World Trade Center owners lose 9/11 compensation bid

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
well if their 'buddies' in the government/ banking industry weren't driving up the prices of labor/ materials thru even basic stuff like inflation, plus the shenanigans by the oil companies have driven up the prices/ availabilities of raw materials needed for production of building materials, they might have been able to complete this project at a much lower price.

i.e. they may have initialy projected the price to be maybe 4billion in 2001 when they demolished the original towers, but as building materials have roughly doubled in price, the final cost is now 8billion.

i'm guessin' the OP has a desk job.


lured by dreams of big money, lots of people try to get into the construction business and fail miserably, leaving a trail of unpaid bills behind them.
there's no room for error and you need to 'pad' your estimates to account for any suprises that come up.

after losing money on this one pehaps their g-d hashem (a.k.a. satan) will stop blessing these 'steins'.


Erm, no. The insurance case has been going on for years and was always about the same amount of money. I used to be an insurance journalist and I covered it quite often. Put simply the insurance contract was still being worked on at the time of 9/11, leading to ambiguity. Here's a good article that covers it - here.




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


you know i only see it ,mentions the airlines.

i wonder how much the insurance, on the building paid out.

surly he had insurance on them.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


They paid out something like 3.5 billion, i cant remember the exact figure of the top of my head.

either way he's lost money, I have read some sources that put the rebuild cost very conservatively at about $4 billion (not including losses incurred) so even if you look at the bottom end of the scale, not including his own losses form lack of rent and the organizational damage then he has only broke even. As well as that under the law he had to use the compensation money to pay for the rebuild, it was not like he could use it to add to his own personal wealth which has been hit by the attacks of 9/11.
edit on 22-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I can't imagine why the airlines would even be liable. If the company did not adequately insure their building, they are at loss themselves. If an act of war destroys my house, I understand that it is not insured through my homeowners insurance. I also understand that I am on my own if a flood occurs on top of my hill...the odds of that happening are slim. Risk assessment is necessary, you would think that the owners of the trade center would have insurance to cover their building, there was previous attempts to destroy it in the past. If they were that stupid not to insure it properly, they deserve to be out the money.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


But you seem to be ignoring the fact that he didn't build an exact replica of the old WTC, He's got a brand spanking new, modern WTC, instead of the old, out-dated, asbestos-filled white elephant....or do you think he'd still prefer to have the old one?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


But you seem to be ignoring the fact that he didn't build an exact replica of the old WTC, He's got a brand spanking new, modern WTC, instead of the old, out-dated, asbestos-filled white elephant....or do you think he'd still prefer to have the old one?


YES, yes i do,

Watch the documentary "America rebuilds", Larry was very unhappy particularly with the rebuilding of WTC-7 which he had to make smaller than he wanted to appease new yorkers. He wanted to rebuild it pretty much as it was but the people of New york and the victims families blocked him.

Take the new WTC-7, yes it might be a whole 2 floors higher but in terms of actual office space its almost 20,000 square meters smaller in terms of floor space smaller than the original because it has been built in a smaller footprint.

So yeah he might have got rid of the asbestos but in return he got a smaller building than what he wanted, didn't get as much insurance money as he wanted, and had to go about the trouble of rebuilding which he made no profit out of and then lost a whole bunch of his old tenants

So yeah I think he would have preferred to have had the old one still standing.
edit on 22-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Looks like WTC 2 will stay at street level, uncompleted for years.. and WTC 3 work was suspended for 5 months... sucks.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





So yeah I think he would have preferred to have had the old one still standing.


Sorry, but I find that a little hard to believe. Larry is a property developer, is he not? He buys old, past-their-use-by-date properties, tears them down and "develops" the property. How much was it going to cost him to remove all the asbestos, and refurbish the towers? Billions? As it turns out, by a stroke of "luck", he had them demolished and cleaned up for free, plus a massive wad of cash towards building a new complex. But, as it turns out, the "wad of cash" wasn't enough to complete the project, so he tries to extort more money out of the airlines to pay for it. A saint he's not.....



