Building demolished from the top down.

[beachnut]

I believe that yes and I'm not delusional. That's the point of an insurance isn't it? Pay a bit of the risk value and get paid the full if the event happens. I'm sure your car insurance doesn't cost more than your car right? It costs a fraction of it. Now if you loose your car in a car crash then you get paid the full value it was insured for. Now if you bought the car from a cash stripped friend at half the value you made some money out of it.

Now imagine you buy a semi at less than half value because the owner is in real need for money. Then down the road you're involved in an accident and two cars hit you. One in the cabin and one on the trailer. Your semi is wrecked, but you claim twice the insurance because there were two cars involved. You're making some serious money, more than four times what you paid for the semi.

What? No wonder you have moronic claims about 911.
You don't get full value on your car when you crash it. You loose money in most cases. You have no practical knowledge on anything related to 911, and may be the reason your have delusional fantasies on 911.

 

[Dragon37]

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?

So assuming Silverstein had a contracting firm and it was on the job of rebuilding it still wouldn't change the costs. What it does do is that it means that the money is still within the family, so to speak. That money is still tied up though it has been moved from one company to another. So technically you are not out any more money but at the same time that money is not in your account. The only time you get that money back out is when you have new tenants in the building paying rent. Until then all that money is still sitting on top of that original loss of the building and only slightly tempered by the money you got from insurance. But make no mistake using your own company isn't going to change that you are still in the overall loss margin.

 

[A W Smith]

I believe that yes and I'm not delusional. That's the point of an insurance isn't it? Pay a bit of the risk value and get paid the full if the event happens. I'm sure your car insurance doesn't cost more than your car right? It costs a fraction of it. Now if you loose your car in a car crash then you get paid the full value it was insured for. Now if you bought the car from a cash stripped friend at half the value you made some money out of it.

Now imagine you buy a semi at less than half value because the owner is in real need for money. Then down the road you're involved in an accident and two cars hit you. One in the cabin and one on the trailer. Your semi is wrecked, but you claim twice the insurance because there were two cars involved. You're making some serious money, more than four times what you paid for the semi.

boy oh boy, I missed this doozy, Thanks to beachnut for quoting it.
Insurance payouts wll NEVER EVER exceed the value of what is being insured. I dont care how many cars hit your semi.

please continue to post, If nothing else your profound ignorance is certainly entertaining.

 

[Java Man]

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.

So estimating from that what would the whole WTC cost? How much lost revenue would it be from rent? I'm guessing you can't have people underneath the area being cleaned can you?

 

[Java Man]

What? No wonder you have moronic claims about 911.
You don't get full value on your car when you crash it. You loose money in most cases. You have no practical knowledge on anything related to 911, and may be the reason your have delusional fantasies on 911.

Did you deliberately ignore the part where I mention you getting the semi at half the cost? Sure insurance policies don't pay full value, but they don't pay 50% either. And then if you get paid twice for your semi. Well that's like say twice the 90% of full value thats 180% of the value of something you only paid 50% for.

 

[A W Smith]

So estimating from that what would the whole WTC cost? How much lost revenue would it be from rent? I'm guessing you can't have people underneath the area being cleaned can you?

Sure you can, its done all the time during off hours or by isolating work zones and moving work stations around. But the asbestos posed no risk as it wasn't disturbed or friable, It is also a known fact that when tenant space became vacant the fire protection was upgraded.

 

[Java Man]

Insurance payouts wll NEVER EVER exceed the value of what is being insured. I dont care how many cars hit your semi.

Obviously I'm aware that they don't pay in excess, but they do have a value they set. So if you pay more for your car than what they're willing to insure it for then you'll loose more. If you get the car at a bargain price, less than what the insurance company values it then you're better off. If on top of that you get the insurance company to pay for it twice then you've certainly gained no matter what. Unless you're dumb enough to pay for an insurance that will only cover 40% of your car's value. I've never done that, usually I'm insured by over 80% of what I paid (deductibles included). But then I have no say in your choice of insurance policies.

 

[A W Smith]

Did you deliberately ignore the part where I mention you getting the semi at half the cost? Sure insurance policies don't pay full value, but they don't pay 50% either. And then if you get paid twice for your semi. Well that's like say twice the 90% of full value thats 180% of the value of something you only paid 50% for.

So Silverstein properties paid half the cost of the value of WTC?

 

[Java Man]

SIt is also a known fact that when tenant space became vacant the fire protection was upgraded.

So there is a good starting point to estimate the cost isn't it?

 

[Java Man]

So Silverstein properties paid half the cost of the value of WTC?

If you say so. I've bought enough information to clarify how much is Silverstein on record for paying. If you have other numbers please bring them forth.

 

[beachnut]

Did you deliberately ignore the part where I mention you getting the semi at half the cost? Sure insurance policies don't pay full value, but they don't pay 50% either. And then if you get paid twice for your semi. Well that's like say twice the 90% of full value thats 180% of the value of something you only paid 50% for.

You messed up, you have to have a value of the Semi, it you bought it for half price you will only get what it cost you maximum, day 1, before you move it. Sorry, you are talking fraud, you are showing your true colors. Good for you, no lie too big to spread on 911. Good job. Do you do insurance fraud for a living?

 

[Java Man]

You messed up, you have to have a value of the Semi, it you bought it for half price you will only get what it cost you maximum, day 1, before you move it. Sorry, you are talking fraud, you are showing your true colors. Good for you, no lie too big to spread on 911. Good job. Do you do insurance fraud for a living?

Wrong, you get paid a percent of market value. Not what it cost you. Policies usually don't cover accessories either. So if you put really expensive tires on it, bad luck. Hop up your engine, bad luck.

 

[A W Smith]

So there is a good starting point to estimate the cost isn't it?

@ $4 a square foot less than seven million? assuming none of the 40 floors had already been abated during a vacancy.


ETA update
http://www.whitestoneresearch.com/media/297/estimateasbestosliability.pdf

For estimating survey costs and removal and disposal costs, a recent
report for the Navy was our most valuable data source (4). In this study,
experienced engineers were asked to provide cost estimates for
“generic” buildings of various sizes. From these costs, we estimated a
simple linear equation that fit their estimates quite closely (r2=.97). Our
estimates, in terms of cost per square foot, are shown in Table 1.
For removal and disposal costs, we used a sample of 40 actual cleanup
cost estimates made by engineers at three sites (New London, Ventura,
and Beaufort). The sample includes administration, housing, mission
support, maintenance and production, storage, and utilities buildings.
Costs were normalized to the Washington DC area, and the arithmetic
mean ($6.92) and median ($5.34) costs per square foot were calculated.
The median is arguably the representative cost, in light of the skewing
effect of a few extreme values. We note that the median value derived
from the Navy sample is similar to the average cost reported in a large
sample study of California public buildings, $5.48 (5).

using $6.92 PSF cost , works out to $11,975,475.20 for 40 floors total.

 

[GlennB]

I asked for a numeric value that represents the cost of removing said "little amount" of asbestos, not the actual amount in it.

Not as much as you might have in mind. The asbestos removal cost oft-quoted by Truthers was actually the total amount for all NYPA properties, not just the WTC. Look it up.

 

[A W Smith]

If you say so. I've bought enough information to clarify how much is Silverstein on record for paying. If you have other numbers please bring them forth.

He was still liable for the lease for a building that ceased to exist on 9/11. Ten years later, where is that asset?

 

[tsig]

So estimating from that what would the whole WTC cost? How much lost revenue would it be from rent? I'm guessing you can't have people underneath the area being cleaned can you?

We'll dress then up as elevator repairmen and no one will notice.

 

[tsig]

Obviously I'm aware that they don't pay in excess, but they do have a value they set. So if you pay more for your car than what they're willing to insure it for then you'll loose more. If you get the car at a bargain price, less than what the insurance company values it then you're better off. If on top of that you get the insurance company to pay for it twice then you've certainly gained no matter what. Unless you're dumb enough to pay for an insurance that will only cover 40% of your car's value. I've never done that, usually I'm insured by over 80% of what I paid (deductibles included). But then I have no say in your choice of insurance policies.

I'd like to buy some of those cars. Can you point out where?

 

[tsig]

So there is a good starting point to estimate the cost isn't it?

You really should have had all this sorted out before you posted it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
We can't see what internal parts of the structure have been removed as well.

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.

Are you argueing that because one cannot know for certain if a small amount of explosives were used that it is an equally valid theory of what caused the demise of the WTC structures?

That is known as an arguement from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

What we DO know is that the structures had major fires raging within them. The towers had significant structural damage as the fires broke out due to the aircraft impacts. We know that they were constructed with long span floor spaces and other idiosyncracies of construction. We have 100 years of science showing that steel is quite significantly affected by heat. All of these things contribute to bolstering the theory that the structures collapsed due to aircraft impact and fire.

The theories that introduce explosives or thermite do so with absolutly no evidence of the presence of those materials.

Now you would like like us to see that this video shows that only a small number of explosives need be used when in fact it illustrates that NO explosives are required to accomplish the results seen on 9/11.

The more you reduce the number/amount of explosives/incidiaries required, the closer you get to showing that none were needed(which answers the question as to why conspiracists usually do not try to make their senarios less complicated)

 

[Java Man]

He was still liable for the lease for a building that ceased to exist on 9/11. Ten years later, where is that asset?

So far I've assumed he is liable, but is he. Do you have any proof that he still has to pay for it?