U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 02:33 PM
 
7,392 posts, read 1,625,099 times
Reputation: 18013

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic View Post
Their boxcutters and their driver's licenses were found together in the debris. They were both kept in their pockets.
Supposedly found in the debris. And yet the government has claimed that several of the cockpit voice recorders and so-called black boxes (they're actually orange) were either not found or in such poor condition as to be useless. Remember that most of what has been said and claimed came from the government. IF the Bush government was involved in any way, it would be like believing what a murderer said happened instead of the accounts of eyewitnesses and what is proven by the autopsy of his victim. ("No, sir, I did not stab him 20 times, I only stabbed him once.")

Please watch from about 1:21:00 to 1:26:00 of the following video. (Five minutes.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=dBMrzibEwZA

As always, if anything presented in the video has been debunked or disproved since the video was made in 2013, PLEASE respond with a link from an objective news source.

(Btw, the makers of the video do not claim to know who was responsible for the attacks; they just point out many of the fallacies of the official story -- although they do seem to imply that Larry Silverstein's luck was uncanny to the point of being almost unbelievable, they are very careful not to actually accuse him of any kind of involvement.)

P.S. Sorry, but I could not resist responding to the above post because this brings up one of the greatest unexplained mysteries of this entire tragedy.

Last edited by katharsis; Today at 03:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
57,366 posts, read 55,577,829 times
Reputation: 68336
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
Supposedly found in the debris. And yet the government has claimed that several of the so-called cockpit voice recorders and so-called black boxes (they're actually orange) were either not found or in such poor condition as to be useless. Remember that most of what has been said and claimed came from the government. IF the Bush government was involved in any way, it would be like believing what a murderer said happened instead of what is proven by the autopsy of his victim. ("No, sir, I did not stab him 20 times, I only stabbed him once.")

Please watch 1:22 to 1:26 of the following video. (Five minutes.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=dBMrzibEwZA

(Btw, the makers of the video do not claim to know who was responsible for the attacks; they just point out many of the fallacies of the official story -- although they do seem to imply that Larry Silverstein's luck was uncanny to the point of being almost unbelievable, but are very careful not to actually accuse him of any kind of involvement.)

P.S. Sorry, but I could not resist responding to this post because this brings up one of the greatest unexplained mysteries of this entire tragedy.
As has been explained in either this thread or another, Larry's "luck" is a figment of the imagination of ignorant people. Eighteen years later, he still cannot get the financing to build Two WTC, and he long ago lost One WTC and the associated insurance money. He has had Four done for about 5 years, and just finished Three, but he's got to be pushing 90, and likely will never live to see the complex completed.

The story IS unbelievable, because it simply isn't true. I am not sure of who the target audience is for the "Lucky Larry" story, or what the motives could be for trying to persuade people that he somehow made financial gain by the destruction of the towers, but it has to be confined to people in the hinterlands. There's an entire NYC commercial real estate industry and international insurance world that knows how stupid that is.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html

Last edited by Mightyqueen801; Today at 02:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:16 PM
 
7,392 posts, read 1,625,099 times
Reputation: 18013
^^^

Thanks for your reply, and I am not sure that my conclusion from reading the link below is correct, but it doesn't seem to me like Silverstein has suffered too much since 2001. Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1KN2OL

https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/23/what-...-9-11-7102796/

Maybe I am wrong, but to me, having a net worth of $4 billion is not exactly pocket change. (Of course, I don't know what his worth was before 2001, however.)

Btw, you wrote that "he long ago lost One WTC and the associated insurance money". As you obviously (and, NO, I am NOT being sarcastic here!) know much more about this than I do, how did he lose it? I tried researching it, but didn't find anything about that. Thanks.

Last edited by katharsis; Today at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
57,366 posts, read 55,577,829 times
Reputation: 68336
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
^^^

Thanks for your reply, and I am not sure that my conclusion from reading the link below is correct, but it doesn't seem to me like Silverstein has suffered too much since 2001. Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1KN2OL

https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/23/what-...-9-11-7102796/

Maybe I am wrong, but to me, having a net worth of $4 billion is not exactly pocket change. (Of course, I don't know what his worth was before 2001, however.)

Btw, you wrote that "he long ago lost One WTC and the associated insurance money". As you obviously (and, NO, I am NOT being sarcastic here!) know much more about this than I do, how did he lose it? I tried researching it, but didn't find anything about that. Thanks.
I don't know what his net worth was, either, but Silverstein owns a lot of commercial Real Estate, and did before 9/11. I guess suffice to say wasn't a poor guy, lol, or he wouldn't have even been in the competition to lease the WTC buildings to begin with.

He certainly has not suffered financially, at least in the way normal people would define that, but what I said has nothing to do with his net worth but rather the specific financial impact of the WTC.

So, in 2001, he leased most of the WTC buildings from the Port Authority, but the PA still owned the property and the six story infrastructure below grade with the train station, etc. He's required to carry sufficient insurance against the loss of the buildings because he's required to rebuild if something happens to them.

And something happened to them. All of the buildings he leased were destroyed. The site gets cleared, the Port Authority does the work it needs to do to stabilize the "bathtub" (the slurry wall structure that keeps the river out) and other structural work as well as repairing the PATH tubes and building a temporary station to get the PATH trains running again.

Meanwhile, Silverstein goes on his much-publicized fight with the 11 insurance underwriters to try to maximize his insurance payout because he has to rebuild office buildings. There's a design competition for the site, for the memorial, etc., and when they finally get an idea of what's going to be done, SPI (Silverstein Properties, Inc., easier to type) and the PA sit down with lawyers and start hammering out a Master Agreement for who builds what and who pays for what on the site. I think the original Master Agreement was around 2005, it was amended down the road.

Now, here's the main problem. The insurance payout is not enough to build what needs to be built, but that's OK because these types of people don't fork over cash for this sort of thing, they get financing. However, Silverstein can't demonstrate that he would be able to FILL these office buildings that need to be built downtown to make the revenue he would need to pay back investors, so they aren't biting. A lot of firms in lower Manhattan relocated after 9/11 to other parts of the city or NJ, and they aren't sure there are going to be any tenants for these buildings. No tenants, empty buildings, no revenue.

But the politicians want something big built downtown because they like to get re-elected and their constituents want something big built downtown to "show the world", and so they at least want to get moving with the Memorial and what the then-governor named The Freedom Tower which was never really the name of One World Trade Center but which has stuck.

So, in the Master Agreement, Silverstein has to fork over a portion of the insurance money to the Port Authority and turn One World Trade Center over to them. He retains the right to build Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center as per the new design. The PA can build One WTC because as a public entity, they can sell bonds, and they do. They raise the money and they begin construction on One WTC.

Of course, the entire reason the PA leased out the WTC in the first place was because it's a public transportation company, not a real estate company, and there was an outcry against them owning commercial office buildings. The only reason they got to build the WTC in the first place back in the 1960s was as part of a deal to take over the bankrupt H&M railroad and run it at a loss. That is the PATH train that runs under the WTC. They took over the trains, wiped out the neighborhood, and built the original World Trade Center complex on sixteen acres in lower Manhattan that was once known for places that sold electronic and radio parts.

So here they are building and owning the new One WTC, but once they were close to finishing and it was lease-up time, they took on Durst as a partner and now One WTC is owned by "One WTC, LLC".

It's complicated, as you can see, and I only know these surface details because I had to read them and know them for things I did at my job.

Back to Silverstein. He built 150 Greenwich Street first once he could demonstrate that he could fill it with tenants--one of those tenants being The Port Authority, as well as other public and private entities. 150 Greenwich Street is also known as Four World Trade Center.

The lower Manhattan real estate market had perked back up in the intervening years, and so he was able to go ahead and get the financing to build Three World Trade Center, which opened this year or last year, but I don't think it's all leased up yet. Two World Trade Center remains to be built, but there are issues of some sort with what's underground, and it has to be redesigned or something. At any rate, if he doesn't have Three filled, he's surely not going to get financing for Two.

Again, this is oversimplified. While Silverstein/SPI had to use his insurance money to rebuild Three and Four, there were also Liberty Bonds available for him to use, and SPI invested some of its funds, too, for these buildings. That was all part of that Master Agreement, but the details were way over my pay grade.

You can be certain that LAWYERS made out OK on all this! Do you want to talk about the lawsuit for the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Church, which was crushed by the fall of Tower Two? Legal mess, very ugly, and now there's an unfinished Orthodox church sitting adjacent to the World Trade Center site because the diocese stopped paying the contractor even though they got THEIR lawsuit money.

But the bottom line is this: The insurance payout Silverstein got was not enough to pay for all the rebuilding, and that's what he had to do with the money. He couldn't just go out and use it to buy yachts for his family or something. This seems to be what some people think, though.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html

Last edited by Mightyqueen801; Today at 04:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:27 PM
 
235 posts, read 303,360 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
Supposedly found in the debris. And yet the government has claimed that several of the cockpit voice recorders and so-called black boxes (they're actually orange) were either not found or in such poor condition as to be useless. Remember that most of what has been said and claimed came from the government. IF the Bush government was involved in any way, it would be like believing what a murderer said happened instead of the accounts of eyewitnesses and what is proven by the autopsy of his victim. ("No, sir, I did not stab him 20 times, I only stabbed him once.")

Please watch from about 1:21:00 to 1:26:00 of the following video. (Five minutes.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=dBMrzibEwZA

As always, if anything presented in the video has been debunked or disproved since the video was made in 2013, PLEASE respond with a link from an objective news source.

(Btw, the makers of the video do not claim to know who was responsible for the attacks; they just point out many of the fallacies of the official story -- although they do seem to imply that Larry Silverstein's luck was uncanny to the point of being almost unbelievable, they are very careful not to actually accuse him of any kind of involvement.)

P.S. Sorry, but I could not resist responding to the above post because this brings up one of the greatest unexplained mysteries of this entire tragedy.



Thanks for posting a link to this documentary. It's absolutely brilliant. Just got done with the sections on WTC7, The Twin Towers, and the intro, military training sections. It nails the coffin in the official story. Just brilliant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:57 PM
 
7,392 posts, read 1,625,099 times
Reputation: 18013
Mightyqueen, I do enjoy and am enlightened by your posts, so I just have one question (as of right now, that is) for you or for anyone to answer:

Why do think that Silverstein would buy buildings with so many asbestos problems that it would cost up to one BILLION dollars to fix? (Starting at 2:45:00 in the above video)

I am thinking that it might be for a huge business write-off as a loss, but is that too far-fetched?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
57,366 posts, read 55,577,829 times
Reputation: 68336
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
Mightyqueen, I do enjoy and am enlightened by your posts, so I just have one question (as of right now, that is) for you or for anyone to answer:

Why do think that Silverstein would buy buildings with so many asbestos problems that it would cost up to one BILLION dollars to fix? (Starting at 2:45:00 in the above video)

I am thinking that it might be for a huge business write-off as a loss, but is that too far-fetched?
I worked with asbestos contracts at the WTC and other facilities from the admin/cost/contract side.

I just looked at a few minutes of it, and while it throws around big numbers, they really aren't big numbers in the grand scheme of things.

They also didn't really carefully word things, lol, as it kept saying they had to "replace the asbestos". You don't replace asbestos. Maybe they are trying to say they are replacing it with a different type of insulation, but that's not what they said.

They also overdramatize the whole containment process for asbestos removal. It just standard procedure for ACM (Asbestos Containing Material) removal. The area has to be sealed off, the workers have to wear those outfits, etc. Asbestos is disposed of by putting it down holes/mines, etc., in place like Pennsylvania.

Now. As they said, the WTC was almost built when asbestos was outlawed. It exists in old buildings everywhere. It's fine as long as it's in the walls or the floors or wherever and it isn't disturbed. When it is exposed and broken open, it is friable, which means it keeps breaking down into tinier fibers until they are microscopic, and when inhaled and lodged in the lungs, form tumors so hard that they can break a surgical saw. That type of cancer is pretty much a death sentence. As a matter of fact, after I took the basic course, I realized my grandfather's death of lung cancer in 1972 was probably asbestos related. He was a plumber since the 1920s, and they used to wrap pipes in asbestos insulation.

The World Trade Center was an office building. When a new tenant came in, they often wanted to renovate their space. This was done through a tenant alteration application. They had to have the work approved by the owner, i.e., the Port Authority, which knew where there might be asbestos. Sure enough, if a wall was opened and asbestos was found, work had to stop and they would call in the on-call ACM removal contractor, who had an office right there on site in One WTC. IIRC, the contract was for $2 million per year.

However, as demonstrated in the video, sometimes there were "project-specific" asbestos removal problems, like for the electrical substation they mention. That would be a separate bid and not fall under the call-in contract.

So back to your question:

Quote:
Why do think that Silverstein would buy buildings with so many asbestos problems that it would cost up to one BILLION dollars to fix?
Because the World Trade Center, unlike back in the 1980s when downtown Manhattan was pretty much dead except for Wall Street, was now 95% occupied--considered virtually full occupancy--and making money. It was an attractive investment. As for the cost of future asbestos removal, that's simple--you build that cost right into the price per square foot that you are charging your tenants, just as you do with all the other costs of operating and maintaining the asset.

I think what trips you up is that you think $1 Billion is a lot of money. LOL, I am not being sarcastic, really, and I sure would be happy if one-hundredth of that landed in MY checking account. But the numbers for engineering, construction, and real estate in New York City are big numbers. $8 billion to renovate LaGuardia Airport currently going on. $3.9 Billion to build a new One World Trade Center. $3.31 Billion to build One Vanderbilt, an office building by Grand Cental Terminal. $1.25 Billion to build 432 Park Avenue, a condo building.

All of those assets will bring in revenue far beyond what they cost to build.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:26 PM
 
7,392 posts, read 1,625,099 times
Reputation: 18013
^^ Well, that makes sense! Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:40 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,619 posts, read 14,253,832 times
Reputation: 6630
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray34iyf View Post
Thanks for posting a link to this documentary. It's absolutely brilliant. Just got done with the sections on WTC7, The Twin Towers, and the intro, military training sections. It nails the coffin in the official story. Just brilliant.
its a mockumentary…. only fools would believe the spin/lies in it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:43 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,619 posts, read 14,253,832 times
Reputation: 6630
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
Mightyqueen, I do enjoy and am enlightened by your posts, so I just have one question (as of right now, that is) for you or for anyone to answer:

Why do think that Silverstein would buy buildings with so many asbestos problems that it would cost up to one BILLION dollars to fix? (Starting at 2:45:00 in the above video)

I am thinking that it might be for a huge business write-off as a loss, but is that too far-fetched?
the asbestos abatement would only cost in the 10's of MILLIONS not billions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top