My doubts over bombs

Actually, I challenge anyone to go to the link you provided:

political-resources.com...

and find where it stated "it has been losing money for years". Show us where it said it was under-tenanted.

It was not in the link you provided, so in essense is your words. Words that I have proven wrong.

Why would a friend lie like that?

[edit on 30-8-2008 by gavron]

reply to post by gavron


The report said they were losing money
It dose not state the building was NOT 98% LEASE!
You are not reading the article right, and this dose not make me a liar.

reply to post by cashlink


Then why state it was under-tenanted? 98% occupancy rate does not sound under-tenanted to me...

It didnt state anything in your link about it being under-tenanted.

Sounds like you are trying to just sensationalize your post.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by gavron]

reply to post by gavron

You have not shown me where I have made such a statement.
You owe me an apology.
You have not shown where I made any statement that the WTC were NOT 98% full.

reply to post by gavron


( Then why state it was under-tenanted? 98% occupancy rate does not sound under-tenanted to me...)
That’s what you get when you are deluded in your thinking.
I have made no such statement of the building be under 98% occupied.

reply to post by cashlink


Wow, if you cant even scroll back to your own post in this very thread.....how sad.

I understand you have had difficulties in your life. Perhaps you should get someone to read what I have posted, so they can show you how to click on the links I provided. They wil take you to your very own post, where you stated it was under-tenanted.

I think you owe us all an apology. And apologize to your dog Dora too, for making her cry.

Do not forget all the millions it was going to cost Silverstein to get all the asbestoes cleaned out of each building.

reply to post by gavron

Again I have not made that statement.
You, however have not shown me where I have type in my own words that I stand by the statement that the WTC were not 98% occupied. On the other hand, any such garbage.

reply to post by cashlink


Did you or did you not state that the building was under-tenanted?

The word "under-tenanted" was not in the post that you provided, so was your comment. Unless you plagiarized those words from another source without crediting them.

Is that what you did?

reply to post by cashlink


Actually, you have irrefutable proof that you indeed just copy/pasted that article:

The post wasn't full of typos and misspellings.

reply to post by gavron


George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider
dprogram.net...

Read you might learn somthing!
911 was an inside job!

PROVE IT WAS NOT!

You still have failed to prove I wrote that statement!
You play children games, I am not playing with you any more!




[edit on 8/30/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by cashlink



You didnt write this statement?

Originally posted by cashlink
Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under- tenanted, beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority, had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb.

Click on this link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look who the poster is.....why its you and Dora!
Oh, and it was posted on 29-8-2008 at 07:18pm.

Why it sure looks like you posted that statement.

There is someone else posting on here as cashlink? Or someone stole your logon?


[edit on 30-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by cashlink
Oh please! You are boring me with your opinions.
Please state your facts, that 'galvanic corrosion was “NOT” a problem at the WTC.

Ok, we have no evidence that galvanic corrosion was a serious issue at the WTC.

Your proof please that you “have” that none of it is true.

I'm sorry, but I can't prove a negative, and neither can you.

Are you a scientist or an engineer? Have you run tests on the WTC debris?

I am not, are you, or is the author of the article you linked? FEMA and NIST are composed of scientists and engineers who have run tests on the WTC debris. The perimeter columns were steel and there was no mention nor visible evidence (that I am aware of) of galvanic corrosion.

And “YOU” are who again?

Just a regular guy, who are you?

Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."

The key word here is allegedly. Who made this allegation, and what evidence do they have to support it?

Do not forget all the millions it was going to cost Silverstein to get all the asbestoes cleaned out of each building.

Ok - what building? Only North Tower was built using asbestos fire
proofing and then only on lower 1/3 of building, South Tower and WTC
7 were built with no asbestos. By 2001 the asbestos had either been \removed or coated with encapsulating materials..

Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under- tenanted, beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority, had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb.

Losing money? I now several people who worked in WTC 7 - were
packed tighter than sardines in there (Salomon Brother Brokage)

Rest of building was almost totally full -

In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center.[23] The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers.[24] Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties.

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[25][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[25] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[25] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[25] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][26]

Refer to earlier posts about asbestos - Only North Tower was built using
asbestos fire proofing. WTC 7 was built 15 years after remainder of
complex - long after asbestos was banned (1971) as construction material
by New York City.

reply to post by gringoloco


I've asked "truthers" all those same questions and I believe your skepticism is well founded. I also applaud the fact that you are thinking and deciding for yourself what you believe happened. You wouldn't believe how many sheep will latch on to what the first person claims as true and pushes that along to others.

I'd also like to add, if it were a nuclear bomb, there would be radiation and an EMP blast. There was no evidence of either related to a nuke.

Specifically, an EMP blast would have knocked out ALL non-hardened electronic devices PERMANENTLY around ground zero for miles. So no cell phones, no cars, no computers, etc...

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by gavron

 

George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider
dprogram.net...

Read you might learn somthing!
911 was an inside job!

PROVE IT WAS NOT!

That's not how science and logic works. You're asking someone to prove a double negative.

Prove it was an inside job.




[edit on 8/30/2008 by cashlink]