Larry Silverstein is Off the Hook

According to theories involving Larry Silverstein as a benefactor of the 9/11 disaster, he put himself in a position to reap a mighty windfall of insurance money by cleverly attaching himself to the WTC complex shortly before the attacks.

It logically follows, then, that Silverstein would be sure that the insurance he bound for the complex would maximize the return on his risk. Specifically, that it would be tailor made to return maximum money on a multiple terrorist attack.

Two Occurrences…Two Forms

It’s a common misconception that a jury of twelve honest citizens decided that the 9/11 attack constituted TWO terrorist attacks and not ONE, paving the way for a conspiratorially large payout for Lucky Larry.

The fact is that the jury was not ruling on the attack itself, but on the insurance documents binding the WTC complex, and whether or not the wording contained in those documents obligated the insurance company to DOUBLE their reimbursement to Larry.

Over the course of several judgments, Larry lost about $2.5b due to wording on an insurance form.

Who was the brilliant person who chose those specific insurance forms and kept Dirty Larry from making out like a bandit?

Larry Silverstein, of course.


Fine Print

When Silverstein was binding his insurance for WTC he chose to use the insurance broker Willis Group Holdings Ltd.

The standard provisions used by Willis (the Wilprop form), take the time to define the term "occurence" very clearly. That is to say, that the definition of a single occurrence is broadened in this form to "losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes."

In fact, every coverage that was bound using the Wilprop form only paid on the 9/11 disaster as ONE OCCURENCE because of the clear definitions set forth.

If Larry would have gone with a broker who used the "ISO" (Insurance Services Office form) or another form by Travelers, two forms that don’t define “occurrence” at all and, therefore, leave it up to the State of New York, he would have stayed out of court and waltzed his way to a $7.1 payday.


It was only the companies that INSISTED on using their OWN FORM that were forced to pay out 9/11 as two separate occurrences, because their form didn't take the time to define "occurrence" as clearly. (Ironically, after the disaster, those same insurance companies were scrambling to prove that they DID, in fact, give in and use Silverstein's form!)


Criminal Mastermind??!?

If you are about to commit the most spectacular insurance fraud in history, you have complete knowledge of the 9/11 operation (including convenient security shut-downs to allow for demolitions teams to fit your buildings), there is no possible way you accidentally hire the wrong insurance broker and have them bind policies in a way that will cut your payday in HALF.

This, in my opinion, does not seem like the act of a brazenly bloodthirsty and greedy man who is about to orchestrate the slaughter of thousands for his financial gain.

He would have gone through these agreements with a fine tooth comb to ensure that he wouldn't get "cheated" in the courts. There is a ZERO PERCENT chance that he would look past that costly verbiage.


If people are willing to execute him based on “pull it”, then they better be willing to acquit him for this much more telling behavior.


If you feel like fact-checking me, google any of the following in combination: “Silverstein Wilprop Occurrence 9/11 Verdict.”

Or for a quick read:
Larry Silverstein’s $3.5b Definition

Opps. I bet Larry will be kicking himself over that. Rich and connected does not equal smart.

Homeboy screwed it up.

He was not the mastermind of anything as you want to lead others to believe... just a pawn who messed up big time.

Speaking of bigger "screw ups"... what about all of the coincidental "screw ups" that the gov't claims allowed 9/11 to occur?

There are still 1.7 BILLION in outstanding lawsuits to add to the 5 BILLION he has already been paid.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]

Actually the insurance pay off is only a small part of what larry got out of the free demolition of his buildings.

He saved billions in not having to renovate the buildings to get rid of asbestos. There was also talk of having to demolish the buildings piece by piece using scaffolding, which again would have cost him billions.

He basically got prime real estate for free, cleaned up for free, all ready for building his new more profitable complex. Larry made his fortune knocking down old building and building new ones.

In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.

Source

Sry but I think larry is still very much on the hook. But as Pootie pointed out he was only a very well paid off pawn...

I've never thought of Larry Silverstein as a criminal matermind. WTC7's demolition was far too obvious and he let slip the "pull it" comment on video.

Criminal conspiracies aren't perfect and at times can be thwarted even at the highest level. The most obvious that comes to mind is 1972's Watergate break in that left U.S. President Richard Nixon resigning from office (and receiving a Presidential pardon). Iran Contra was another big one and we all saw how well those in power remained basically free from prosecution.

Silverstein is an incompetent criminal, not a criminal mastermind. His luck has lasted him only due to how powerful the rest of the conspirators are.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Frith]

Originally posted by Pootie
Opps. I bet Larry will be kicking himself over that.

Why would he do that? He didn't know the buildings would be destroyed.

He was not the mastermind of anything as you want to lead others to believe... just a pawn who messed up big time.

The fact is that, as you would lead people to believe, he was on the inside. He was aware that the attacks would occur, and he was given the opportunity to capitalize on his knowledge.

His actions simply don't support your assertions.

There are still 1.7 BILLION in outstanding lawsuits to add to the 5 BILLION he has already been paid.

We've gone over this. You are counting that $1.7b twice. This is an entirely separate lawsuit where he is suing for money owed him that was dodged by the insurer by selling the branch of their company that writes claims.

Originally posted by ANOK
Actually the insurance pay off is only a small part of what larry got out of the free demolition of his buildings.

And it would have been even smaller if Larry had his way...

Trade Center Financing on Shaky Ground
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how 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.

Really? These are the actions of someone with inside knowledge of the "9/11 Operation?" Really?

he was only a very well paid off pawn...

Sorry I can't let you have that one. A pawn is an individual who is involved in a scheme without their knowledge.

You have two choices here:

• Silverstein had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and was simply manipulated by "THEM."
  
  
• Larry Silverstein knew that the Twin Towers would be attacked and was provided the opportunity to take financial advantage of the incident.
  

None of his actions between July and September of 2001 point to #2. Quite the opposite, you have to admit. If #1 is true then, technically, he's off the hook and cannot be included among the congregation of the grand 9/11 theory.

Originally posted by Frith
...he let slip the "pull it" comment on video.

You need to let that go. I won't tear apart the "pull it" theory here because it's been done a million times elsewhere.

I'm providing you with sound evidence that he did not attempt to capitalize financially in ANY WAY on the events of 9/11, and you're coming back with "pull it?"

Denied.

Silverstein was simply a real estate investor who purchased a building for far less than its estimated value because it required significant renovation. (i.e., He acted like a real estate investor.)

If it was such a horrible investment at the time, then why did he have to outbid several other companies for the property?

If it was such a bad idea, why this write-up in Real Estate Weekly in MAY of 2001:

Silverstein wins 99-year WTC net-lease
When it opened its doors in 1970, many called it a white elephant. In the years that followed, the World Trade Center developed an international reputation and is now viewed as a cultural icon. In recent years occupancy and revenues have soared, with many forecasting a rosy future for the complex.

Off the hook.

one small correction on Silverstein.

he doesn't own the WTC, he leases the land. He cut a deal for a 99 year lease on the towers in 2001 and in 1980 he did the same for WTC 7 and he then built WTC7

he pays 102 million in rent for the space and he was, according to the lease, given the right to rebuild should the towers be destroyed.

the cost to build the Freedom Tower has been estimated to be 5 billion dollars. add to that the cost of WTC 7, the 102 million per year until the tower is built and the other costs associated with the rebuilding of the office space and you've got the insurance money covered.

Originally posted by Crakeur
one small correction on Silverstein.

he doesn't own the WTC, he leases the land. He cut a deal for a 99 year lease on the towers in 2001 and in 1980 he did the same for WTC 7 and he then built WTC7

he pays 102 million in rent for the space and he was, according to the lease, given the right to rebuild should the towers be destroyed.

the cost to build the Freedom Tower has been estimated to be 5 billion dollars. add to that the cost of WTC 7, the 102 million per year until the tower is built and the other costs associated with the rebuilding of the office space and you've got the insurance money covered.

So who is the Owner of the WTC? I know before the Port Autority was. With him just being the lease holder should Larry be allowed to change the insurance if he's not the owner?

[edit on 4/26/2007 by Leyla]

The PA still owns the land, he holds a 99 year lease on it. He had the right to rebuild and that is what he is doing.



edited to add:

leaseholders can have insurance on the property they are renting. Renters insurance for homeowners and business lease insurance for businesses. If something happened to my office, I'd lose equipment, client files, furniture and some very nice artwork. If my building collapses or burns, my landlord isn't going to be covering it unless the destruction was their fault.


[edit on 26-4-2007 by Crakeur]

That changes things for me a little. I never knew just how much he got anyway. But the timing! I have said some choice words about the man even half aware that the timing is too obvious - again, essentially leasing the "Freedom Tower" for the entirety of the "New American Century" just six weeks befire the space for it and its idea was cleared.

It actually looks a bit like a set-up in retropspect to put blame on Larry.
Another Leidig, a Sliney, a scapegoat and a Jewish landlord one to boot.
Clever.
Or just coincidental again like the others. What an odd day!

Not that he won't still benefit. He's a business man!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I never knew just how much he got anyway. But the timing! I have said some choice words about the man even half aware that the timing is too obvious - again, essentially leasing the "Freedom Tower" for the entirety of the "New American Century" just six weeks befire the space for it and its idea was cleared.

It actually looks a bit like a set-up in retropspect to put blame on Larry.
Another Leidig, a Sliney, a scapegoat and a Jewish landlord one to boot.
Clever.
Or just coincidental again like the others. What an odd day!

Not that he won't still benefit. He's a business man!

Are you ready????

$7,000,000,000 bucks that he got from Insurance from loosing WTC 1-7.

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by Pootie
Opps. I bet Larry will be kicking himself over that.

Why would he do that?

'cause he only got half the money he might've. Duh! I won! How horrible/fortunate. I wish I'd put double on that space...

I'm sorry I'm ignorant myself on this - didn't he collect on anticipated returns for his century, and not based on any real money laid out? (they call that Merk-toMarket in accounting)? I always thot he got multiples of his initial investment. Would this meanhe lost billions, or simply lost the chance to make twice as many multiples of his initial investment? Won't the Freedom Tower do all right for catching him up either way?

I doubt he was directly involved, just put in as a lightning rod too greedy to let it go - anchored into the benefits of the attack yet sticking out from it and expendable if need be and presumably, as he was "used" a bit, he would kow nothing to speak of later.

I would guess it's all a complex deal.

You have two choices here:

• Silverstein had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and was simply manipulated by "THEM."
  
  
• Larry Silverstein knew that the Twin Towers would be attacked and was provided the opportunity to take financial advantage of the incident.
  

I can't be sure but my guess is basically no. 2. So long as we can admit this was no coincidence, making him a willing partner is unnecessary and silly. But possible...

Silverstein had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and was simply manipulated by "THEM."


Larry Silverstein knew that the Twin Towers would be attacked and was provided the opportunity to take financial advantage of the incident.

.....................

Sighs.............

Of course he knew thats why he had the insurance changed mere weeks before the attack because it wouldn't cover terrorism or act of war.

I'm through talking about this 9-11 deal. Because of course I'm ignored on the things I say over and over again. So figure it out on your own.

All on our own? Okay. Way ahead of you Leyla. Thanks for the tips.

You might try illustrating your point with evidence and then waiting a bit for a response. Things only move so fast around here. Essedarius actually has put forth evidence, you have just disagreed. I have agreed but offered add'l thots, not illustrated but stated as guesses. Yours are stated as fact and as "sheesh whats wrong with you people."

Sorry if you are disappointed. Feel free to move on or hang in. Peace.

Grr Fine then I'm in just to pass the time. But I'm still not changing my mind unless I see new evidence. But one thing I would like to find out more is on Flight 93. I do know the military was scrambling to try to intercept it but if it acually was shot down or not I don't know.

I still believe that WTC 1 and 2 and 7 was demoed due to the beams and the angles they were at.

And I did try a few times to present evidence and I was overlooked.

Originally posted by Leyla


And I did try a few times to present evidence and I was overlooked.

It happens. Only so many people on here. I have whole threads get ignored with no comments ever. It's sad. So pass the time by browsing back - many pages, threads waiting to be resurrected with a thoughtful comment. Cheers.

Originally posted by Leyla
I'm through talking about this 9-11 deal. Because of course I'm ignored on the things I say over and over again. So figure it out on your own.

Hey man, don't get despondent because people don't reply to your post specifically. It doesn't mean it wasn't read and considered in the grand scheme of things here. If no de-bunkers reply it's a good chance you said something they can't refute...

*Ahem er not a man dude. Ok I got it now thanks Anok.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I can't be sure but my guess is basically no. 2. So long as we can admit this was no coincidence, making him a willing partner is unnecessary and silly. But possible...

You are a thorough and thoughtful dude Caustic. I'm a little surprised that you would go with a theory that has virtually no factual support.

It's a simple question: Do Silverstein's actions from May to September of 2001 reveal that he was preparing to capitalize on the attacks?

1) He purchased a building with a financially "rosy future."

2) He attempted to WOEFULLY underinsure the buildings.

3) He bound coverage with paperwork that would virtually cut his payout in half in the event of "a series of occurences."

What evidence are you basing your decision on?

Originally posted by Leyla
Of course he knew thats why he had the insurance changed mere weeks before the attack because it wouldn't cover terrorism or act of war.

I would encourage you to provide a link for this.

The idea that anyone involved with the WTC, a building that is notoriously targeted by terrorists, would bind insurance coverage without considerations for terrorism is silly.

If indeed he did leave out terrorism verbiage (which he didn't), that would simply be another piece of evidence that he was not aware of a pending terrorist attack.

Originally posted by Leyla
But I'm still not changing my mind unless I see new evidence.

And I won't change mine unless you can provide some evidence that Silverstein intentionally prepared to financially benefit from the 9/11 attacks.

So far, all I've found is evidence to the contrary.

But one thing I would like to find out more is on Flight 93.

It was shot down.

Anything else?

What.. I simply asked a question- there's no need to be rude about it. As I said before watch 911 mysteries.

And why I was asking about flight 93 because their was a rumor that the flight landed in Ohio. I was simply tring to confirm it. All I knew about flight 93 before that it crashed when the passengers was trying to take back the airplane.

Originally posted by Leyla
What.. I simply asked a question- there's no need to be rude about it.

My bad.

As I said before watch 911 mysteries.

I have. It's very good. It converted me in to a conspiracy believer for some time.

I can't remember exactly what they said about Silverstein.
Can you refresh my memory?

And why I was asking about flight 93 because their was a rumor that the flight landed in Ohio.

There are MANY MANY threads on ATS dedicated to that very topic. I feel certain that you'll find someone willing to discuss it with you.

As for this thread...let's just stick to Lucky Larry.