Building demolished from the top down.

[Java Man]

As usual, the truther Java Man fails to answer the question. How much did Silverstein Properties lose?

Dave

Positive values are not losses. He paid 600 million and cashed in on 4+ billion insurance.

Also given the fact that the WTC remained the property of the Port Authorities and not the property of Silverstein Properties. They didn't lose anything. That should answer your question.

 

[Dragon37]

Then all you have to do to conspire and make a huge profit from the insurance is to let it happen, minimize human casualties and cash in.

I always laugh at this whole "making a profit off insurance" claim. Yeah an awful lot of insurance was paid out but:

1. Where is the proof that it was profit?
2. How much annual revenue has been lost with the loss of the 7 buildings of the complex?
3. What is/was the replacement cost of constructing new buildings?

As someone who has gone through an insurance claim before I can tell you I made zero profit. In fact, I likely came up on the short end of things because I had to pay the deductible and then after the claim was closed off I realized I hadn't accounted for everything.

Now I imagine that there was a deductible that needed to be paid out in the case of the buildings destroyed on 9/11. So that counts against the profit. Then there is all the revenue loss from the lack of having any buildings to earn you money. No doubt some of that insurance money was paid out to victims, businesses and other property owners for the damage the WTC buildings caused ... and so forth. 9 years later there is still no replacement of the revenue those buildings generated and there is absolutely no proof that anyone made any profit from the insurance. The insurance company hasn't protested, toothers have not provided any hard numbers that anyone profited, and so forth. All the "evidence" toothers have is that WTC was insured for lots of money, part of that coverage was for acts of terrorism, and their plain ignorance of the whole insurance process.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is sloppier yet to refuse to reconsider prior knowledge in light of newer evidence.

So, in the light of evidence that top-down building collapses can occur straight downwards through the lower structure and propagate down to ground level at near freefall acceleration without the assistance of explosives, do you think the truthers vocally claiming that buildings cannot collapse vertically top-downwards through the lower structure at near freefall acceleration without the assistance of explosives whould reconsider this "prior knowledge", or do your criticisms only apply to people whose conclusions you disagree with?

Dave

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Positive values are not losses. He paid 600 million and cashed in on 4+ billion insurance.

Also given the fact that the WTC remained the property of the Port Authorities and not the property of Silverstein Properties. They didn't lose anything. That should answer your question.

You know why Silverstein got insurance on the WTC property?

Because of the 1993 WTC Bombing!

Who would've thought that Truthers didn't know jack about history?! Apparently history is just another form of "conspiracy".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Positive values are not losses. He paid 600 million and cashed in on 4+ billion insurance.

Also given the fact that the WTC remained the property of the Port Authorities and not the property of Silverstein Properties. They didn't lose anything. That should answer your question.

He paid 600 million for a lease. You seem to have forgotten rent, which remains payable on the site despite the absence of any income from it. Also, given the fact that the WTC remained the property of the Port Authority but Silverstein Properties is responsible for bearing the rebuilding cost, that means that any money spent on rebuilding will be a clear loss. That should demonstrate why your answer is sufficiently incomplete as to be utterly useless. But, again, that's what we've come to expect from the information truthers base their beliefs on.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It is sloppier yet to refuse to reconsider prior knowledge in light of newer evidence.

True. I've made that same point again over and over again to truthers who cite pieces of evidence from early years and pay no attention to the preponderance of evidence that accrues after that point. The entire "swiss cheese steel" statements in the FEMA report is one example; Dr. Thomas Eagar's early published statements are yet another. That's what I mean when I say the entirety of the evidence: I mean the entirety of the evidence, context and accrual of new knowledge included.

The question is, what does that have to do with my post? I never stated that anyone should ever refuse to reconsider prior knowledge. Either you're aiming that at someone else, or you're creating a straw man argument out of what I posted.

----

I think it's time you dropped this line of one-upsmanship and instead concentrate on making substantive posts about the merits of the video. You're getting nowhere with your responses to me.

 

[Quad4_72]

Sure, from May prior to the attack:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372/

Silverstein and his partners signed over a $100 million letter of credit, the first installment of a $616 million down payment.


Insurance payment:

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-12-06/...verstein-single-occurrence-insurers?_s=PM:LAW

The insurers are collectively responsible for a maximum of $1.1 billion insurance per occurrence. The issue before the court was whether the insurers were obligated to pay for one occurrence or two.

So just as is he doubled the down payment. After winning the case it went up to $2.2 billion

Adding the other buildings:

The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein)

Ok you answered part of it (I have not checked those links for validity, so hopefully you were honest in your research). Now, how much did he lose when they collapsed? How much did he lose in revenue and rent over a ten year time period?

 

[Java Man]

1. Where is the proof that it was profit?

There is proof that he paid 600 million and was given 4billion+

2. How much annual revenue has been lost with the loss of the 7 buildings of the complex?

How are we sure the WTC would be operating at a profit those years?

3. What is/was the replacement cost of constructing new buildings?

You mean what's the replacement profit of constructing new buildings?

9 years later there is still no replacement of the revenue those buildings generated and there is absolutely no proof that anyone made any profit from the insurance.

3 billion in ones pocket (payment minus 600 investment, minus deductible) makes a lot of money in the investment market.

The insurance company hasn't protested.

It did, it was taken to court and lost.

 

[A W Smith]

Positive values are not losses. He paid 600 million and cashed in on 4+ billion insurance.

Also given the fact that the WTC remained the property of the Port Authorities and not the property of Silverstein Properties. They didn't lose anything. That should answer your question.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtcinsuranceissues


http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20...urnal.com/regionalnews/20040430-starkman.html

In U.S. District Court in Manhattan yesterday, the jury delivered an incomplete and split decision, but one that heavily favored the insurers. The panel found that eight of the 12 insurance companies -- constituting more than $1 billion of coverage -- were governed by an insurance form that defines the attacks on the World Trade Center as a single event, or "occurrence." And that means a single payout.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How are we sure the WTC would be operating at a profit those years?

If you don't know the difference between revenue and profit, then you're so hopelessly ignorant about anything whatsoever to do with finance that there's really no point even discussing this with you.

You main what's the replacement profit of constructing new buildings?

Yes, what's the profit to be made from bearing the cost of replacing buildings that belong to someone else? Hint: It has one of those little horizontal lines in front of it.

It did, it was taken to court and lost.

As I understand it, there have been several different court settlements, with varying results. So would you like to substantiate that claim?

Dave

 

[Java Man]

He paid 600 million for a lease. You seem to have forgotten rent, which remains payable on the site despite the absence of any income from it. Also, given the fact that the WTC remained the property of the Port Authority but Silverstein Properties is responsible for bearing the rebuilding cost, that means that any money spent on rebuilding will be a clear loss. That should demonstrate why your answer is sufficiently incomplete as to be utterly useless. But, again, that's what we've come to expect from the information truthers base their beliefs on.

Dave

I understand the annual payment to be 115 million.

"Silverstein agreed to pay over 99 years a total of 3,2 billion Dollars in leasing installments to the Port Authorities: 616 million as an initial payment and then annually 115 million Dollars. The Port Authorities remained the owners of the WTC." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 11, 2001.

115 million is 3.8% of 3 billion. So taking the 4.5billion minus deductibles, minus down payment and putting 3 billion in the bank pays off the rent. Take the same money and make it generate 10% annually and your cashing in on 185 million after paying Port Authorities.

What do you think would be the cost of rebuilding the WTC?

 

[Dave Rogers]

What do you think would be the cost of rebuilding the WTC?

Since you're certain Silverstein made a profit, what value did you use in your calculations?

Dave

 

[Java Man]

As I understand it, there have been several different court settlements, with varying results. So would you like to substantiate that claim?

My claim is that your statement that the insurance companies didn't complain was false. They did complain and refused to pay and were taken to court. You just supported that. The fact that they settled in different ways is irrelevant. If they hadn't complained and just paid up as you claim they did they wouldn't have been in court to settle in the first place.

 

[Java Man]

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtcinsuranceissues


http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20...urnal.com/regionalnews/20040430-starkman.html

In U.S. District Court in Manhattan yesterday, the jury delivered an incomplete and split decision, but one that heavily favored the insurers. The panel found that eight of the 12 insurance companies -- constituting more than $1 billion of coverage -- were governed by an insurance form that defines the attacks on the World Trade Center as a single event, or "occurrence." And that means a single payout.

It was later ruled that nine of them did have to pay as two separate incidents.

"The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[22]" (Starkman, Dean (2004-12-07). "Jury Rules for Silverstein on Trade Center Insurance". Wall Street Journal. p. A11.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

 

[A W Smith]

I understand the annual payment to be 115 million.

"Silverstein agreed to pay over 99 years a total of 3,2 billion Dollars in leasing installments to the Port Authorities: 616 million as an initial payment and then annually 115 million Dollars. The Port Authorities remained the owners of the WTC." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 11, 2001.

115 million is 3.8% of 3 billion. So taking the 4.5billion minus deductibles, minus down payment and putting 3 billion in the bank pays off the rent. Take the same money and make it generate 10% annually and your cashing in on 185 million after paying Port Authorities.

What do you think would be the cost of rebuilding the WTC?

The yellow highlight. Whats that earning him now?

To rebuild? 10 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/n...de-center-site-10-billion-but-that-could.html

 

[Java Man]

The yellow highlight. Whats that earning him now?

To rebuild? 10 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/n...de-center-site-10-billion-but-that-could.html

Yes I've seen the 10 billion figure, now is that sale value or building cost value? In the understanding that being sale value the WTC would then sell for 10 billion, but that doesn't mean it took 10 billion to build (building cost value).

BTW the 600 million was deducted from the 4.5 billion to arrive at the theoretical 3 billion I'm working with. So it has been taken into consideration.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My claim is that your statement that the insurance companies didn't complain was false.

Can I suggest you keep track of who you're talking to? I never made any such claim. Mind you, since nobody else did, perhaps you're just making up strawmen because you know you're on shaky ground.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes I've seen the 10 billion figure, now is that sale value or building cost value? In the understanding that being sale value the WTC would then sell for 10 billion, but that doesn't mean it took 10 billion to build (building cost value).

So, you don't know the rebuilding cost. Quite simply, you haven't got a clue how much money Silverstein may have to pay out as a result of 9/11, so all your claims are worthless.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Can I suggest you keep track of who you're talking to? I never made any such claim. Mind you, since nobody else did, perhaps you're just making up strawmen because you know you're on shaky ground.

Dave

You're right it was Dragon that made that comment, I stand corrected in that it was not you.

 

[Dragon37]

There is proof that he paid 600 million and was given 4billion+

How was that payment allotted out? Insurance companies rarely like to cut people checks outright. Do you have any proof they cut him a 3.4 Billion dollar check outright? Do you have any proof that that all went into Silverstien's pocket? I didn't think so.

How are we sure the WTC would be operating at a profit those years?

So you have no proof do you? So you just answer the question with a question. The towers were full or nearly full to capacity for the first time in a long time and until 2008 he should have been making a steady income from them.

You mean what's the replacement profit of constructing new buildings?

No. You are not a very bright person are you. The only one that make profit in construction are the contractors. The customer has no choice but to pay out the cost of construction. Are you really this dim?

3 billion in ones pocket (payment minus 600 investment, minus deductible) makes a lot of money in the investment market.

But you have zero proof that, that 3.4 biilion in one lump sum, ended out in Silverstien's pocket. All you have are some very basic numbers and a WTC tower full of assumptions.




It did, it was taken to court and lost.[/QUOTE]