Does Larry Silverstein Have A ‘Heart’?

Dear Everybody:

What kind of a person would make money by profiting from other people’s demise? Shouldn’t Larry Silverstein donate all proceeds from his insurance settlements to the 9-11 victims’ families? Wouldn’t that be the ‘right’ thing to do?

I mean, how exactly does this man go about his life. Does he brag about his bank accounts while playing golf with his buddies? Can he look at himself in the mirror and ‘like’ what he sees? Sure, to a certain extent one man’s loss might become another person’s gain. But in the case of 9-11, where thousands perished by dropping from buildings, suffocating, and being vaporized — it seems a little too much. Doesn’t something inside of him ‘cringe’ when he lights up a cigar while going over the ‘numbers’ with his accountant. Is there any piece of “Mensch” left in him? Or is he perhaps one of those reptilian shapeshifters…

If he had a conscience he would forfeit ever red cent of surplus he received from the 9-11 events — no matter how legally entitled he may be — to the grieving families who lost a part of their world on that day —their loved ones.

With sorrow,
The Wizard In The Woods

I completely disagree. Obviously he lost a huge investment when those buildings were destroyed and has every right to claim what he's due from the insurance he took out on his investment.

The families of the people who died in the attacks will receive money from their own life insurance policies, the proceeds from any lawsuits, as well as funds that have been made available by the government and private donations.

I really don't understand your logic here.

[edit on 3/20/2007 by djohnsto77]

he has a heart... but its a heart thats more of a reptilian nature then a human.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I completely disagree. Obviously he lost a huge investment when those buildings were destroyed and has every right to claim what he's due from the insurance he took out on his investment.

The families of the people who died in the attacks will receive money from their own life insurance policies, the proceeds from any lawsuits, as well as funds that have been made available by the government and private donations.
[edit on 3/20/2007 by djohnsto77]

You’re right djohnsto77:

Larry Silverstein is legally entitled to all of his insurance payouts. His policies were cleverly crafted.

Too bad for those rescue workers who are now spitting out pieces of their broken lungs. It’s a dog-eat-dog world. They should have had better insurance policies themselves. What, they couldn’t afford it because their paychecks were too small? Oh well, it’s a raw deal planet. Right?

Well, for sure Larry Silverstein wouldn’t have charged into those burning towers, even in his younger days. That type of work is better left to those with ‘strong backs’ and ‘weak minds’, correct?

No, I have to completely disagree with that type of philosophy. Even Salomon Smith Barney’s slogan was that money must be ‘earned’, i.e. the old fashioned way, through hard work. Not thieved. And not through trickery.

In a sane world, any decent person in Larry Silverstein’s position would — emphatically — refuse to profit in any way shape or form from 9-11.

Perturbed,
The Wizard In The Woods

I've read a few items on the purchase of the WTC and the resulting awards given to Silverstein after 9/11.

Here's a brief overview.

How true any part of this is...I have no idea, but perhaps some facts and figures should be rooted out on this topic.

Silverstein has a heart in that he has a blood pumping muscle in his chest. Thats all.

(removed large full-post quote)

Adolf Hitler didn't have a problem looking himself in the mirror when he killed 6 million jews.

Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by The Vagabond]

If we went by the OP, then it would means that the families would have to pay Larry since he lost money in the process.

Show me the balance sheets proving that Larry lost money. I see some commonality in your ability to make a statement as if it is a FACT then, fail to produce any sort of documentation or evidence to back up your claims.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Totally O/T and just to lighten the topic: Ever notice that Larry King and Larry Silverstein are actually the same person?

That said, he is a NYC real-estate developer. If you go to Webster's, you'll see the definition precludes morals.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by snoopy
If we went by the OP, then it would means that the families would have to pay Larry since he lost money in the process.

Show me the balance sheets proving that Larry lost money. I see some commonality in your ability to make a statement as if it is a FACT then, fail to produce any sort of documentation or evidence to back up your claims.

I too would like to see the investment/return/loss timeline here. I see from "debunkers" that he lost money. I see from "truthers" that he gained money. Let's put this arguement to rest once and for all.

While compiling this, you have to take into account the rent he was paying for the buildings, rent he was recieving and lost etc. I'd like to see someone with more of an accounting background than me put this together for the world to see how rich (or poor) 9/11 made Larry. I'm betting it is rich rather than poor though.

www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm

www.time.com...

www.manhattan-institute.org...

select.nytimes.com...


And these are old. The newer articles printed show the new costs of the WTC to be much higher now. Somewhere around $12 billion. 5 coming from the government, which still leaves 7 billion, and he is getting 4.3 billion. Quite a big loss. Of course lawsuits are still going on to my knowledge, but either way, there's no big profit in there.

Originally posted by snoopy
Quite a big loss. Of course lawsuits are still going on to my knowledge, but either way, there's no big profit in there.

You do understand that prime commercial real estate produces REVENUE... So he borrows a couple of billion to rebuild... what do you suppose the property will be VALUED at once it is complete? How much revenue will rent generate?

"Losing money" is not an accurate term... If the cost to build is $12b USD, the day it is finished it will be worth +$20B no question and generating revenue.

One more thing... Larry only put up $14 MILLION of "his" cash to buy the property.

This all assumes that he does not win the on-going lawsuits and that the three year old figures you are quoting are still accurate.

Are you aware that the old WTC complex was a liability and not an asset?

Are you aware of the planning and cost estimations ($10-$12b) for a "surgical tear out and tear down?

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Pootie]

That's the whole point. If he couldn't make his money back, what would be the whole point. The point of the insurance was to keep him from losing all his money so that he could rebuild and hopefully make a profit. Which is the whole point in having a building. Everyone who has a building anywhere does it so they can rent it out and hopefully make money in the long term. But 9/11 put a dent in that. And he is gonna have to hope that he can make up for it by renting out the new place.

And if he wins the lawsuits, he will break even. Still no gain. And this whole argument that he did it because he wanted the buildings deztroyed is 100% pure conjecture.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by snoopy
Still no gain.

Except for:

- A BRAND SPANKING NEW COMPLEX worth FAR MORE that the old white elephants.
- Saved $10-$12 BILLION in abatement a tear down costs.
- Saved half a decade in tear down time and lost rent revenue.
- Could still win another $4 BILLION in lawsuits.

Originally posted by snoopy
Everyone who has a building anywhere does it so they can rent it out and hopefully make money in the long term. But 9/11 put a dent in that.

This is where your logic gets flawed. He would have had to pay 10-12 BILLION in the near future to get the asbestos etc taken out. 9/111 happens and he doesn't have to pay anything and also gets insurance money back. Sounds like a profit to me either way you look at it.

And if he doesn't have the money to rebuild now, he certainly wouldn't have had the money to repair the towers and 7.

And he is gonna have to hope that he can make up for it by renting out the new place.

Poor Larry won't be able to rent in downtown NY at the most pristeen location? Poor Larry.

And if he wins the lawsuits, he will break even. Still no gain.

Opinion? Or fact?

And this whole argument that he did it because he wanted the buildings deztroyed is 100% pure conjecture.

As is your assessment that he is loosing money.

Originally posted by snoopy The newer articles printed show the new costs of the WTC to be much higher now. Somewhere around $12 billion. 5 coming from the government, which still leaves 7 billion, and he is getting 4.3 billion. Quite a big loss. Of course lawsuits are still going on to my knowledge, but either way, there's no big profit in there.

Dear snoopy:

It’s amazing how much things cost in New York City. Office space construction around the rest of the country sold for an average of $95.00/ft2 in 2005.

Total interior space at the twin towers would have been 110 stories x 43,560 ft2 x 2 = 9,583,200 ft2.
If Larry Silverstein wants to replace the same amount of space for 12 billion dollars, this would amount to a price of 1,252 $/ft2. That seems a little steep, now doesn’t it — compared to the national average of $95.00 /ft2! In Pittsburgh (which is more expensive to build in than Chicago) he could re-build for less than 1 billion. I guess he needs the remaining 11 billion for something else. Plus he is entitled to a fair profit for his troubles.

Flabbergasted,
The Wizard In The Woods

And he didn't have to spend an estimated $1 billion on cleaning out all that asbestos. The NYC Sanitation Dep't swept it up free of charge.

Originally posted by Griff
This is where your logic gets flawed. He would have had to pay 10-12 BILLION in the near future to get the asbestos etc taken out.

Do you have any reliable source for this information? From everything I've read the WTC didn't use much asbestos to begin with, and most of it had already been removed before Silverstein leased the property.

In my opinion the idea that the WTC was a liability and needed to be torn down anytime soon is pure fantasy. In fact, it was one of the newer office buildings in New York.

Once again Griff, you are making pure conjecture that he engineered the destruction of the building because of the cost to remove asbestos. That's a pretty tall accusation with nothign to support it. And again, it's not a profit.

Is it fact or opinion that he would break even if he wins the lawsuit? Fact. Right now he is being given 4.3 billion. He is fighting to get 7 billion which technically his agreement doesn't cover. 7 bil + 5 bil from the gov = 12 billion, the cost to rebuild.

And the cost to remove the asbestos was nowhere near 12 billion. It was 200 million. And I see nothing to suggest that he was forced to pay this or forced to fix it. Yes there were laws imposed after the construction banning the use of the material, but that doesn't mean existing buildings were all forced to remove it.