• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Asbestos vs. World Trade Center

RKOwens4

Thinker
RKOwens4
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
212
This has got to be one of the more doofus claims of conspiracy theorists but still I hear about it all the time -- that one of the motives for the "demolition" of the WTC was because of unfixable asbestos problems. 911myths.com shows an article estimating the removal costs at about $200 million. I was just looking at some other asbestos removal cases. Asbestos removal at the Jussieu Campus cost $263 million. Asbestos removal at the 59 story Tour Montparnasse cost $159 million. Both figures are in roughly the same range as the costs for the WTC, but neither were demolished. Not only that, but if we look at repair costs for buildings damaged on 9/11, $200 million doesn't seem like an unbearable cost. Repair costs for the Verizon Building cost $1.2 billion. Even after the 1993 WTC attack, repair costs were over $500 million... at least according to a DVD, "WTC: In Memoriam" (not the HBO one). But conspiracy theorists seem to believe the Port Authority would rather destroy a $3 billion complex and sacrifice 84 of their own employees (not to mention the thousands of others) rather than spending $200 million on removal costs. Can you say illogical?

Anyway, in a Hardfire debate, Mark Roberts said the asbestos was only on something like 38 floors and half had already been removed over the years. Can anyone point me to a site with more info on the exact floors and what asbestos had already been removed and all that?
 
Thanks, Gravy! Your research is wonderfully informative, by the way. Any idea when you'll next be visiting Hardfire?
 
RKOwens4 said:
Thanks, Gravy! Your research is wonderfully informative, by the way. Any idea when you'll next be visiting Hardfire?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm in the process of adding a lot more to the site.

All the top truth movement leaders have been bugging Ron to have a crack at me on Hardfire. I don't know why he keeps rejecting them. Doesn't make our side look too good.

The above is sarcasm.
 
Gravy said:
Thanks. I'm in the process of adding a lot more to the site.

All the top truth movement leaders have been bugging Ron to have a crack at me on Hardfire. I don't know why he keeps rejecting them. Doesn't make our side look too good.

The above is sarcasm.
Click to expand...

I would love to see a show in which you debat AJ, where AJ is constantly yelling through a bullhorn :)
 
Hah. Well one more question for you... on the show you mentioned the mall was one of the most profitable in the world. I might as well make a YouTube video on this whole asbestos/insurance issue. Do you happen to know exactly how profitable is was? What about the other public attractions like the observation deck and the Windows on the World restaurant? Did these bring much money (worth noting) to the complex? And is there any truth that Silverstein took out a "double indemnity clause" against acts of terrorism? Alright, that's 2 questions.
 
Gravy said:
Thanks. I'm in the process of adding a lot more to the site.

All the top truth movement leaders have been bugging Ron to have a crack at me on Hardfire. I don't know why he keeps rejecting them. Doesn't make our side look too good.

The above is sarcasm.
Click to expand...


Gravy, I might be reading more into some of the threads I've read in the past, but it seems that most times troothers get a real chance to an honest debate with you, somehow they find an excuse not to.:rolleyes:
 
RKOwens4 said:
Hah. Well one more question for you... on the show you mentioned the mall was one of the most profitable in the world. I might as well make a YouTube video on this whole asbestos/insurance issue. Do you happen to know exactly how profitable is was? What about the other public attractions like the observation deck and the Windows on the World restaurant? Did these bring much money (worth noting) to the complex? And is there any truth that Silverstein took out a "double indemnity clause" against acts of terrorism? Alright, that's 2 questions.
Click to expand...

Silverstein was required by his bankers to have terrorism insurance, given the previous attack in 1993. He did try, after 9/11, to have the attacks declared two events for insurance purposes (thus getting two payouts). After considerable legal wrangling, he lost this claim.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Silverstein was required by his bankers to have terrorism insurance, given the previous attack in 1993. He did try, after 9/11, to have the attacks declared two events for insurance purposes (thus getting two payouts). After considerable legal wrangling, he lost this claim.
Click to expand...

