Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many want to believe that it was untouched in the disaster, which simply wasn't true. at the least the landing gear hit the building as well as fires and some serious seismic activity ( when 2 massive towers fall next to it). I'm not on the conspiracy bandwagon on this side of the equation. I think the focus needs to be on the people.... who knew what and when. Why was the president traveling with anti aircraft munitions? why were the warnings ignored? Why did those in power look for this sort of event and what lack of action occurred to make it a reality?
I do think a jet liner hit the pentagon, the "mysterious plane" was asked by air traffic to watch what was happening... there is no mystery there. I don't understand why there was so little material in PA but do realize there were many inaccuracies in facts.
Why not ask "why did we really invade Iraq"? Why have we not interrogated Cheney to find the truth... he approved of waterboarding so why not implement it?
In February of 2002, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, and Silverstein Properties shared in a award from Industrial Risk Insurers of $861 million for loss of the obviously demolished WTC Building 7. The total investment of the lease-holder and mortgage-holders for WTC 7 was $386 million. Thus they shared in a profit of $475 million for the demolished Building 7.
At the time of the Towers' transfer from the New York Port Authority to Silverstein Properties they faced much more than $1 billion in costs for renovation and asbestos-removal. Eric Darton's excellent study of the World Trade Center, Divided We Stand, published in 2000, summarizes the property's problems as real estate:
'To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the [Port Authority] would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding the electrical, electronic communication, and cooling systems.'
Asbestos litigation, and inability to lease office space is a serious problem in commercial litigation.
Just looking at Bldg #7, empirically , its really not difficult to imagine a motive if you just follow the money.
This might fly if you are not familiar with large-city/NYC commercial real estate in general or the WTC in particular, but it's obvious that it's nonsense when you are.
The WTC was at 95% occupancy--virtually full in a building that size, which is part of what made it so attractive on the market when the PA sought a net lessee. Of course upgrades would have to be done--that was expected and always ongoing in the complex. One really can't think that that's a reason to blow up a building. There are office buildings in existence in NYC from the 1800's--do the owners blow them up when they need upgrades? LOL. Silverstein owns 120 Broadway, amongst his other buildings, and that's over 100 years old.
Same with asbestos. There was an on-site ACM removal contractor who worked on a call-in basis. Asbestos does not have to be touched unless work such as renovations/tenant alteration applications exposes it. When there was ACM present, the onsite call-in contractor was brought it to do the abatement. That had been the case at the WTC since the late 1980s, and much of the abatement cost was recoverable from the manufacturers of the asbestos.
Contrary to popular (read, Internet) ideas, Silverstein did not profit from the destruction of the WTC. People who have $5.00 in their checking accounts get googly-eyed over the 4.6 billion insurance payout--which OF COURSE had to be used for rebuilding--but considering the rebuilding is already upwards of 11 billion; that by 2005 Silverstein had already had to return One WTC to the Port Authority under the Master Agreement, and the well-publicized fact that he can't build Towers 2 and 3 because no one will guarantee him financing in this economy, it certainly doesn't seem to have worked out for him.
Further: Read that "Garlic and Grass" link (yeah, that name sure makes for a reliable source) and it's FOS. For one thing, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the article couldn't even bother to get the name right) is not controlled by the Rockefeller Family. It's controlled by politicians from two states who are in a constant tug-of-war, especially when, as now, one governor is D and one is R. 40 years or so again, yes, a Rockefeller was involved in the decision of the building of the WTC in the early days.
Then they quote CDI as to how the WTC would be demolished--but sort of forgot to mention that Mark Loizeaux, the head of CDI, was the first person who looked at the WTC right after impact and said it was going to collapse because of the way the planes hit it.
The most retarded part of this article--sorry, but there is no other word--is that the PA was part of the supposed demolition. Let's see, the 1993 bombing lawsuits against the PA were just given the go-ahead to proceed a year or two ago. The 2001 lawsuits will be many times what they were and will probably go on for decades to come. The PA is also in such dire financial straits due to the rebuilding of the WTC site and the reduction of its main source of income--airports--in this economy that they are reaching out to seek private capital for a few of their major projects. If somebody thinks that 9/11 was an advantage to the agency, they ate too many lead paint chips as a child.
The article is written specifically for the gullible and the ignorant.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 12-06-2012 at 11:52 AM..
Now that some time has passed. Has anyone ever gotten a good answer to why building #7, collapsed? I haven't.--Not talking about the whole attack, just building #7, which the reports seem to dismiss, like it never happened. I feel it may have been the target, and the other buildings the distraction. But I have no proof of anything. Do you?
Isn't that kind of like suggesting that John Connally was the target on November 22, 1963, and that Irish guy in the back seat just got in the way?
The point is, terrorism is symbolic as much as anything. You don't avoid world-famous targets in order to try and hit buildings no one outside of Manhattan has ever heard of.
I had worked at 88 Pine Street for a toxic tort litigation firm.
I am quite familiar with asbestos. A family member died from it.
There are 10,000 other articles available for people interested in facts. Attack the messenger, but facts are facts. Seems everyone in US has to be an advocate for themselves these days.
Quite a victory , for those peddling disinformation.
I had worked at 88 Pine Street for a toxic tort litigation firm.
I am quite familiar with asbestos. A family member died from it.
There are 10,000 other articles available for people interested in facts. Attack the messenger, but facts are facts. Seems everyone in US has to be an advocate for themselves these days.
Quite a victory , for those peddling disinformation.
I am sorry that you lost a family member to asbestos. I believe, in retrospect, that that's what also killed my grandfather, though he died in the early 1970s before it was as public as it is now.
But if you are familiar with it, then you know I'm speaking the truth about the asbestos in the WTC. To suggest as was done in that article and others that the building was taken out because it contained asbestos is ludicrous, and, as I explained, it was being abated since the late 1980s, and I am not giving you that information from any article or website, but firsthand.
Sadly, way too many out there ARE peddling disinformation. For me, every day at some point it is 8:46 a.m. on 9/11/01. It's not something I have control over, and I will probably have those flashes until the day I die. Today I sat in a business meeting and there on the wall was an "in memory" plaque of that office's 9/11 dead, and again I see the names of people I knew for 20 years who died that day. It bothers me that people have taken the tragedy of that day to create these stories in order to promote their own agendas.
I do understand that people are building on a mistrust of government in general, and I agree with that--nobody should trust the government. And frankly, how many people actually do? However, the simple fact is that the government didn't have the control over the cleanup and analysis and investigation that the pro-conspiracy people want others to believe they did, and because people don't know how to find information much anymore beyond reading Internet articles, there is a serious lack of knowledge out there about even the most elementary facts about the WTC but plenty of misinformation available based on carved out snippets of conversation or sounds bites from news clips. The saddest part is that the REAL stories of that day and of the aftermath are endless and fascinating and moving, and they get lost in the muck.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 12-07-2012 at 10:48 PM..
The Twin Towers were both 110 stories tall.
The North Tower was 1,368 feet tall with a radio antenna installed on the roof.
The South Tower was 1,362 feet.
Building 7 was less than 300 feet from the North Tower.
When that Tower collapsed, look at how the debris fell on top of Building 7
Why not ask "why did we really invade Iraq"? Why have we not interrogated Cheney to find the truth... he approved of waterboarding so why not implement it?
Come on, be serious. Cheney was never president of the U.S. Why not interrogate Bill Clinton? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Al Gore? Or Nancy Pelosi?
News that isnt and never will be reported by the MSM, naturally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
