Building demolished from the top down.

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

Dave
Click to expand...

And continuing to lose, since he's got a pristine piece of real estate with nothing to generate rent.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

Well neither do you. So how are you planning on challenging it? More so if the total comes up to 10 billion at current Manhattan costs that means other people are building superstructures at said costs and still making a profit. So Silverstein can very well get people to invest, creates the 10 billion project, makes it profitable and then makes even more money. Remember that Port Authority is already getting paid by the revenue from the insurance.
 
Dragon37 said:
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?
Click to expand...

As if Silverstein and his friends are not in the construction business. Give me a break.
 
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/...-in-sept-11-property-damage-case-1247687.html


Silverstein's attorneys have identified $8.8 billion in damages, according to court records. A breakdown filed by Clifford includes $12.3 billion for the World Trade Center complex, less $4.1 billion in insurance proceeds already received. The claims for World Trade Center 7 total $1.4 billion, but $800 million in insurance proceeds have been paid out.

Yet Clifford said the $8.8 billion replacement cost claim is unrealistically inflated because Tower 1's redevelopment project is being led by the Port Authority.

In a Sept. 17 letter to the judge, Silverstein attorney Richard A. Williamson suggested that a shortage of available funds may result in just 4.4 million square feet of office space being rebuilt at the site, slightly less than half of what was destroyed at that location on Sept. 11.

Williamson said in the meantime "billions of dollars in insurance money" remains in the pockets of insurers of the airline companies, security companies, Boeing, and others who ignored [COLOR=#339900 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#339900 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]government[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] warnings about terrorist threats.
Click to expand...
 
Dragon37 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A link to support such a claim would be useful to you, otherwise its an unfounded claim.
 
Java Man said:
Well we can break it into different scenarios. One is the minimal use of explosives. If it is known that only a few floors can initiate a collapse then maybe only one or two in ten need to be rigged. That way you get a nice failsafe setup that ensures collapse even if the airplanes hit the rigged floors. You can just start the collapse on the next upper set of rigged floors. Since those are not clearly visible from the outside it is easy to initiate without bringing undesired attention.

The other is the case in which no explosives are needed and the WTC actually falls on its own. 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.

So either way the video does not exclude a conspiracy it actually facilitates the existence of one.
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
True and that could be their greatest mistake. Usually the simplest solution is the best solution.
Click to expand...

So the simplest solutions you can come up with involves a conspiracy to defraud insurance companies or minimal use of explosives?

How about this: Religious terrorists hijacked the planes, flew them into buildings and the damage and fire caused the collapses.
 
I just like how Truthers tend to move the goalposts.

First it was explosives, then it was thermite, then nano-thermite, then super-thermite, then painted/sprayed on thermite & finally silent explosives.

Truthers will never look for the truth. They're too busy wondering what other people think, including other Truthers.
 
Java Man said:
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).
Click to expand...

That $10 billion would be what it will cost to build the buildings. Construction costs are how much it will cost to build a structure at the time of the assessment. It is based on professional fees, materials, and estimated length of the project. There are any number of things that could lower or raise that final tag.

I can tell you from experience and relatives involved in both architecture and construction it is a very costly process. If your house was destroyed and your insurance was not guaranteed cost replacement (this is coverage is not applicable to every home) I 100% guarantee that you would not EVER get enough money from the insurance to be able to build a new home. I have a very small house that I could probably get $70 K for if I sold it. To build a whole new one the same size and layout would probably cost $120K minumum. Hell my sister is renovating her kitchen and that is going to cost her close to $50K.

There is no way in hell $4B would replace what was lost on 9/11. I seriously doubt Silverstein saw very much of that $3.4+ billion. My guess is he lost big money that day and the insurance only cushioned that fall a bit.
 
Java Man said:
A link to support such a claim would be useful to you, otherwise its an unfounded claim.
Click to expand...

I will try and remember where I heard or read it. You still a pile of claims to back up. You still have no proof just how much of that insurance money Silverstein "pocketed", etc. You just have a massive assumption that profit was made from the insurance no proof whatsoever.
 
Java Man said:
As if Silverstein and his friends are not in the construction business. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

lol. If they were the contractors of their own buildings they would still be out the money. They still have to pay professionals, construction costs, etc, etc. The money is tied up not free and clear.

