The unexplainable evidence 9/11 was allowed to happen. *Very short video*

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: EartOccupant

You mentioned insurance.

He got about 4 billion.

Prove the insurance companies paid the man directly where he could physically move the money around.

He was losing revenue for years with no renters.

The total cost of rebuilding was over 7 billion.

Years of lost rent and 3 billion in the hole to rebuild.

What was you point again?

The WTC complex was insured via multiple insurance policies with 23 different companies for a total of $3.55 billion for a single event. He asked that it be considered two events, so the limit be raised to $7.1 billion. The insurance companies disputed this, and there was a court case, and the resultant total limit was much less the $7.1 billion ($4.577 billion).

What you fail to understand is that when someone wants to build a 9 billion dollar complex they don't get to subtract 4.577 Billion from total cost like these guys did.

Silverstein gained control of the Towers for only 200 million. So this ruse that you re pushing falls flat.

You just don't understand. He paid 200 million for control of Towers. The ground without a building is worth more than that. You get that? Then he gets to build an entire new complex for 7 billion minus about 5 billion. So he is getting a brand new complex worth around 9 billion for around 2 billion.

There is no 3 billion in the hole. When you build a 7 billion dollar complex you are always then 7 billion in the hole. He got a 7 billion dollar complex and is only 3 billion in the hole. Do you understand now, or you just trying not to?

AAC

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

You have proof he is just not old and senile?

You have evidence that he is?

Funny how you employ your "opinions" as credible facts.

You is this just your opinions debunked on metabunk and skeptics international?

Interestly nothing has been debunked here. Take a chill pill dude.

You're wasting your time with him (as am I). I have a feeling is on an "agenda" here.

AAC

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: stonerwilliam

What jackpot?

How many years did Silverstein miss out on collecting rent from tenates

Silverstein had to pay 360 million to the Port Authority to retain the right to build on the empty sites.

The insurance only paid 4 billion and the total cost of building was over 7 billion.

The WTC sites were actually underinsured.

From www.911myths.com...

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm

$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).

rationalwiki.org...

Rebuttal: What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[10]
We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

You keep repeating such shortsightedness. He didn't lose anything. He got a 9 billion dollar new project at 60% off. Can you please was your head around that and stop with the non-paid rent for 3 years BS.

AAC

a reply to: neutronflux

The yearly revenue of the Freedom Tower is 150,000,000 yearly and that's without tourism revenue. Which means in about 15 years that complex will be bought and paid for with all revenue profit.

You literally have no clue what you're saying.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

It's been debunked over and over again.

He had to pay 100s of millions to the port authority to keep the right to build.

Lost probably billions in rent over years from sites that were destroyed.

The argument is Silverstein was involved in a 9/11 insurance scam to make money. HE LOST MONEY if he was trying to get rich from a insurance scam!

Links that show Silverstein did not make money from the insurance payout!
www.911myths.com...
www.snopes.com...
www.metabunk.org...
www.bharadwajbloging.wordpress.com...

Post by Mike West
Metabunk

www.metabunk.org...
It's more complicated than that - the WTC complex was insured via multiple insurance policies with 23 different companies for a total of $3.55 billion for a single event. He asked that it be considered two events, so the limit be raised to $7.1 billion. The insurance companies disputed this, and there was a court case, and the resultant total limit was much less the $7.1 billion ($4.577 billion).

And this only covered half the cost of rebuilding the complex, in 2007 this was estimated as $9 billion. Public investment (loans) was required to cover the difference.

www.nytimes.com...

It's a conspiracy because he is paying interest on loans to make up the difference between the insurance payout and the actual cost to rebuild? Can you get your head around he is paying interest and still paying rent to the port authority?

a reply to: neutronflux


Even with all that said, he is still up billions. And will own the building outright in 15 years.

I am done talking with you. You obviously have no deductive reasoning or critical thinking skills.

How about you answer this: I say that 9/11 was to initiate Globalism and a One world Government.

So why did they change the name of the Freedom Tower to the One World Trade Center?

You know, screw the patriotic freedom, let's call it ONE WORLD.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Sorry, it's been proven Silverstein did not make any money from a 9/11 insurance scam.

And a little unbiased research would help you save some face.

Here are some figures on the money he lost on rent alone.

From metabunk
By jonnyH

www.metabunk.org...

But he has lost 5 years income.

The old 7WTC had 1,868,000 sq ft of office space which, at say $30 per sq ft per month for 5 years, is $672m. With that he could have paid off the $400m mortgage with $272m to spare. In 2006 he was $442m worse off regarding 7WTC than he would have been had 9/11 not happened.

Worse still, despite being taller than the old one, the new 7WTC sits on a smaller footprint and has only 1,700,000 sq ft of office space and thus a lower capacity to generate rents. So his potential annual income from 7WTC has dropped 9% (about $60m) per annum.

So now, in 2016, Larry is $1,272m worse off (and counting) than he would have been had 9/11 not happened.*


*assuming that all other the other costs of doing business are the same in both scenarios, the effects of interest and inflation are negligible and that 9/11 had no effect on rents in downtown manhattan, which I accept are lazy assumptions taken for convenience.

a reply to: neutronflux

Can you get you head around this? I'll do the math.

Spent on WTC buildings to Port Authority for rights of building - 120 million
Spent on rent to port authority before build - 360 million
Lost rent wages until full occupancy in 2019 - 400 million

Total out of pocket - 880 Million

Insurance Payouts

WTC 7 - 787 Million
WTC 1 & 2 - 4.1 Billion

Cost to Build One World Trade Center - 3.8 billion.

Now there were 22 other partners in this deal that help secure loans and offset liabilities.

And you are not even considering the government bonds, subsidies, and tax breaks that greatly reduced his cost.

AAC

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: neutronflux


Even with all that said, he is still up billions. And will own the building outright in 15 years.

I am done talking with you. You obviously have no deductive reasoning or critical thinking skills.

How about you answer this: I say that 9/11 was to initiate Globalism and a One world Government.

So why did they change the name of the Freedom Tower to the One World Trade Center?

You know, screw the patriotic freedom, let's call it ONE WORLD.

AAC

What does one world government have to do with Silverstein lost money if he was using 9/11 as an insurance scam?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Can you quote the source of 3.8 billion.

I have quoted numerous sources that show the total cost to rebuild according to obligations was over 7 billion.

In conjunction with lost rent for five years.
In conjunction with paying back loans with interest.
In conjunction with never stopping paying rent to the port authority.

a reply to: neutronflux

Have you not been paying attention? I never said 9/11 was about an insurance scam. It's about using the event as a reason to start the war on terror, strip away American freedoms in the name of security, turn the country into a police state with the NSA spying on all of us, destabilizing the ME, spreading Globalism so that our multinational Merchant bankers and Corporations can profit freely without restriction.

It was about forging the world into a New World Order.

AAC

a reply to: neutronflux

That info is not hard to find

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Then why did you join the insurance Larry Silverstein insurance scam debate?

I don't know what to tell you. Silverstein is obligated to build WTC 2. The building obligations are for a total over 7 billion. The insurance only paid out about 4 billion.

Now....
How did the false narrative of a Silverstein insurance scam, the false narrative Silverstein made money off 9/11, and a false narrative of Silverstein being a 9/11 planner lead to the patriot act and one world government?

Again. Why would a 9/11 murderous government leave Silverstein in a position to let the cat out of the bag over and over again about 9/11?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

You do understand the insurance companies tried to get out of paying out for WTC 7 in court. If there was any evidence Silverstein brought down WTC 7 with demolitions, don't you think the insurance companies would have pursued Silverstein insurance fraud?

Why would the government not purse a criminal case against Silverstein if there was fraud and criminal acts by Silverstein.

And who did Silverstein get to wire WTC 7 for implosion through demolitions in the false narrative?

And what does Silverstein insurance fraud have to do with One World Government?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Then why did you join the insurance Larry Silverstein insurance scam debate?

I don't know what to tell you. Silverstein is obligated to build WTC 2. The building obligations are for a total over 7 billion. The insurance only paid out about 4 billion.

Now....
How did the false narrative of a Silverstein insurance scam, the false narrative Silverstein made money off 9/11, and a false narrative of Silverstein being a 9/11 planner lead to the patriot act and one world government?

Again. Why would a 9/11 murderous government leave Silverstein in a position to let the cat out of the bag over and over again about 9/11?

Bro, this is my thread. I asked a valid question that cannot be explained away. Now, the gravity of what that implies "is an insurance scam." If you knew an arson was going to burn your house down in two months, then went and upped your Arson insurance knowingly, then you are committing Insurance fraud.

Things that I don't think you're considering. Silverstein was not obligated to use his insurance payout to put towards the rebuild. He could have literally use the remainder, minus Port authority liability, to buy real estate elsewhere. Or buy cars.

Of course, he is under obligation by Port Authority to rebuild the site. But he does not have to put his own money up. Rich people do not put their cash into a project. They leverage their credit worthiness. Therefore, with the 100 year lease as collateral, Silverstein would have secure loans to cover all the cost. That is what rich people do. I know. My wife's mother is worth over 250 million.

They still get mortgages even though they can buy it outright. Why? Because cash on hand is god.

Real estate developers know the business. They know numbers. If Silverstein owes 100 million a year to Port Authority for 100 year lease of space, but projects the building will create 200 million a year in revenue. Let's say the cost overhead per year is 50 million for freedom tower. That still leaves 50 million a year to pay in the mortgage and pocket the difference.

So in theory, Silverstein could have, and probably did, pocket his share of the insurance payout.

Regarding why the government allowed Silverstein to talk freely? I personally think the Israel video I posted wasn't meant for release. It was filmed in Israel, where is he seemed as a national hero.

But let's be frank. There are a large and growing number of people that are infatuated with Globalism. It's a large number of very powerful people. Many of the low level followers actually believe they are modern day revolutionists. And that globalism is the only way to create world peace.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

And I repeatedly showed he underinsured for the WTC site. If he knew about the attacks, wouldn't he insure for the correct value.

In the context of the pull it comment, the other truth movement false narrative smoking gun Silverstein items, in the logic of a murderous 9/11 government striving to hide the truth of 9/11 at any cost, the murderous government as pictured by the truth movement would have eliminated the Silverstein liability long ago.

Sorry. Your smoking gun is just the gaffs of an old confused man, poor of sight, and not able to read his handwriting or small font?

Obama said he's been to 57 States. What is that conspiracy about?

Really, that is your best evidence? An old confused man you cannot prove why he was confused?

What does globalists and world peace have to do with the false narrative Silverstein was part of the 9/11 planning and what at most was a failed insurance scam?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

How did Silverstein get to add the truth movement's false narrative insurance scam to the plans of the new world order?

As the new world order, keeping the 9/11 plot secret at any cost, we better tell Silverstein so he can run his underinsured insurance scam, while losing income for five years, and paying the port authority rent the entire time.

And why is Israel and Jewish people a target in this thread?

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

Regarding why the government allowed Silverstein to talk freely? I personally think the Israel video I posted wasn't meant for release. It was filmed in Israel, where is he seemed as a national hero.

You made this about the new world order?

Why would the new world order let Silverstein be a continued liability. They don't keep tabs on people world wide?

Or do you just use the term new world order when convenient. Then switch back to the term US government when convenient?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

And I repeatedly showed he underinsured for the WTC site. If he knew about the attacks, wouldn't he insure for the correct value.

In the context of the pull it comment, the other truth movement false narrative smoking gun Silverstein items, in the logic of a murderous 9/11 government striving to hide the truth of 9/11 at any cost, the murderous government as pictured by the truth movement would have eliminated the Silverstein liability long ago.

