The demolition of the WTC was refused - did you know that?

Question

its construction had already begun before the use of asbestos was banned in 1971, so spray-on asbestos fire retardant was used up to at least the 40th floors in both towers (64th in the North Tower) & a different insulating material was used for the remaining floors

http://www.maacenter.org/jobsites/WTC/asbestos.php

the Port Authority was refused permission to have the towers demolished due to the toxic dust produced:

http://www.mesotheliomasos.com/newsWTCcoroners.php

the cost of the rennovations was $1 million

& the only other way, was to dissemble it floor by floor - the scaffolding ALONE was more than $1 million!

that was the reason why the WTC was still there on 9/11

despite all this, silverstein decided to lease the WTC 6 months before 9/11 & promptly insured the buildings against 'terrorist' attacks. he put a down-payment of $124 million for the lease (on a $3.2 billion complex) then claimed for two separate attacks (2 planes) & was rewarded $7 billion!

he sure was lucky....

Answer 1

Yes, this was brought out after the attacks.  Just one more piece of evidence that this was an inside job.  When are people going to wake up?

Answer 2

And the israelis had a film crew recording the attack, because they had prior knowledge that it was going to happen yet they failed to notify anyone in our government! Why are we still aligned with these b******s?

Answer 3

no i didnt know that wow what a lucky man

Answer 4

Yes, I was aware of this, thanks to We Are Change and ppl like Jason Bermas for spreading the word. To answer your question about whether other Americans know this, I would say that most probably do not know this particular detail (there are just so many!).

But, according to a recent poll by Scripps, only 14% of American adults surveyed believe the official story (only 2 people out of 10 on this question appear to so far). Only 36% believe it was an inside job, but 84% believe we were lied to in some way.

The other good news is, with the leaked NIST documents that came out a couple days ago (which supposedly contain some very compelling evidence about WTC7) Richard Gage says architects and engineers may finally have the leverage and momentum they need to win over the mainstream engineering community and force an independent investigation.

Answer 5

Nothing is as it seems....WELCOME TO AMERICA!

Answer 6

Ya, New York got its

Urban Renewal

and Cheney/Bush  got an excuse to shred the  CONSTITUTION

What luck!

Answer 7

There are Americans who know about this and some who are just finding out and some who still try to kill you with words for even bringing up what they consider complete conspiracy nut theories. But not all are in the dark, including the ones who destroyed the WTC.

Answer 8

I know there are lies somewhere but when there are so many lies we can't discern the lies from the truth. Even one lie topples a tower of truth. No pun intended. My grandfather used to say,

"Keep on telling a lie and you start to believe it yourself."

and,

"The more lies you tell to cover up a lie, sooner or later you'll leave out a lie."

We would take it more serious if everyone didn't lie like it was a game.

From then until now you can't tell me every single politician in this country won't do a whole lot more than topple a few old buildings to be "president of the world" and "king (or queen) for a day".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

The FBI has documented proof that evidence in the investigation of Vince Foster's death which was introduced in court is now missing. Right after the first investigation, the entire park and the path where Foster's body was found was torn up and completely covered over. End of story.

When we see what we want to see, we deserve what we get!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO...

But if you only want to talk about 911, you should check out the actual facts compiled on this site. There's more than conspiracy here. (I don't think you can hold a convention while operating a circus in the same hall.)

http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopi...

All this lying unfortunately flows downhill in practice:

I was an engineer for a lawnmower company who had me regularly study another lawnmower company's designs to make up patent infringement claims. And they did the same to us just to make each other's stock drop. Then we posted the results on a cork board for all employees to see. Neither company really benefited. But the public investors didn't know why this was happening. This was lying to the public just for the fun of it. (Anyone heard of Exxon? They weren't the first, only the worst.)

Nixon's Republican committee spied on the Democrat committee but they lied about it. Big wow! The Democrat committee (At that time it included Bill and Hillary Clinton. Check it out) was spying on the Republicans. What's changed? Do you really think they don't do the same thing now, only worse with more technology? The media controls far more now than "Big Throat" ever did. John Anderson, the senior reporter who published Watergate, said when he was asked to run for president right after Nixon resigned, "Why should I want to be president when I can get rid of the president?"

Answer 9

?ok...so?....is there a point here or only useless facts skewed towards another conspiracy theory?

Answer 10

That kind of asbestos is not dangerous as long as it is left in place -- not disturbed, so it didn't have to be removed, just not disturbed during remodeling.

Answer 11

Not that you 9/11 truthers care about the facts, but here are the errors in the above question:

After the February 26, 1993, terrorist attack against the WTC, in which a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of explosives detonated in the underground garage of the North Tower, the WTC has been continuously insured against terrorist attack by the Port Authority of New York.   When Silverstein purchased a 99-year lease of the WTC, he was not the first entity to insure those premises against terrorist attack.   Realistically, anyone with an ounce of sense would have done the same.  It was a known terrorist target.

Larry Silverstein did NOT receive $7 billion dollars.   Instead, his payout was capped at $4.577 billion.   Although this is $1.3 billion over his initial payment to the port authority, you must keep in mind that the $3.2 billion dollar payment was not the only liability assumed when Silverstein purchased the WTC.  He also assumed an obligation to pay $102 million annually in base rent for 99 years.   That is an additional $9.9 billion dollars of liability.   In other words, Larry Silverstein received only $4.5 billion on a property that will cost him an additional $9.9 billion.  When all is said and done, 9/11 was a significant net LOSS to Larry Silverstein.

I assume that you 9/11 "truthers" won't be swayed by what I've said.   Even if you bother to check the facts and learn that I am correct, you will not be swayed.   You guys are nutjobs.