It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Larry Silverstein give money to charity?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I was wondering if there is any links to show that Larry Silvertein, who profited over 6 billion dollars in the day the towers collapsed, if he donated his profits to families in need.




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I'm really interested here guys!



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I found this:


Silverstein told his friends in Israel that for the next five years, he will be busy rehabilitating [Ground Zero]. It's the last project of my life, he explained to an Israeli acquaintance. To advance his project, Silverstein needs the support of politicians. He has paid three visits to Washington since September 11. As the largest private donor to Hillary Clinton, he has an open door to the office of the junior senator from New York. Other senators who received hefty donations from Silverstein have said that they are in favor of the project at Ground Zero.


But I haven't found anything of him donating to anyone but those Senators.

I've heard that he was planning to use the money he won to build something back up at Ground Zero, but there's a lot of controversy around that, and if the lot becomes public property (like a memorial, etc.), then all of that money just goes back into his pocket.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Thanks bsbray,

I just can't believe this question has not come up on a public forum somewhere. Thousands of families lose life, he profits billions. He argued and won in court that it was two attacks and insurance had to pay twice. So 3.5 billion would've been enough to rebuild and put him back with ownership, but how about the other 3.5 billion. It just adds insult to injury to the conspiracies surrounding this.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
So 3.5 billion would've been enough to rebuild...


Says who? Even the construction budget by 1973 had reached $1.5 billion, I read (that may include things like the subway, but still). Also...


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.

www.forbes.com...

He started at $1.5 billion? Wouldn't take $5 billion? Picked a figure that was LESS than the likely cost of rebuilding? Doesn't sound like much proof of foreknowledge or profiteering to me...

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ashmok]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Keep in mind all of that can still go right into his pocket if he plays his cards right.

Also keep in mind that the cost of deconstructing the WTC would've been MUCH more, and would have been necessary further down the road when the buildings became older and more unstable. I've also heard that the buildings' massive weights were caused the concrete foundations to sink farther into the NYC ground - which would've also led to deconstruction for safety reasons.

Replacing/removing the asbestos would've similarly costed much more than the buildings were worth, and the buildings were known to both be full of asbestos that needed to be removed.

So Silverstein saved money with the destructions of the towers on 9/11, even if he finally pays out of his own pocket to rebuild something there. If he doesn't, then he's profited billions from 9/11.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Keep in mind all of that can still go right into his pocket if he plays his cards right.


Says who? He doesn't own the buildings, he just has the lease.


So Silverstein saved money with the destructions of the towers on 9/11


Let's see the references to back up your claims. Don't forget to show that the leaseholder (Silverstein) would have been responsible for these claims, not the owner (the Port Authority). And of course you'll also need to take account of Silversteins losses, like the fact he's earned nothing on the money he invested in the site, and I think it's cost $10 million a month in rent.


even if he finally pays out of his own pocket to rebuild something there. If he doesn't, then he's profited billions from 9/11.


It's not "his" money, it's for rebuilding the site (and there's not enough to do that, by all the estimates I've read). You think the Port Authority will let Silverstein walk away with the insurance money? Because somehow I think that's unlikely.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashmok
Says who? He doesn't own the buildings, he just has the lease.


The insurance policy was in his name, thus his legal case, etc.



So Silverstein saved money with the destructions of the towers on 9/11


Let's see the references to back up your claims.



ASBESTOS was a major material used in the construction of the World Trade Center. That asbestos is a constituent of the dust and debris. Inhalation of asbestos fibers can result in serious or fatal diseases, including cancer. Although there is no known safe level of asbestos exposure, higher levels of exposure result in greater risk of disease.


Source.


The WTC towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied. Some but not all of it was later removed in an abatement program.


Source.

In the book Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York City's World Trade Center, Eric Darton states that the Port Authority had plans to begin removing asbestos from the Twin Towers. The cost of these plans was stated at around $800,000, which seems extremely unlikely, given that smaller, unused (empty) buildings have cost as much as $70,000,000 for asbestos removal (which is stated in the same book - the reference being to the building on 55 Broad Street). The cost of asbestos removal of the WTC would've been enormous.

The 9/11 Research Site further points out that,


...the ban [of asbestos use] went into effect near the end of the towers' construction, so we can assume that asbestos covered the steel skeletons through most of the height of each of the towers.


Source.

And Wikipedia further provides that "asbestos removal projects are long and costly" (source), which is supported with descriptions of the processes involved, and that should provide some insight into why these things would've costed so much money.


Don't forget to show that the leaseholder (Silverstein) would have been responsible for these claims, not the owner (the Port Authority).


Ultimately, what would it matter? I don't care about Silverstein enough to be out to make him look bad; someone saved money massive money from not having to remove that asbestos, regardless of whether it was the Port Authority or Silverstein himself. Therefore they stood to greatly benefit monetarily from 9/11.


It's not "his" money, it's for rebuilding the site (and there's not enough to do that, by all the estimates I've read). You think the Port Authority will let Silverstein walk away with the insurance money? Because somehow I think that's unlikely.


Silverstein took out the insurance policy, and the insurance money went to him.


Silverstein says he’s optimistic because the city and Port will realize that they won’t be able to redevelop the site unless they can find someone else who can get $4.65 billion in insurance money.

“We are the only ones with access to the money,” Silverstein, 74, said last Thursday in an exclusive interview with Downtown Express editors and reporters at 7 W.T.C. “Without the money you can’t build anything.”


Source.

Hope that helps.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hope that helps.


That's summed up your case, so I guess I'll some up mine.

I'd say there are at least three hurdles to overcome for this particular "Silverstein makes big profits" theory.

First they must show some major problem with the towers. Here we have a claim about abestos removal, so if true than that's a problem, although the "major" side is amplified by you, not said by the source. Score so far: half a hurdle.

The second hurdle (for the original poster or others who talk specifically about Silverstein, as you say you don't care about this) is to show that the problem would have cost Silverstein money, rather than being covered by the Port Authority (who still owned the building), or the insurers. They just assume it would, which isn't good enough for me. Score: 0.

Of course by now we're getting into territory that some might consider unlikely. Is Silverstein supposed to have learned of this plot in advance of buying the towers, for instance? What, someone told him that "we've got this great deal for you where you can buy a building that" a) might suffer subsidence, and b) contains loads of asbestos that will need to be cleaned out soon and will cost you/us billions, but it's okay because c) we know about this plot that's going to destroy the whole thing a few weeks after you buy it? But this really is a great deal, because you'll get some money back on the insurance. Perhaps.

If he was given any of this information at any time, then why did Silverstein try to insure the towers for as little as possible, rather than as much? Why did he not brief all his insurers with the same documents that would permit him to have made the two attacks = two payments claim? (Because he didn't, which is why he lost some court cases, won others, and unless I'm out of date is only due to get $4.6 billion).

For the third hurdle, they need to show that Silverstein can walk away and keep the insurance money. All you've said is that he has sole access to the insurance money right now, which is true, however I believe that's because he's still paying the $10 million a month rent. What you've not shown is that he would be able to keep that money if he were no longer the leaseholder, or that the Port Authority or insurance companies would allow it (or even that he has all that money right now, rather than payments being staged and contingent on particular things being achieved: note that even your source story quotes Silverstein as saying he only has "access" to the money, not necessarily the same as having all the money already).

Here, then, you've just equated having sole access to the money as the leaseholder, with being able to take it all as cash if he's not the leaseholder. That doesn't seem at all likely to me, and you've offered no evidence to support that, so that's a 0 on hurdle 3, total 0.5 out of 3.

And we've not even got on to bonus problems like, if Silverstein were in this for the insurance money then why wouldn't he have taken it already? Isn't he in his seventies, isn't it possible he won't live to see the towers completely rebuilt anyway? Makes no sense to me, and certainly there's nothing here to justify the claim that Silverstein has made billions in profits from 9/11.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by ashmok]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join