But if I shoot both Olson twins in the head, I'll get charged with DOUBLE manslaughter :confused:
 
Gravy said:
Some info from the site linked in my sig.

Me on WTC asbestos abatement

Asbestos Use in the Construction of the World Trade Center

WTC Asbestos Abatement appeal: Port Auth NY & NJ v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.

ATSDR - Asbestos - World Trade Center Full Report

Did the Ban on Asbestos Lead to Loss of Life? (Guy Tozzoli NYT 9/18/01)
Click to expand...
Is there any way to find out how much of the recovery for expenses incurred was solely for the removal of the asbestos and not the replacement costs of the SFRM?
 
RKOwens4 said:
Hah. Well one more question for you... on the show you mentioned the mall was one of the most profitable in the world. I might as well make a YouTube video on this whole asbestos/insurance issue. Do you happen to know exactly how profitable is was?
Click to expand...
You, sir, have impeccable timing. On the "Me on WTC Asbestos Abatement" page linked above, I also discuss the Trade Center's profitability, and link to a page with this info:

Sales at the trade center's retail mall also have risen dramatically. In 1996, the mall's retail establishments averaged approximately $500 per square foot. Today, sales have doubled, and are expected to reach $900 per square foot by the end of this year, which is expected to make the trade center mall the third most profitable in the country. And major national retailers, such as Banana Republic, Coach and Godiva have opened stores in the trade center mall to cater to a daily audience of 40,000 employees and thousands of visitors. Many of these retailers indicate that their trade center stores are among their top sales producers in the country.

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=61
Click to expand...


What about the other public attractions like the observation deck and the Windows on the World restaurant? Did these bring much money (worth noting) to the complex? And is there any truth that Silverstein took out a "double indemnity clause" against acts of terrorism? Alright, that's 2 questions.
Click to expand...
Windows was the highest-grossing restaurant in the U.S. I don't know about profits, but Windows brought a ton of people to the complex every day, seven days a week. I don't have figures offhand on the observation deck, but it was one of the more popular tourist attractions in NYC.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Silverstein was required by his bankers to have terrorism insurance, given the previous attack in 1993. He did try, after 9/11, to have the attacks declared two events for insurance purposes (thus getting two payouts). After considerable legal wrangling, he lost this claim.
Click to expand...
This is partially correct. Silverstein was required to have insurance, of course, but I don't know about specific terrorism insurance. Before 9/11, terrorism was covered by nearly all "all-risk" policies. It's possible that the lenders wanted Silverstein to purchase additional insurance because of terrorism concerns, but no one envisioned the whole complex being destroyed. (Edit: see my post below for one assessment of "maximum forseeable loss," including a wild, Morgan Reynolds-ish underestimation of what could happen in the event of a large aircraft impact.)

IIRC, Silverstein had initially wanted to purchase $1.5 billion in coverage. I believe the insurers had asked for $5 billion and they compromised on $3.5 billion. Several of the 24-or-so insurers involved did have double indemnity clauses in their Silverstein contracts, which the courts enforced. Therefore Silverstein was awarded a total of $4.6 billion on his $3.5 billion policies.

While many people criticized Silverstein for spending millions on legal wrangling that could have been spent on development (I've read that his legal costs were as high as $100 million), it earned him over a billion dollars more than if he hadn't fought.

I've got lots of info on Silverstein's insurance, with a general section on terrorism insurance before and after 9/11, here.

A W Smith said:
Is there any way to find out how much of the recovery for expenses incurred was solely for the removal of the asbestos and not the replacement costs of the SFRM?
Click to expand...
None. The PA lost its case and its appeal, because there was no legal requirement for the asbestos to be removed. It was judged to be safe when left in place. It was new tenants who insisted that it be removed.
 
