DID LARRY SILVERSTEIN LOSE MONEY ON 9/11 ?
Since Nov. 2015, I have insistingly been asked (or shall we say, "challenged") via private e-mail by one John Roth to write an article for him - so as to refute an article published on the "Daily Kos" which, according to John, refutes the following statement of mine (published in my Tour Guide to the September Clues research ) :
simonshack wrote:"The master plan of 9/11 was to demolish the redundant, asbestos-filled WTC complex in Lower Manhattan - 9 buildings in all. The area would naturally be evacuated (as for all such demolitions) in order to prevent a slaughterhouse of dreadful proportions - not a good idea at all. To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme - just a formidable opportunity for massive financial gains and military propaganda."
That 'sarcastic' Daily Kos article (by one Katherine Smith) cited by John is titled "911 Truthers are Dummies" - and states the following :
Katherine Smith wrote:The Single Stupidest Insurance Fraud In History
Silverstein's best-case scenario was an insurance payout of $6.8 billion for the twin towers. Putting aside that the insurance companies refused to pay and settled for $4.55 billion and that he had a mortgage on the twin towers, the $10-12 billion to rebuild the towers would leave him with at least $4 billion deficit. And contrary to what you heard, the twin towers were quite profitable and had fairly high occupancy rates.
To recap, Larry Silverstein wanted the moneymaking towers destroyed so he could collect a net loss from insurance funds, not to mention the loss of rental income during the 10+ years it will take to re-build the Freedom Tower.
In other words, that article suggests that Larry Silverstein couldn't possibly be a willing participant in the Grand 9/11 Hoax - since he would have lost money in the process. The article also states most assuredly that "the twin towers were quite profitable and had fairly high occupancy rates" (yet fails to provide any sources to that claim). So let us now see what one expert biographer of the WTC towers ( Eric Darton) wrote in his book titled "Divided we Stand" :
'DIVIDED WE STAND' by Eric Darton (1999)
*** http://www1.cuny.edu/events/cunymatters ... fecut.html
Eric Darton published in 1999 the most exhaustive / comprehensive existing 'biography' of the WTC twin towers. Please note that Darton is certainly no 'conspiracy theorist' - as his book only traces the towers' history from their birth up to 1999. However, it turns out to provide invaluable clues as to how the towers' tenants might have been 'controlled' - so to speak - after the first 1993 "Al-Qaeda" bombing. 'Divided We Stand' is also a treasure trove for anyone interested in the wheelings and dealings that - historically - have characterized these most cumbersome, asbestos-laced and crappy / strongly disliked buildings.
I have selected a few interesting, short extracts of "Divided We Stand" (but please read his book to understand just what a decaying / decrepit estate behemoth the twin towers were known to be). Here they are :
1- THE TOWERS WERE A SHAMBLES FROM THE WORD GO - (and a decrepit behemoth by the late 1990's):
"Pacing out the periphery of the trade towers in the late 1990s, one navigated a cracked badlands of sidewalk crudely patched with mismatching cement. The weathered, gray (originally white) Italian marble paving on the plaza was a spiderweb of cracks, a condition that undermined the addition of benches and flowerbeds and the tinkling medley of new-age harmonics emanating from a score of tiny speakers mounted beneath Yamasaki's arcades. Construction equipment and barricades around the site appeared to have been deployed and then abandoned by a retreating army."
In 1985, when New York State moved most of its offices out, Dean Witter consolidated its operations in twenty-four floors of Tower 2 under a twenty-year lease. Visiting the brokerage and investment firm's offices and cafeterias, one invariably found them spotlessly maintained. But on adjacent floors, particularly those with multiple tenants, the paint was dingy, the carpets were stained, fixtures remained broken, and burned-out fluorescent lights went unreplaced, as did discolored ceiling tiles. And the listing of a company on the directory did not reliably indicate that a company was still there."
2- FOLLOWING THE 1993 BOMBING, 50,000 workers were displaced and 350 tenants were RELOCATED OUTSIDE THE WTC.
"The February 1993 blast in the basement of the World Trade Center killed 6 people, injured 1,000 others, displaced 50,000 workers, and threw 900 Vista Hotel and Windows on the World employees out of work, but it also provided a modest boost for the regional economy. This, at any rate, was the conclusion the Port Authority came to in an April 1993 report released six weeks after the bombing. (...) For the agency, this silver lining was due in part to the ease with which the 350 bombed-out trade center tenants could be moved into abundant vacant office space nearby."
3- AT THE END OF THE 90'S HUGE QUANTITIES OF OFFICE SPACE WERE ANNOUNCED RENTED - BY THE PRESS
[i]"The Port Authority closed out the 1990s with a stream of press releases announcing the rental of unimaginably huge quantities of trade center office space to "cutting-edge" firms like Sun Microsystems. Yet around the complex a million square feet stood empty, and the buildings originally intended as great catalyzing chambers of world trade were, by degrees, transforming into a kind of disjunctive real estate layer-cake. One story above the carpeted, wood-paneled offices of a Japanese securities firm, a group of artists filled bare walls with boldly colored images and hung sculptures from the exposed ceiling girders of a vast echoing cavern. As part of a Lower Manhattan Cultural Council program that turned some of the vacant space in the towers over to artists rent-free, 40,000 square feet of concrete floor lay paint-spattered and strewn with the raw materials of a creative urge that has never been easily reconciled with the imperatives of a bottom line. "
So, let's see: according to Eric Darton - the expert WTC biographer, the WTC towers were:
1: "A SHAMBLES FROM THE WORD GO" - i.e., not at all profitable - and a real-estate developer's / owner's nightmare.
2: "TOTALLY EVACUATED OF ALL THEIR TENANTS AND 50.000 OFFICE WORKERS IN 1993" - i.e. the WTC towers were totally vacated after the first, reported 1993 'Al-Quaeda terror attack'. We learn that "350 bombed-out trade center tenants were moved into abundant vacant office space nearby."
3: AT THE END OF THE 90'S HUGE QUANTITIES OF OFFICE SPACE WERE ANNOUNCED RENTED by the press. Well, we'd have to trust the press in order to believe that "unimaginably huge quantities of trade center office space were rented to "cutting-edge" firms such as Sun Microsystems" - as claimed. Meanwhile, Eric Darton describes the WTC as a "vast echoing cavern" populated by a bunch of (non-paying / rent-free) squatting artists!
Are there any official, verifiable records of these new tenants purportedly once again filling up the WTC towers - following the total 1993 evacuation?
That is the question.
But hey, maybe we should set up a fundraiser to help poor / financially-beleaguered Larry Silverstein make his ends meet?
And from a more recent (May 2014) article - lamenting the low demand for leases of the new, $3.9 billion "One World Trade Center" :
"The World Trade Center twin towers struggled with finding tenants as well. The twin towers had to lease much of the office space to government agencies."
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/13651 ... demand.htm