But it was going to cost more money to remove the asbestos then the towers were making.
You really should do research.
So Silverstein "pulled" his buildings so he could go broke rebuilding them?
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- larry silverstein wtc
But it was going to cost more money to remove the asbestos then the towers were making.
You really should do research.
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
You don't know that. You have no source for that claim.
Sheesh...
You'd think that since you blew it on the wreckage inside the Pentagon, you'd throw in the towel, Ultima 1.
This is a lie. Why do insist on being a liar?
Besides, Silverstein didn't even own the towers and it's doubtful that he would have been responsible for asbestos removal.
Last edited:
Again? This from a delusional "truther" who has never been right?
Listen closely.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE FIRE CHIEF CALLED SILVERSTEIN.
YOU DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHEN FIREFIGHTERS AND RESCUE WORKERS WERE PULLED FROM THE DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT.
THE DECISION TO PULL THE MEN WAS MADE BY THE FDNY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE BUILDING OWNER"S CONSENT.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO "PULL," ATTACH CABLES, A 47-STORY BUILDING.
NO DEMOLITION EXPERTS RECOGNIZE "PULL IT" AS REFERRING TO EXPLOSIVES.
I have waded through several brain-numbing threads on this nonsense. Neither the fire chief nor Silverstein were talking about demolition. Nobody sane thinks they were.
It's comical when someone as delusional and dishonest as you talks about doing research.
http://911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Thirty thousand guys milling about the area around the WTC complex waiting for the order to go in would have been unmissable.
Do you have any pictures of them?
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,905
and how much were the towers making again? running at 95% capacity, I'd say they were pulling in enough to cover the costs of asbestos removal.
and just for clarification, are you stating that it's more cost effective to demolish your entire building complex and lose 120 million dollars a year for 8 straight years ( i did the math for you... in september it will have cost Larry 960 million dollars to still be leasing the trade center site) than it is to have asbesto removed for... a fraction of that cost? If you know a company that charges almost a billion dollars to remove asbestos for 2 buildings alone, I'd like to forward them my resume.
But we do have the statement from Chief Nigro that he evacuated the firefighters without talking to the owner. THAT MEANS BEFORE THE PHONE CALL.
Yes we do know from the statements from Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden.
[/quote]THE DECISION TO PULL THE MEN WAS MADE BY THE FDNY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE BUILDING OWNER"S CONSENT.[/quote]
The fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated pull since the firefighters had been evacuated earlier in the day.
No one stated cables were used, there is more then one way to bring down a building.
Well that contridicts you above statement that "pull" meant using cables. WHICH IS IT?
Consider yourself fortunate. I asked my girlfriend for sex and she told me to pull it.
Proven wrong and proven your delusional with facts that state about asbestos removal.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
Another example is the 60-story Montparnasse Tower in Paris. Experts estimate that the removal of asbestos from this building would take three years with full evacuation, and ten years if the building were to remain occupied during the operation. 4
According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal)
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Actually, you did.
You used a word which, in the controlled demolition industry, is only used to describe pulling a building down with cables.
Not when you refer to it as "pulling".
You deliberately cut out the word "NO" from FineWines comment. VERY dishonest of you.
Last edited:
Some more facts to support my post, please try to debate me or concede you cannot.
http://www.investigate911.com/asbestos.htm
http://panynj.pubcomm.com/...
Contract WTC-115.310 - The World Trade Center Removal and Disposal of Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles and Other Incidental Asbestos-Containing Building Materials Via Work Order Estimate Range: $1,000,000 annually Bids due Tuesday, October 17, 2000 [emphasis mine].
http://www.erisk.com/news/weekly/news_weekly2001-05-11_01.asp
May 5 - 11, 2001
"Chalk up one victory for insurers in the escalating asbestos-claims mOlOe: the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey has lost a 10-year-old court battle to get its insurers to pay more than $600 million for removing asbestos from its properties, including the World Trade Center and New York's airports. The judge ruled that asbestos abatement costs by themselves do not constitute 'physical loss or damage' under the Port Authority's all-risk policies. The agency is considering an appeal." [emphasis mine]
http://www.fumento.com/asbest.html
[interesting overview on asbestos problem]
Copyright 1989 by The American Spectator
"Coming soon to a school or office near you: a life-saving innovation that could kill you, designed to correct a problem that doesn't exist, by removing materials that aren't dangerous until somebody tries to remove them. And guess who's going to pay for it." ... "For example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is expecting to pay about $1 billion for the abatement of just the World Trade Center and LaGuardia Airport. (New York City law requires abatement if renovation work is being done, as it is at these buildings.) ..."
Normally I would conclude that person making such a blatantly false statement is lying. You present problems. Of all the humans on the planet, you are definitely among the select few who can't grasp the fact that Nigro did not make the call to Silverstein and therefore may well have ordered the evacuation before ANYBODY called the owner.
YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THE MEN WERE PULLED BEFORE THE CALL WAS MADE, AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN ANY CASE.
I know you are prepared to lie and rave for ten pages, but IT IS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT WE DO NOT KNOW.
[/quote]THE DECISION TO PULL THE MEN WAS MADE BY THE FDNY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE BUILDING OWNER"S CONSENT.[/quote]
It is IMPOSSIBLE that the fire chief was talking about the building because his conversation with the owner WOULD MAKE NO SENSE.
The ONLY use of the term "pull it" for demolition professionals refers to attaching cables to a relatively small structure. (I am quoting from memory from one of the many threads on this subject, one I read just the other day.)
Even you can't be this stupid. You DID see the very large bolded word "NO, didn't you?
Last edited:
It can also be used to mean other ways to bring down a buidling. So either send FOIA to a demo company and prove me wrong or STFU.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Ten years to peel away all the drywall, then peel away and discard the asbestos.
But only a couple hours to peel away all the drywall, pull back the asbestos, put bombs under it and put it all back together in such a way that no one notices.
I don't think you've really thought this theory through.
Why don't you just get the same super-powered ninjas you were going to have wire up the building in no time with no one noticing and have them use their super-powers to quickly remove all the asbestos? Then you have no more need to blow up the building. Problem solved!
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Not as a demolition industry term. Which is what you claim the context for this use of the word pull is.