Last edited:
It's not quite fair to claim that all twoofers are terrified of Mark. Rob Balsamo stated his willingness to debate. He had one condition that proved an insurmountable problem: He refused to debate in any venue where the debate could actually have taken place.
 
RKOwens4 said:
Hah. Well one more question for you... on the show you mentioned the mall was one of the most profitable in the world. I might as well make a YouTube video on this whole asbestos/insurance issue. Do you happen to know exactly how profitable is was? What about the other public attractions like the observation deck and the Windows on the World restaurant? Did these bring much money (worth noting) to the complex? And is there any truth that Silverstein took out a "double indemnity clause" against acts of terrorism? Alright, that's 2 questions.
Click to expand...

There are three pretty good threads here on the insurance issue:

Larry Silverstein's Insurance

Let's talk about insurance fraud

WTC insurance breakdown

Basically, Silverstein tried to claim that the terrorist attacks constituted two separate occurrences. This is not as crazy as it sounds at first blush as I explained here, although only a few of the insurers ended up paying double because their coverage was bound using different language.

On the asbestos issue, this is such a bunch of nonsense that I can't believe even the "Truthers" buy it. Asbestos is very seldom removed from old buildings anymore; that was a brief fad in the 1980s. Nowadays it is much more common to leave it undisturbed, unless it is in a "friable" (crumbly) condition, in which case it is encapsulated with a spray-on material. Remember that Silverstein and his partners had negotiated a loan from GMAC to cover their purchase of the leasehold interest; as part of documentation for that loan, a complete Phase I Environmental Report was undoubtedly performed with recommendations as to what to do with the asbestos. Nobody was surprised by this issue, I guarantee that.
 
Bell said:
I would love to see a show in which you debat AJ, where AJ is constantly yelling through a bullhorn :)
Click to expand...

He'd claim that the invite was just "lawyer speak and a Strawman"
 
Last edited:
Since we're on the subject of insurance, I thought this bit would be of interest. It's from the World Trade Center Property Risk Report, repared for Silverstein Properties in anticipation of the WTC lease (PDF, released via nistreview.org FOIA request).

From page 29:

Maximum Forseeable Loss

1993 Terrorist Bombing [excerpt]

The 1993 terrorist bombing of the WTC resulted in a maximum forseeable property loss. This event shut Tower 1 down for 6 weeks and Tower 2 for 4 weeks. The explosion, that occurred in the garage area of B-2, caused portions of the Plaza and two Subgrade floors (about 4 bays by 4 bays) to collapse on to the B-6 level damaging mechanical and electrical equipment of the Chiller Plant. As large a blast as it was, there was negligible structural damage done to structural members. Damage was limited to the replacement of these concrete floors, repairing spalled concrete where reinforcing steel had been exposed and rebuilding non-bearing walls.

The magnitude of this type of MFL loss can be estimated at 5 weeks rent or 1/10th of the $364m annual rent or $35m. Plus property damage to the building from the 1993 incident is estimated to be $175m and equipment damage of $120m or a total of $330m.


Aircraft Striking a Tower

This scenario is within the realm of the possible, but highly unlikely.

In 1946 a military aircraft struck the Empire State Building. Since that time the manner in which aircraft are "controlled" has dramatically changed. In the event such [sic] an unlikely occurrence, what might result? The structural designers of the towers have publicly stated that in their opinion that either of the Towers could with stand such an impact from a large modern passenger aircraft.

The ensuing fire would damage the "skin", in this scenario, as the spilled fuel would fall to the Plaza level where it would have to be extinguished by the NYC Fire Department. The replacement of the "skin" is estimated at 35% Of the building replacement value or $420m. Loss of rents for 1 year or $150m for a total estimate of <$600m
Click to expand...
[For MFL (maximum forseeable loss) determination methodology, see page 88 of the pdf]

Goes to show you how uninformed even risk assessors were of what could happen in an aircraft impact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom