, what happens if they get caught for some crime in the following ten years? All they have to do is sell the conspirators out and they have instant immunity.

Unless you go with the theory that the bad guys were powerful enough to keep them out of jail, anywhere, in which case they are so powerful they don't actually need 9/11.
Click to expand...

That's the ultimate contradiction: any group powerful enough to pull off the inside job wouldn't need to pull off the inside job.
 
LSSBB said:
And where is your proof for that "has to"? Conjectures do not create reality.
Click to expand...

It's my conjecture that Clayton Moore is a government employee in disguise to make the truth movement look like idiots.

Clayton? Are you Mike in purchasing? Stand up in your cubicle up here in NWO Towers and give me thumbs up if that's true. You're a freaking genius!
 
twinstead said:
It's my conjecture that Clayton Moore is a government employee in disguise to make the truth movement look like idiots.

Clayton? Are you Mike in purchasing? Stand up in your cubicle up here in NWO Towers and give me thumbs up if that's true. You're a freaking genius!
Click to expand...

Wink wink nudge nudge.
 
NoahFence said:
Between Ergo's insistence that 9/11 was completely due to asbestos removal, and Clayton's that the powers that be attacked themselves to make it look good, man. I just don't know. I've never seen such blatant idiocy in my life.

Guys, it's OVER.

Get a new hobby.
Click to expand...

Phone Dialog:

Larry: Hi there W, I need a favor

W: Sure Lar, no prob

L: Well, there's these buildings in New York that I've got an asbestos abatement problem with an I thought you could blow them up for me.

W: We can do that but how about to cover it up we also ram fuel laden jets into them?

L: Yea, that works for me, maybe also crash a jet in Pennsylvania to further muddy the waters, oh, and by the way we may as well cover up that shoddy construction in the Pentagon and the loss of all that money.


W: Ok, four jets and thousands dead. Sounds good, I just love it when a plan comes together.
 
DGM said:
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).
Click to expand...

I think it's naive to believe that highrises of that height built in the 60s would really still be standing and still be icons in 2060. Maybe that was the idea back in the '60s, or maybe it really wasn't. But rapidly changing technologies, tastes and needs, plus their design from a human use standpoint made the towers' 107 and 110-storey heights an ongoing liability.

If it were true that the towers were good to go for another 70 years, why had the Port Authority sought permits to demolish them several times already?


I've already posted this, which paints a different picture of the Towers than the bedunkers would have us believe:

ergo said:
From
"The Process of Creating a Ruin" In 1999's Divided We Stand, by Eric Darton:

From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace... When the World Trade Center was bombed in February, 1993, at the age of twenty, it had finally begun generating profits to offset the chronic losses the PA sustained running the PATH commuter line. But it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a generation of more recent, cybernetically "smart" buildings with higher ceilings and greater built-in electrical capacity. To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the PA would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electronic communications, and cooling systems.

Then came the bombing and, according to Charles Maikish, former director of the PA's World Trade Center Department, a repair bill of $700 million and hundreds of millions in lost revenues.
Click to expand...


And these figures don't even factor in the need for removing the asbestos, which was probably not just in the fireproofing.

There is evidence as well that just keeping the spray-on fireproofing intact was an ongoing headache. As we've seen from some of the NIST reports already, with the constant sway of the towers, the SFRM was continually cracking and falling off.

So now we have 1) asbestos liability which prohibited any owner of the WTC from demolishing, 2) asbestos which also needed to be abated, 3) the towers' diminishing appeal design-wise (including its notorious air cooling problems) compared to the capabilities of newer buildings, 4) the need to rewire for fiber optics, and 5) the problem of keeping the fireproofing on the steel.

And these are just the problems we know about.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I think it's naive to believe that highrises of that height built in the 60s would really still be standing and still be icons in 2060. Maybe that was the idea back in the '60s, or maybe it really wasn't. But rapidly changing technologies, tastes and needs, plus their design from a human use standpoint made the towers' 107 and 110-storey heights an ongoing liability.

If it were true that the towers were good to go for another 70 years, why had the Port Authority sought permits to demolish them several times already?


I've already posted this, which paints a different picture of the Towers than the bedunkers would have us believe:




And these figures don't even factor in the need for removing the asbestos, which was probably not just in the fireproofing.

There is evidence as well that just keeping the spray-on fireproofing intact was an ongoing headache. As we've seen from some of the NIST reports already, with the constant sway of the towers, the SFRM was continually cracking and falling off.

So now we have 1) asbestos liability which prohibited any owner of the WTC from demolishing, 2) asbestos which also needed to be abated, 3) the towers' diminishing appeal design-wise (including its notorious air cooling problems) compared to the capabilities of newer buildings, 4) the need to rewire for fiber optics, and 5) the problem of keeping the fireproofing on the steel.

And these are just the problems we know about.
Click to expand...

You're just making a conspiracy up out of conjecture and things that make YOU go, "hmmmmmm". Why is it you can connect such tenuous dots and claim foul when the evidence that supports the commonly-held narrative is as compelling (to rational people of course) as it is? Do the honorable thing: now it's time to find, you know, actual evidence to support your ideas.
 
The comment that "Or, they could have just removed the asbestos," not only doesn't address all the other above problems, but probably doesn't address the whole asbestos picture either. And removing it would require moving tenants out at least temporarily for each area they worked on, and in many cases I think they just chose the sealing option when they could -- an option which does not remove the liability posed in demolishing.

So, while it may be hard to believe that structures that were only 30 years old would be considered for demolition already, the Port Authority had apparently already considered it, for reasons that may not even be listed above. Keep in mind that 1960s architecture dated itself very quickly. I'm not sure, outside of architectural buffs, that they garner the same kind of heritage appreciation that the skyscrapers of the '20s and '30s did. Which is fine if it's just a five-story building that doesn't dominate the skyline. But these were not. These were iconic for the city as a whole and were the dominant structures of the southern Manhattan skyline.
 
tsig said:
Phone Dialog:

Larry: Hi there W, I need a favor

W: Sure Lar, no prob

L: Well, there's these buildings in New York that I've got an asbestos abatement problem with an I thought you could blow them up for me.

W: We can do that but how about to cover it up we also ram fuel laden jets into them?

L: Yea, that works for me, maybe also crash a jet in Pennsylvania to further muddy the waters, oh, and by the way we may as well cover up that shoddy construction in the Pentagon and the loss of all that money.


W: Ok, four jets and thousands dead. Sounds good, I just love it when a plan comes together.
Click to expand...

You do know who Lucky Larry's WTC partner was, don't you?

Frank Lowy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lowy

Neither bio mentions the connection.


http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/2007/05/frank-lowy-zionism-and-911.html
 
ergo said:
I think it's naive to believe that highrises of that height built in the 60s would really still be standing and still be icons in 2060. Maybe that was the idea back in the '60s, or maybe it really wasn't. But rapidly changing technologies, tastes and needs, plus their design from a human use standpoint made the towers' 107 and 110-storey heights an ongoing liability.
Click to expand...

The Empire State building is over 80 years old. No plans to take that down.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So mass murder, its so simple how didnt we see it before. Not sure why the insurance companies just paid out if its so obvious, no wait yes I do, they are clearly in on it as well!!!!1
 
ergo said:
The comment that "Or, they could have just removed the asbestos," not only doesn't address all the other above problems, but probably doesn't address the whole asbestos picture either. And removing it would require moving tenants out at least temporarily for each area they worked on, and in many cases I think they just chose the sealing option when they could -- an option which does not remove the liability posed in demolishing.

So, while it may be hard to believe that structures that were only 30 years old would be considered for demolition already, the Port Authority had apparently already considered it, for reasons that may not even be listed above. Keep in mind that 1960s architecture dated itself very quickly. I'm not sure, outside of architectural buffs, that they garner the same kind of heritage appreciation that the skyscrapers of the '20s and '30s did. Which is fine if it's just a five-story building that doesn't dominate the skyline. But these were not. These were iconic for the city as a whole and were the dominant structures of the southern Manhattan skyline.
Click to expand...
You'll have to forgive me but, where exactly did you pull all of this wisdom from? Let me guess, it's "logic".

:rolleyes:
 
tsig said:
Exactly! Why not just demo them?
Click to expand...
They only had to remove the asbestos if the area was being remodeled. This is standard for all buildings. Rule of thumb, "If it's not being disturbed, don't mess with it". Asbestos is in thousands of buildings in NYC.

Strange, Lead's a bigger problem and they have not leveled NYC yet.

:eek:
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
And removing it would require moving tenants out at least temporarily for each area they worked on [...]
Click to expand...


Or they do what every other building owner does and either take care of the problem in between tenants, or, as mentioned previously, take care of the problem during a scheduled remodel (when the tenant would likely be out, anyway).

You've never lived in an apartment complex, or worked in an office complex, have you? You just don't seem to have much experience with the real world at all.
 
Craig4 said:
Wow, let's all just smile politely and back out of the room. (Nervous laugh)
Click to expand...

I actually guffawed at work when I read this.

So lemme 'splain, no, there is too much, lemme summup....

Larry S. bought the WTC and after purchasing it realized that there would have to be asbestos removal. We know that they had a full time construction crew on staff in the WTC already, one of the gentleman was interviewed. Instead of letting this crew go through, remove the asbestos and make whatever upgrades were needed, Larry S. decided to take it all down.

The towers were almost at max capacity. Which means he would be making money on his investment until those leases were up, at the very least. So he purchased 2 towers, that were almost at max, and you think he is going to take them down because of ANY form of renovations? The money he's bringing in from the leases would pay for any progressive changes he would need to make. Upgrades to data, asbestos removal, elevator repair, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom