Loose Change - Part III

[Dave_46]

Fire temperatures

It really is very simple. If you can see flames then the temperature is at least 800 Centigrade. When you are looking at flames you are looking at glowing particulates (soot). The colour of the flames give an indication of temperature. I say again, if you can see flames the temperature is at least 800 C.

Dave

 

[MarkyX]

Good a link for this?

 

[JamesB]

This is one area where I can provide some "expert" knowledge, as a former commercial loan officer and underwriter. Buildings are typically not insured for the replacement cost, or even the replacement cost less accrued depreciation. Most lenders will insist on a policy to at least cover the loan amount; by all accounts Silverstein had to negotiate this with the money partners and tried to keep the insurable value as low as possible, because higher values require correspondingly higher premiums.

Of course, if he was running some sort of planned demolition, he would have wanted the insurable value to be as high as possible.

Exactly, it is a simple principle of indemnification. No insurance company is going to let you insure a property for more than it is worth, so the concept of buying a property for the sole purpose of destroying it for profit is a joke.

In fact, you can try this at home. I challenge one of the Loosers to go out, buy a brand new car, insure it, and then a week later burn it to a crisp. Then they can come back and tell us how much they made off the deal.

But hey, these are the same people who thought it was suspect that Marvin Bush was connected to one of the insurance companies. Because we all know how profitable it is for insurance companies to destroy the property they insure.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Yeah, Fetzer goes on about this. He insists the fires didn't top 500 degrees, although the previous fire they had at the world trade center was over 2000. He never explains why this fire is so much cooler.

Everyone knows that smoke color is a very accurate temperature gauge, especially when you see it on a still image or video and you don't know what the camera settings were or whether you have your display monitor adjusted appropriately.

Since the smoke was a semi-dark matte gray according to the above technique, it indicates temperatures below 500C. It's cut and dried. 100% proof.

 

[MikeW]

Another point re: Silverstein and the insurers: despite some CTs talking about him making massive profits, the fact is the insurers still owe billions, and suggest the April agreement between the Port Authority and Silverstein means they might not pay some of it at all. As a result they're now being sued for the money, so we'll have to see what happens (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/430203p-362693c.html)

 

[MikeW]

Re: the black smoke, I recently added this quote to 911myths.com, from a fire investigator:

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

 

[jhunter1163]

I can't post links yet because I'm too new, but if you Google "freedom tower project costs" you'll find the link to the Silverstein quote of $12 billion on the first page. It's an MSNBC story.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Another point re: Silverstein and the insurers: despite some CTs talking about him making massive profits, the fact is the insurers still owe billions, and suggest the April agreement between the Port Authority and Silverstein means they might not pay some of it at all. As a result they're now being sued for the money, so we'll have to see what happens (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/430203p-362693c.html)

It also means we can put additional legal costs in the negative column.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I can't post links yet because I'm too new, but if you Google "freedom tower project costs" you'll find the link to the Silverstein quote of $12 billion on the first page. It's an MSNBC story.

Thanks.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3757111/

$12 billion price tag
Silverstein has put the cost of the entire redevelopment project at up to $12 billion over 10 years. Previous estimates had put the cost at between $4 billion and $7 billion. The tower itself could cost $1.5 billion.
Silverstein expects $7 billion to come from insurance proceeds -- an amount that is the subject of a bitter lawsuit between the leaseholder and insurance companies. He has said $5 billion would come from government sources.

 

[Apollyon]

It really is very simple. If you can see flames then the temperature is at least 800 Centigrade. When you are looking at flames you are looking at glowing particulates (soot). The colour of the flames give an indication of temperature. I say again, if you can see flames the temperature is at least 800 C.

Dave

I don't know if I agree with your description of what constitutes a flame, but the 800C figure is probably pretty close, if not low-balling a bit:

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

Note that portions of the wiki article are under dispute.

 

[Brainster]

I was bored recently and worked out some basic analysis of Silverstein's losses. As we know, he has recieved $5 billion in insurance, often used as CT evidence usually tying in with 'pull it'. But I've never seen any CTer factor in the loss of office rental.


He owned leases on the following buildings, and owned WTC7 outright:

WTC7 - 1,868,000sqft
WTC5 – 784,000sqft
WTC4 – 576,000sqft
WTC2 – 4,761,000sqft
WTC1 – 4,761,000sqft

Total: 12,750,000sqft.

I've not found any figures which state how much of the complex was under rent on 9/11, so i'll estimate it was 90%. And i'll estimate an average office rent of $50 per square foot. A little high, possibly, but asking prices for vacant suites at WTC were in that ballpark: http://www.unblinking.com/arc/2001-09c.htm

12,750,000sqft x 0.9 = 11,475,000sqft. X $50 = $573,750,000 loss per year.
Upto 9/11/2006, Silverstein would have lost $573,750,000 x 5 = $2,868,750,000 in office rent.
Add the $600m in rental paid to the PA, and the loss grows to $3,468,750,000 by September 11th, 2006.


But this can be taken further. The 'Freedom Tower' is now under construction, but not due to finish until 2011, and even then it will be 2.3m sqft which is about 50% the size of one of the twins. The rest of the buildings are due later than that.
At this point, WTC7 is subtracted from the equation since the new one opened in June 2006, though it was only 25% pre-let when it opened, so there will be further losses here, but it is removed to keep things simple.


Subtracting a 90% let WTC7 leaves us with 9,793,800sqft to calculate the loss between 2006-2011.

9,793,800 x $50 = $489,690,000 loss per year.
x 5 = $2,448,450,000 loss.
Add the $630m in rent that would be paid in those 5 years at £138m a year, and we have a total of $3,078,450,000.

Total ten year loss on office rents: $5,317,200,000
Portion of original lease paid from 2001-2011: $1,230,000,000

It would be interesting to refine these figures with more accurate data for the average office rent price and the amount of space which was occupied on 9/11.

A number of points:

1. The insurance on the buildings included rent loss insurance. I am not sure if the insurers have started to pay out on this; I know that early on they were reluctant to do so until a settlement was reached on the single incident/two incidents argument, because they knew they'd just be funding the lawsuit against themselves.

2. The WTC was probably not generating $50/SF rents. A recent article about the new WTC 7 indicated that Silverstein only recently increased the asking rents on that building from $50/SF. My guess is that the average rental was probably somewhere in the $30-$35/SF range, even if the asking rent was $50.

3. Although he certainly suffered loss of rents, don't forget that he also had no expenses that go along with those rents--no utilities, no janitorial service, no security expenses, no insurance expenses, and dramatically reduced real estate taxes. Most office buildings are leased on a gross basis, with the landlord responsible for all operating expenses. I don't know what office expenses are in New York but it would surprise me greatly if they aren't at least $10/SF.

 

[dubfan]

An interesting thread on the Professional Pilots board.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233975

Ah, I see legions of 757 and 767 pilots are lining up behind the CTs.

Not.

 

[dubfan]

IIRC, to cook a proper Chicago deep dish pizza you need 600 F. Which is why you can't make one at home.

Careful, you're going to give Judy Wood ideas. For her next trick, she's going to compare the WTC to a pizza. I expect more experiments from the chicken-wire-and-kerosene boy to follow.

 

[DavidJames]

Ah, I see legions of 757 and 767 pilots are lining up behind the CTs.

Not.

johndoeX was pointed to that thread, he posted some stuff in that LC thread and told the person to post it over there and invite them to LC.

Sounds like he's afraid to leave the comfort and safety of his sandbox.

 

[Belz...]

I just got an email from Jon Ronson. He has registered here and is waiting for approval, so I expect we'll be seeing him on the boards before long.

Excellent! We need to replace those ninjas with fresh blood.

Humm... blood.

 

[Gravy]

WTC7 - 1,868,000sqft
WTC5 – 784,000sqft
WTC4 – 576,000sqft
WTC2 – 4,761,000sqft
WTC1 – 4,761,000sqft

Total: 12,750,000sqft.

Interesting calculations, Mancman. Boredom is a powerful motivator.
A few corrections: the square footage you're using is total floor plan space, including service cores and mechanical floors. Rentable space was about 25% less.

Silverstein Properties is to receive $4.6 billion in insurance payments, but only a portion has been paid. Anyone have an update on that? (ETA: MikeW covered this above.)

Edit: Interesting Oct., 2001 paper on potential 9/11 economic impact and rebuilding costs in NYC. The figures were very preliminary and inaccurate, but it's a sobering reminder of how many people and buildings were affected. One estimate puts the average downtown office rental at $75 per sq. ft., but that sounds awfully high, even considering the outrageous rises there during the dot-com boom. http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/reports/WTC_Attack_Oct_4-final.pdf

 

[Gravy]

3. Although he certainly suffered loss of rents, don't forget that he also had no expenses that go along with those rents--no utilities, no janitorial service, no security expenses, no insurance expenses, and dramatically reduced real estate taxes.

True except in building 7, which he owned.

 

[Apollyon]

Another point re: Silverstein and the insurers: despite some CTs talking about him making massive profits, the fact is the insurers still owe billions, and suggest the April agreement between the Port Authority and Silverstein means they might not pay some of it at all. As a result they're now being sued for the money, so we'll have to see what happens (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/430203p-362693c.html)

Keep in mind that the insurers and Silverstein are in on the plot together. They must be or else the insurance companies would see the troof presented in LC, know that Larry demoed the buildings, and refuse payment at all. That's why they're not demnading a "real" investigation too.

 

[Mancman]

A number of points:

1. The insurance on the buildings included rent loss insurance. I am not sure if the insurers have started to pay out on this; I know that early on they were reluctant to do so until a settlement was reached on the single incident/two incidents argument, because they knew they'd just be funding the lawsuit against themselves.

2. The WTC was probably not generating $50/SF rents. A recent article about the new WTC 7 indicated that Silverstein only recently increased the asking rents on that building from $50/SF. My guess is that the average rental was probably somewhere in the $30-$35/SF range, even if the asking rent was $50.

3. Although he certainly suffered loss of rents, don't forget that he also had no expenses that go along with those rents--no utilities, no janitorial service, no security expenses, no insurance expenses, and dramatically reduced real estate taxes. Most office buildings are leased on a gross basis, with the landlord responsible for all operating expenses. I don't know what office expenses are in New York but it would surprise me greatly if they aren't at least $10/SF.

Good points, of course. It was only a very basic bit of number crunching.....

 

[Brainster]

Good points, of course. It was only a very basic bit of number crunching.....

It's just rare that my specialized knowledge of commercial property comes up outside of business, so I couldn't resist.