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 ? Because he already knew what was going to happen!
This was written in "'Business week'' with regard to the WTC before 9/11. From an economic standpoint, the Trade Center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.
The Port Authority had made several attempts over the years to get the permits required to demolish the entire site but were always refused because of the "asbestos problem'' and the serious danger that "asbestos" would cause to the local community should the buildings be "demolished'' in the conventional manner.
His only consent to get around that risk to health was that the building could be literally dismantled "'floor by floor'', which could never have been a viable operation. Other New York developers had apparently been driven to bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations and the prospect of $200 million to plug those losses, which represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers at full rental capacity.
So even after Larry Silverstein's multi billion dollar acquisition in July of 2001 the Towers still required further funds of some $200 million in renovations and improvements to make the buildings rentable. Most of the 200 million renovation funds related to the removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.
Here we see a Red Flag; Where would that money have come from if Silverstein already had to invest 14 million of his own money to close the deal? This 14 million of Silverstein's personal funds being used in the deal tells us there was no more investors money available when he bought the lease in July 2001, so how would Silverstein have found another 200 million dollars to bring the WTC up to the standard for it to start to pay its own way?
Red Flag; One has to ask 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.
Now here's the interesting clause to the 99 year lease that was "TURNING SILVERSTEIN ON''; although Silverstein was not permitted to redevelop the site, HE DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES SHOULD THEY BE DESTROYED.
Now remember, Silverstein invested not only 3.2 billion dollars of other people's money into the deal, but also 14 million dollars of his own money! Now that's a very unusual investment step to take by a real estate genius, putting all that money into a site that was continuously a monumental financial loss.
A site that can never be developed in a way that was financially feasible! How does one justify that move to ones 3.2 billion dollar investors? I would love to have seen the Business Plan for that! We should certainly ask for those!
After closing the WTC deal in late July 2001, Silverstein immediately insured his "'white elephant'' buildings. The insurance coverage on the property 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism.
And more curiously, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks.
The total potential PAYOUT WAS $7.1 BILLION, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.
From Forbes.com 6th Dec 2004, "A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes".
The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports.
That means Silverstein got his buildings demolished in hours, he gets his insurance payments giving him 1.3 billion dollars more than he paid for the WTC 99 year lease, he gets free rein to build a state of the art, healthy, cost effective complex in the centre of Manhatten.
And all only 48 days after he signed the contracts!
No wonder he used his own 14 million dollars, he KNEW he was getting it back!
Here we also start to think, hold on, if so many BIG people knew that the buildings were not permitted to be demolished due to health risks from asbestos, why were the locals told the air was "safe to breath'' immediately after the 9/11 collapse?
The Port authority had applied for years for permits and had been refused yet they lied saying the air was safe. Why?
Then we have those famous words of Silvestein days after the 9/11 horror, "I remember getting a call from the, uh, Fire Department Commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh...and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." ~ Larry Silverstein, owner of New York's World Trade Center Building 7, which was demolished on 9/11/2001.
So they just pulled it, in just a couple of hours, just like that!
Hmmm, go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our very qualified friends will tell you just how many weeks of planning it takes to just "PULL IT''.
4
3
2
