I love how the shit some of us have been saying for literally decades now gains momentum because she says it. But whatever, at least it's getting traction...
How exactly does this work? Help me Run the numbers
He buys a lease for the WTC.
It's 95% occupied. So he has four revenue producing buildings and they are worth billions (WTC 1, 2, 4 AND 5)
Then they get destroyed.
So no he has no revenue, but still has to pay 100 million every year in lease payments.
He does get an insurance pay out but he doesn't have any buildings and no revenue. So to get back to where he was he had to spend billions to build new buildings.
1 WTC opened in 2014 and it cost billions to build.
Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. It has been years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but If I'm remembering correctly, one of the changes he made in the policy was the addition of a double indemnity clause, which meant the policy would pay out twice what the buildings were actually worth, if they were destroyed by acts of terrorism. Financially, he did very well indeed on his insurance payout.
I love how the shit some of us have been saying for literally decades now gains momentum because she says it. But whatever, at least it's getting traction...
I know exactly what you mean...👌😎
How exactly does this work? Help me Run the numbers
He buys a lease for the WTC.
It's 95% occupied. So he has four revenue producing buildings and they are worth billions (WTC 1, 2, 4 AND 5)
Then they get destroyed.
So no he has no revenue, but still has to pay 100 million every year in lease payments.
He does get an insurance pay out but he doesn't have any buildings and no revenue. So to get back to where he was he had to spend billions to build new buildings.
1 WTC opened in 2014 and it cost billions to build.
Did he turn a profit on this?
Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. It has been years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but If I'm remembering correctly, one of the changes he made in the policy was the addition of a double indemnity clause, which meant the policy would pay out twice what the buildings were actually worth, if they were destroyed by acts of terrorism. Financially, he did very well indeed on his insurance payout.
Double Indemnity is a great, great movie.
But that is not what happened in Silverstein's case.
He took his insurers to court to cover two instances of terrorism.
Each plane attack was a separate instance he argued.
He did get more money but way less than double.