Building demolished from the top down.

Java Man said:
Do you have a link to that?
Click to expand...
I'll have to look for it. One of the conditions he had to agree to (considering he's not replacing the exact same square footage) is after he finishes reconstruction he will no longer hold the lease. (I believe Mike has it on 911myths)

It's bed time for me but, I will post the detail in the morning.
 
DGM said:
I'll have to look for it. One of the conditions he had to agree to (considering he's not replacing the exact same square footage) is after he finishes reconstruction he will no longer hold the lease. (I believe Mike has it on 911myths)

It's bed time for me but, I will post the detail in the morning.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks. Good night.
 
Java Man said:
No not at all. I'm not all day in the forest observing trees fall and yet they fall.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge.

Can you imagine a scenario where there are thousands of people watching a tree, and no one sees it fall, and yet it falls? That's what you're proposing happened on 9/11.

Explosions are violent events that are difficult to miss. The mistake truthers often make is believing that explosions in real life are like explosions in the movies, which are so slow that a person on foot can easily outrun the shock wave. In real life, the shock wave would overtake the hero in a fraction of a second, and usually kill him in the process.

Perhaps you're proposing that the explosions were small enough that they wouldn't be noticed. If so, then they would have been far too small to destroy enough columns to collapse the towers.

Want some advice? I assume you don't, but here it is anyway: Stop wasting your life. I think you know deep down (maybe not even deep down) that you're spouting nonsense. Nothing you're saying is of any consequence whatsoever.

The one thing that should cause you to stand up and take notice is this: You cannot articulate what it is that YOU YOURSELF BELIEVE about 9/11.

That's it. You obviously have strong beliefs, but you can't say what you believe.

I find that odd. Why don't you?
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
Perhaps you're proposing that the explosions were small enough that they wouldn't be noticed. If so, then they would have been far too small to destroy enough columns to collapse the towers.
Click to expand...

Once again that obsession with destroying columns. Why? Why do you insist in requiring explosives to destroy columns?
 
Java Man said:
Do you have a link to that?
Click to expand...
As promised.

Silverstein also ran into multiple disputes with other parties in the rebuilding effort, including with the Port Authority. In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") will be owned by the Port Authority as well as Tower Five which may be leased out to another private developer and redesigned as a residential building.[2]
Click to expand...

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

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-09-21ng.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html (contains more links to follow)

So if you wade through all the agreements you will find that Silverstein is in a decent position to complete his obligation to rebuild. After all is said and done (as long as the economy holds out to lease his now smaller space) Silverstein's ground zero space will return to profitable. In no way is he "making out" on the disaster. And no, he did not "lose his shirt" either.
 
LightningTeg said:
How how else would you rapidly bring the building down? Thermite?
Click to expand...

One option is making the floors sag without fire. That is known to bring the building down.

Another option is to release the floor panels and let them initiate the collapse. The connections between the floor panels and the columns is thin and easy to severe. Their small size has been successfully debated by you the debunkers when we touched the topic of heat transfer. Remember?

Since the video at the start of this thread was so kind to show us how a building can collapse without explosives being used and by just relying on the inertia of the falling upper floors. All that is needed now is a simple mechanism to release floors which is independent of the aircraft strike zone.
 
Same problem.

What are you using to release the floors that can survive the impact and resulting fires, go into the building undetected, and also be triggered somehow.

How are you going to make the floors sag without fire?
 
DGM said:
In no way is he "making out" on the disaster. And no, he did not "lose his shirt" either.
Click to expand...

I still have my doubts as by 2006 when the construction started Silverstein had been sitting on 2B for at least a year if not two. A clever man like him can make lots of money from that amount of money. Plus I understand that he's only put 1B into the construction (PA putting down another 1B in bonds). That still leaves him 1B and whatever rent he's reaped already in his pocket for the purpose of generating more business for him. Plus as the building starts to come up the insurance will be obliged to fork out the remaining 2.5B. All this for a tower that's supposed to cost just 3B or so.

I'm also pretty confident he kept the parts that would make him more profit. I don't think a guy like him would say "oh please take whatever you want back, don't mind me". He is a clever man lets not forget that. I'm also pretty confident that he's making a profit from the reconstruction contracts too, directly or indirectly.
 
triforcharity said:
Same problem.

What are you using to release the floors that can survive the impact and resulting fires, go into the building undetected, and also be triggered somehow.

How are you going to make the floors sag without fire?
Click to expand...

It isn't necessary to have the item survive the impact. The floors above the crash zone can be released to initiate the collapse. Those would not be affected by the crash or fire.

You can make the floors sag by damaging the main trusses.
 
Java Man said:
I still have my doubts as by 2006 when the construction started Silverstein had been sitting on 2B for at least a year if not two. A clever man like him can make lots of money from that amount of money. Plus I understand that he's only put 1B into the construction (PA putting down another 1B in bonds). That still leaves him 1B and whatever rent he's reaped already in his pocket for the purpose of generating more business for him. Plus as the building starts to come up the insurance will be obliged to fork out the remaining 2.5B. All this for a tower that's supposed to cost just 3B or so.

I'm also pretty confident he kept the parts that would make him more profit. I don't think a guy like him would say "oh please take whatever you want back, don't mind me". He is a clever man lets not forget that. I'm also pretty confident that he's making a profit from the reconstruction contracts too, directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...
If you read the agreements, part of the deal (and the loss of the tower lease) is he does not get to use as much public money (the bonds). This is good and bad for him, he gets to get it done quicker (and puts a fire under the Port Authorities ass) because the site now has deadlines for being ready. Besides the "bonds" are an interest free loan, not a gift.

Work all the numbers, He's not losing large amounts but, he would have been much better off if this whole thing never happened. Not exactly what you want in an "evil plan".
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
I'm also pretty confident he kept the parts that would make him more profit. I don't think a guy like him would say "oh please take whatever you want back, don't mind me". He is a clever man lets not forget that. I'm also pretty confident that he's making a profit from the reconstruction contracts too, directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

I agree losing the responsibility for the "freedom tower" is a good thing. I also agree that he's not losing money with all the deals and settlements. The thing is if you run all the numbers he would have made more money had the whole event never happened.

BTW: Don't forget the 3.2 B he put up to get the lease in the first place.
 
Java Man said:
All that is needed now is a simple mechanism to release floors which is independent of the aircraft strike zone.
Click to expand...

The least complicated expalnation, given these conditions, is a team of ninja elves with unobtainium swords.
 
Java Man said:
The 3.2B is the total value of the lease, he just put about 600M into the bucket to get the towers.
Click to expand...
No. When you mortgage a house for 100K is that not your financial responsibility if it was to burn down? Silverstein put up 3.2 B for the lease, that does not disappear. Silverstein should expect a return on that investment. 9/11 reduced his return. This is not Harvard business stuff.
 
DGM said:
No. When you mortgage a house for 100K is that not your financial responsibility if it was to burn down? Silverstein put up 3.2 B for the lease, that does not disappear. Silverstein should expect a return on that investment. 9/11 reduced his return. This is not Harvard business stuff.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that he didn't put that amount of money in cash. He may be responsible for it or a fraction of it if he renegotiated that during the restructuring.
 
leftysergeant said:
The least complicated expalnation, given these conditions, is a team of ninja elves with unobtainium swords.
Click to expand...

Yea but wouldn't the fire fighters see them running out the front door? BTW are those swords back already from filming Avatar?
 
Java Man said:
It isn't necessary to have the item survive the impact. The floors above the crash zone can be released to initiate the collapse. Those would not be affected by the crash or fire.
Click to expand...

Then the collapse would not have iniatiated at the impact points, it would have started above.

Problem.

Java Man said:
You can make the floors sag by damaging the main trusses.
Click to expand...

What "main" trusses? ALL of the floors were on trusses. They attached to the exterior columns and the core columns. What are the "main" trusses?
 
Java Man said:
What I mean is that he didn't put that amount of money in cash. He may be responsible for it or a fraction of it if he renegotiated that during the restructuring.
Click to expand...
So what? He's still responsible for the original lease if he wants to rebuild.


I bought my first house in 1987 for $100K. I mortgaged $75K and sold it in 2005 for $225K. Did I make $200K, $150K, $125K or considerably less then these (using round figures)?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom