Question from a 9/11 fence sitter

[Newtons Bit]

It doesn't cost 200 million to remove the asbestos.

It likely "costs" 200 million due largely to unusable floors for long periods of time (loss of normal income). Destroying the towers makes the whole thing generate NO income.

 

[JonnyFive]

It doesn't cost 200 million to remove the asbestos.

It likely "costs" 200 million due largely to unusable floors for long periods of time (loss of normal income). Destroying the towers makes the whole thing generate NO income.

The court was deciding on abatement costs only, not lost income, so the $200m does appear to be the cost for actual removal. It was discussing a $600m claim against the insurers for removal costs for PA properties throughout the city, of which the WTC complex was only one.

If you have an additional source for the cost of removal, that would be quite welcome.

Anyhow, it's still a far cry from the $400m stated (and I've heard higher numbers). Also, it pales in comparison to the cleanup costs at ground zero alone, never mind lost income, time lags in developing the site, etc. etc.

Basically, facts make the CT story about asbestos weaker, not stronger.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Also, from what you said at the beginning of your post about finding out about a coming terrorist attack in early 2001, I would assume that you do believe that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda do exist, and are not just some apparition made up by the US gov, correct?

That's the weirdest part about his narrative. He's got real terrorist threats, but no real terrorist participants in the 9/11 attack.

You're really going to have to close that gap, Deep. Your film won't make it past pre-screenings otherwise.

 

[CurtC]

I think it's great that deep44 has been willing to stick out his neck and state what he thinks happened. I hope he stays around.

Deep, what about the four missing flights? If unmanned planes were flown into the towers, and a small plane into the Pentagon, what happened to those four commercial jetliners that are missing, and what happened to the several dozen passengers who were on them? Surely that has to be a big part of the overall narrative, but your first post skips that completely.

 

[Mashuna]

That's the weirdest part about his narrative. He's got real terrorist threats, but no real terrorist participants in the 9/11 attack.

You're really going to have to close that gap, Deep. Your film won't make it past pre-screenings otherwise.

That's the plot twist - it starts out as a LIHOP theory, but changes to MIHOP for some unspecified reason halfway. It'll probably get made as a Renny Harlin film.

 

[JamesB]

Hell, destroying 4 planes alone cost over $300 million. But they made back $4-5 million buying put options!

 

[chipmunk stew]

That's the plot twist - it starts out as a LIHOP theory, but changes to MIHOP for some unspecified reason halfway. It'll probably get made as a Renny Harlin film.

I admit, it's a great idea for a plot twist. How can we make it work?

I know! We could put the LIHOP conspirators on trial, and then during the trial, we could have one of the interrogators have a Usual Suspects-type moment of epiphany, where he realizes that the LIHOP perps are taking the fall for a much more elaborate MIHOP plot. He'll review key moments from earlier in the film with this new understanding and we'll see how it was really pulled off.

For starters, Al Qaeda is a CIA project, and the threats, "chatter," and "system flashing red" were all for show. They were the bait for the patsies to participate in what they though was LIHOP, and added plausibility to the terrorist explanation.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hell, destroying 4 planes alone cost over $300 million. But they made back $4-5 million buying put options!

Yeah, we need to work on the motive. Unless there's an untapped source of dollars we haven't hit upon in this scenario, it's gotta be something else. I like Deep's idea that it was an "ends justifies means" motive. What peril could we come up with that would be worth the price of a self-inflicted 9/11?

 

[T.A.M.]

Stardate 2001:

The USG, in a time prior to starfleet, had been warned of an attack from the "Greenies". These humanoid shaped extraterrestrials had crash landed here some 60 years ago, near Roswell. The USG had discovered, however, that the craft and its occupants then were but a scouting craft, for the larger fleet of invading forces that were some 60 light years away.

Now, that fleet, having been launched 60 years ago, is just arriving in our solar system. Just prior to their arrival and harvesting of our society, they brokered a deal with the USG, the ruling authority of the most powerful country on the planet. In exchange for an adequate supply of human plasma, the aliens would cause a series of "incidents" involving the destruction of the WTCs, and the Pentagon. They would use their High Energy Beam Weapons to dustify the steel of the WTCs and WTC7, and also to create a large hole in the Pentagon. The USG would then pin the "incidents" on the evil islamic extremists, so as to seal the fate of the USA to be engaged in a never ending "War on Terror", making certain elements in the oil and defense industries eternally wealthy and powerful in the process.

