If everyone had that attitude, your right, it would amount to nothing. Myself, I am not wired to give up that easy.
Dick Cheney: Freudian slip
- Thread starter Shakerod
- Start date
No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is: The WTC Towers have been an albatross around the Port Authorities neck for years, those buildings were a health hazard that needed to be dealt with.
The Port Authority, Silverstein, and the federal government had a lot to gain from the demise of the towers. It should have been investigated as a suspicious transaction, at the very least.
Shakerod
The Port Authority, Silverstein, and the federal government had a lot to gain from the demise of the towers. It should have been investigated as a suspicious transaction, at the very least.
If you read the following article, it just might shed some light on your theory. Of course I am expecting you to totally disreguard all this and be a typical troofer who denies everything that contradicts your position.
Again, I will state that I find it so sad that these troofers keep looking at different angles when their original theory is shot to hell.
It's a free country so to speak, so you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wonky it might be.
The story...
The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.
Our take...
As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).
$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:
Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.
On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.
“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.
The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.
The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=60290
There have been other costs, too:
Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm
$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).
That was a 2004 article, but problems continued. Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:
The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."
Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1191836-3,00.html
There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion. Is that the profit? This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree. Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):
Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...
The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...
It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?
Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.
Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.
Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.
But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.
With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61352.htm [broken, try...]
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost_dooming_downtown.htm
So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds. Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here. Is this true? We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what. However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.
And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money. He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained. And that’s not the only problem. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:
After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.
The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.
Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.
The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.
Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30B10F73D550C708EDDA90994D9404482
Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?
The Port Authority, Silverstein, and the federal government had a lot to gain from the demise of the towers. It should have been investigated as a suspicious transaction, at the very least.
If you read the following article, it just might shed some light on your theory. Of course I am expecting you to totally disreguard all this and be a typical troofer who denies everything that contradicts your position.
Again, I will state that I find it so sad that these troofers keep looking at different angles when their original theory is shot to hell.
It's a free country so to speak, so you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wonky it might be.
The story...
The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.
Our take...
As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).
$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:
Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.
On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.
“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.
The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.
The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=60290
There have been other costs, too:
Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm
$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).
That was a 2004 article, but problems continued. Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:
The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."
Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1191836-3,00.html
There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion. Is that the profit? This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree. Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):
Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...
The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...
It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?
Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.
Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.
Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.
But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.
With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61352.htm [broken, try...]
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost_dooming_downtown.htm
So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds. Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here. Is this true? We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what. However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.
And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money. He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained. And that’s not the only problem. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:
After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.
The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.
Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.
The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.
Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30B10F73D550C708EDDA90994D9404482
Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?
So is the US going to get out the TNT and level every other skyscraper that was built before 1990 ?
You just have suspicions about all rich people.
Actually, I commend you for that information, it seems that things didn't exactly turn out that well for Mr. Silverstein. Although, in the end he will still own the buildings, and recieve the revenue from the buildings. Still, the deal was very shady, it involved buildings that were contaminated with asbestos, and was going to cost billions of dollars to bring down either floor by floor, or by some other means.
Thank you for an honest appraisal of this information. Some others would just sweep it under the carpet and continue babbling.
Another thing you should be aware concerning Mr. Silverstein, is that his proposal wasn't originally accepted. The WTC complex was originally going to be sold to another bidder for more than Silverstein paid, but when it came time to complete the transaction, the original bidder tried to change some of the conditions, and thats when Silverstein's company stepped in and purchased/leased the WTC.
Now maybe, just maybe, we can let this thread go. Of course, sooner or later there will be someone else who just can't seem to grasp the complete situation, and start this up all over again.
I have stated before that there are so many websites pertaining to this exact topic that relish the debate. If anyone needs information regarding these websites, just let me know and I will point you in the right direction.
That is all except for Silky or lighthead.
So where did these "iron oxide microspheres" which is the signature for thermate come from? Thats not a theory its a FACT. You sheeple have no balls to deal with reality so you label it a conspiracy THEORY. 9/11 being an inside job is full of FACTS. Still cant find a building that has collapsed due to fires other than the WTC's? What does that say for your half assed arguement. I'm talkin to you wess. You said you doubt man made global warming. WELL HOW THE FUCK DO YOU THINK ALL THE GOVTS AROUND THE WORLD ARE GOING FOR IT IF ITS A FRAUD. MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN MAYBE?
Jesus Christ you sheeple make me sick.
Jesus Christ you sheeple make me sick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
NIST guy denies what all the fireman and resuce workers saw on the ground
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&feature=related
TV interview with a Danish scientist.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/more-than-600-architects-say-911-an-inside-job/
And heres 600 architects that doubt the official story
NIST guy denies what all the fireman and resuce workers saw on the ground
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&feature=related
TV interview with a Danish scientist.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/more-than-600-architects-say-911-an-inside-job/
And heres 600 architects that doubt the official story
Yup just ignore the 10 - 100 tonnes of thermite like a jackass would. Do you choose to ignore d finger prints at acrime scene? Where did the iron oxide spheres come from? Jackasses. Your response to me is a picture of CHenney? How childish can you get? You know your wrong and you act like little children.
Are you a fucking moron? They own the system. Obama is just playing ball like Bush Clinton etc....
Why is Obama EXPANDING on Bush's policies?
Why has Obama spent more money than any other president in his 1st 100 days than any other president who spent 4-8 years in office?
Wake up and get a life...
Why is Obama EXPANDING on Bush's policies?
Why has Obama spent more money than any other president in his 1st 100 days than any other president who spent 4-8 years in office?
Wake up and get a life...
hows this sound people.
having a GFE with a 10/10/10 $400
having a duo with 2 beautiful GFE's $800
flying to Thailand for a week to experience all it has to offer $5,000
reading lighthead's words priceless
I still only give him 1 week before he is permanently banned.
Some people's children. Amazing!!!!
having a GFE with a 10/10/10 $400
having a duo with 2 beautiful GFE's $800
flying to Thailand for a week to experience all it has to offer $5,000
reading lighthead's words priceless
I still only give him 1 week before he is permanently banned.
Some people's children. Amazing!!!!
White flag bitch admit it. Your dealing with the real world here, go back to la la land.
Remember what ad hominem means. I still own you......
Chicken shit. Grow a pair and do something about it if you feel so strongly about this issue. Go to the media, start a movement, etc. They might own the system, but you own a computer, a pair of legs....fuckin get out there and do something about it. It's a nice day...go to Home Depot, buy a 2x4 and some plywood and make yourself a big sign and march to Ottawa, talk to the media, talk to people...actually get the fuck outside and do something...I'm not the first or the last to challenge you to actually do something about it.
Put you money where your mouth is. There are groups out there just like you who need someone to get out there and be a leader. Or are you scared the men in the black vans will be after you? Are you afraid of exposing yourself to public scrutiny? To be identified and judged? If you feel this strongly and believe that you are right...be an activist and get out there and stop being a tinfoil troll fuck and be the Canadian version of Alex Jones...
So. They own the system. Hell, they already know who you are, LB. They know. They've been tracking you for months. To save your ass, you might want to set out of the shadows, be seen and heard.
This is the real world? Ever work for a living? You own no one, LB. You must be American. To be this concerned over conspiracy issues in the US....
If i had the means to have say a radio station or somethig like that I would. I 'm doing what I can by spreading the word. What Do I have to be an Alex Jones for my words to be true? Regardless If I'm just copying and pasting newspaper ads to show you stuff you might not know. I lend DVD's to people I know, etc. Why dont you suggest what I should do since your so high and mighty....
According to your logic, if theres a major problem with the world, dont talk about it STFU and ignore it until your being halued off to a FEMA camp for mass execution. Just ignore all of histories past examples.
According to your logic, if theres a major problem with the world, dont talk about it STFU and ignore it until your being halued off to a FEMA camp for mass execution. Just ignore all of histories past examples.
I have been called far worse names, by better men then you.
Evidence is NEVER allowed to be presented. I remember watching Professor Stevens Jones, who has studied closely the way the towers came down, and the scientific findings. Go to Google and bring up Professor Steven Jones on YouTube and watch the hatchet job that bastion of liberalism Tucker Carlson does interviewing him on his MSNBC Show "The Situation Room". Jones keeps trying to show the video of tower 7 collapsing, but Carlson WON'T allow him to show it due to time restrictions, the standard technique of the mainstream media. He is NEVER, NEVER allowed to make his point. I realize it is just a theory, but so is the theory by Popular Mechanics, but they have NEVER had to prove it.
I own you, you fucking fool.
BLACKWATER MIDSTR.
Halliburton Company
Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
General Dynamics Corporation
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Credit Suisse Group AG (ADR)
