It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yep, Larry would intentionally demolish a building and in the process cause himself to LOSE millions of dollars......yep that makes a lot of sense.
Originally posted by CameronFox
... Silverstein WAS NOT at ground Zero. He was at home with his wife. So this statement you made could not be accurate:
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, he didnt make billions, the insurance proceeds in the end are not going to cover the full reconstruction costs, not to mention he STILL is required to pay the lease to the Port Authority for the towers.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, he didnt make billions, the insurance proceeds in the end are not going to cover the full reconstruction costs, not to mention he STILL is required to pay the lease to the Port Authority for the towers.
Originally posted by snoopy
For the first time in history, 3 buildings were severely damaged AND suffered from fire. And unlike most buildings this one burned for 7 hours with no aid.
So the moral of the story is that no skyscraper in history had suffered the damage these buildings had before and thus making it even more likely they could be in danger of collapsing, especially after 2 had already collapsed.
Originally posted by snoopy
The Madrid Windsor???
The building like many other used as examples are actually concrete buildings with parts that are steel. And in the case of that building, the steel parts DID collapse.
Originally posted by whoknew
And yes contsant upgrades are believable, I'm just raising these questions, when was it last done? who installed them? what floors was it done on?
Originally posted by whoknew
Not to play devils advocate here as I question the term myself, but it was said earlier in the thread that wtc6 was pulled by cables. I watched the video and it did not shed doubt on this. It evens ends with a big crane like hook. The guy talking doesn't say one way or another.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yep, Larry would intentionally demolish a building and in the process cause himself to LOSE millions of dollars......yep that makes a lot of sense.
Anok
The towers were losing money, many floors were unoccupied. The WTC complex was too expensive to run to be profitable.
Originally posted by CameronFox
The Chief Of Operations was Chief Nigro. He had control of the area and made the final decision to make the collapse zone.... what does silverstein have to do with anything?
The towers were losing money, many floors were unoccupied. The WTC complex was too expensive to run to be profitable.
At the time of its collapse, the World Trade Center's occupancy level was close to 100% and its destruction has displaced dozens of companies.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Another...lie....about the circumstances.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue – asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings – after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn’t demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option.
How much office space is enough for WTC site? - World Trade Center, New York - Brief Article
While the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation sits at the drawing board, trying to come up with a redevelopment plan that ensures universal satisfaction, Downtown's economic situation isn't getting any better and the hole at the World Trade Center site isn't getting any smaller. At the moment, LMDC is trying to correct what many perceive to be the major flaw in its previous proposals - the emphasis on replacing all of the commercial space lost by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on Sept. 11. City officials and real estate developers insist that Downtown doesn't need that much office space and that the Port Authority's stubborn insistence on recouping all of its losses, rather than a design competition that involved a total of two architecture firms, is to blame for the proposals' mediocrity. In fact, so displeased does the city seem with the PA that there is talk of exchanging airport land for the agency's right to the World Trade Center.
But opponents of large commercial development Downtown can only talk in the short term. Even the most experienced developer couldn't predict the level of demand that will exist 10 or 15 years down the road - which is the earliest the World Trade Center site will be rebuilt. At the time of its collapse, the World Trade Center's occupancy level was close to 100% and its destruction has displaced dozens of companies. Downtown brokers seem to think that in the long term, 11 million SF might be reasonable, given that certain improvements are made in the area.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by CameronFox
... Silverstein WAS NOT at ground Zero. He was at home with his wife. So this statement you made could not be accurate:
Do you actually think about what you are saying?
If Lary was home he couldn't have watched the building fall either, but he said he did right?
Originally posted by Raud
Originally posted by ANOK
Do you actually think about what you are saying?
If Lary was home he couldn't have watched the building fall either, but he said he did right?
Eh, I dunno, maybe an invention know as "television" helped him out on that one?