Sorry. Your smoking gun is just the gaffs of an old confused man, poor of sight, and not able to read his handwriting or small font?

Obama said he been to 57 States. What is that conspiracy about?

Really, that is you best evidence? An old confused man you cannot prove why he was confused?

What does globalists and world peace have to do with the false narrative Silverstein was part of the 9/11 planning and what at most was a failed insurance scams?

Look, I am too old and too aware to think I will change your position on this. I understand cognitive dissonance. This is no knock to you, we all experience it. It's just the way our minds work. We are built to choose a side and defend it, even to the point of irrationality. Again, not saying you're being irrational with your defense, just detailing the phenomenon if you're not familiar.

I have a healthy respect for my intellect. I know what I know and do not pretend to know what I don't. That said, I think you are being very narrow-minded with your approach to this topic. Assuming that you're not a paid shill, let me ask you a question.

Have you ever been on the side that the official 9/11 story was untrue? I ask this because if you have been anti-conspiracy the entire time, your cognitive dissonance is enormous. You have been fighting your position so long long that if Larry Silverstein told you himself he had prior knowledge you'd deny it. Most of that comes from not wanting to be wrong the last 16 years (has it really been that long?) you've been fighting truthers.

I'll be the first to say that no truther has it all figured out. How can they? They just do their best at placing irregularities into their 9/11 model they're building in their head. The problem is that there is so much disinformation out there in the truth movement. Holograms come to mind.

But none of that has to matter at this point. All you have to do is look at the question this original post asked. Just because you entertain one anomaly doesn't mean you are now accepting the truth movement. You're are allowed to look at this question on it's own instead of a qualifier for everything else.

You said he could have misspoke. But then I answer that he was reading off of notes. You then said he could be crazy and misread it. But that is not a reasonable reply. I have watched the entire hour and fifteen minute video that segment was pulled from. Ask any old person and they will tell you that their mind is still firing on all cylinders, but it's the body that fails them.

What you fail to recognize, over and over, is that it is impossible to start construction on a new skyscraper from scratch in 8 months. I built out a 1.6 million - 3,000 square feet commercial space and it took 12 months to get plans designed and then approved.

You need to consider this on it's own merits. Instead of telling me that a man is too old, too senile, too bad of eyesight to read the paper he brought himself. You even say the font is too small for him like he'd didn't plan his notes according to the hour and fifteen minutes he spoke.

I am sorry, but you are just too far galvanized in your cognitive dissonance to entertain this subject objectively.

AAC

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

You do understand the insurance companies tried to get out of paying out for WTC 7 in court. If there was any evidence Silverstein brought down WTC 7 with demolitions, don't you think the insurance companies would have pursued Silverstein insurance fraud?

First off, they did not fight paying out for WTC 7. Did you just pull that out of your ass? WTC 7 was under a different policy. And it was paid out almost immediately. He owned that building since 1987, I think. Stop making up facts to support your narrative - that's a sign of cognitive dissonance.

[quote[Why would the government not purse a criminal case against Silverstein if there was fraud and criminal acts by Silverstein.

Horrible question. If the high level members of the regime were compliant, why would they investigate their own?

[quote[And who did Silverstein get to wire WTC 7 for implosion through demolitions in the false narrative?

First, there was a 36 hour power down at WTC before attack. Saturday and Sunday, September 8th and 9th.

In fact, Daria Coard, who was a security for the towers testified that bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out Thursday the 6th.

Additionally, George Bush's youngest brother was head of the security management detail of the WTC's. Coincidence?

Research the security footage that found two vans were seen pulling into the buildings for 10 straight days between the hours of 2am and 5am. Plenty of time to lay controlled demolition.

And what does Silverstein insurance fraud have to do with One World Government?

Research Zionism. Research Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

They say it's a forgery. But I read it and the source they claimed it was copied from. Not true.

And if it's a forgery, then why is everything that they said would happen, actually happening. If it's a coincidence, it's beyond the scope mathematical probability.

But go on and believe what you want. At the end of the day - I do not care.

AAC