Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

ergo said:
About the asbestos fireproofing, which is what we were talking about? (Since 000063 rarely understands what's actually being discussed.)

Please show me these quote-mined sources of yours regarding the asbestos fireproofing. Thanks.
Click to expand...

What about the part where he mentions that this was the most investigated crime in US history, and that many non NIST sources have been given? Do you have any comment on that? Do you honestly think that the NIST is the ONLY source for 9/11?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
About the asbestos fireproofing, which is what we were talking about? (Since 000063 rarely understands what's actually being discussed.)

Please show me these quote-mined sources of yours regarding the asbestos fireproofing. Thanks.
Click to expand...

000063 understands completely what's going on because your behaviour has become so predictable. That you would quote Milloy who completely disagrees with your stance that the towers were brought down by explosives shows how desperate you are.

Here's more proof your assertions about the fireproofing were wrong:

http://ibasecretariat.org/lka_world_trade_center.php

One contact informed me that prior to the complex being built, the New York Port Authority had planned to use 5000 tons of asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings. Above the fortieth floor, non-asbestos alternatives were to be used. This is confirmed by an article which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001: "Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up…" According to a spokesman for the Port Authority "more than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced."


I predict you'll dodge this too.
 
twinstead said:
What about the part where he mentions that this was the most investigated crime in US history, and that many non NIST sources have been given? Do you have any comment on that? Do you honestly thing that the NIST is the ONLY source for 9/11?
Click to expand...

Truth be told, I was referring to sources in general, not on the subject of asbestos. In fact, one of those sources, which supported the official story, was actually ergo's, and he, yep, quote-mined, as PBS noted.

He still can't prove Travis had only one source, though.
 
000063 said:
In fact, I challenge you to prove Travis had only one source, as you asserted in 533.
Click to expand...

:D :D :D

That's gotta be the most transparently dumb way to try to get someone else to provide sources that you can't!
 
twinstead said:
What about the part where he mentions that this was the most investigated crime in US history, and that many non NIST sources have been given? Do you have any comment on that?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's probably wrong too.

Do you honestly think that the NIST is the ONLY source for 9/11?
Click to expand...

No, obviously I don't. But it seems to be the only source people provide for the extent of asbestos fireproofing in the Twin Towers. Feel free to provide other references.
 
ProBonoShill said:
http://ibasecretariat.org/lka_world_trade_center.php

One contact informed me that prior to the complex being built, the New York Port Authority had planned to use 5000 tons of asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings. Above the fortieth floor, non-asbestos alternatives were to be used. This is confirmed by an article which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001: "Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up…" According to a spokesman for the Port Authority "more than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced."
Click to expand...

The NYT article, written seven days after 9/11, would be damage control. Anticipating a ban would, of course, be the responsible thing to do. But do you really think the builders, after already contracting for the spray-on fireproofing would be able to send it back to their supplier? Before a ban has even taken effect?

Given the fire safety standards that the buildings circumvented, a more likely and unfortunate scenario is they would start kicking ass to finish as much as they can before the ban came into effect.
 
The link you provide also contains this quote:
An extremely useful factsheet (available at: http://www.nycosh.org ) produced by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health Inc. states: "Asbestos was a major material used in the construction of the World Trade Center. That asbestos is a constituent of the dust and debris."
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
The NYT article, written seven days after 9/11, would be damage control. Anticipating a ban would, of course, be the responsible thing to do. But do you really think the builders, after already contracting for the spray-on fireproofing would be able to send it back to their supplier? Before a ban has even taken effect?

Given the fire safety standards that the buildings circumvented, a more likely and unfortunate scenario is they would start kicking ass to finish as much as they can before the ban came into effect.
Click to expand...

Way to go ergo! I knew you'd come through like a champ!

You asked for more sources, they were given to you and it true truther fashion you drove a giant dodge around them.

It doesn't matter how much evidence we provide, you'll always have the same old lame truther excuses and reasoning.

It was "Damage Control"; the builders were part of some imaginary scheme; the NY Times was in on it.

LMFAO!
 
ergo said:
The NYT article, written seven days after 9/11, would be damage control. Anticipating a ban would, of course, be the responsible thing to do. But do you really think the builders, after already contracting for the spray-on fireproofing would be able to send it back to their supplier? Before a ban has even taken effect?

Given the fire safety standards that the buildings circumvented, a more likely and unfortunate scenario is they would start kicking ass to finish as much as they can before the ban came into effect.
Click to expand...

That's just a pathetic excuse for a post.
 
Wow. At this rate, it won't be long before ergo offhandedly reminds us of the fact that there was no fireproofing in the towers, that they had open fire pits on every other floor, and that they were actually made out of matchsticks, as if it were all common knowledge...
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
:eye-poppi

No. Incorrect.

Wow, now explained to you twice. In plain language, like an A-B-C reader for 6-year olds. Incredible.
Click to expand...

So it was because of asbestos AND fiber optical cable???:confused:

I've got a Masters Degree and I'm having trouble following your language so perhaps the problems are at your end, not ours.

For clarity, could you tell us, in your own words, what were the reasons Larry wanted the towers destroyed.
 
ergo said:
:D :D :D

That's gotta be the most transparently dumb way to try to get someone else to provide sources that you can't!
Click to expand...
Nope. You made an assertion before me. You have to prove your assertion first before I respond to your request for proof. I'm not asking you to provide the sources, just to prove that Travis was only working from the NIST. Which is impossible to prove, anymore than you can prove I had a cheeseburger for lunch. You can only hope he chimes in and confirms you're right.

ergo said:
The NYT article, written seven days after 9/11, would be damage control.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you think the plan failed now?

Anticipating a ban would, of course, be the responsible thing to do. But do you really think the builders, after already contracting for the spray-on fireproofing would be able to send it back to their supplier? Before a ban has even taken effect?
Click to expand...
Put it in assertion form, Ergo. With evidence. Assert that they were "irresponsible".

Given the fire safety standards that the buildings circumvented, a more likely and unfortunate scenario is they would start kicking ass to finish as much as they can before the ban came into effect.
Click to expand...
What standards were these?

ergo said:
The link you provide also contains this quote:
Click to expand...
The wreckage was a tangled mess. No way to tell where the asbestos was, specifically. There were safety precautions taken against other materials as well, most in much more abundance than asbestos, including many carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom