Does Larry Silverstein Have A ‘Heart’?

It seems people are just making up numbers as they go. Even the 9/11 cult web sties aren't as far fetched as the numbers being thrown out in this thread. 1-12 billion dollars? Come on guys, let's be serious.

Originally posted by snoopyIs it fact or opinion that he would break even if he wins the lawsuit? Fact. Right now he is being given 4.3 billion. He is fighting to get 7 billion which technically his agreement doesn't cover. 7 bil + 5 bil from the gov = 12 billion, the cost to rebuild.

Dear snoopy:

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Or maybe I can’t comprehend the English language anymore. But I thought YOU said 12 (twelve) billion was the cost to rebuild (the twin towers).

Dazed,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Griff
This is where your logic gets flawed. He would have had to pay 10-12 BILLION in the near future to get the asbestos etc taken out.

Do you have any reliable source for this information? From everything I've read the WTC didn't use much asbestos to begin with, and most of it had already been removed before Silverstein leased the property.

From a report on asbestos at the WTC filed 9/13/2001, citing the PANYNJ's bid-contract:

Contract WTC-115.310 - The World Trade Center Removal and Disposal of Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles and Other Incidental Asbestos-Containing Building Materials Via Work Order Estimate Range: $1,000,000 annually Bids due Tuesday, October 17, 2000.

Nuf said.

There's absolutely nothing helpful in that link. So even if this document which seems to no longer exist is even real, you're saying a multibillion dollar building was worthless because of asbestos tiles that needed to be removed at $1 million/year? This work would have required millenia to complete then

A much better info source is here:

www.btinternet.com...

If there's any conspiracy here, it's that there wasn't enough asbestos in the WTC.

Wizard, i gave you a WATS vote for your research
You brought something to my attention that i never thought about.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by snoopyIs it fact or opinion that he would break even if he wins the lawsuit? Fact. Right now he is being given 4.3 billion. He is fighting to get 7 billion which technically his agreement doesn't cover. 7 bil + 5 bil from the gov = 12 billion, the cost to rebuild.

Dear snoopy:

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Or maybe I can’t comprehend the English language anymore. But I thought YOU said 12 (twelve) billion was the cost to rebuild (the twin towers).

Dazed,
The Wizard In The Woods

I did. So you can imagine why it would be absurd for the cost of removing asbestos to be as much as rebuilding the entire complex.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
There's absolutely nothing helpful in that link. So even if this document which seems to no longer exist is even real, you're saying a multibillion dollar building was worthless because of asbestos tiles that needed to be removed at $1 million/year? This work would have required millenia to complete then

A much better info source is here: www.btinternet.com...

If there's any conspiracy here, it's that there wasn't enough asbestos in the WTC.

Nary a figure in sight on that link, though the site has a pretty blue theme.

And seeing it's six years on, what a surprise the Port Authority would have removed its link to asbestos abatement contract bidding to the WTC, which is no longer either theirs or in need of the contract. But certainly that old link is disinfo and no such bid contract ever existed, even though half the work was already done--doubtless pro bono.

But you're right on one thing, the work was carried out quickly: it only took a single morning, not millenia, sadly enough--but that was a different contract entirely.

And that comment about not enough asbestos in the towers is indeed thought-provoking; you're suggesting it would have been better to have even more micronized asbestos particles floating about lower Manhattan after the towers were destroyed? A bit ghoulish, no?

[edit on 22-3-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by snoopy
I did. So you can imagine why it would be absurd for the cost of removing asbestos to be as much as rebuilding the entire complex.

Yes, that was my mistake. I must have taken your 12 billion amount and converted it to asbestos removal.

I'd still like to see a time line of loses/gains when the towers and 7 are fully operational. If Larry is loosing money, why doesn't he get out? He could just let it go if he wanted couldn't he?

[edit on 3/22/2007 by Griff]

He is either a vary good android or a Human Being. I'm guessing the latter. Therefore he has a "heart" in the usual sense. Whatever the total score, he has those he cares about, or means to, tries to... he'll die someday ad pass from the Earth, etc... But obvoulsy, no matter what he did before, on, or after 9/11 his heart is certainly twisted by the business world. And what business sense! Lease out the Freedom Tower for the entirety of the New American Century - six weeks beore the crud towers blocking the way would fall down.

Suspicious hell yeah. Criminal, possibly, probably. I'm not ready for a libel case here.
Yet ultimately as with everyone I feel sorry for this sick son of a bitch. Which don't mean much. I'd shoot Hitler in the face and feel sorry for him at the same time... In fact I'd really feel sorry for him at that point.

Originally posted by snoopy
I did. So you can imagine why it would be absurd for the cost of removing asbestos to be as much as rebuilding the entire complex.

The $10-$12 Billion is not for removing asbestos tiles.

It is the 1980's cost estimation prepared (think inflation now, the cost would be far more now so I am being conservative) to completely surgically dismantle the WTC 1 and 2 because they were money losers re: liabilities. The disassembly required installing scaffolding ALL THE WAY up the buildings and taking them down piece by piece since there is NO WAY the EPA of City of NY would allow them to be taken down via CD.

Consider the targets chosen. The WTC complex was an enormous
architectural white elephant filled with asbestos and with far too few
tenants. But because the WTC had been built much too big and much too
well, the cost of deconstruction, an estimated 20 billion, far
outweighed whatever profit an owner might gain from years of
ownership. But suppose a buyer stepped forward and purchased the
property, with the foresight to realize the towers were targets? And
suppose that buyer, possessed insider information about an attack and
insured them against such a fate? And suppose that buyer collected
when those white elephants crashed to the ground within months? In
fact that is exactly what did happen, to the extent of 3.5 billion
dollars.

I have a link on my home PC that has the complete deconstruction plans and cost estimations... I am having a hard time googling them now. I even have schematics for the massive scaffolds, etc. that were proposed in the 90's.

Larry, the port Authority and everyone else would have financially wanted those buildings gone.

[edit: bad date]

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

There was an official proposal on the EPAs web site, by the EPA, dated 1997 for the "decomissioning" of WTC 1 and 2... these documents seem to no longer exist online. Also convenient how the EPA library in Ann Arbor at the national emissions lab, and all other EPA sites, that would have held a copy of this has been closed to the public due to "budgetary concerns".

Here is one of the only crude drawings I can locate at this moment:

"The owners were fully aware of the problem and had been given the ultimatum that they could not 'implode' the buildings. They received the report stating that: Decommissioning was required by the EPA by no later than 2007, at a projected cost of $20.B"

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Pootie]

Thanks Pootie.

I was starting to think I got the 12 billion dollar amount out of the air. Now, I realize I didn't.

I'd say not having to pay 12 billion and actually recieving 3.5 billion is an increase in revenue.

If Silverstein is having problems financially today (without having to pay the 12 Billion) how in the hell did he think it was a good idea to buy the towers in the first place? Unless, he knew something.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
I did. So you can imagine why it would be absurd for the cost of removing asbestos to be as much as rebuilding the entire complex.

Yes, that was my mistake. I must have taken your 12 billion amount and converted it to asbestos removal.

I'd still like to see a time line of loses/gains when the towers and 7 are fully operational. If Larry is loosing money, why doesn't he get out? He could just let it go if he wanted couldn't he?

[edit on 3/22/2007 by Griff]

Because it's only a short term loss. With the new rebuilding he will hope to make money from the new renters. But like any business it's a risk. He could lose his shirt, he could make more money than ever possible before 9/11.

Could he be behind some plot to bring the towers down? I suppose anything is possible. But until some actual evidence is presented, it's just a witch hunt to plug holes in a theory that has already concluded that it was an inside job. And I have a hard time believing that this elaborate caper if true would cost any less than the speculative figures being thrown out there for the speculative notions about the condition of the buildings.