• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

T.A.M. said:
I agree, had they done that, it might have put CTs to bed (though I doubt it). However, that is not sufficient reason to do so, and given the forensic investigators at the time were satisfied, and allowed the material to be removed (and eventually recycled), I am ok with what they did.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

That was one of my main arguments about due diligence I presented a while back when I first arrived at this forum. And I still believe due diligence was not carried out as it should have given the magnitude of the incident.
 
Java Man said:
That was one of my main arguments about due diligence I presented a while back when I first arrived at this forum. And I still believe due diligence was not carried out as it should have given the magnitude of the incident.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The magnitude of the incident does not justify a prolonged keeping of evidence that the investigators do not need or request. You are looking backwards, with your alleged theory of USG involvement (which does not match the final conclusions of the investigative bodies) and saying that given I think that the investigators were wrong in their conclusions, they should have kept the evidence (which you now, looking back once again, feel would help your argument), so that we could look into the Controlled Demolition theory.

At the time, the investigative bodies, made up of men and women ULTIMATELY more qualified then you or I in these things, did not feel all of the steel was needed to be kept in order to "solve the case".

TAM:)
 
A professor who has researched the Twin Towers for several years and gets a book published on them is a non-expert?

There is plenty of evidence indicating the Twin Towers were difficult to rent and had no viable future, as well as had many liabilities such as asbestos. I will dig some of this up at another time.
 
ergo said:
A professor who has researched the Twin Towers for several years and gets a book published on them is a non-expert?

There is plenty of evidence indicating the Twin Towers were difficult to rent and had no viable future, as well as had many liabilities such as asbestos. I will dig some of this up at another time.
Click to expand...

Not on occupancy space of the WTC. The expert on that, is probably his source, which I asked you to provide (if you can).

TAM:)
 
Yes, and maybe you could ask Al for his source, too.

PS: I didn't know there were "experts" on real estate occupancy rates. Is it some kind of sub-discipline of Real Estate Studies, or something? :)
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, and maybe you could ask Al for his source, too.

PS: I didn't know there were "experts" on real estate occupancy rates. Is it some kind of sub-discipline of Real Estate Studies, or something? :)
Click to expand...

Fine, Al, provide your source.

I am not sure either, but I am willing to bet there was an agency that kept the data in question...I would like to see the raw data from an agency whos job it was to collect such things...not an authors statement.

Look you may be right, but your argument on Al was to criticize his source. I was pointing out that your source was not much better.


TAM:)
 
ergo said:
Yes, and maybe you could ask Al for his source, too.

PS: I didn't know there were "experts" on real estate occupancy rates. Is it some kind of sub-discipline of Real Estate Studies, or something? :)
Click to expand...

You have no idea. Any corporate move uses them. I've been a very bored fly on the wall when the reports are examined and compared as part of a move decisions.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
A professor who has researched the Twin Towers for several years and gets a book published on them is a non-expert?

There is plenty of evidence indicating the Twin Towers were difficult to rent and had no viable future, as well as had many liabilities such as asbestos. I will dig some of this up at another time.
Click to expand...


May 2, 2001

"During the last decade, the Port Authority has vastly increased the value of this public asset through effective management and by emphasizing service to tenants," said Port Authority executive director Neil Levin. "Occupancy, at about 97 percent, is at an historic high. Asking rents for offices and retail shops have doubled in the last five years."

The World Trade Center was built more than 30 years ago as a way to stimulate economic development downtown. When it opened its doors in 1970, many called it a white elephant. In the years that followed, the World Trade Center developed an international reputation and is now viewed as a cultural icon. In recent years occupancy and revenues have soared, with many forecasting a rosy future for the complex. More than 430 companies from 28 countries lease space in the complex. An estimated 40,000 people work in the World Trade Center, and another 140,000 visit the complex daily.
Click to expand...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372/


May 31, 1998

But as a result of the last year's work, Ms. Nanninga, said the complex is over 90 percent occupied and expects to it reach the 95 percent mark by the end of the year. That, she said, would be about as full as the center is likely to get, since there is almost always someone moving in or out. ''Ninety-seven percent occupancy would be full,'' said Ms. Nanninga, whose name is pronounced NAN-in-gay.
Click to expand...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EEDA1438F932A05756C0A96E958260&pagewanted=print


Furthermore, asbestos was only used up to floor 38 of WTC1 (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). It would have cost $200 million to remove

“The suit sought recovery of the Port Authority's huge expenses of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade Center complex-which represented more than $200 million of the abatement costs-to bridge and tunnel toll booths.”
Click to expand...
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna39.htm

Yeah, so they destroyed that $3.2 billion complex because of the $200 million clean up. Yeah, sure.
 
Mancman said:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372/



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EEDA1438F932A05756C0A96E958260&pagewanted=print


Furthermore, asbestos was only used up to floor 38 of WTC1 (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). It would have cost $200 million to remove


http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna39.htm

Yeah, so they destroyed that $3.2 billion complex because of the $200 million clean up. Yeah, sure.
Click to expand...

Now see, that is the way it is SUPPOSE to work. Provide multiple sources, reliable ones (NY Times, CBS news).

ergo???

TAM:)
 
t.a.m. said:
fine, al, provide your source.

I am not sure either, but i am willing to bet there was an agency that kept the data in question...i would like to see the raw data from an agency whos job it was to collect such things...not an authors statement.

Look you may be right, but your argument on al was to criticize his source. I was pointing out that your source was not much better.
Tam:)
Click to expand...


1998
over the last year, those seeking large blocks of space have been finding them at the trade center, which had many vacancies as a result of the 1993 terrorist bombing and the shrinkage of the financial industry in the early part of the decade.

''in january 1997 we had about an 80 percent occupancy rate,'' said cherrie nanninga, director of real estate for the port authority of new york and new jersey, which owns the complex. Twenty percent of 10.5 million square feet of space is 2.1 million, which would be a substantial building by itself.

...

But for now investors appear to believe the good times will last, because they are paying prices unheard of less than a year ago, according to howard michael, chairman of the carlton group, a real estate investment banking firm.

''the guys who were paying $50 a square foot to buy buildings six to nine months ago are paying $110 to $120 a foot now,'' he said. ''downtown is still the cheapest real estate in manhattan, and it's the best opportunity for further growth.''

Click to expand...
 
A little more than $200 million, and I know I've seen higher estimates than this.

Port loses claim for asbestos removal.(Port Authority of New York and New Jersey)


U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
A professor who has researched the Twin Towers for several years and gets a book published on them is a non-expert?

There is plenty of evidence indicating the Twin Towers were difficult to rent and had no viable future, as well as had many liabilities such as asbestos. I will dig some of this up at another time.
Click to expand...

Most middle-aged steel buildings are full of asbestos. We don't knock buildings down because of that, we work around it (carefully). It's called abatement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_abatement
 
SO add them together and take the average....

200 + 600 = 800/2 = 400

So say $400 Million...Still not much to destroy a $3 Billion dollar building over.

TAM:)
 
Anders Lindman said:
Disbelief said:
No insurance company would ever insure a skyscraper then. In the event that something other than an earthquake triggered a collapse, the liability would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That would be another reason why this knowledge is not made available to the public, not even to insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Stundie, Heiwa. :D
 
T.A.M. said:
SO add them together and take the average....

200 + 600 = 800/2 = 400

So say $400 Million...Still not much to destroy a $3 Billion dollar building over.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

$0.6 billion is 1/5th of $3 billion. If it's "not much", why didn't they do it a long time ago, especially after the 1993 bombing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom