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.

 

Was a 99 year lease on the WTC really a buisness without profit prospect?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
According to thise site, from a financial viewpoint the lease on the twin towers would have made no sense from a financial point of view, because the fact they were filled with asbestos and which would have to be removed by a private owner did not make leasing the wtc an attractive buisness.

theinfounderground.com...

Is there any truth to it? Or are is that an exageration?
edit on 30-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 

It's an exaggeration.


Anticipating a ban, the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up.

www.nytimes.com...

Nice thread you linked to though, I almost felt I was on Stormfront for a second



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
It's the only scenario that makes sense to me. Israel is behind it all. Look how many of their enemies the US has pinned down for them since 9/11.

The debunkers will be here any second now......3.....2.....1.....



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Well if any information on that site can be debunked as false it should.


Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Cassius666
 

It's an exaggeration.


Anticipating a ban, the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up.

www.nytimes.com...

Nice thread you linked to though, I almost felt I was on Stormfront for a second


www.stormfront.com...

edit on 30-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This is the first I have heard that a ban was placed on the asbestos and only went to the 40th floor. I remember there was some NIST/FEMA explanations saying that the asbestos was old and flaking off and is why it did not stand up to the heat. Not sure where though.

There have been some ongoing debates about the asbestos in the building, cost of removal was heaps. There was also another option to cover it some type of protective coating, still expensive but the cheaper of the options. Lots of buildings do this as asbestos was a common building material and is harmless when contained. There would still be an expensive and slow demolition process to remove the asbestos at some stage. Not sure of the buildings expected life span and when this would have occurred. With a 99 year lease you would assume it would have been some time away.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
There was supposedly also the great expense that would have been required to retrofit both "white elephant" towers with current state-of-the-art internet connections. I read that somewhere but can't provide a link to the source right now, as it was several years ago I heard of it. Maybe someone else remembers this too?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
what's worse,,, just the other day i ran across a link,,, forget where

most of both buildings remained almost empty,,, unrentd right about until 1998 when renters increased but still left tons of vacancies

these buidings were a huge waist of money and had to lose money big time

someone filed as foia on rentals of the buildings while i guess new york owned them

it blew my mind ,,, google it



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Do you really think the extent of asbestos was an unknown issue before Larry signed?
Do you really think he was unaware of the occupancy level before he signed?

Even the common man who buys a simple 4 unit building looks at both these angles before they sign. The idea he had no plans and would never had made any profit is just silly



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
According to thise site, from a financial viewpoint the lease on the twin towers would have made no sense from a financial point of view, because the fact they were filled with asbestos and which would have to be removed by a private owner did not make leasing the wtc an attractive buisness.

Is there any truth to it? Or are is that an exageration?
edit on 30-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Look at it this way - it was almost 200 acres of office space in the middle of some of the most expensive real estate on Earth. ACM removal is expensive, but in this financial context, not a deal breaker. All the ACM was interior, there would have been no external abatement and that's where you start getting into real money.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by QueSeraSera
There was supposedly also the great expense that would have been required to retrofit both "white elephant" towers with current state-of-the-art internet connections. I read that somewhere but can't provide a link to the source right now, as it was several years ago I heard of it. Maybe someone else remembers this too?


Why would companies like bank, investment firms, and the like, move their world headquarters somewhere that had dialup?

This makes no sense whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I heard recurring claims that major investions in the towers were needed even before the attacks.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join