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.

 

Need help from BOTH camps determining Larry Silversteins role in 911

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
"Factor in as well the unusual circumstances of the 9/11 attacks and so many innocent people dying put insurers in an uncomfortable position of not wanting to appear to be acting in bad faith by refusing to pay out, even for valid technical reasons. Such a thing would be disastrous for their credibility."

Aren't we talking about the payout by the insurers to Silverstein and not the payout to the vicitims' families? Why would the victims' family members give a hoot about Silverstein's payout? What's in it for them?

"Bad Faith" has nothing to do with paying a claim or not. It has to do with intentionally denying coverage due to unfair practices, deception, negligence, gross negligence or using other underhanded methods. There was more than enough evidence for the carriers to initiate a denial of coverage action (especially with Building #7), without even being in the ballpark of a "Bad Faith" allegation.

Why the insurance carriers would break claims handling protocol with so much riding on the file is anybody's guess. Insurance companies do not just wing it. They hire the top defense counsel and the best experts in the land to argue their cases long and hard. Let's face it, they do have the resources to wear you out and financially drain you...even if you are a wealthy guy like Silverstein.

Looks like the Air Force wasn't the only ordered to stand down in relation to 9/11.




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Why the insurance carriers would break claims handling protocol with so much riding on the file is anybody's guess. Insurance companies do not just wing it. They hire the top defense counsel and the best experts in the land to argue their cases long and hard. Let's face it, they do have the resources to wear you out and financially drain you...even if you are a wealthy guy like Silverstein.

Looks like the Air Force wasn't the only ordered to stand down in relation to 9/11.


In actual fact much of what happens in law, as well as finance, politics, are decisions made outside the public court system. This is no big secret.

Attorney meet from both sides and see if they can iron out a mutual agreement that might save longer more expensive litigation.

Sometimes company directors decide to cave-in to demands just to prevent incurring out of control legal expenses that give no guarantee of ever being recovered. Sometimes there are image and prestige concerns.

No one outside the respective boardrooms will ever know what all the factors were. Sometimes there's even political pressures or board members have overlapping interests.

Point is not all decisions and payments are admission of full liability. Often it's seen as the less expensive less onerous option.

Conspiracists will put a spin on events that fits their uniformed conclusions and agendas. Why bother considering all aspects?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


Conspiracists will put a spin on events that fits their uniformed conclusions and agendas. Why bother considering all aspects?



Apparently so with debunkers since if there is not enough information to say that he profited then there is not enough information to say that he suffered a loss either but you went ahead and made that claim, didn't you?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
"In actual fact much of what happens in law, as well as finance, politics, are decisions made outside the public court system. This is no big secret."

How does this comment relate to the insurance carriers apparently breaking standard protocol? My point is coverage for a case like this is highly questionable, considering the abundance of evidence.

"Attorney meet from both sides and see if they can iron out a mutual agreement that might save longer more expensive litigation."

I agree and disagree. I agree with the fact that many cases are settled prior to and after litigation has commenced. I strongly disagree with your statement that litigation would have been the more expensive route.

Are you telling me the Building 7 case would have cost the carriers in excess of $800 million to defend in the courts? I know good Defense Attorneys and Experts are expensive, but not that expensive.

"Sometimes company directors decide to cave-in to demands just to prevent incurring out of control legal expenses that give no guarantee of ever being recovered. Sometimes there are image and prestige concerns."

Everybody knows it's a crapshoot when you go to court. But when you're holding four Aces and three Kings and decide to fold, something is up. The stakes are just too big for prudent insurance specialists to cave in so easily and open up the pocketbook with little or no resistence.

"No one outside the respective boardrooms will ever know what all the factors were. Sometimes there's even political pressures or board members have overlapping interests."

Yeah, but it really doesn't take a wild conspiracists mind to figure what kind of deal was agreed to here, probably well before 9/11.

"Point is not all decisions and payments are admission of full liability. Often it's seen as the less expensive less onerous option."

Actually, the point is the insurers took the most expensive option and paid top dollar on all claims without offering any resistance by enforcing their rights to the policy and challenging the coverage. By holding the purse strings, they basically shut down any chance of any professional investigation into the events occurring.

As for your comment about less onerous, that's what they pay defense counsel for. To win cases and make sure these types of precedented cases are not won by the assured.

"Conspiracists will put a spin on events that fits their uniformed conclusions and agendas. Why bother considering all aspects?"

Although this is, shall we say, a bit off the beaten path, I really don't care what 'conspiracists' think, nor do I have an inexplicable urge to discredit them or debunkers. Just in case you haven't noticed, my conclusions in this thread have been based on insurance law and proper and competent insurance claims handling procedures, not what 'conspiracists' think.

How about considering this aspect? Does it make sense for an insurance carrier to pay $10-20 million to get out of paying $800 million? Even if you high ball and the entire case costs you $50 million, you're still up a cool 3/4 of a billion. Paying out those kinds of numbers without sicking coverage counsel on the assured is beyond absurd.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
I really don't care what 'conspiracists' think, nor do I have an inexplicable urge to discredit them or debunkers. Just in case you haven't noticed, my conclusions in this thread have been based on insurance law and proper and competent insurance claims handling procedures, not what 'conspiracists' think.

How about considering this aspect? Does it make sense for an insurance carrier to pay $10-20 million to get out of paying $800 million? Even if you high ball and the entire case costs you $50 million, you're still up a cool 3/4 of a billion. Paying out those kinds of numbers without sicking coverage counsel on the assured is beyond absurd.


Accept my apology for reflexively painting you with the same brush as I use for a lot of commentary around here. I'm just so used to completely uninformed opinions on so many threads that my little knowledge turns into the default best one for lack of competition.

I don't know if you're in Montreal as your avatar implies. I'm in Toronto, though have lived in many countries. I discussed the 9/11 insurance aspect with a friends who work for one of the major American-based insurers on a pretty high level.

How much they told me was based on first hand knowledge and how much was speculation I can only guess now.

The general drift - special circumstances and considerations were in play. An outright attack on US property by an unofficial organization. Certain Saudi princes, bankers, private individuals had funded the operation. A component of the Pakistani government, the ISI, were involved in active co-ordination. People in the Turkish government facilitated certain aspects, as did their counterparts in Yemen, Egypt, Jordan.

The US and particularly the Bush admin chose to downplay particulars. We can all guess why.

Just scuttlebutt, the insurance companies involved were asked to make special considerations in the settlements. What was offered as recirocity we'll have to guess.

The WTC and Pentagon were of course iconic landmarks. The attacks on the US and the responses were something beyond the scope of normal law and commerce.

The US did not and never will invoke international laws on 9/11. Let's just say very unusual measures and arrangements were made, from what I've been told, that are far outside the norm and standard policies. Maybe no more than a handful of public figures were privy to details.

I'm not claiming knowledge of particulars, just an extra level of insight.

I'll ask you to read between the lines on this.


M



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The bottom line is that you cannot prove Silverstein lost or gained but it certainly looks like he gained. Am I missing anything?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The bottom line is that you cannot prove Silverstein lost or gained but it certainly looks like he gained. Am I missing anything?


Are you missing anything?

Answer is an emphatic unqualified "YES"

Can we stick to exchanging information and views on the topic.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The bottom line is that you cannot prove Silverstein lost or gained but it certainly looks like he gained. Am I missing anything?


Are you missing anything?

Answer is an emphatic unqualified "YES"

Can we stick to exchanging information and views on the topic.



You stated that he suffered a loss. That was your whole point. That is how we got onto this topic. I was just wondering if you still want to claim that he suffered a loss or if you are willing to retract that or if you are going to, once again, just try and pretend you were not wrong about something?

The point would be to establish exactly what are facts and what are just things people say for fun.

[edit on 12/12/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
You stated that he suffered a loss. That was your whole point. That is how we got onto this topic. I was just wondering if you still want to claim that he suffered a loss or if you are willing to retract that or if you are going to, once again, just try and pretend you were not wrong about something?

The point would be to establish exactly what are facts and what are just things people say for fun.


Read the previous messages. I supplied a link to a Live Leak analysis of how Silverstein lost money.

When intelligent people ask me questions and I try my best to supply answers.

There are also mindless trolls who ask questions for the purpose of attention seeking. They usually do not acknowledge or comprehend responses supplied. This disruption tactic has been displayed by you on a number of threads.

Do not respond please. I am ignoring your uninformed and uninformative messages from this point on.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
"Just scuttlebutt, the insurance companies involved were asked to make special considerations in the settlements. What was offered as reciprocity we'll have to guess.

The WTC and Pentagon were of course iconic landmarks. The attacks on the US and the responses were something beyond the scope of normal law and commerce.

The US did not and never will invoke international laws on 9/11. Let's just say very unusual measures and arrangements were made, from what I've been told, that are far outside the norm and standard policies. Maybe no more than a handful of public figures were privy to details."

Well mmiichael, now you're talking. I am familiar with ex gratia payments made by carriers, especially to some of their larger clients. However, the settlements for 9/11 were well beyond what any client, regardless of their volume of business, would expect from any insurance carrier.

Now the question becomes, why was the Government so keen for the insurance carriers to bypass normal claims handling and legal channels? If the circumvention of a system which has worked for hundreds of years is not evidence of collusion or prior knowledge, I do not know what is.

By the way, no offense taken for lumping me into the conspiracy theorists camp. If I'm going to hang out anywhere, it might as well be there, since many of the stories can be quite entertaining at times.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


Hi,

Thanks again for your knowledgeable input.

I appreciate and respect you understanding of the logistics and traditions involved in the insurance component.

I'll be purposefully vague in saying there were circumstances unprecedented in this matter. A little hint, you are aware of gold stored at the WTC, I imagine.

Let's just say for now, maybe to be detailed elsewhere sometime, the Bush admin decided it in the beat interest of themselves and select others not to raise any ripples that might bring focus to a certain Kingdom on the other side of the world. This Kingdom made off the record arrangements to 'smooth over' a number of questions and problems related to national security, international criminal activities, partial remuneration for incurred property destruction, certain expenses.

You must realize though that a number of precedents and standard procedures were overrode in the US government's handling of the aftermath of 9/11. I'm sure the Constitution was trampled on in a number of places.
In a couple areas there was culpability of individuals at the highest level in the land, then current and past. Families and friends.

Some embarrassing things happenened. Some outrageously abusive of office and trust. They will never become a matter of public record. People with some insight can figure out who was covering up what and why.

You are welcome to think I'm speaking without any real knowledge of specifics.


M



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale
You stated that he suffered a loss. That was your whole point. That is how we got onto this topic. I was just wondering if you still want to claim that he suffered a loss or if you are willing to retract that or if you are going to, once again, just try and pretend you were not wrong about something?

The point would be to establish exactly what are facts and what are just things people say for fun.


Read the previous messages. I supplied a link to a Live Leak analysis of how Silverstein lost money.

When intelligent people ask me questions and I try my best to supply answers.

There are also mindless trolls who ask questions for the purpose of attention seeking. They usually do not acknowledge or comprehend responses supplied. This disruption tactic has been displayed by you on a number of threads.

Do not respond please. I am ignoring your uninformed and uninformative messages from this point on.





Maybe if you were not so busy being so arrogant you would see that you have also been supplied with plenty of links that contradict your liveleaks BS. Why is it that you have no problem just ignoring the evidence that contradicts you but you want to try to berate Lilly for the same thing?

You are purposely ignoring the fact that your liveleaks info has been torn apart. I guess having an answer for that would get in the way of your being deceptive though. Now give me a little speach about truth and integrity and paying attention before you put me on ignore without actually answering for the fact that you are just plane being intellectually dishonest.

Why can't you respond to the links that show quite clearly that Silverstein MADE money? How about the fact taht SM has done a pretty good job of explaining it all to you?

I guess all of the debunkers are getting sick of their stories falling apart.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Read the previous messages. I supplied a link to a Live Leak analysis of how Silverstein lost money.


And I provided a link that shows otherwise. We are playing 'my link is bigger than yours' now? How about accuracy instead?


When intelligent people ask me questions and I try my best to supply answers.


It seems when intelligent people show your answers to be wrong, you put them on ignore.


There are also mindless trolls who ask questions for the purpose of attention seeking. They usually do not acknowledge or comprehend responses supplied. This disruption tactic has been displayed by you on a number of threads.


Has it? Care to point out just one time? See I showed you where you liveleaks info is wrong. Why can you not admit that is even a possibility? Now you are telling your second direct lie about me.


Do not respond please. I am ignoring your uninformed and uninformative messages from this point on.