:boggled:
 
Java Man said:
I made said distinction last year in october and it was readily ignored by debunkers here. Would that turn those debunkers into truthers?

That's because I'm not a truther. Your falsely labeling me as such and then contradicting yourself by saying "The concrete vs. steel differences are generally completely ignored by truthers". Since I'm pointing out the concrete vs steel differences you're in contradiction of your own statements by calling me a truther. Which obviously I'm not.

Argument which would only benefit a truther. If you're a debunker I wouldn't pursue it further as any more differences between this video and the WTC comes to demerit it as proof against CD.

You're taking us for fools? So expert engineers working on controlled demolition cases are just wasting their time? Controlled demolitions have never gone wrong? They shouldn't go wrong because no matter if an expert or a noob starts the demolition according to you "the direction of collapse is relatively insensitive to the precise details of collapse initiation". I'm sure some of the demolition experts here would not appreciate your demeriting of their expertise in such a profound way.

Once again, according to you controlled demolitions should never go wrong and precise structural analysis and microsecond computer controlled charges are just an unnecessary waste.
Click to expand...

Nothing but words...you're still ignoring the fact that large jet aircraft with full fuel loads were flown into the buildings.
 
For what purpose would a very very wealthy guy want to risk being caught in the most complex conspiracy ever known to the human race? To get even more wealthy? That doesn't make any sense java.

You don't have any facts to back up your claims. You have not provided evidence that he actually profited from the loss of those buildings. You must balance the insurance payout vs the amount it cost to rebuild the buildings and revenue lost over a ten year time period. Until you do so, you are simply grasping at straws in a quite embarrassing fashion.
 
Dragon37 said:
That $10 billion would be what it will cost to build the buildings. Construction costs are how much it will cost to build a structure at the time of the assessment. It is based on professional fees, materials, and estimated length of the project. There are any number of things that could lower or raise that final tag.

I can tell you from experience and relatives involved in both architecture and construction it is a very costly process. If your house was destroyed and your insurance was not guaranteed cost replacement (this is coverage is not applicable to every home) I 100% guarantee that you would not EVER get enough money from the insurance to be able to build a new home. I have a very small house that I could probably get $70 K for if I sold it. To build a whole new one the same size and layout would probably cost $120K minumum. Hell my sister is renovating her kitchen and that is going to cost her close to $50K.

There is no way in hell $4B would replace what was lost on 9/11. I seriously doubt Silverstein saw very much of that $3.4+ billion. My guess is he lost big money that day and the insurance only cushioned that fall a bit.
Click to expand...

Although it is true that it wont cover the expense of building it the cost of building it doesn't add up to 10B if you're in the deal too. Secondly its still 3.4 B+. Thirdly the new building comes at the added value of having no asbestos. How much would it have cost to take that out from the WTC?
 
Java Man said:
Although it is true that it wont cover the expense of building it the cost of building it doesn't add up to 10B if you're in the deal too. Secondly its still 3.4 B+. Thirdly the new building comes at the added value of having no asbestos. How much would it have cost to take that out from the WTC?
Click to expand...


There was very little asbestos at the world trade center.

here is the risk report documenting all occurrences of asbestos
http://www.tishmanconstruction.com/index.php?q=projects/commercialoffice/tower7
 
Sabretooth said:
Nothing but words...you're still ignoring the fact that large jet aircraft with full fuel loads were flown into the buildings.
Click to expand...

The fact that that topic hasn't been touched is in no way indicative that I'm ignoring it. We are just addressing other issues now. If you want to talk about the airplanes you are free to start your own thread. I'm quite convinced that the airplanes were flown into the buildings.
 
Java Man said:
I asked for a numeric value that represents the cost of removing said "little amount" of asbestos, not the actual amount in it.
Click to expand...
Since no contract exists to remove asbestos that had already been encapsulated with a coating of shotcrete from the first to 40th floor of a single tower, that figure does not exist. Do you want inflated rubber tires for them goalposts?

ETA
as a contractor, I have had asbestos cement removed from my jobs at a subcontracted cost of $4 per square foot. But the last time i needed that was 8 years ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom