Of course they let it happen, but the reason I support the Controlled Demolition thoery is not just based on the reports of explosions,
None of which are evidence of the use of explosive devices, and nearly all of which, when kept in context, are about the actual collapses of the towers.
the molten metal found...
Just like it's found at all controlled demolition sites, right? Oh, wait....
but other evidence like the Port Authority loosing a 10 year battle with there insurers to get the rest of the Asbestos removed from the towers which would have cost billions.
You are grossly misinformed. I'll only say this once: YOU WILL NOT GET ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT 9/11 FROM CONSPIRACIST WEBSITES. I strongly recommend these sources when you have questions about what the official version is and what validity the CT claims have:
–The 9/11 Commission Report, including its footnotes and staff monographs on terrorist financing and travel.
–The NIST report on WTC 1&2
–911myths.com
Now to your absurd claim that removing asbestos from the the towers would have cost billions.
1) There was only asbestos in part of one tower and on some pipes, not in "the towers."
2) As has been mentioned, the asbestos fire protection in the north tower was only applied to less than half that building. In fact, it only went to the 38th floor.
NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, WTC Investigation, Passive Fire Protection Executive Summary page xxxv
Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 12, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. [Details follow in the NIST NCSTAR 1-6A report.]
3) There was no requirement for undisturbed asbestos SFRM to be removed from the north tower.
4) Whenever a tenant space was vacated and renovation work was to be done in the asbestos-containing portion of the north tower, licensed asbestos-abatement firms removed the asbestos SFRM, which was replaced with SFRM that was up to code. This work continued when necessary until September 2001. I've read that about half of the 38 stories of asbestos-containing floors had been treated in this way, but I don't have a firm source for that figure.
5) In 1991 the Port Authority sued its past and current all-risk property insurers for what it predicted to be the cost of removing asbestos
from all of its properties in New York and New Jersey. Those properties include the World Trade Center, Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK airports, harbor, rail, bridge, and tunnel facilities, and the PA's HQ on Randall's Island. The potential cost calculated by the Port Authority for work at
all of those properties was $600 million. That was the amount claimed in the lawsuit.
Again, that's $600 million for all properties, not "billions" for the WTC.
6) In May, 2001, the court ruled against the PA, for these reasons:
A) The asbestos at the properties didn't pose a health threat that would necessitate the evacuation of the buildings for abatement work. The abatement work that had been done was safely accomplished while the buildings were occupied. In his ruling, Judge Bissell gave this example of work that was not covered by the PA's loss and damage insurance policies:
"The express purpose of (a Port Authority abatement project) was to stem lost revenue resulting from a loss of new tenants who wished to 'rebuild office space to their desired specifications but who would not do so unless (asbestos-containing materials) were abated.' "
B) The PA was claiming actual losses on 69 asbestos abatement projects, although it had only incurred costs on 13 projects.
7) The PA appealed the decision, and lost its appeal. Following are excerpts from the
the judgment of 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Weis:
The District Court held that unless asbestos in a building was of such quantity and condition as to make the structure unusable, the expense of correcting the situation was not within the scope of a first party insurance policy covering "physical loss or damage." We agree and will affirm.
Plaintiffs, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its subsidiary, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, own numerous facilities in New York and New Jersey that incorporated asbestos products in their construction. Alleging asbestos contamination, plaintiffs filed suit for damages in the New Jersey state courts against the defendants, a number of insurance companies that had first-party policies on the various structures. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for expenses incurred in conjunction with the abatement of asbestos-containing materials in their structures such as the World Trade Center complex in New York and Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The plaintiffs contend that physical damage has occurred in these structures as a result of the "presence of asbestos," "threat of release and reintrainment of asbestos fibers," and the "actual release and reintrainment of asbestos fibers."
