The Great 9/11 Insurance Bonanza

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Mar 27, 2010.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    "An Insurance Policy that had been set up for the WTC Complex only weeks before the Twin Towers went down" says Investigative Journalist Laurence De Mello.

    Larry Silverstein - "The Harder I Worked The Luckier I Became"

    De Mello continues, "In 1980, ..real estate tycoon Silverstein, won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center to the north of the WTC.

    Building 7 World Trade Center was situated above a (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building first opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building.

    But this building was also losing money. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. (he had waited over 20 years for this!).

    In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was initially outbid by $50 million by Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties with Vornado Realty, who were also competing for the lease''.

    Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial lease applicant and the Port Authority fell through, Silverstein signed the lease on July 24, 2001, only weeks (48 days) before the towers were destroyed on 11th September of the same year.

    Larry Silverstein had acquired what was considered a very expensive ''white elephant''. Here comes a Red Flag; After Silverstein closed his deal he stated; "This is a dream come true," "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." Yet this was a comment that was meant to make the public think this was a good investment. He didn't want to draw attention to the fact that he was buying the dead asset which the WTC was immediately before 9/11.

    Why ?

    FULL ARTICLE
     
  2. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is so unusual about purchasing insurance on a piece of property you buy? Ordinarily you cannot purchase property without proof of insurance. If you borrow $200,000 from a bank to purchase a home, they require you have insurance. Why? Because if the home burned down you could simply walk away and they would lose their money and the home.

    Buying insurance on the Twin Towers proves nothing, a person would be foolish not to purchase insurance on their property.
     
  3. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    More tin foil needed.
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    This isn't about buying insurance.

    The question is,

    "why would the biggest real estate developer in the USA acquire a group of buildings that were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per month? Especially as this new lease did not give him the right to redevelop the WTC site to make it a viable investment."

    Why?
     
    #4 poncho, Mar 27, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2010
  5. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that is the question, the writer of that article makes a big deal over buying insurance which is ridiculous, It would be difficult to find a business that doesn't carry insurance. It is the most ordinary thing in the world, and foolish not to have it. If somebody falls down a stairway and injures themselves, they could be sued (and surely would be).

    And what is so fantastic about it covering terrorist attacks? The World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists years before and was a known target. What is fantastic is that an insurance company would actually insure it against terrorism. I sold insurance for years, insurance companies are not required, and usually will not insure a high risk.

    Buy a high powered Italian sportscar and try to get insurance. Good luck.

    That is this fellow's argument, he implies this man knew the towers would be destroyed.

    And businessmen take risks all the time. Perhaps he was working deals to bring businesses to the Trade Centers. Nothing strange about that either.
     
  6. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are more ways to redevolope a property than to tear it down and build something else.

    The author of the article simply does not have knowledge of the development plans of the buyer.

    That lack of knowledge on the author's part does not equal lack of plans on the developer's part.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    So y'all are saying LS was just an incredibly lucky guy and 9/11 just happened to be his luckiest day ever? He was like really superduper lucky he guessed there would be two seperate events that would demolish his property then, eh?

    I suppose all the insider trading that went on just prior to 9/11 was just a few lucky guys that had an incredibly lucky day on 9/11 too. Who were the "inside traders" anyway? Did we ever find out?

    I reckon LS must either be the luckiest man on earth or he had prior knowledge. "although Silverstein was not permitted to redevelop the site, HE DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES SHOULD THEY BE DESTROYED."

    Oh yeah! And why did the government lie and tell everyone the air was safe to breath when they knew it wasn't?

    "When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones." SOURCE

    There must be a simple explanation. We all know our government and media would never knowingly lie to us.

    You say luck. I say prior knowledge. BTW, our government does lie to us, all the time.

    In case you hadn't noticed. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #7 poncho, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  8. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can you call him lucky? His property was destroyed along with the lives of nearly 3000 persons. He has not been collecting rent for 9 years now. The redevelopment of the area has been bogged down with problems for years now probably costing him many millions of dollars.

    Silverstein has been in court over this for years now. He has had to pay $120 million per year lease for property that is not bringing him in any income. You call that lucky?

    Here is an article from several years ago showing the complex lawsuits going on.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/n...issues-are-argued-in-appeal.html?pagewanted=1

    I wouldn't call spending years in court paying expensive attorney's outrageous fees for a property that is not earning income lucky.
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Your article is dated 2003.

    In 2004 Jury Awards $2.2 Billion in 9/11 Insurance

    "Silverstein argued the two jet planes that slammed into the twin towers entitled him to a double payment of the $3.55 billion policy, or $7 billion."

    Silverstein: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B

    In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

    The insurance money flows involved in the destruction of the original six World Trade Center buildings were far greater. Silverstein Properties, the majority owner of WTC 7, also had the majority interest in the original World Trade Center complex. Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to obtain enough coverage for the complex. Willis undertook "frenetic" negotiations to acquire insurance from 25 carriers. The agreements were only temporary contracts when control of the WTC changed hands on July 24.

    After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, "the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies." This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack.

    The ensuing legal battle between the leaseholders and insurers of the World Trade Center was not about how the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC could be considered two attacks, when the WTC was only destroyed once. Rather it seemed to revolve around whether the beneficiaries thought it was one or two "occurrences." The proceedings before U.S. District Judge John S. Martin involved a number of battles over the insurers' discovery rights regarding conversations about this issue between insurance beneficiaries and their lawyers.

    In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders' double claim.

    A Parable

    To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.

    SOURCE


    First you seem to claim it was just dumb luck on LS's part. You made the implication that he was the luckiest man one earth not I. Now you change your mind and say because he had to go court to get his 7 billion dollars (to reuild) he was not lucky?? Targus claims LS must have known something the author of the article did not. Like maybe two planes would be used in the attack instead of just one?
     
    #9 poncho, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  10. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    When did I ever say he was lucky? Please show where I said that.

    And just a few weeks ago on 60 Minutes they had a report on how badly the reconstruction and redevelopment of the World Trade Center area is going. Already several plans have been scrapped after spending millions on designs. There are all sorts of problems with labor and on and on.

    I guess if you consider spending 9 years in court (there are still many legal problems), having to pay $120 million a year for a property bringing in exactly $0.00 dollars lucky, then Silverstein is one lucky guy.

    And I guess you think he just gets to put that insurance money in his pocket don't you?

    What a deal!

    Here is a recent article showing the problems still going on.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/nyregion/05wtc.html

    Obviously you have never been in court before. Try spending nearly 10 years there and see if you consider it lucky, especially when you get a bill from all your attorneys.
     
    #10 Winman, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  11. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHAT ???? :laugh:

    Where in the world did you ever get this idea?

    Yes, I have no doubt that the buyer of the property had knowledge that the author of the article did not have - namely what the buyer's development plans were.

    It is not necessary to tear down a building to redevelop it.

    For instance - one could buy a large office building and then take it condo and resell individual office spaces and make a substantial profit.

    The buyer may have had committments from one or more companies to lease space at a rate that would have been profitable to the buyer.

    The buyer could have any of a number of plans that the author of the article doesn't know - without planning to crash planes into the building.

    Let's all just come back to earth here. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I guess you try to guess what I think too much.

    I never said you said.

    This is what I said.

    "First you seem to claim it was just dumb luck on LS's part. You made the implication that he was the luckiest man one earth not I."

    Notice the words, seem and implication?

    And yes I have been to court. But this isn't about me. It's about LS.

    Just the same investing 9 years to get 7 billion dollars doesn't seem like that much of a burden after waiting 20 years to get the leases does it? I mean it's not as if LS doesn't have a legal team to do all the work for him.

    Bottom line here is he invested all his money in a lemon and comes out smelling like a rose. So he had to wait a bit and do some work for it. So what?

    How long would you wait for a 7 billion dollar payout?

    So he's having problems developing the site now? Guess he isn't that great of a real estate tycoon after all eh?
     
    #12 poncho, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Are these your words or aren't they?

    "The author of the article simply does not have knowledge of the development plans of the buyer.

    That lack of knowledge on the author's part does not equal lack of plans on the developer's part."

    Looks just like you're saying LS knew something the author did not.

    Apparently he did. The author admits there is something he doesn't know. That's what the whole article is about basically. The question is still why would LS lease buildings that "did not function" and were losing money that he could neither renovate or demolish? Apparently everyone in NYC knew the WTC was a "white elephant", so how could LS not know?

    Where is the "business plan" that would turn this "money pit" into a gold mine?

    There must have been one so where is it? As they say in MO, show me.
     
    #13 poncho, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  14. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    #14 Winman, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Oh? You didn't answer my questions. Yes, I did notice. :smilewinkgrin:

    Here's an idea. Why don't you and Targus just show me LS's business plan? He must have had a plan to turn a "white elephant" into a gold mine. So, where is it?

    Is it a secret? Why? Is it a matter of "national security"? Why?

    It seems to be a very important "missing piece" in this story so where is it?

    Show me that one document so we'll no longer have to guess why LS did what he did.

    Y'all seem to be claiming LS had a perfectly rational explanation for spending all his (and his investors) money on a "white elephant" even though all you've put forward so far is guess-umptions.

    Where's your proof?
     
    #15 poncho, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  16. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right, I'll call my good buddy Mr. Silverstein right now, I'm sure he'll share all of his business plans with me just because I asked.

    I'm sure you have a job, go into work tomorrow and ask your boss to share all of the business's plans with you.

    There are many reasons businesses keep future plans secret and confidential. We have a process where I work that no one else in the whole world has (I'm being sincere). Am I going to tell you what it is? Nope, it's a secret, especially from our competitors. And I know this process, I actually operate it.
     
    #16 Winman, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  17. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    You quoted my post - but did you read it?

    I already answered your questions.
     
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Oh c'mon now. 9/11 was probably the biggest life changing event of our times and all you can do is offer a lame exscue as to why we don't already have this information?

    What's the mass media been doing all this time? Seems to me that a story this big that effects so many people and policies there would be "investigative" journalists crawling out of the woodwork to find this "plan" and air it or print it for all to see. If he's innocent as you imply. Why would this plan be kept "secret"? And no, I don't think LS would put on paper a plan to demolish his holdings using planes in the hands of terrorists. Unless he's really really really stupid or crazy. Insurers wouldn't pay out for sure then!

    Has it come out in court? You say LS spends much of his time there. What about court records? Surely a judge would want to see such a business plan.

    If it's a secret it's doing LS no good now. Now he's got another "plan" to rebuild. And we have seen this plan.

    Don't offer me lame excuses and more guess-umptions, just show me the document.
     
    #18 poncho, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010
  19. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ponco, your lack of business experience is showing.

    Entrepreneurs - espcially entrepreneurs playing at that level - don't publish their business plans in the newspapers.

    Some successful people are successful because they have an abilty to either see value in things that others don't see or know how to create value in something that otherwise is not there.

    That you are not able to see it or know how to create it does not mean that others do not.
     
  20. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Shows what you know about me. I ran my own business for years. You go to the bank and ask for a loan without showing them a plan. :laugh: Go to your investors and say lookie here folks I'm going to spend 3.2 billion of your dollars on a project, but you can't see the plan. :laugh:

    This story shows me that 9/11 was never investigated properly and we still need a proper investigation.

    I asked! And what did I get? Lame excuses and guess-umptions.

    Y'all aren't really into knowing the whole truth are you? Hey, if the cover story gives you comfort, then fine. Me, I want to know what really went on that day.
     
    #20 poncho, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2010

Share This Page

Loading...