Coming to theatres - 2008

TAM

 

[JamesB]

Yeah, we need to work on the motive. Unless there's an untapped source of dollars we haven't hit upon in this scenario, it's gotta be something else. I like Deep's idea that it was an "ends justifies means" motive. What peril could we come up with that would be worth the price of a self-inflicted 9/11?

At the recent conference Alex Jones was screaming (quite literally) that it was because the stock market was going down. Yeah, 9/11 really helped that situation.

 

[JonnyFive]

At the recent conference Alex Jones was screaming (quite literally) that it was because the stock market was going down. Yeah, 9/11 really helped that situation.

...

...

Words... do not adequately express the depths of the stupidity of that idea.

 

[deep]

With regard to the steady decline in WTC occupancy & other miscellaneous details I included about the WTC buildings, I respectfully withdraw those remarks. I would like to comment on the link that was posted & referred to several times, though:

In conclusion, we have shown that the World Trade Center did not have tenancy problems; they did not have money problems; and there is no reason to believe that asbestos problems were not manageable.

Not exactly. They clearly showed that tenancy was not a problem, and how the towers had a $200M asbestos problem as opposed to a $1B problem. They also state that 9/11 Mysteries did not cite a source for their claim that the towers were "big money-losers".. but that doesn't mean "they did not have money problems".

As documented in several news articles from the mid-90s, the Port Authority initially decided to sell/lease a portion of the WTC complex to "maximize the benefit" of the properties. There are other thinly veiled references to profitability throughout articles published in the years leading up to the lease finalization. I'm not saying that alone is enough to support the claim that the towers were "big money-losers"; however, I do believe it's enough to require a source if you want to say they weren't.

Either way- I'm not suggesting that the existence of asbestos in the WTC towers factored (at all) into the initial decision to plan the 9/11 attacks; although, I do believe it played some role in deciding on targets for the attacks. A $200M problem is a $200M problem, no matter which way you slice it.

He's got real terrorist threats, but no real terrorist participants in the 9/11 attack.

This was mentioned several times - I'm not sure I understand why this is so unbelievable. They knew there was a threat, and they knew we were vulnerable. The most effective way to address that vulnerability was to react to the actual attack, but that would defeat the purpose.

So instead of letting terrorists execute the attack on their terms, against targets of their choosing, the U.S. government stepped in and executed a similar attack on their own terms, against targets of their own choosing. The resulting number of casualties and overall (negative) impact was nowhere near the potentially catastrophic attack the terrorists were planning.

You can use your imagination to determine what those targets were - I'm purposely not suggesting anything in the interest of good taste.
​

So as a result, we reaped the benefits of a major terrorist attack, while minimizing casualties (in comparison) & eliminating most of the unknowns. The best comparison I can think of right now is giving your son or daughter the talk about "the birds & the bees". You know that someone is going to talk to them about it at some point, so you want to be that someone to make sure they get an accurate explanation at the right time in their life (but if you wait too long.. it won't matter).

 

[HyJinX]

As documented in several news articles from the mid-90s, the Port Authority initially decided to sell/lease a portion of the WTC complex to "maximize the benefit" of the properties. There are other thinly veiled references to profitability throughout articles published in the years leading up to the lease finalization. I'm not saying that alone is enough to support the claim that the towers were "big money-losers"; however, I do believe it's enough to require a source if you want to say they weren't.

I disagree with you on this point Deep. "Maximizing the benefit of the property" would lead me to believe that they are trying to squeeze the profits out of a very lucrative piece of property. Adding stores = more rental income, adding restaurants = increased revenues, Maximizing office potential = new lease agreements at a much higher rate than existing tentants, selling off poor performing property attributes = shedding dead weight that brings down the bottom-line revenue margins. I would bet that the WTC complex was a huge cash cow for the PA and for Silverstein. And remember, it's always been a great source of income from tourists as well. Just one businessman's opinion.

 

[Blackwell]

welcome to the forum, deep.

1. Why would the USG concern themselves with helping a private company eliminate the need for a $200M clean-up bill?

2. Why would the owners of WTC agree with a government plan that would kill thousands of innocent people? Aside from the moral wrongness, most of these people were tenants; the WTC owners would be losing all that current tenancy, and knowing that their insurance required them to rebuild, they would need someone to fill the new office spaces. Sounds like a bad business model to me.


