Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[Firestone]

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?

What truthers "forget" is that he was not the owner of WTC 1, 2, 4 & 5.
So while he received $3.7 billion in insurance payout, his rebuilding costs are much higher. And he is not rebuilding his own property, but only leased property.

That he is not using the insurance payout for the rebuilding is a blatant lie (cherry picking a badly worded sentence in a New York Times article notwithstanding).

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What truthers "forget" is that he was not the owner of WTC 1, 2, 4 & 5.
So while he received $3.7 billion in insurance payout, his rebuilding costs are much higher. And he is not rebuilding his own property, but only leased property.

True but again it has no real affect on his net worth. Even if he ploughed all 10 billion into a new 20 billion dollar building which he actually owned (obviously with other investors who put in the other 10 billion) he still only has 10 Billion in assets.
As it is he had assets worth X billion on Sept 10th, 2001 and he only received X - Y dollars from his insurance. He has lost Y dollars. What he then does with his X-Y dollars is irrelevant.

 

[Bosozoku]

My favorite argument in this whole thing is that Silverstein conspired to demolish the World Trade Center because he didn't want to pay for asbestos removal. Truthers seem to actually think that Silverstein looked at the following two options:

1. Pay for asbestos removal; or

2. Murder thousands, risk getting caught and going down as one of the greatest villains in the history of the world

And they think that he decided, screw it, let's blow the Towers up and kill everyone. As if a murderous, heinous conspiracy was the best way out of his asbestos problem. As if he couldn't just make the money back without murdering thousands, for instance by increasing the price of rent to future renters to pay for the costs of asbestos removal.

You have to be a special kind of crazy to actually think someone would do something like this to take care of an asbestos problem.

 

[alienentity]

My favorite argument in this whole thing is that Silverstein conspired to demolish the World Trade Center because he didn't want to pay for asbestos removal. Truthers seem to actually think that Silverstein looked at the following two options:

...
You have to be a special kind of crazy to actually think someone would do something like this to take care of an asbestos problem.

9/11 Truth is a special kind of crazy. For sure.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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.

The requirement to rebuild may have been part of the lease between the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties.

The [lease] says if the complex is destroyed "by fire, the elements, [or] the public enemy," then Silverstein "shall rebuild" it, "in accordance, to the extent feasible, prudent and commercially reasonable, with the plans and specifications" for the twin towers.

Source: WTC lease calls for new towers Must rebuild complex as it was

There should be more information about this somewhere...

ETA:

If the Premises ... or any structures, improvements, fixtures and equipment, furnishings and physical property located thereon, or any part thereof, shall be damaged or destroyed by fire, the elements, the public enemy or other casualty, or by reason of any cause whatsoever and whether partial or total, the Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, and whether or not such damage or destruction is covered by insurance proceeds sufficient for the purpose, shall remove all debris resulting from such damage or destruction, and shall rebuild, restore, repair and replace the Premises ... and any structures, improvements, fixtures and equipment, furnishings and physical property located thereon substantially in accordance, to the extent feasible, prudent and commercially reasonable, with the plans and specifications, for the same as they existed prior to such damage or destruction or with the consent in writing of the Port Authority, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, make such repairs, replacements, changes or alterations as is mutually agreed to by the Port Authority and the Lessee.

Id. at § 15.1.

Source: IN RE SEPTEMBER 11TH LITIGATION

 

[LSSBB]

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?

I bought a car for 10 grand. My car got demolished in an accident.

Later…

The insurance company gave me 10 grand. Wow! 10 grand! I made out like a bandit!

 

[RedIbis]

That he is not using the insurance payout for the rebuilding is a blatant lie (cherry picking a badly worded sentence in a New York Times article notwithstanding).

So now the NYTimes is lying. Show me where he's using his own money to rebuild 2,3, or 4.

 

[uke2se]

So now the NYTimes is lying. Show me where he's using his own money to rebuild 2,3, or 4.

By "own money" you mean "insurance money", I presume.

 

[NoahFence]

C'mon Red. Is it really that difficult to admit that maybe you were wrong on something? It's not like we're going to steal your wife or burn your house down for chrissake. We're just people on the internet ffs.

 

[RedIbis]

By "own money" you mean "insurance money", I presume.

Since he considers the proceeds his own money, go for it.

 

[carlitos]

Just like they demolished the White House so they could install electricity. O wait....

Interestingly, when Lincoln was on his deathbed, they actually had air conditioning.

So now the NYTimes is lying. Show me where he's using his own money to rebuild 2,3, or 4.

This just in - "badly worded" ≠ "lying"

 

[uke2se]

Since he considers the proceeds his own money, go for it.

If your house burned down, would you consider the insurance payout "your money" or someone else's money?

 

[Travis]

I believe there is a link in that other thread I linked to. If someone wants to go hunt it down they can.


Anyways here is how it broke down.

Silverstein paid out $2 billion in rent.

Another $1.5 billion has been spent on the below ground infrastructure (remember he was not allowed to rebuild where the old buildings were so he had to build all new foundations).

Leaving him roughly $1 billion to try and build three new skyscrapers. Which is not enough which is why he went and sought out financing help.

 

[Travis]

Remember that Silverstein had to go into binding arbitration over the money issue. All his finances were disclosed to the courts who ruled that the Port Authority could not charge him rent anymore.

 

[NoahFence]

Remember that Silverstein had to go into binding arbitration over the money issue. All his finances were disclosed to the courts who ruled that the Port Authority could not charge him rent anymore.

So if all the money information was readily available, why didn't the insurance company tell Silverstein to pound sand, that he wasn't going to profit off of 9/11 on their watch?

Hmm...

Could it be that he didn't profit off of it?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Interestingly, when Lincoln was on his deathbed, they actually had air conditioning.

Too bad he wasn't home at the time.

 

[carlitos]

Too bad he wasn't home at the time.

Hey thanks, I had forgotten that. Maybe they rigged it at the Petersen House (or more likely I'm mis-remembering the book I read).

 

[aggle-rithm]

So if all the money information was readily available, why didn't the insurance company tell Silverstein to pound sand, that he wasn't going to profit off of 9/11 on their watch?

Well, you know insurance companies. They're a pretty laid-back bunch of folks, and wouldn't think of questioning a claim. Sure, they may occasionally hand out billions of dollars the client isn't entitled too, but better that than offend someone by questioning their integrity. That's just good customer service.

 

[A W Smith]

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.
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.

"The Process of Creating a Ruin" In 1999's Divided We Stand, author Eric Darton speculated on the World Trade Center's demise -- literally and economically:

As you spread your as well as Dartons ignorance. Let me give you an example of "return on investment" profitability. The Empire State Building. Completed in 1931, Did not start to return a profit until 1950. Yet today it still stands. As far as Asbestos which only encapsulated the steel of 16.6% total of a single tower (there were 2 towers remember? And im not even going to mention 3,5,6,and 7, which didn't have asbestos at all) Was it better to "abate" this asbestos by spreading it all over lower Manhattan? I THINK NOT. As far as your fiber optic nonsense, (Thousands of electrical links would be required to replace a single high bandwidth fiber cable)Ill just let somebody Stundie that for you, I mean as far as ignorance, you are really leaving everyone witnessing your posts here with no doubt!

 

[000063]

Beyond being stupendously idiotic, I'm not sure which fallacy this qualifies as... Affirming the consequent? Circular reasoning?

Is there a "grasping at straws" fallacy?

Also, have you noticed how rarely ergo makes actual assertions, instead of merely questioning ours and creatively misinterpreting them in a sarcastic manner?