Korean Job Discussion Forums

[huffdaddy]

[igotthisguitar]

Silverstein's comments present simply ONE of the "dots" there are for people to connect. Are you aware of how much $$$ CREDIT $$$ Mr. Silverstein received after WTC7 was magickally demolished?

Just another happy coincidence

This thread now contains a host of other "crime scene" details inc. the fact that the building free fell to the ground hours after the 2 planes had struck their designated targets.

Contrary to "Devil's Advocate" chararacters such as Dave's dubious Joo, i for one personally trust the public, once presented with ALL sides of the story, allegations, possibilities & the like, will be able to effectively discern what really happened.

Not surprisingly, as with JFK, many now seriously doubt the official "conspiracy" theory

[huffdaddy]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[igotthisguitar]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

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, of course, 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

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 -- hardly the behaviour of someone who knew what would happen only weeks later.



[Home] [Hijackers] [Foreknowledge] [Stand down] [WTC (demolition)] [WTC (other)] [WTC7 & Silverstein] [Pentagon] [Flight 93] [bin Ladin] [Obstructing Justice] [Afghanistan] [Others] [Investigations, more] [What's New?]

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

[igotthisguitar]

[some waygug-in]

You are right Joo. As much as I hate to admit it.

Your site does show smoke pouring out from many floors of the building.

I had never seen that video before. Thank you for posting it.


This still does not explain how the building could suddenly collapse symetrically, straight down however.

Here is a site that presents arguments both for and against controlled demolition.

Judge for yourself.

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[jaderedux]

I have a friend who is quite worked up over the loose change video and pleaded with me to watch it. He is positive the government is wracked with evil plotters and layers and layers of deceit. Personally I don't think they could fornicate themselves out of a wet paperbag much less pull off this kind of conspiracy.

I watched the loose change video. I tried to be open minded but a government that can't keep a blow job secret gives me a feeling that this kind of conspiracy just isn't possible.

The flight over Pennslyvania is the most bizarre. All those people just disappeared back into their lives. I just don't think so. Someone would talk ....too much money to be made by talking.

I also checked out the following.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Gives another view no less vehemently but another view.

I would have placed more credence in the Loose Change vid had the narrators not been so snide and condesending. Their presentation treated the viewer like we were all dumba$$es and they were so cool and so smart and how could the rest of us be so dumb.

Jade
P.S. My spelling sucks.