|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 18, 2006 14:51:30 GMT -4
Moreover, the demolition itself does not resemble the collapse of any of the WTC buildings. Right ..see below Also, before trumpeting the Landmark as evidence, please note that "Workmen worked for weeks to prepare the building. First the smaller surrounding buildings were destroyed and cleared by conventional means. Then the first four floors of the tower were stripped and "weakened" to better control the explosion." (From here.) Funny how the workers in WTC 7 never noticed the first few floors of their building being gutted. Preparation you mention is needed for a clean demolition causing a minimum of colateral damage... I've accepted a correction. When will you do the same? Its done.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 18, 2006 14:57:31 GMT -4
I've accepted a correction. When will you do the same? CTists as a rule never admit to ever being wrong feelfree doesn't seem to be an exception. He (?) tried denying the steel columns from the Windsor Tower (the only part of its frame that was steel) failed after a few hours but never admitted he (?) was wrong. If i remember I also never denied that you were right after the last post...my silence was explicit!
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 18, 2006 15:14:40 GMT -4
Did Silverstein, the new World Trade Center owner who wisely invested in insurance against terrorism, have prior knowledge of the attacks? www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1081792939900-Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.htmlProfit from the attacks... Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04] The result of court ruling: Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks. www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 18, 2006 15:20:57 GMT -4
I had heard that the Secret Service keeps caches of weapons around the country in case they are needed quickly in an emmergency. Not sure where I read this but there was supposedly a Secret Service cache in one of the Trade Center buildings. The various branches of the Treasury Department undoubtedly did have armories wherever they had a large number of agents. Nothing sinister there. Not that they didn’t, but why would the SS have used the WTC when the Treasury Department had their own offices in Federal office buildings in New York and most other major cities? Now that the SS, Customs and the Coast Guard are part of Homeland Security those armories have likely transferred to them. Do you think it is sinister for cops to have guns? Interestingly, the old Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Agency (ATF of Waco fame) is now the Tax and Trade Bureau. Same responsibility, new, less stigmatized name, but still under the Treasury Department.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 18, 2006 15:49:55 GMT -4
Is Silverstein really making more from the insurance money than he would have had from renting out some of the most costly real estate in New York? As it is the property has not produced any income for five years and it looks like it will be many more years before it can produce any income. The website mentioned doesn't make much of an attempt to analyze whether Silverstein has truely come out ahead.
And what about his potential liability for all the deaths and health related problems the collapse of the two towers caused if it were discovered that he knew about it before hand?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the buildings should have been insured against terrorism after the '93 bombing, but it wouldn't be surprising if the buildings were not insured for their full replacement value against terrorism. Insurance is always a preceived risk vs. actual premium cost issue.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 18, 2006 15:50:40 GMT -4
Did Silverstein, the new World Trade Center owner who wisely invested in insurance against terrorism, have prior knowledge of the attacks? www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1081792939900-Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.htmlProfit from the attacks... Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04] The result of court ruling: Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks. www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.htmlFirst we need to look at why assets sell. The WTC was another in the long list of government owned assets that had been poorly managed. Lets face facts, government agencies are generally poor asset managers because they have conflicting internal goals and a limited ability to offer the salaries for to compete for the better people. And the quality of employees does matter in most businesses. What business people do all the time is buy underperforming assets and make them more efficient. This is good for both the seller, as he realizes some of the potential that he can not bring to the asset and the buyer who buy’s it for a lower costs than the value he brings to improving the performance of the asset. The WTC is a classic example of both a government boondoggle and why asset sales can create value for both parties. Whether Siverstein could ultimately have made it pay off is now just a guess. This insurance profit scam has been discussed thoroughly here. Do you believe he deliberately destroyed the WTC for personal profit? Do you have anything to add besides a few links?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 18, 2006 16:29:50 GMT -4
-Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks
Buuuuzt. Wrong. Silverstein has to continue to pay rent on an empty lot at the same rate as it was when there, plus he has to restore it. Work out them cookies and the Insurance doesn't come close to covering it. According to the NY Times, the cost was estimated at $6.3 billion as of April this year. Even your own sources agree that he is only getting $4.6 billion in insurance. 4.6 into 6.3 doesn't equal profit, it equals a $1.7 billion loss. and that's not asdding in the legal fees for the court case he lost and the $120 million a year he's been paying for the site ($480 million since 2001) Even with the help of the Govt, he's still on the coming out in the red. As to the Asbesto issue, it wasn't. Silverstein didn't have to pay for it at all, this is just blantently wrong. The Port Authority owed the buildings conserned (WTC 1&2) and it was their responsiblity to foot the bill, which they were in fact doing. more on Silverstein and his "profit" here
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 18, 2006 16:53:24 GMT -4
Preparation you mention is needed for a clean demolition causing a minimum of colateral damage...
Which of course is essentially what most 9/11 CTs claim happened ("The buildings fell into their own footprint!", even though that was not the case). I don't recall if you have claimed this, however.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 18, 2006 22:11:21 GMT -4
If you want to test your broadband though put there is a 14 meg aerial photo of the WTC site on the NOAA web site with the url www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo.jpg.oldSave it you your computer and rename by dropping the “.old” if you have software that can open a 14 meg picture. The damage to surrounding buildings is quite apparent and the debris is scattered all around on the ground and the roofs of the buildings. At least one of the damaged buildings were deemed unrepairable and torn down. For a smaller (3.5 meg) cropped view of the site Click here.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 18, 2006 22:58:27 GMT -4
Preparation you mention is needed for a clean demolition causing a minimum of colateral damage...Which of course is essentially what most 9/11 CTs claim happened ("The buildings fell into their own footprint!", even though that was not the case). I don't recall if you have claimed this, however. I mean obviously WTC does not needed to be prepare for a "clean" demolition thus the colateral damage...
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 18, 2006 23:09:56 GMT -4
-Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks
Buuuuzt. Wrong. Silverstein has to continue to pay rent on an empty lot at the same rate as it was when there, plus he has to restore it. Work out them cookies and the Insurance doesn't come close to covering it. That claim is based upon $3.2 billion versus 4.6 billions insurance [ According to the NY Times, the cost was estimated at $6.3 billion as of April this year. Even your own sources agree that he is only getting $4.6 billion in insurance. 4.6 into 6.3 doesn't equal profit, it equals a $1.7 billion loss. and that's not asdding in the legal fees for the court case he lost and the $120 million a year he's been paying for the site ($480 million since 2001) Even with the help of the Govt, he's still on the coming out in the red. Speculative I dont think the insurance will force him to rebuit another WTC complex ...exactly like it was before 911 ie Both 110 stories towers. As to the Asbesto issue, it wasn't. Silverstein didn't have to pay for it at all, this is just blantently wrong. The Port Authority owed the buildings conserned (WTC 1&2) and it was their responsiblity to foot the bill, which they were in fact doing. Are you sure that the asbestos issue was not the sole responsabiliy of the new owner? Edited
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 18, 2006 23:15:47 GMT -4
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the buildings should have been insured against terrorism after the '93 bombing, but it wouldn't be surprising if the buildings were not insured for their full replacement value against terrorism. Insurance is always a preceived risk vs. actual premium cost issue. Does the previous owner ie Port Authority owned one insurance against terrorist attacks after the 93 bombing?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 18, 2006 23:24:37 GMT -4
Do you believe he deliberately destroyed the WTC for personal profit? Do you have anything to add besides a few links? I dont said Silverstein is responsible for the destruction ... Reread the quote..,
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 19, 2006 0:17:53 GMT -4
He's not the owner. He leased it. That's different.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 19, 2006 1:29:35 GMT -4
I dont think the insurance will force him to rebuit another WTC complex ...exactly like it was before 911 ie Both 110 stories towers.
No, his lease does, well at least to return it to the Port Authority in a similar state to that which it was on his leasing it. The current idea is to replace the two towers with a single one, the Freedom Tower.
Are you sure that the asbestos issue was not the sole responsabiliy of the new owner?
WTC 1 & 2 never belonged to Silverstein, only WTC 7. The Port Authority leased WTC 1 & 2 to his company.
|
|