Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[Cl1mh4224rd]

One thing I never get about this debate. How can you simultaneously think it was Bush and the Jews trying to control the world through oil wars and at the same time accuse Larry for pulling an insurance scam? It's almost like they treat it as two separate events. To this day I've never seen a coherent link between Larry and his alleged high level involvement (got to be up there to be blowing **** up personally) with the evil leaders of the free world.

Heh. I made a similar observation a couple pages back:

On another note, whenever truthers talk about Larry Silverstein and his "pull it" quote, it always has this weird feeling of being completely separate from everything else that happened on that day. As if 9/11 occurred, Mr. Silverstein decided to take advantage of it to commit insurance fraud, and that proving this fraud somehow proves 9/11 itself to be a fraud. Huh?

Great minds yadda-yadda...

 

[Travis]

Rebuilding from an insurance windfall is much less costly than if he had had to wait for leases to end, demolish the buildings himself, then rebuild.

And if he were required to build the new skyscrapers out of golden elephants it would be even more difficult. But, how about we just stick with this reality where there was no reason to demolish the buildings?

There were undoubtedly other reasons why he wanted them down, but two of them may be that the towers required asbestos abatement, and there has been some suggestion that rewiring them for fibre optics with the existing t/c infrastructure was going to be problematic.

Only part of the building required asbestos abatement and that was being done in an already ongoing operation.

No idea what this is referring to.

After Silverstein got the foundation for the new WTC1 built the Port Authority took it back from him so he will no longer collect any lease money from it.

As I said above, waiting for leases to run out and the building to slowly empty would have cost much more. These costs may also have been included in the insurance claim.

Of course the insurance companies would have laughed at him for trying it.

I have no doubt the PA has been giving him a good deal, in addition to the fact that all these considerations would not only be tax write-offs but may again have been included in the insurance claim.

He was awarded two claims for two separate "acts of terror". Yes, I think he did make out like a bandit.

He was only awarded two claims from some of the insurers. And it did not amount to much.

 

[cjnewson88]

One thing I never get about this debate. How can you simultaneously think it was Bush and the Jews trying to control the world through oil wars and at the same time accuse Larry for pulling an insurance scam? It's almost like they treat it as two separate events. To this day I've never seen a coherent link between Larry and his alleged high level involvement (got to be up there to be blowing **** up personally) with the evil leaders of the free world.

He's rich and possibly jewish, isn't that enough of a connection?

 

[cjnewson88]

Rebuilding from an insurance windfall is much less costly than if he had had to wait for leases to end, demolish the buildings himself, then rebuild.

He had a 100 year lease on it.. unless the NWO was supplying top secrete age extension pills, please explain how this comment makes any sense?

There were undoubtedly other reasons why he wanted them down, but two of them may be that the towers required asbestos abatement

As is commonly known anywhere you care to find it, the asbestos was only ever applied to the bottom 38 stories of the North Tower. Its use was restricted during construction, so the remaining floors of the North Tower and the entire South Tower contained no asbestos. Even though there was no legal obligation, around half of this had already been removed by 9/11 (IIRC).

and there has been some suggestion that rewiring them for fibre optics with the existing t/c infrastructure was going to be problematic.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm pretty sure ergo has no idea how insurance actually works...

 

[ergo]

Only part of the building required asbestos abatement and that was being done in an already ongoing operation.

Incorrect.

After Silverstein got the foundation for the new WTC1 built the Port Authority took it back from him so he will no longer collect any lease money from it.

Well then, I guess the loss of rental income isn't such a concern for him, is it?

He was only awarded two claims from some of the insurers. And it did not amount to much.

$4.6 billion on a $124 million down payment is "not much", according to Travis.

 

[ergo]

He had a 100 year lease on it.. unless the NWO was supplying top secrete age extension pills, please explain how this comment makes any sense?

Tenant leases. Do you know what they are?

 

[cjnewson88]

Tenant leases. Do you know what they are?

And the expect reason he would seek to empty out, dismantle and rebuilding an entire complex that was only 30 years old?

Where is the logic in Larry taking the lease on a property which would bankrupt him to demolish and rebuild? Easy answer; he didn't. He took the lease on a relatively modern and recent complex which was bursting with profit, and was sitting at 98% occupancy.

edit: and please ergo, inform me HOW Larry is connected/involved in this massive conspiracy? Was it all his idea? Or did Bush approach him and say "hey, we wanna blow these buildings in a couple of years stacked with people. Get the lease, make sure your insurance is in order and $$$"

 

[ergo]

And the expect reason he would seek to empty out, dismantle and rebuilding an entire complex that was only 30 years old?

I've already posted some information on this. Here's some more:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

In this article, Greg Szymanski makes this claim:

In fact, it was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem.

Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

But, admittedly, he hasn't sourced any of this info.

 

[GlennB]

Incorrect.

Actually, Travis was perfectly correct. Abatement was well under way on one of the towers.

$4.6 billion on a $124 million down payment is "not much", according to Travis.

My house might be insured for €250k against a yearly premium of €300. That doesn't mean that if it burns down they hand me €250k and wish me a good day. The money pays for rebuilding. If it costs €300k to rebuild then I've lost a hefty chunk of money. If it costs €200k to rebuild then that's what they'll pay.The 250k is their maximum liability.

Do you understand this concept? Many people are underinsured in this way, often without realising it, as they don't appreciate the difference between 'current value' and 'rebuilding costs'.

In fact Silverstein originally wanted less insurance than the final amount but the insurance companies talked him up to the higher figure. Hardly the behaviour of a con-artist/international conspirator.

 

[cjnewson88]

I've already posted some information on this. Here's some more:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

In this article, Greg Szymanski makes this claim:



But, admittedly, he hasn't sourced any of this info.

The question was rhetorical. Regardless, you still failed to answer it.

You're relying on un-sourced information as evidence? Not a good argument ergo.

Also, you missed a point:

please ergo, inform me HOW Larry is connected/involved in this massive conspiracy? Was it all his idea? Or did Bush approach him and say "hey, we wanna blow these buildings in a couple of years stacked with people. Get the lease, make sure your insurance is in order and $$$"

 

[ozeco41]

.... Your stupidity never fails to amaze me ergo.

It doesn't matter. The trolling goal is satisfied when you respond. The more stupid the comment the more likely he will get a response. From his perspective it is better if the coment is stupid - whether he knows it or not.

I'm pretty sure ergo has no idea how insurance actually works...

He doesn't need to understand. In fact if he did it could be counter productive to his goal. See my previous comment.

 

[ergo]

Actually, Travis was perfectly correct. Abatement was well under way on one of the towers.

How much was completed?

Travis was minimizing both the presence of asbestos in other forms and the liability in removing, especially while tenants are still occupying the building.

My house might be insured for €250k against a yearly premium of €300. That doesn't mean that if it burns down they hand me €250k and wish me a good day. The money pays for rebuilding. If it costs €300k to rebuild then I've lost a hefty chunk of money. If it costs €200k to rebuild then that's what they'll pay.The 250k is their maximum liability.

Considering they wanted new towers anyway, they got the old ones demolished for free, are not accountable for the release of asbestos into the air, and got a massive nest egg for rebuilding.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

 

[tsig]

How much was completed?

Travis was minimizing both the presence of asbestos in other forms and the liability in removing, especially while tenants are still occupying the building.




Considering they wanted new towers anyway, they got the old ones demolished for free, are not accountable for the release of asbestos into the air, and got a massive nest egg for rebuilding.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

Who's they and why did they want new towers?

ETA: How did committing insurance fraud fit into the plot?

 

[cjnewson88]

Considering they wanted new towers

Evidence to support this claim please.

 

[ergo]

Um, Newson, were you not just involved in this discussion over the last two pages...??

 

[cjnewson88]

Um, Newson, were you not just involved in this discussion over the last two pages...??

you're saying somewhere over the last two pages, you provided evidence that Larry and the PA wanted new towers? I best go look.

 

[000063]

Why are you bored with it? Your inability to finish it? To come to and discuss your conclusion?

To prove Larry "made out like a bandit"?

 

[cjnewson88]

On inspection, I find a link to the same un-sourced quote you wrote above, and a link to a 2001 Business article which talks about prior to the 1993 bombings the Towers were lacking in the electronic capacity to compete with other buildings, however you seemed to have left out a little fact which followed immediately after your post -

"The Port Authority, however, possessed capacities far beyond those of a commercial landlord, among them a $2.6 billion annual budget and the ability to generate capital through bonds, tolls, fares, and airport disembarkation tariffs. The PA had the wherewithal in 1993 to rebuild the trade center and perform the necessary renovations"

The rest of the article talks about the issue of privatization for the PA.

In summery, I see no link, evidence, or even a discussion regarding Larry and the PA wanting "New Towers".

 

[000063]

Incorrect.
...

Evidence to support this claim please.

Um, Newson, were you not just involved in this discussion over the last two pages...??

Nice to see you're keeping up your usual rigorous standard of evidence.

The sad part is that you doubtless actually think you really provided evidence.