To support their claims, plaintiffs point to the existence of friable asbestos in some of their buildings. Once an asbestos product reaches the friability stage, it may be crumbled by vibrations or hand pressure and it continues to deteriorate into separate fibers. In this condition, the asbestos becomes more susceptible to dispersion in the air and poses an increased risk to human health. Plaintiffs cite this as a documented problem at Newark Airport, where insulation had to be removed from pipes around the heating and ventilating units. In other locations, asbestos fibers were actually released during the performance of routine building functions, the renovation of existing structures, and demolition projects.
In the mid-1980s, the plaintiffs undertook a renovation program to remove asbestos products from portions of the World Trade Center. Pursuant to OSHA regulations, plaintiffs augmented their abatement policy by conducting regular surveys of asbestos-containing materials and employing air monitoring procedures. During these activities, maintenance and construction workers were subjected to stringent safety requirements, including mandatory protective clothing and equipment. However, air samples taken in each location did not reveal the presence of asbestos fibers exceeding EPA standards.
Even after the World Trade Center was severely damaged by a truck bomb in 1993, extensive air sampling tests indicated that, except for the occasional "spikes of higher levels," the existing conditions were not problematic. Relying on these tests, plaintiffs continually assured their employees, as well as current and prospective tenants, that the buildings were safe and within regulatory limits.
The Port Authority’s policy on the asbestos present was to "manage [it] in place and to abate it only when required." The record in the District Court established that none of the plaintiffs’ structures violated applicable regulations, and asbestos levels inside the buildings were comparable to background levels on the streets. In the more than 1,000 locations alleged to contain asbestos or an imminent threat of its release, plaintiffs assert claims for 69 abatement projects, which the record shows had been carried out in only 13 instances. During this time, all of plaintiffs’ structures continued in normal use. (bolding mine)
...Acknowledging that no controlling case on point existed, the Court reasoned that "physical loss or damage" could be found only if an imminent threat of asbestos release existed, or actual release of asbestos resulted in contamination of the property so as to nearly eliminate or destroy its function, or render it uninhabitable. The mere presence of asbestos, on the other hand, was not enough to trigger coverage.
The Court determined that the plaintiffs had failed to introduce evidence of "physical loss or damage" sufficient to survive summary judgment. Notably, the Court observed that "a significant portion of the [plaintiffs’] claimed losses arise from the presence of asbestos, unaccompanied by even the suggestion of actual release or imminent threat of release of asbestos fibers." Of the plaintiffs’ locations where proof of release was shown, the Court noted that the continued and uninterrupted use of the buildings without any indication of elevated airborne asbestos level, coupled with the plaintiffs’ own assurances of public safety, "belie the existence of contamination to the extent required to constitute physical loss or damage." Finally, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs cannot create a material issue "based on imminent threat of release of asbestos manifested during the years 1978 to 1991 if it has failed to abate the purported threat to date."
We thus find ourselves in agreement with the District Court’s ruling that plaintiffs’ inability "to produce evidence concerning the manifestation of an imminent threat of asbestos contamination" forecloses the existence of a viable claim. Although the plaintiffs demonstrated that many of its structures used asbestos-containing substances, those buildings had continuous and uninterrupted usage for many years. The mere presence of asbestos or the general threat of its future release is not enough to survive summary judgment or to show a physical loss or damage to trigger coverage under a first-party ‘all risks’ policy.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
stundie said:
Both WTC were white elephants with loads of empy offices space and they cost a fortune to run in terms of electrity/sewage etc.
Another absurd claim. Where do you get this stuff? The WTC was thriving and highly profitable. That's why Silverstein fought so hard to get the lease.
February 12, 2001
As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled. [note: 98% at the WTC was considered full occupancy, due to the fact that tenants were always moving in and out.]
Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent. Source
Thoroughly investigated. Thoroughly debunked.
Name a specific relevant warning.
Come again? The most notice NORAD had of a hijacked jet was 9 minutes. Two of the flights it only knew about after they crashed.
I could go on...but it needs to be save for another time!
Good. Take as much time as you need to do your homework so you don't embarrass yourself with such ignorance again.
