payne1000

I think he is an evil Zionist because he didn't show up for work on 9/11 as he did on almost every other day. His son and daughter didn't make it to work on time that day either.
I think he is an evil Zionist because he and his Zionist cronies at the NYC Port Authority were the only ones who controlled access to the towers for the explosives to be installed.
I think he is an evil Zionist because he refused to name the fire chief he claimed to have spoken with on 9/11 about "pulling" WTC7.
Can you show where Silverstein is paying anything on the rebuilding of the World trade center?

emarine

.. the WTC rebuilding costs to date are over 14 billion...Silverstein got 4.6 billion and reinvested... here's some reading for you to digest...Adolf...


The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.

Our take...

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:

Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.

On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.

“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.

The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.

The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=60290

There have been other costs, too:

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm

$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).

That was a 2004 article, but problems continued. Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:

The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."

Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1191836-3,00.html

There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion. Is that the profit? This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree. Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):

Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...

The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...

It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?

Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.

Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.

Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.

But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.

With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61352.htm [broken, try...]
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost_dooming_downtown.htm

So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds. Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here. Is this true? We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what. However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.

And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money. He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained. And that’s not the only problem. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:

After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.

The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.

Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.

The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30B10F73D550C708EDDA90994D9404482

Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?

Now Adolf what were you trying to say?...

emarine

One more fact that messes up your bullshit Adolf...

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation


If Silverstein was so slick he would have waited until the policy's were written... putz

payne1000

Estimated cost and funding

An estimate in February 2007 placed the initial construction cost of One World Trade Center at about $3 billion, or $1,150 per square foot ($12,380 per square meter). However, the tower's total estimated construction cost had risen to $3.9 billion by April 2012, making it the most expensive building in the world at the time. The tower's construction was partly funded by approximately $1 billion of insurance money that Silverstein received for his losses in the September 11 attacks. The State of New York provided an additional $250 million, and the Port Authority agreed to give $1 billion, which would be obtained through the sale of bonds. The Port Authority raised prices for bridge and tunnel tolls to raise funds, with a 56 percent toll increase scheduled between 2011 and 2015; however, the proceeds of these increases were not used to pay for the tower's construction.

So it appears that Silverstein only spent 1 billion of his $4.5 billion to rebuild WTC 1. $3.5 billion is still in Silverstein's bank account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center

emarine

Very astute Adolf... but what about all the other buildings and projects on the 16 acres involved...putz

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/09/11/the_status_of_the_world_trade_center_complex_13_years_later.php

payne1000

Judging from the way WTC1 was financed, it would make sense the NY and NJ Port Authority and NYC taxpayers will pick up most of the tab. Silverstein is getting brand new buildings to lease--all of which do not have the asbestos insulation problem of the original buildings.

Now, explain why Silverstein refused to name the NYC fire commander he claimed to have made the infamous "pull it" comment to?

emarine

How about we try and focus on one of your fallacy's at a time now that "readers" know Jeff Fager is in fact not Jewish... Silverstein had to pay for the clean up and demolition costs plus 10 million per month in lease fees... all that came out of insurance payments as the moneys came in... there are also 100's of other expenses involved like legal fees fighting the insurance Co.'s and Architect's and engineers the list goes on and on for years before actual construction costs ...4.6 billion was not enough money for the scope of this project... he should have held out for the 7.5 billion... Now you're saying it was an asbestos problem and not evil Zionist world conquering Israeli's... :lol: ... now you can try and tie that one together for "readers"... is it that Israeli Jews are anti asbestos or something like that... Now you want to even try to get into something as asinine as the "pull the building" bullsh!t... come now, Adolf... what makes you think that Silverstein even knew the Chief's name to begin with... there were only like a dozen fire chiefs on site that day... and 911 was not a normal day for most involved... Even though Silverstein is a Jew... he's just a guy watching 30 odd years of his work and life go up in smoke... Adolf you really are a propaganda putz...

payne1000

Silverstein Makes a Huge
Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks

"Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.
From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. (BusinessWeek)

How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.
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. (Arctic Beacon)

Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.

Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

Silverstein, unless he is suffering from dementia or Alzheimers, would certainly remember the name of the fire commander he was talking to about something as important as "pulling" WTC7.

emarine

do you post anything but speculative hearsay and BS...
The Artic Beacon .... Really Adolf... that's what you chose to prove creditability... you're making this real easy...

http://www.arcticbeacon.blogspot.com/

Your conspiracy theory's get weaker with each link... What's next Adolf ... some wisdom from Alex Jones

payne1000

There were 6 links in the article, including iiRealEstate, The Monterey Herald, BusinessWeek, The Washington Post and Forbes.

You single out one of the sources and condemn the source without refuting the information it supplies. This site backs up what the Arctic beacon said about asbestos in the Twin Towers. http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/

More about Silverstein's activities on 9/11:

"Silverstein Allegedly Wants WTC 7 Demolished - Investigative reporter Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who is at the scene of the attacks in New York, will later recall: “Shortly before WTC 7 collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein… was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building, since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives.” Shapiro will add: “Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters, and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret.” Preparing a large building for demolition usually takes weeks, or even months. This time is spent on operations such as wrapping concrete columns to ensure pieces do not fly off."

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein

emarine

So Adolf... posting speculative links from 04 proves what?... Absolutely nothing that's what...Silverstein is a free man who excels in real estate... If anything you post had the least bit of "creditability" he would be broke and in federal prison... I would think that all the Insurers had the capital, expertise and motivation to find anything not to pay out 4.6 Billion dollars US for the WTC attack.... your theory's are foolish and old...

payne1000

Don't you think it's interesting that Silverstein would have to check with his insurance company to make sure he could collect if he authorized the controlled demolition of WTC7?

emarine

What I find interesting and what I find factual are two different issues Adolf... something you might consider when posting...

payne1000

Being a Zionist troll, you're paid to cover up the facts.
Therefore, I don't post information for you. I post it for those on this forum who are patriotic Americans.

emarine

"Zionism is the cause of all anti-Semitism in the world"... All you have proven thus far is...
Payne 1000 is the cause of all anti-Semitism on OPP... Nice work Adolf... you're obviously paid by volume not results...