ETA: Yeah. What HyJinX said.


(I'm always too late....)

 

[CurtC]

Thanks again for the statement Deep, and for clarifying. It's quite refreshing to hear a Truther say what he thinks happened.

Could you address the question of what you think happened to the planes and the people on them?

 

[JonnyFive]

I would also like to expand on the idea of the $200m dollar factor.

Keep in mind that cleanup at the WTC site alone is costing a minimum of $700m. It does not make sense to "eliminate" a $200m problem by replacing it with a $700m problem.

Actually, when you factor in the economic losses associated with 9/11, along with lost income, you're looking at a $multiple-hundred-billion problem caused by the attacks.

So, the financial motive makes no real sense, especially when the claim is that the government authority renting the building (therefore losing money from it not being occupied... or existing!) and responsible for cleanup was part of the plot.

There is a source for the claim that they weren't big money losers:

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=61

If you look at any economic indicator, you can hardly say we reaped a "benefit" from the attacks. All the markets took a dive, business sagged, NYC suffered, NYS suffered, and the whole US suffered as a result.

 

[gumboot]

So instead of letting terrorists execute the attack on their terms, against targets of their choosing, the U.S. government stepped in and executed a similar attack on their own terms, against targets of their own choosing. The resulting number of casualties and overall (negative) impact was nowhere near the potentially catastrophic attack the terrorists were planning.

And what exactly were they planning?

The only reason the 9/11 attacks were so catastrophic was because the aircraft happened to block stair well access and because the buildings collapsed.

The terrorists themselves say they did not expect this to happen, most likely no one else did at the time, until they started to see the tell-tale signs.

WTC1 stairwells were blocked, WTC2 were not. Random event.

Terrorist attacks generally only kill a few hundred people AT MOST. 9/11 could not in anyway be seen as a controlled and limited attack. I fail to imagine how Al Qaeda could have inflicted similar damage any other way.

-Gumboot

 

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Deep.

Here's a post of mine regarding the asbestos and occupancy/profitability issues.

Important points:

Asbestos SFRM was only applied on floors 1-38 of the north tower. Approximately half of that had been replaced over the years during renovations.

The PA sought $600 million from its primary insurers for asbestos abatement in all of its properties. The PA owned over 1,000 properties.

The PA's suits were decided in favor of the defendants. The courts ruled that there was no requirement for the PA to remove the existing asbestos at the WTC. They also ruled that existing asbestos could be removed safely, as had already been done, while the buildings were occupied.

The Towers were at approximately 98% occupancy in 2001. That's considered full occupancy (some tenants were always in the process of moving in and out).

The concourse mall was one of the most profitable in the nation. Some large retail chains had their most profitable stores there.

The WTC properties were highly desired by potential lessors:

When Port Authority officials asked him if he would be interested in submitting a bid for the lease on the trade center, his response, [Silverstein] said, was ''affirmative without hesitation.''

''The trade center was perceived by many as the brass ring,'' he said. ''Given an opportunity to acquire it, how does anybody who has been in this business for 50 years not salivate at the thought?''

...After Sept. 11, Mr. Silverstein was lambasted for underinsuring the trade center. But the Port Authority had carried only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on the complex, which Mr. Silverstein more than doubled, as required by GMAC [mortgage financing]. As a result, Joseph J. Seymour, a former executive director of the Port Authority, noted, ''Right before Sept. 11, we got additional insurance coverage because of Larry.''

Source: "The Hole in the City's Heart" New York Times, September 11, 2006

The WTC buildings underwent regular inspections.

The PA's 2001 budget was $4.6 billion. It had reserves of $1.6 billion and its 2000 revenue was $2.6 billion. (source: "Port Authority approves budget, putting capital plan in motion" New York Times, February 23, 2001)

 

[Architect]

Can I just say how impressed I was that Deep put together a cogent, detailed post on his theory in stark contrast to other supporters of alternative theories here?

I'd also note in passing that, as a result, the responses have also been much more measured and it just disproves the odd claim that we're a pack of hyenas who pounce upon every poor sod who wanders in.

[/smug]

 

[Mancman]

Either way- I'm not suggesting that the existence of asbestos in the WTC towers factored (at all) into the initial decision to plan the 9/11 attacks; although, I do believe it played some role in deciding on targets for the attacks. A $200M problem is a $200M problem, no matter which way you slice it.

So they chose a target worth $3.5 billion??