Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Ergo, you busy this summer? Was wondering if you'd like to come to the camp I work at and tell one of my campers to his face that his mom wasn't killed by terrorists, but rather by elements of the United States government.
 
plague311 said:
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!
Click to expand...


Its almost as if someone is posing as a twoofer and putting up the most ridiculous ideas they can think of and watching the twoofers adopting them as articles of faith.......you can almost imagine the writers of the old testament doing the same thing....."hey lets ban bacon, if we can manage do that we can do anything we like!"
 
I'm still waiting for ergo to tell me how Silverstein/insurance fraud is connected to the rest of 9/11.
 
ergo said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...
No they most certainly had not. Want me to get my (ex)father in law on the phone? A retired port authority engineer?
I've already posted this, which paints a different picture of the Towers than the bedunkers would have us believe:




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

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.

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.
Click to expand...

http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org/High_Rise/High-Rise Fire Safety-tom lia.pdf

ARTICLE IV. COST OF SPRINKLER INSTALLATION
Although sprinklers have proven to be highly effective in controlling fires, building owners
and managers often cite cost as an impediment to sprinkler acquisition. Dr. Janicak also analyzed
this issue in detail and drew several conclusions, as summarized below:
• Data provide by the National Fire Prevention Association (the “NFPA”), as well
as sprinkler contractors, revealed a cost range of $1.50 to $4.75 per square foot
for a retrofit, excluding asbestos or lead abatement;
• Spot asbestos abatement costs $1.00 to $4.00 per square foot, according to data
obtained from the Journal of Property Management and asbestos contractors; and
• Spot lead abatement costs approximately $0.05 per square foot, according to the
periodical Risk Management.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
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:



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



You replied:


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


Now, compare these two statements:







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.
Click to expand...

Oh brother, we've reached that point in a thread where ergo has trouble with the english language once again.

I'm getting flashbacks of into/onto and how staff and professors magically become one person.

We should really come up with a term like "Godwin's Law" whenever ergo paints himself into a corner like this.


Now ergo, read carefully:

You asserted Mr. Silverstein wanted the towers demolished due to problems with asbestos .

Correct?

Your other laughable reasons aside, one of them centered around asbestos abatement did it not? I was soley addressing that idiocy, my ignoring the rest of your fantasies doesn't make my statement invalid.




This is where you abandon the thread hoping everyone will forget how foolish your accusations were.
 
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...

The towers were a prestigious landmark and much desired address for high profile companies

Talk to us about the "cooling problems" . I bet you don't even know the unique and creative method used to cool the towers, there were no such issues.

I had previously debunked your fiber optic and communication canard in a previous post in this thread. And your asbestos lie as well, which leaves you with ZERO reasons for anyone to demolish the towers.
 
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...

Ergo, you have taken trivial word games to new heights of intellectual dishonesty. Your name shall become legend, I shall recall your example the next time a kid tells me "I didn't promise to take the garbage all the way to the can, just to take it out, so that's why I left it on the front step."
 
I'm still waiting for evidence that there was any asbestos in WTC2 to begin with.
 
So would I, but you only have your one source: NIST.

Whereas the facts of the construction suggest that WTC 1, anyway, was already largely completed by 1971. And WTC 2 would have been more than halfway completed. The fact that tenants were already moving into tower 1 before the asbestos ban was even enacted suggests to us that Steve Milloy's estimate may be closer to the truth than NIST's.

You also are forgetting that the ban only applied to fireproofing. Asbestos continued to be used in many other building products. So, while this may not make any difference to the fact that the buildings would need to be dismantled rather than imploded, it certainly suggests that the asbestos released in the destruction of the towers was far more than official sources are willing to admit to.
 
LSSBB said:
Ergo, you have taken trivial word games to new heights of intellectual dishonesty. Your name shall become legend, I shall recall your example the next time a kid tells me "I didn't promise to take the garbage all the way to the can, just to take it out, so that's why I left it on the front step."
Click to expand...

Not unlike the NIST explanation of the total destruction of WTC7, column 79 failed.
 
ergo said:
So would I, but you only have your one source: NIST.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. There have been several publicly and privately funded reports on 9/11. It is, quite simply, the most investigated crime in history. And you've seen people quoting non NIST sources during this thread. Did they not register, did you forget, or are you a brazen liar?

Whereas the facts of the construction suggest that WTC 1, anyway, was already largely completed by 1971. And WTC 2 would have been more than halfway completed. The fact that tenants were already moving into tower 1 before the asbestos ban was even enacted suggests to us that Steve Milloy's estimate may be closer to the truth than NIST's.
Click to expand...
You mean that guy you quote-mined?

You also are forgetting that the ban only applied to fireproofing. Asbestos continued to be used in many other building products. So, while this may not make any difference to the fact that the buildings would need to be dismantled rather than imploded, it certainly suggests that the asbestos released in the destruction of the towers was far more than official sources are willing to admit to.
Click to expand...
But it does not indicate the problem was serious enough to risk terrorism and capital murder charges. Several have proposed much simpler plans by which Larry could remove the asbestos on his own time, without committing murder. What sort of mercenary sociopath do you think this guy is, anyway?

You still haven't answered whether the alleged plan backfired or not. In fact, you went for an undisguised dodge, not a page ago.
 
000063 said:
Incorrect. There have been several publicly and privately funded reports on 9/11. It is, quite simply, the most investigated crime in history. And you've seen people quoting non NIST sources during this thread. Did they not register, did you forget, or are you a brazen liar?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You just quote-mined my post to avoid sticky points, as you usually do, and are consistently intellectually dishonest, constantly insult people (as you have just done to me), and you expect me to sit up and beg?

In fact, I challenge you to prove Travis had only one source, as you asserted in 533.

Please also prove that I 'rarely understand what's being discussed'. You generally avoid responding to my posts. If I've got it so wrong, why not correct me easily, make me look like a git? Isn't it odd how so many people on this website seem to have so little idea what's being discussed, even when they're the ones doing the discussing?

ETA: And why are you referring to me in third person in a sentence speaking directly to me? Are you just that fond of your little soliloquies where you make generalizations about points no one ever made?
 
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...
How about your source for the PA filing for permits to demolish the towers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom