Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[twinstead]

Why did they contract for asbestos abatement then?

Indeed. You'd think that would been a stupid move if they planned on demolishing the buildings though. It's almost as if contracting to remove it was normal and quite common, and any thoughts that they had the buildings destroyed instead are exceptionally idiotic or something.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Comedy gold!

WTC 1 only had asbestos on the first 38 floors and WTC 2 didn't have any in it at all.


Good job ergo!

ETA-

Located source

From NCSTAR-1

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers

 

[plague311]

Or they do what every other building owner does and either take care of the problem in between tenants, or, as mentioned previously, take care of the problem during a scheduled remodel (when the tenant would likely be out, anyway).

You've never lived in an apartment complex, or worked in an office complex, have you? You just don't seem to have much experience with the real world at all.

Also, you can remodel a floor no one is on, then offer that floor to the tenant who is on the floor you need to remodel. I might be wrong, but if tenants are offered a floor that has just been renovated, for the same cost as a floor that hasn't, then they would take it. If the lease agent throws in the cost of moving them, then there's no reason not too. Move them during *insert vacation day or weekend here* and you're good to go.

Oh, and Ergo. Re-wiring for fiber optics is fairly common, and if you think the WTC was built thinking that the buildings would NEVER need to be upgraded...then you're just wrong.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Comedy gold!

WTC 1 only had asbestos on the first 38 floors and WTC 2 didn't have any in it at all.


Good job ergo!

So... In order to remove asbestos on a mere 38 floors in a single building, around 300 floors across 8 buildings were completely destroyed or damaged beyond repair, causing billions of dollars in physical and economic damage, and the death of thousands of people.

And this is how the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks people in the real world solve their relatively minor problems?

 

[000063]

I think it's naive to believe that highrises of that height built in the 60s would really still be standing and still be icons in 2060. Maybe that was the idea back in the '60s, or maybe it really wasn't. But rapidly changing technologies, tastes and needs, plus their design from a human use standpoint made the towers' 107 and 110-storey heights an ongoing liability.

You might want to tell the 80-year old Empire State Building.

If it were true that the towers were good to go for another 70 years, why had the Port Authority sought permits to demolish them several times already?

Good question. Why don't you answer it?

I've already posted this, which paints a different picture of the Towers than the bedunkers would have us believe:

You posted information from a article published in 1999 to prove that the buildings weren't profitable in 2001?

The Port Authority, however, possessed capacities far beyond those of a commercial landlord, among them a $2.6 billion annual budget and the ability to generate capital through bonds, tolls, fares, and airport disembarkation tariffs. The PA had the wherewithal in 1993 to rebuild the trade center and perform the necessary renovations -- but then came another assault, one far more devastating to its institutional integrity.

It then goes on to describe how political changes led to a difference in the management of the Port Authority. Specifically, how they were selling off bits.

And these figures don't even factor in the need for removing the asbestos, which was probably not just in the fireproofing.

You mean the figures from seven years and change before the attack, long before it passed into Larry's hands?

There is evidence as well that just keeping the spray-on fireproofing intact was an ongoing headache. As we've seen from some of the NIST reports already, with the constant sway of the towers, the SFRM was continually cracking and falling off.

Unsupported.

So now we have 1) asbestos liability which prohibited any owner of the WTC from demolishing, 2) asbestos which also needed to be abated, 3) the towers' diminishing appeal design-wise (including its notorious air cooling problems) compared to the capabilities of newer buildings, 4) the need to rewire for fiber optics, and 5) the problem of keeping the fireproofing on the steel.

And these are just the problems we know about.

To which the best solution "they" could think of was "kill thousands of people in an act of terrorism and lose years of revenue on prime real estate in the middle of Manhattan, then possibly have to pay rebuilding costs".

The comment that "Or, they could have just removed the asbestos," not only doesn't address all the other above problems, but probably doesn't address the whole asbestos picture either. And removing it would require moving tenants out at least temporarily for each area they worked on, and in many cases I think they just chose the sealing option when they could -- an option which does not remove the liability posed in demolishing.

As opposed to the liability involved in a complicated operation involving a few thousand counts of murder?

So, while it may be hard to believe that structures that were only 30 years old would be considered for demolition already, the Port Authority had apparently already considered it, for reasons that may not even be listed above.

Sure is unsupported assertions in here.

Keep in mind that 1960s architecture dated itself very quickly. I'm not sure, outside of architectural buffs, that they garner the same kind of heritage appreciation that the skyscrapers of the '20s and '30s did. Which is fine if it's just a five-story building that doesn't dominate the skyline. But these were not. These were iconic for the city as a whole and were the dominant structures of the southern Manhattan skyline.

Which makes it less likely they would be demolished, not more. That may be your point, it's hard to tell where the light is in that mire.

I love the part of an argument when the Truther actually goes out on a limb and makes a substantial argument, then hears it splintering under him. His only recourse is to try and claw his way back to safe ground as fast as possible.

Ergo is basically Cartman in my head.

Well, now I'll hear all his posts in that voice, demolishing any credibility he had left in my mind.

Which wasn't much.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The Empire State building is over 80 years old. No plans to take that down.

and it is one of the main tourist attractions and I went up it the day after it reopened after 911.
There is not a chance in hell its going to be demolished in the forseeable future, the same would have applied to the twin towers.

They are the equivalent of Londons' House of Parliament or Palaces, Frances' Eiffel tower, San Franciscos' Golden gate Bridge. etc.

 

[tsig]

I actually guffawed at work when I read this.

So lemme 'splain, no, there is too much, lemme summup....

Larry S. bought the WTC and after purchasing it realized that there would have to be asbestos removal. We know that they had a full time construction crew on staff in the WTC already, one of the gentleman was interviewed. Instead of letting this crew go through, remove the asbestos and make whatever upgrades were needed, Larry S. decided to take it all down.

The towers were almost at max capacity. Which means he would be making money on his investment until those leases were up, at the very least. So he purchased 2 towers, that were almost at max, and you think he is going to take them down because of ANY form of renovations? The money he's bringing in from the leases would pay for any progressive changes he would need to make. Upgrades to data, asbestos removal, elevator repair, etc.

And salaries, so Willie(last man out) was on Larry's payroll. Hummm

 

[plague311]

And salaries, so Willie(last man out) was on Larry's payroll. Hummm

I am sorry for Willie, and everything that he went through. I am sure the traumatic events keep him up nights.

That being said, he is a twoofer dream. He will change his story however it needs to be changed in order to fit into the twoofie group.

 

[ergo]

WTC 1 only had asbestos on the first 38 floors and WTC 2 didn't have any in it at all.

This is highly unlikely for several reasons.

The topping out ceremony of 1 WTC (North Tower) took place on December 23, 1970, while 2 WTC's ceremony (South Tower) occurred later on July 19, 1971.

The first tenants moved into the North Tower in December 1970; the South Tower accepted tenants in January 1972.

Asbestos in fireproofing in NYC was banned in 1971. The ban also only applied to fireproofing. There were likely many other materials in the WTC that had asbestos in them, including vinyl flooring, ceiling tile, carpet mastic, HVAC components, furnace insulation, duct work insulation, cooling towers, boiler insulation, fire doors, electrical breakers, electrical panels, wire insulation, wall panels, siding... the list goes on.

Also,

According to Steve Milloy, Cato Institute adjunct scholar and author of the book Junk Science Judo, One World Trade Center was insulated with asbestos, but the 1971 ban meant only the bottom 64 floors of Two World Trade Center were insulated with asbestos.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2002/07/01/cost-asbestos-junk-science-continues-mount

We've seen NIST lie before, haven't we?

 

[ProBonoShill]

This is highly unlikely for several reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
The topping out ceremony of 1 WTC (North Tower) took place on December 23, 1970, while 2 WTC's ceremony (South Tower) occurred later on July 19, 1971.

What do the topping ceremonies have to do with anything?

It's common knowledge the upper floors on both towers weren't completed until 1973.

Quote:
The first tenants moved into the North Tower in December 1970; the South Tower accepted tenants in January 1972.

Yes and???

Asbestos in fireproofing in NYC was banned in 1971. The ban also only applied to fireproofing. There were likely many other materials in the WTC that had asbestos in them, including vinyl flooring, ceiling tile, carpet mastic, HVAC components, furnace insulation, duct work insulation, cooling towers, boiler insulation, fire doors, electrical breakers, electrical panels, wire insulation, wall panels, siding... the list goes on.

Okay and the same is true for many other buildings in NYC, what do you think they do about the asbestos in their buildings?

Your assertion is Larry "pulled" the buildings due to the cost of asbestos abatement. Much of that abatement had already been completed and many floors weren't sprayed with asbestos to begin with. So that assertion is idiotic.

What do you think is cheaper: losing rent for a few months to seal some asbestos or losing it for several years?

Quote:
According to Steve Milloy, Cato Institute adjunct scholar and author of the book Junk Science Judo, One World Trade Center was insulated with asbestos, but the 1971 ban meant only the bottom 64 floors of Two World Trade Center were insulated with asbestos.



http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2002/07/01/cost-asbestos-junk-science-continues-mount

Hold on, you're actually using Steve Milloy to support your assertions?

LOL!

Why did you leave out the rest of the paragraph?

(from your link):

New York City in 1971 banned the use of asbestos in fire insulation. According to Steve Milloy, Cato Institute adjunct scholar and author of the book Junk Science Judo, One World Trade Center was insulated with asbestos, but the 1971 ban meant only the bottom 64 floors of Two World Trade Center were insulated with asbestos. The floors above were treated with a less-effective substitute. After asbestos inventor Levine learned of this, he was frequently heard saying, “if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down.”
The steel girders of One World Trade Center lasted one hour and forty minutes before collapsing. Two World Trade Center lasted just 56 minutes, roughly half the time of its twin. We can only speculate how many more people would have survived if given another 44 minutes to escape Two World Trade Center. But there is no doubt that building collapse due to catastrophic fire was exactly the calamity asbestos was intended to prevent or delay.

Two more people who realize fire can bring down the towers, thanks ergo!

We've seen NIST lie before, haven't we?

Not that I can recall, truthers on the other hand get caught distorting the truth all the time. See above

 

[TJM]

They only had to remove the asbestos if the area was being remodeled.

Bingo.

 

[ergo]

Your assertion is Larry "pulled" the buildings due to the cost of asbestos abatement.

Nope.

Much of that abatement had already been completed and many floors weren't sprayed with asbestos to begin with. So that assertion is idiotic.

Wrong. As is shown in the very post you're quoting.

 

[ergo]

Yep. See below

To counter you at this point gets into the JREF schoolyard game of "no I din't!" "yes you did!" which passes for debate here. But it's pretty easy to correct you on this one.

You said:

Your assertion is Larry "pulled" the buildings due to the cost of asbestos abatement.

And I told you, no, here's what I said:

So now we have 1) asbestos liability which prohibited any owner of the WTC from demolishing, 2) asbestos which also needed to be abated, 3) the towers' diminishing appeal design-wise (including its notorious air cooling problems) compared to the capabilities of newer buildings, 4) the need to rewire for fiber optics, and 5) the problem of keeping the fireproofing on the steel.

You replied:

Yep. See below

Originally Posted by ergo
So now we have 1) asbestos liability which prohibited any owner of the WTC from demolishing, 2) asbestos which also needed to be abated

...quoting the first two points (presumably because you saw the word "asbestos" and that was good enough for you )


Now, compare these two statements:

Your assertion is Larry "pulled" the buildings due to the cost of asbestos abatement.

1) asbestos liability which prohibited any owner of the WTC from demolishing.....3) the towers' diminishing appeal design-wise (including its notorious air cooling problems) compared to the capabilities of newer buildings, 4) the need to rewire for fiber optics, and 5) the problem of keeping the fireproofing on the steel.

None of the above four points have anything to do with your assertion - an assertion you derived from lazy reading and a desire to reduce the argument to a single point you think you can bedunk.

 

[DGM]

Ergo:
You do agree that this theory of yours (and supposedly Silverstiens) back-fired miserably?

These guys are not that bright, huh?

 

[ergo]

What makes you believe the plan backfired?

 

[DGM]

What makes you believe the plan backfired?

I don't know how you figure this but, it's very wrong. He's losing control of rentable space and he's still on the hook to replace what was lost (although this has been down sized in Sq footage).

Let's put it this way. He's certainly not better off now than he was on 9/10/01 (or will be in the foreseeable future). Correct?

If you think I'm wrong, why don't you and RedIbis get together and show how he is.

 

[ergo]

I've already stated my opinion in that regard here and here.

 

[DGM]

I've already stated my opinion in that regard here and here.

I'm aware of that. My point is this plan back-fired, he's not better off and most-likely will not be (at least in his life time) for doing what you said. Correct?

 

[000063]

I'm talking about real world here. If you're right, do you agree that the plan back-fired? If not, please explain.

What makes you believe the plan backfired?

Ergo at his finest, ladies and gents.

 

[plague311]

The thing that bothers me the most about all these conversations is that twoofers can't piece anything together. They pick the most pathetic things that happened and try to turn them into a conspiracy, but nothing matches each other. No matter what, the twoofer group can't put a plausible theory together. That's what I really don't understand. How can you say that you know all of these things but that you have NO ******* clue how it all comes together? The explanation of the official story puts the incidents together. hijacks + planes + 4 targets = 9/11. A horrible series of events.

Now, if it were a twoofer explanation it would like a little something like 4 planes + Larry Silverstein + Bush group + FDNY + demo team + lizards + space beams + attack baboons + mystical superdupernanodoodooultimateOMGZWWWWUUUTTT thermite + missles = 9/11 conspiracy hide your children!