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


"to remove all the asbestos,",,,,,,,,,,,so how's those First Responders, Aspestosis Lawsuits going Larry?,,no proof,,, ??,,right,, i thought so.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


but u need evidence in a court of Law too Prove your Case,,,,,but all the evidence no longer exists,,,,,,,,,,case dismissed,,, poor First Responder,,,,



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


There was approximately 400 tons of asbestos in the WTC - that's a rough estimate from a mesothelioma website here. It was confined to the lower levels - not the upper ones as the US ban on it came in after they started building the WTC.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


The "missing" $2.3 trillion is another one that isn't quite correct. It wasn't that $2.3T was missing, it was that the accounting process through the years meant that they would have to go project by project, and trace it line item by line item to account for it all. They didn't have a centralized accounting system, so each project kept their own budget. When it was all put together, there was a $2.3T discrepancy that they were going to have to go back through the projects and account for it. What they said was that they couldn't account for $2.3T in transactions. They know that the money was spent, just that they weren't sure what projects, or where.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Silverman had the buildings insured for double their worth. So he basically double his capital but lost profits on ongoing rents. In the end, he came out fine. The new buildings are a totally new investment that was nfrced upon him. He will end up making billions more off the new buildings.

No pity here for Silverman.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


Really?

Again with the Asbestos?


Why on earth do people try to claim that the whole reason for Larry being involved in 9/11 and the motivation for 9/11 (partly) was to make a insurance claim and then to avoid a costly asbestos refurbishment.

How much more would it cost to, pay everyone off, set explosives in the buildings, hijack the planes, launch a missile at the pentagon, do "something" in Pennsylvania, fake a whole bunch of data and then cover up the whole thing then go to war with the other side of the word, than it would to say just have a large fire started to destroy the building. that is one hell of a long way to go to make a dogey insurance claim.

Asbestos as a motivation for 9/11 makes no scene,

Now if you look at the OP as it turns out Larry didn't get the insurance he wanted to get and is probably actually out of pocket as a result of 9/11
edit on 22-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Now if you look at the OP as it turns out Larry didn't get the insurance he wanted to get and is probably actually out of pocket as a result of 9/11


We also seem to be forgetting the 861 million dollars that Larry got paid for building 7......also that out of the initial down-payment of 124 million, only 14 million was out of Larry's own pocket...and didn't they return 98 million of the original 124 million down-payment to him? Anyway you look at it, Lucky, Lucky Larry made a crapload of money off the 911 attacks.....oh, and not to mention the fact that he was originally trying to extort 11 billion out of the airlines until they told him where to stick it, so he lowered it to a measly 3.5 billion..........oh yeah he's a real class act, O'l Larry........probably getting his meals in a soup kitchen now..poor bloke...



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


Yes he got $861 million for WTC-7 and only actually spent $700 million on rebuilding the smaller, newer WTC-7 but at the same time he still owed something like $400 million on the mortgage. Even though he seems to have made about 150 million, but for a guy who is worth that much several times over, that's again just a drop in the ocean and when you take into account money he will have lost due to the building being smaller and that the he lost some of his tenants its probably going to break even.

Also the first payment was made on the condition that he rebuild the buildings it was not a addition to his own personal wealth, which was already very substantial.

Larry making money out of 9/11 or trying to get round a costly asbestos refurbishment was not a logical motivation for the "911 false flag"

To be clear, I am no fan of Larry, i think his actions after 9/11 towards the victims, such as trying to block the construction of the memorial, was quite frankly disgusting and greedy. But at the same time i don't think he had any hand in any kind of 9/11 conspiracy.
edit on 22-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





To be clear, I am no fan of Larry, i think his actions after 9/11 towards the victims, such as trying to block the construction of the memorial, was quite frankly disgusting and greedy


Well, at least we can agree on that much.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by geobro
 


The "missing" $2.3 trillion is another one that isn't quite correct. It wasn't that $2.3T was missing, it was that the accounting process through the years meant that they would have to go project by project, and trace it line item by line item to account for it all. They didn't have a centralized accounting system, so each project kept their own budget. When it was all put together, there was a $2.3T discrepancy that they were going to have to go back through the projects and account for it. What they said was that they couldn't account for $2.3T in transactions. They know that the money was spent, just that they weren't sure what projects, or where.
yes bud big figures for a dumb ass like me but i can add or subtract 5 from a figure look up 9-11 my personal story 10 years on page 17 the $100.000 bet is still on the table that i am wrong



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


Have you ever worked around the military? Heh. They don't exactly keep receipts. Money goes out, it doesn't get documented in the main budget, someone audits and the money is gone, but there's no record where. But if you go back through every project, then you'll find the payments. The problem is that there are a few thousand projects to go through at any given time.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by geobro
 


Have you ever worked around the military? Heh. They don't exactly keep receipts. Money goes out, it doesn't get documented in the main budget, someone audits and the money is gone, but there's no record where. But if you go back through every project, then you'll find the payments. The problem is that there are a few thousand projects to go through at any given time.
you still have not answered my question to hard for you give me your dollar





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join