You mean uninformed as in providing all the information it takes to prove that you are wrong? I guess if correcting your "facts" is what you call uninformed then that explains why you have this attitude.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael

Read the previous messages. I supplied a link to a Live Leak analysis of how Silverstein lost money.


And I provided a link that shows otherwise. We are playing 'my link is bigger than yours' now? How about accuracy instead?


When intelligent people ask me questions and I try my best to supply answers.


It seems when intelligent people show your answers to be wrong, you put them on ignore.


There are also mindless trolls who ask questions for the purpose of attention seeking. They usually do not acknowledge or comprehend responses supplied. This disruption tactic has been displayed by you on a number of threads.


Has it? Care to point out just one time? See I showed you where you liveleaks info is wrong. Why can you not admit that is even a possibility? Now you are telling your second direct lie about me.


Do not respond please. I am ignoring your uninformed and uninformative messages from this point on.


You mean uninformed as in providing all the information it takes to prove that you are wrong? I guess if correcting your "facts" is what you call uninformed then that explains why you have this attitude.


This is how MMichael opperates oh so honestly. He offers up a link that kind of tries to back up his point but even they cannot actually prove anything. It is just a random statement and yet, that is solid proof that Silverstein lost money somehow. Several links and a discussion about how that is not even logical and you get put on ignore. What a beutiful show. He can put all the people on ignore that he wants but as it stands, his link has been shot down and he chooses not to even try to defend it so I am pretty confident that anyone reading this thread can see he is full of crap.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Why can't you respond to the links that show quite clearly that Silverstein MADE money? How about the fact taht SM has done a pretty good job of explaining it all to you?

I guess all of the debunkers are getting sick of their stories falling apart.


In the online conspiracy world if you Google you'll find a link somewhere that tells you whatever you want to believe.

Some people are so dumb they think 20 sites and videos telling them the same old horses**t is actually fact.

Intelligent people take in multiple views from multiple data source. They expect citations, tangible evidence, reliable testimony, documentation.

They weight the analysis of credible people - not rely on kids in their mothers basement who feed them what they want to hear.

Some people know how to think. Some don't. The ones who don't get it won't get it - ever.

They'll just p*ss and moan eternally wondering why people ignore them.










[edit on 13-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The bottom line is that you cannot prove he lost money any more than you think Lilly prove he gained money. You refuse to admit it but you are disproving yourself. You just went on and on about multiple sources and blah blah blah when all you offered up was one link. You just described exactly what you did and claimed that is what is wrong with truthers. Why can't you just be honest? Admit you do not know for sure if he lost money. You really do a great job of projecting.

Basically, you said Silverstein lost money. You offered one link to back that up "liveleaks." You were shown evidence to the contrary. You put that person on ignore and then ridiculed truthers for using one link as a source. What have I missed?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Anyone who reads the papers knows the setbacks and present situation with the Port Authority and the redevelopment plans. Silverstein obviously submitted to full disclosure showing a net loss otherwise assistance wouldn't be under consideration.

Very high profile, reported in the financial press in 50 countries.

Fat kids with their conspiracy sites and Youtubes will tell you something different. For sure.



online.wsj.com...=rss_whats_news_us_business

The rebuilding of the World Trade Center site, already hobbled by years of delays and infighting, is facing fresh problems as private developer Larry Silverstein asks the government for crucial financial assistance, according to people familiar with the matter.

The result would be that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the government entity that owns the site, would take on more of the risk of the project at a time when the agency already faces budget restraints to pursue its core transportation and infrastructure missions.

The Port Authority, eager to prevent the project from stalling, is considering helping to finance at least one of Mr. Silverstein's planned three office towers, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Silverstein is requesting financing help on at least two of the three towers. The Port Authority would require concessions from Mr. Silverstein, including possibly giving up some of upside profits should the towers succeed in the long term.

The project, meant to be a symbol of the recovery after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has been through years of costly delays and acrimony. The plan for the 16-acre site includes five skyscrapers, a memorial, a transit hub, a shopping mall and a performing-arts center. Much of that was recently expected to open between 2011 and 2013.

Those dates are in jeopardy and at least some elements are unlikely to be finished until the later part of the next decade. The memorial is set to open by the 10th anniversary of the attacks, but even it faces budget shortfalls and is pursuing federal stimulus money.

Despite the long-term financial problems, the site has been a beehive of activity after years of delay. The Freedom Tower, owned by the Port Authority, is poking above street level. The memorial is taking shape. And Mr. Silverstein recently installed a crane to begin foundation work on the smallest of his three towers.

But if construction of the office towers doesn't proceed, the entire site could be plunged into further delays and uncertainty. The planned $3.2 billion transit hub relies on Mr. Silverstein's office towers for ventilation and fire exits. The Port Authority's $3 billion Freedom Tower would be unable to open as planned because its delivery ramps tie underground into the part of the site that Mr. Silverstein jointly controls with the Port Authority.

Mr. Silverstein declined to comment through a spokesman, but in the past said he is committed to building as quickly as possible.

A Port Authority spokeswoman said: "We are continuing to discuss with Silverstein Properties how to best meet a changed market while ensuring the World Trade Center site is rebuilt in the best public interest."

Mr. Silverstein originally planned to finance his three towers through a combination of insurance proceeds, government-subsidized bonds and commitments by the Port Authority and the City of New York to occupy part of one of the towers. He also hoped to attract private-sector tenants to anchor the towers. Before its sale to Bank of America Corp., Merrill Lynch was a possibility.

But with the economy in a tailspin, raising money to build the $7 billion of office space has been nearly impossible. Making things more difficult, Mr. Silverstein is obliged to pay the Port Authority $79 million a year in ground-lease payments, a legacy of his July 2001 agreement to buy a 99-year lease on the Twin Towers.

The ground-lease payments to the Port Authority act like a first mortgage on the properties. Any construction financing Mr. Silverstein tries to secure then becomes subordinate to the ground-lease payments, which is an unattractive prospect for lenders.

Those lease payments have drawn $800 million out of the $4.5 billion insurance settlement since 2001. (The Port Authority has said that money is earmarked for reinvestment into the site.)

In 2003, Mr. Silverstein used part of the insurance proceeds to pay back his and his partners' $125 million equity in the original 2001 purchase. An additional $563 million was used to pay off a mortgage on the Twin Towers. Much also has been spent on design and site preparation. Mr. Silverstein has less than $1 billion in insurance money left, said people familiar with the project.

The Port Authority, which derives almost all of its revenue from tolls and fees at its airports, ports and bridges and tunnels, had been wary of putting additional resources into speculative office buildings. Such a move will siphon resources from its other development needs.

An alternative financing strategy being floated among the parties is to build the towers only up to the first several floors, which are slated for retail space. That would allow the needed infrastructure to be built. The office parts of the towers would be built atop the pedestals when the economy revives. But that strategy has logistical challenges, such as finding retail tenants willing to reside in space that would have to be closed when construction above it resumed.

While people familiar with the talks are hopeful a deal will be struck, Mr. Silverstein has legal leverage to stall the project in the courts, according to people familiar with the project. The Port Authority has failed to deliver parts of the site to Mr. Silverstein in a timely manner, according to the rebuilding agreement struck in 2006, and has incurred more than $70 million in penalties it pays to Mr. Silverstein. Mr. Silverstein could argue that the agency has made it impossible for him to build.

The Port Authority also has leverage over Mr. Silverstein regarding promises he made to complete the buildings by certain dates and could theoretically try to remove him from the project, according to government officials. But the agency, which reports to the governors of New York and New Jersey, is unlikely to want the project tied up in a protracted legal battle.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


So basically it is your internet info against Lilly's internet info, still. Calling me a fat kid was certainly mature.

Actually, nevermind because what you just posted here does nothing to prove that he incurred a net loss anyway. Did you read it?

What you just posted does not only do NOTHING to prove he incurred a loss, it basically tells you that we tax payers will be subsidizing his further venture into this on top of what he already made out with.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
So basically it is your internet info against Lilly's internet info, still. Calling me a fat kid was certainly mature.

Actually, nevermind because what you just posted here does nothing to prove that he incurred a net loss anyway. Did you read it?


The final joke is the fat kid reference was to people who put up websites.

Given your response there's some serious questions about your reading comprehension.

Direct your rants in some other direction if you don't mind.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


You mean in the direction of someone who can back up their points and does not pull every stunt under the sun to pretend they have not said things they so obviously have? I would be happy to limit my conversations to people that know what it is they are talking about and can do it without resorting to posts that are little more than attacks with NO INFORMATION, FACTS, OR PROOF included.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join