Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'


Very nice. An unreferenced article, followed by a vague guess as to how much asbestos was in the towers, amounting to "we think it was quite a lot."

So I thought I'd check my references, and it turns out I was right. According to NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, WTC1 was protected by BLAZE-SHIELD type D, which contained asbestos, up to floor 38. The remainder of WTC1 and the whole of WTC2 was protected by BLAZE-SHIELD type DC/F, an asbestos-free replacement. The other buildings in the WTC compound were built later, after asbestos was banned, so they didn't contain any either.

So, as I'd already said, your source is wrong.

Dave
 

Clayton, you're failing very badly at this, your own poor references undermine what you're claiming, and you apparently don't realize it.

You must slow down for a moment and consider this simple fact: not only was asbestos NOT in most of the towers including WTC 7, but asbestos is found in hundreds of thousands of older buildings in North America, and they mostly are still being used commercially.

Asbestos is only a hazard when renovations are being done. It is quite safe when undisturbed. Case in point (for your reference and understanding) the Queen Elizabeth Theatre in Vancouver is a place I work at all the time, built in the 1950's with a lot of asbestos insulation over ducts and pipes.

The city has hired engineers to determine where it is, and to affix appropriate warning labels to those areas where it is present. You can see the labels as you walk thru the hallways.

But they haven't touched it except where necessary. it's just going to stay in place until further notice.

Really, this is much ado about nothing. It's another example of truthers
a) getting basic facts wrong
b) extrapolating scenarios from those incorrect facts which have no connection to reality, and then treating those scenarios as facts themselves.

Because truthers like yourself do not normally correct their mistakes, these mistakes get repeated on every conspiracy website, years after they've been exposed as incorrect.
Thus someone like you presents this kind of nonsense in 2012, much to the amusement of the readers of this forum. It is indeed flogging a dead horse to correct you once again.

As the CBC documentary commented last week, the internet has been the perfect breeding ground for conspiracy theories - things spread very quickly, and there is often little or no quality control on the info that is spreading.

I suggest you take a more skeptical approach lest you fall prey to all these urban legends.
 
Very nice. An unreferenced article, followed by a vague guess as to how much asbestos was in the towers, amounting to "we think it was quite a lot."

So I thought I'd check my references, and it turns out I was right. According to NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, WTC1 was protected by BLAZE-SHIELD type D, which contained asbestos, up to floor 38. The remainder of WTC1 and the whole of WTC2 was protected by BLAZE-SHIELD type DC/F, an asbestos-free replacement. The other buildings in the WTC compound were built later, after asbestos was banned, so they didn't contain any either.

So, as I'd already said, your source is wrong.

Dave

Yup.
 
.
Because truthers like yourself do not normally correct their mistakes, these mistakes get repeated on every conspiracy website, years after they've been exposed as incorrect.

Just to add:

If "truthers" were right about Silverstein being "lucky Larry" I would be a billionaire by now (and the financial sector would be broke).
They suggest that "Lucky Larry" insured his leased property and simply was allowed to walk off with the profit after it was destroyed.

How stupid could you get? I could lease cars all day long, total them, collect the pay out and the lease originator/owner wouldn't care? That is how stupidly they think. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Putting aside for a moment that I have yet to see any evidence that there was any asbestos in two of the towers or any issues with the facade....I love how a faulty facade and asbestos are both supposedly irreversible problems that can only be solved via demolition.

That will come as quite a surprise to the many contractors that have completely removed all asbestos from tall skyscrapers and completely changed out facades on tall skyscrapers.
 
Putting aside for a moment that I have yet to see any evidence that there was any asbestos in two of the towers or any issues with the facade....I love how a faulty facade and asbestos are both supposedly irreversible problems that can only be solved via demolition.

That will come as quite a surprise to the many contractors that have completely removed all asbestos from tall skyscrapers and completely changed out facades on tall skyscrapers.

Not only that, but far from being a "white elephant" the WTC was near maximum occupancy and was expected to be 95% leased at the end of '98.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/31/r...world-trade-center-things-are-looking-up.html
 
Putting aside for a moment that I have yet to see any evidence that there was any asbestos in two of the towers or any issues with the facade....I love how a faulty facade and asbestos are both supposedly irreversible problems that can only be solved via demolition.

That will come as quite a surprise to the many contractors that have completely removed all asbestos from tall skyscrapers and completely changed out facades on tall skyscrapers.

Hell, they changed out the entire facade of the nearest thing I can think to a doopleganger of the Twin Towers: The Standard Oil/Amoco/Aon Building in Chicago, 1136 feet of pure Chicago goodness, the Fifth tallest building in the USA and the second highest to the roof (homie don't play that architectural spire game, yo).
 
....and of course if Larry's last name with Smith none of this would have ever come up...
 
That will come as quite a surprise to the many contractors that have completely removed all asbestos from tall skyscrapers and completely changed out facades on tall skyscrapers.

It came as quite a surprise to my building's owner (who next year will finally be able to schedule asbestos abatement of the last remaining floor after a long-term tenant relocates) that he would've saved a lot time and money if he just had a plane flown into it - would've made out like a bandit too.
 
Even, rather surprisingly, if he was the one who put them there.

Dave

He did something similar in the Holocaust Denial thread, where he linked to and quoted a section of a Wikipedia page explicitly stating that Hitler had provided exemptions to Jews, as evidence that Hitler had not provided exemptions to Jews. When this error was pointed out, he repeated his denial, quoted a different part of the exact same article, and ignored all references to his first post.

I think he's doing something similar here.

It's amusing how knee-jerk denials so easily lead people down blind alleys where they will end up logically mugged, so to speak.
 
Putting aside for a moment that I have yet to see any evidence that there was any asbestos in two of the towers or any issues with the facade....I love how a faulty facade and asbestos are both supposedly irreversible problems that can only be solved via demolition.

That will come as quite a surprise to the many contractors that have completely removed all asbestos from tall skyscrapers and completely changed out facades on tall skyscrapers.

Same truther mentality that claims WTC7 was destroyed because it contained secret incriminating documents the conspiracy needed rid of.
 

Back
Top Bottom