View Single Post
 
Old 07-26-2013, 04:17 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,343
Latest news on 9/11....

The World Trade Center owners have failed in their attempt to collect $3.5 billion in damages from United Airlines, US Airways, American Airlines and its parent company, AMR. Lawyers for the owners had claimed that the airlines should be held liable for allowing terrorists to board their planes on 9/11. Attorney Roger Podesta, who represented the airline companies, argued that making aviation companies pay would amount to double compensation. Insurance payouts to the owners had already amounted to $5 billion. In ruling against the owners, developer Larry Silverstein and World Trade Center Properties, Judge Hellerstein cited state laws that bar "windfalls and double recovery on the same loss." Lawyers for the owners say they will appeal the decision.

I'd say that most of us are familiar with Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer who had taken out a 99 year lease on the World Trade Center complex for $3.2 billion just 6 months before the 9/11 incidents. But who are the other "owners" spoken of in this court case? Well, here are the facts:


World Trade Center Properties, LLC is an affiliate of Silverstein Properties Inc., of which Larry A. Silverstein is president
The directing corporate officers are:
John (Janno) N. Lieber Senior VP/Project Director
David Worsley Director of Construction
Edmund A. Narbutas Vice President/Design

The corporate officers can be assumed to have an interest in any gains made by Silverstein, in the form of gains on shares which they hold. Likewise, the two investors who helped Larry acquire the lease (Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre) would also have an interest, but Silverstein would obviously be considered to have sole ownership rights of the complex, other than the ground which the buildings sit upon, which is owned by and leased from the Port Authority.

Now at first glance, it would seem that the insurance payout of $5 billion, minus the $3.2 billion lease amount, gave Silverstein a $1.8 billion profit, but his actual profit was far more than that because the $3.2 billion amount was to be paid over a 99 year lease period. The original amount paid by Silverstein and his investors was just $124 million!

It is interesting, as well as informative, to note that other real estate investors had either gone bankrupt, or had totally shied away from having anything to do with investing in the WTC complex, and for good reason. The following gacts were uncovered by the Arctic Beacon Investigative Jounal, and are verifiable.
Quote:
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the [Twin Towers] buildings like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the buildings for liability reasons, but being turned down due to the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the buildings were still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
Furthermore, asbestos removal had been mandated by building inspectors, and the total cost for asbestos removal from the towers had been estimated at $200 million, which represented a full year of revenues if the complex was fully rented out. Independent investigations have disclosed that much of the twin towers were in fact unoccupied on 9/11, so these necessary revenues would have been more than just difficult to come by. What kind of investors would even consider pumping $124 million into a building complex plagued by such overwhelming problems? The logical answer, it would seem, is investors who were investing in a sure scheme to not only recoup their original investment, but also reap a humongous settlement from what would later ensue from planned demolition blamed on terrorist attacks.

To me, it is more than just amazing that, considering all the facts of the matter, the insurance company (Swiss Re) was made to pay anything at all to Silverstein, but that's the American inJustice system for you. Silverstein had insisted on including coverage "for loss due to terrorism" in his insurance policy. The policy was to pay $3.2 billion, the full amount of the 99 year lease agreement, and Silverstein later demanded twice that amount, saying that the losses sustained were the result of two separate terrorist incidents. The "justice" system agreed, and Swiss Re was ordered to pay up, though an agreement was reached at roughly $5 billion. I often wonder whether Swiss Re brought up the above noted facts in court concerning the need and desire to demolish the Twin Towers, whether they brought up the fact that Silverstein had admitted on videotape that the order had been given to "pull" (level or raze by demolition) building 7, or if Swiss Re had challenged a payout on the basis that the towers, as well as WTC building 7, were the only steel reinforced buildings in history to have been said to have "collapsed" due to fire damage. Swiss Re probably thought that challenging a payout on these grounds would backfire on them since it contradicted the "official" story of the 9/11 incidents, and agreeing to pay $5 billion undoubtedly looked better to them than having to pay $6.4 billion.

It is astonishing that Larry Silverstein, after making such a windfall on the WTC complex, would pursue a court case against the airlines in hopes of collecting another $3.5 billion. Of course if he were to eventually win such a reward, he would be up by roughly $8.5 billion, which is enough to recoup the total amount of the reconstruction costs of the new buildings (claimed to be $7.2 billion) and leave Larry with a cool $1.3 billion profit. Nice work if you can get it, huh?
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote