Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Okay, since Larry got a bunch of money for rebuilding/rent would someone from the Truther side like to speculate on why Silverstein isn't building all the new buildings (WTC7 is done and WTC4 is coming along but WTC2 and WTC3 are nothing more than plans at this point)?

Is the insinuation here that he was part of a plot to get just enough money so that ten years later he only has enough money to build the foundations of new buildings?

Really?

We've been through this before. WTC 4 was rebuilt with PA financing.
Silverstein will build bldgs 2 and 3 if/when real estate market improves, private financing is provided, and leases are secured.

He has no intention of contributing any of the insurance proceeds, which he considers his own money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21zero.html
 
Last edited:
And he still lost 10,000,000 times more money than you and I combined will see in our lifetimes.


So much for making out like a bandit.
 
We've been through this before. WTC 4 was rebuilt with PA financing.
Silverstein will build bldgs 2 and 3 if/when real estate market improves, private financing is provided, and leases are secured.

He has no intention of contributing any of the insurance proceeds, which he considers his own money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21zero.html

I know what's missing in your calculations.

Do you?
 
I don't think the insurance companies would like their money being shifted to other projects.


I think that would depend on the wording of the policy......There is as far as I know no absolute legal requirement to rebuild a property. A bank may be interested in getting its money back if has loans secured on the building but other than that what you do with your property is really up to you (and local zoning requirements.
 
Wow, 9/11 truthers are freaking stupid.
Yes, they are.

But that New York Times article is poorly written, so they can (and do) spin it. :rolleyes:

Here another New York Times article, which shows how much Silverstein really got as insurance payout (for the leased WTC, this doesn't include WTC 7).

The insurance payouts are far lower than the rebuilding cost, so he lost billions on 9/11.

That's called being "lucky" and "making out like a bandit" in some quarters. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Yes, they are.

But that New York Times article is poorly written, so they can (and do) spin it. :rolleyes:

Here another New York Times article, which shows how much Silverstein really got as insurance payout (for the leased WTC, this doesn't include WTC 7).

The insurance payouts are far lower than the rebuilding cost, so he lost billions on 9/11.

That's called being "lucky" and "making out like a bandit" in some quarters. :confused:

The link you post is two years earlier than the one I did.
 
Indeed, so what?

Unless they can show that somehow Silverstein suddenly got billions more from the insurance companies, or that the rebuilding costs suddenly dropped by billions, of course.

Expect convincing evidence within minutes ... :D
 
Indeed, so what?

Unless they can show that somehow Silverstein suddenly got billions more from the insurance companies, or that the rebuilding costs suddenly dropped by billions, of course.

Expect convincing evidence within minutes ... :D

Specifically, what rebuilding do you think LS is responsible for?
 
Its not outdated and you know it. Older doesn't mean outdated.

Hell, I had all the information I needed on the cause of the collapses before the 2nd tower even collapsed!

And guess what? I've yet to be proven wrong.
 
Specifically, how did Larry make out like a bandit?
Truthers have had years to give a comprehensive set of figures showing that Silverstein Properties profited from the 9/11 attacks.

They never have, and they never will.

You first. You were asked, how many months (years?) ago?
I have no problem answering his question.
Silverstein Properties is responsible for Two World Trade Center, Three World Trade Center and Four World Trade Center.
(again leaving out WTC7, which was not part of the lease)
 
Truthers have had years to give a comprehensive set of figures showing that Silverstein Properties profited from the 9/11 attacks.

They never have, and they never will.

I have no problem answering his question.
Silverstein Properties is responsible for Two World Trade Center, Three World Trade Center and Four World Trade Center.
(again leaving out WTC7, which was not part of the lease)

They can't even try to explain how explosives survived in the first place. This makes every single retarded truther narrative irrelevant.
 
Truthers have had years to give a comprehensive set of figures showing that Silverstein Properties profited from the 9/11 attacks.

They never have, and they never will.

I have no problem answering his question.
Silverstein Properties is responsible for Two World Trade Center, Three World Trade Center and Four World Trade Center.
(again leaving out WTC7, which was not part of the lease)

Maybe you didn't see this when I posted it just a few posts above:

We've been through this before. WTC 4 was rebuilt with PA financing.
Silverstein will build bldgs 2 and 3 if/when real estate market improves, private financing is provided, and leases are secured.

He has no intention of contributing any of the insurance proceeds, which he considers his own money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21zero.html
 
They can't even try to explain how explosives survived in the first place. This makes every single retarded truther narrative irrelevant.
Now now, all truthers aren't retarded. Some are mentally ill.
 
Maybe you didn't see this when I posted it just a few posts above:

We've been through this before. WTC 4 was rebuilt with PA financing.
Silverstein will build bldgs 2 and 3 if/when real estate market improves, private financing is provided, and leases are secured.

He has no intention of contributing any of the insurance proceeds, which he considers his own money.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21zero.html


Which of course its is. Red lets make this simple for you......Larry has bought a lease on a big building. So to all intents an purposes he owned the buildings. Now a few years later this lease is worth say 10 billion dollars, so he has assets of 10 Billion dollars, he is worth 10 billion.

He insures the building for, lets be generous, the full 10 billion. Now bad guys fly planes into them and they fall down. They are now worth nothing so Larry is now 10 billion dollars poorer........
Luckily he remembers he has insurance and after a bit of prodding they pay him the full 10 Billion. He is now worth 10 billion again except now its in cash rather than in the form of a lease of a very big building.

Do you understand now that the money is his?:rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom