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.

 

Asbestos and the twin towers

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Some time ago, a rumor floated around the internet that there was asbestos in the twin towers that would have cost the owners billions to remove if done in a manner that was safe and secure for the thousands of people working in and around the towers.

I was wondering if there is any meat to this story,or in fact was it a rumor?
I seem to recall the Port Authority was losing money without end,because of the trade center.And if losing money already wasnt bad enough,they suddenly had to find ways to pay for the removing the absbestos.

Does anyone have any proof that the Port Authority had begun to make plans to do this?If no attempts to begin finding funds for this were made,it could simply be because it would have been easier to see it brought down.

Then the WTC is purchased and obviously Siverstien wasnt gonna pay out his pocket to do the repairs.If he was,wheres proof he began planning to do this renovation?Or was it easier to take out a huge insurance policy,and collect on it?He turned a money pit into a huge gain for him.

Im just throwing out another possible motive to "allow/or have" the events on 9/11 to take place.Along with many others.

If anyone has any info on this either way,help would be appreciated.




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure the towers were full of asbestos its one of the things thats causing so many respritory problems for ground zero workers.

This is something I to have wondered about why would silverstien buy something that would cost him so much money. Of course it's possible that he would have been able to pay off the right people and be able to leave the asbestos. Still seems like a big risk for him.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Have you seen the Nova documentary?
It mirrors the NIST report on how the towers collapsed (according to the official story).
Both NIST and the Nova program explain how the insulation got knocked off the steel structure by the airplane impact and that helped weaken the steel.

That insulation they were referring to - None other than Asbestos.

Filthy stuff really, about half the rescue/clean-up workers are now suffering respiratory problems now due to this. And 14 of the rescue dogs have died as of 2003 (probably more by now)



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Asbestos was only used up to the 64th floors on the Towers. The process was stopped in 1971 when New York banned the use of it. The material used for the rest of the towers, while it passed Underwriters Laboratories testing, some didnt think it was nearly as good as asbestos.




One skeptic was the late-Herbert Levine who invented spray fireproofing with wet asbestos in the late-1940s. Levine’s invention involved a combination of asbestos with mineral wool and made commonplace the construction of large steel framed buildings. Levine’s company, Asbestospray, was familiar with the World Trade Center construction, but failed to get the contract for spraying insulation in the World Trade Center. Levine frequently would say that "if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down."


So the fireproofing that was in the towers at the impact points wasnt asbestos, it was a less suitable substitute.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The Asbestos claim doesn't go without a doubt. Everyone knows Asbestos was in the tower. But think about this logically...

Who on Earth spends millions of dollars preparing the Twin Towers for demolition, millions more paying off the contractors not to speak out and then BILLIONS more (over 12 billion) to rebuild and kills nearly 3,000 people... to remove an asbestos problem? The insurance sure as hell didn't cover it seeing as only 4.5 billion maximum was claimed as a result of 9/11.

It would have been easier to either:

a) Plan a real controlled demolition and get everyone out of the buildings first
b) Pay the $1 Billion dollars (according to 9/11 Mysteries) to have it removed and replaced.

Flying two planes into the buildings and then demolishing them so they wouldn't have to pay to remove asbestos... no point.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Doctor Fungi,
you seem to have a real problem with the idea that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, an inside job.
I suggest you try and answer my thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Both are about the same idea, just different wording.
I bet neither you nor your friends at the JREF forum will be able to answer that one.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Pepe,

Even though your banned I'm going to tell you this. THIS thread has NOTHING to do with WTC7.

What I do have a problem with is believing someone would go billions of dollars into debt for nothing.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Hello Doc:


What I do have a problem with is believing someone would go billions of dollars into debt for nothing.


What if they(he) got it back in insurance?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
What I do have a problem with is believing someone would go billions of dollars into debt for nothing.


I'd like to see the proof here. I believe you but would like to see proof. We need to find out:

1. How much the towers cost to run per year.
2. How much was recieved back in rent (this comes into play later also).
3. How much Silverstein bought them for.
4. How much money Silverstein got back from insurance.
5. How much Silverstein has lost due to no rent minus the cost to run the towers per year. Speculation, but since the towers are no longer operational (costs little to run now) wouldn't him not getting rent be negligable?
6. How much to build the new tower (and who is actually paying for it).

I'd like to see someone put together a "timeline" of money paid and made per year (maybe I'll put it together if someone helps me find the info). Then we can see if Larry actually made money or is paying. Without the speculation.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff5. How much Silverstein has lost due to no rent minus the cost to run the towers per year. Speculation, but since the towers are no longer operational (costs little to run now) wouldn't him not getting rent be negligable?

He was paying $102 million per year to the Port Authority as a rental for the site (there's a base reference at en.wikipedia.org... ), then that went up to $120 million. That may have been renegotiated as a part of their new deal, but that'll still add up to over $0.4 billion, fairly non-negligible.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by ashmok]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by doctorfungi
What I do have a problem with is believing someone would go billions of dollars into debt for nothing.


I'd like to see the proof here. I believe you but would like to see proof. We need to find out:

1. How much the towers cost to run per year.
2. How much was recieved back in rent (this comes into play later also).
3. How much Silverstein bought them for.
4. How much money Silverstein got back from insurance.
5. How much Silverstein has lost due to no rent minus the cost to run the towers per year. Speculation, but since the towers are no longer operational (costs little to run now) wouldn't him not getting rent be negligable?
6. How much to build the new tower (and who is actually paying for it).

I'd like to see someone put together a "timeline" of money paid and made per year (maybe I'll put it together if someone helps me find the info). Then we can see if Larry actually made money or is paying. Without the speculation.



First of all lets mention the fact that Larry Silversteins Insurance Company IRI did not dispute the 861 Million Dollar Claim on the WTC7 claim. Even though C.T.'s say he admited to the destruction of it. (maybe they insurance company was in on it?) Actually no...they disputed the claim on the Twin Towers.

FACT: there was a clause in Silversteins WTC7 policy that required him to rebuild within two years, and lenders required that it has the same square footage as the old. ( he actually tried to make it a little smaller and the lenders said NO WAY) so...the cost of the new building (WTC7) 700 million dollars.

That may make you say... wow he made 161 Million! Um... not exactly. There was an EXISTING mortgage of almost 490 million $$ that Silverstein had to pay off with his insurnace settlement. So now he is DOWN 328 million going into the rebuilding of WTC7.

New York wanted him to get moving with it..so they saved Silverstein some serious $$ by offering over 400 million in liberty bonds. (tax-exempt and guarentted by the Bank of NY)

What that did was allow Silverstien do what I dont know if it has ever been done..he started construction without ANY tenenats on board. Wehn the building was completed in 2006... how many tenenats were on board? ZERO! Just this past MAy...Moody Investers Service signed a nonbinding letter of intenet to occupy around 15 floors. Since then there has been other tennants signed on.

There is information about this in the New York TImes 1/16/03

I will try to find information on the WTC Twin Towers and post it,

Hope this helped a little

[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I still wanna know,was Silvestien gonna pay to have all the asbestos removed?
If so,is there any proof he made steps to do just that?Also if a recall it would have been somewhere near a billion dollars to do such renovations to the towers.And i highly doubt he had any plans of doing that.And that leads to the question of why buy a building in need of such repairs?Unless there was a way to make money off of it,without fixing them.Insurance perhaps?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
I still wanna know,was Silvestien gonna pay to have all the asbestos removed?
If so,is there any proof he made steps to do just that?Also if a recall it would have been somewhere near a billion dollars to do such renovations to the towers.And i highly doubt he had any plans of doing that.And that leads to the question of why buy a building in need of such repairs?Unless there was a way to make money off of it,without fixing them.Insurance perhaps?


All WHAT asbestos?? Only one tower had asbestos and that was only up to the 34th floor I believe. Im not sure if he was ordered to remove the existing asbestos. I work in a building that was built in the 30's. There is asbestos everywhere, the only time we are forced to have it abated is if we need to expose a pipe or work in CLOSE proximity of it.

WTC7 Had None.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
All WHAT asbestos?? Only one tower had asbestos and that was only up to the 34th floor I believe.


Can you provide links for proof of this? Thanks.


Im not sure if he was ordered to remove the existing asbestos. I work in a building that was built in the 30's. There is asbestos everywhere, the only time we are forced to have it abated is if we need to expose a pipe or work in CLOSE proximity of it.

WTC7 Had None.


I'd say this is true. Most times you only have to worry about asbestos removal if you plan to remove it. I don't think it is mandatory for buildings to become asbestos free unless there is work being done in the area. Then it is removed piece by piece until the building finally becomes asbestos free.

Also, there is asbestos in more things than fireproofing. Some old waterproofings have asbestos I believe. We test for asbestos for when we take off a roof. If it was mandatory for all buildings to be asbestos free, we wouldn't have to test for asbestos.

Conclusion: I don't think Silverstein would have been made to remove all asbestos when most other older buildings have it. The empire state is probably filled with asbestos right now. Do they plan on taking it out?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Im not refering to WTC 7.
Im refering to WTC 1 & 2.
And i do recall New Yorks plan to make all the businesses in the area clean up the abestos from its buildings.And if im not mistaken,this was decided before Sept 11th 2001.Which would mean that "someone" would have had to pay to have the WTCs renovated.Im still looking for the quote on the prices to fix the problem.But the quotes were given before the "attacks". And no insurance company was willing to front that kind of money.So,whoever was responsible for the WTC would have to basically pay outta pocket.And i assume the decision was ade not to look into doing that,hmm i wonder why.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I'd like for you to find the asbestos free info about NYC. I haven't heard this before. I do work on buildings in NYC and we still test for asbestos.

Edit: Maybe they got the quote because Silverstein was thinking about taking out the asbestos and when he found out it was costly, ditched the idea? Just a thought.

[edit on 12/1/2006 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'd like for you to find the asbestos free info about NYC. I haven't heard this before. I do work on buildings in NYC and we still test for asbestos.

Edit: Maybe they got the quote because Silverstein was thinking about taking out the asbestos and when he found out it was costly, ditched the idea? Just a thought.

[edit on 12/1/2006 by Griff]


But wouldnt have had too remove it?
Afterall it a saftey hazzard to the buildings employees afterall.
Im thinking he knew he was going to have to bite the bullet and have to pay for it,that is unless something were to happen....



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Here ya go Griff....


the New York Port Authority had planned to use 5000 tons of asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings. Above the fortieth floor, non-asbestos alternatives were to be used. This is confirmed by an article which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001: "Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up…" According to a spokesman for the Port Authority "more than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced."

www.btinternet.com...

This is the results from OSHA testing at Ground Zero and around the areas.
www.osha.gov...

Hope this helps.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
This helps explain my point on how the WTCs were a financial burden to the Port Authority,and probaly Silverstien as well.

Go here to watch 9/11 Mysteries
video.google.com...

And skip forward to the 1hour 7min mark to the 1hour 8min mark.
It seems like the events were a blessing to Silverstien.
Didnt have to renovate the towers,turned a multi million investment into a 7 billion dollar gain.What Luck?!



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Black Fox....

How does that help? Was he ordered to remove the asbestos? I dont feel like watching ANOTHER video...But i will if it has some information on Silverstein having to remove asbestos.

Im curios as to WHY Silverstein would purchase the buildings and not know he would have to remove the asbestos. Why wasnt the port authority required to remove it prior to Silversteins purchase?




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join