Page 2 of 8

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 12 Dec 2009, 21:36
by Nostradamus
What stundie is claiming here is that silverstein didn't borrow money and owes money to creditors.

If you buy a house and put down a down payment of $10K and then the house burns down you still owe the creditors. Stundie's claim is that you put down only $10K! Big deal. If the mortgage was $200K you still owe $200K. If the building is under insured by $20K, then you end up in the red.

The same applies to the WTC.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 13 Dec 2009, 00:27
by stundie
Nostradamus wrote:So stundie, Silverstein under insured skyscrapers which is not unusual.
Oh dear Nostradamus, you aren't getting this are you?

Silverstein insured the WTC for the value they were worth at the time which was $3.55 billion.
Nostradamus wrote:The skyscrapers were a total loss.
That is obvious!
Nostradamus wrote:He asked the courts to decide that the 2 planes were 2 separate incidents which would have the insurance companies paying on each incident.
He never asked the courts, he tried to claim twice from his insurance companies, the insurance companies rejected his 2nd claim, then it went to court.

Please read the links I gave you, it will save us a lot of time.
Nostradamus wrote:The court rejected his argument.
They did reject his argument and he appealed it.
Nostradamus wrote:The insurance companies paid on 1 incident, not 2.
Errr!!

Wiki wrote:The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the “two occurrences” interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion)
What was you saying?? :shock: lol

Nostradamus wrote:It is important to not misrepresent the case saying someone asked in court for $7B. Because that was not what the court decided.
If he was not asking for it, then there would be no case.

The problem is you are misinterpreting my argument because your claim that poor ole Larry lost billion is shown as bunk!

Nostradamus wrote:So lol :o You did misrepresent the case.
Not at all, Larry tried to claim for 2 incidents and therefore a total sum of $7 billion.
Nostradamus wrote:So the insurance payments did not cover the loss. End of story.
What do you mean end of story?? lol

The insurance covered him for more than his loss, the buildings were worth 3.55 billion, he got over 4.5 billion.

So please stop with the patently false claims that Larry lost billions and it would be honourable if you recognised that you are wrong.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 13 Dec 2009, 00:34
by stundie
Nostradamus wrote:What stundie is claiming here is that silverstein didn't borrow money and owes money to creditors.
This argument comes from the recess of your imagination! lol

Please show us exactly where I claimed that Silverstein didn't borrow any money when I highlighted the fact he spent $14 million of his own money and the rest was obtain via a consortium? lol
Nostradamus wrote:If you buy a house and put down a down payment of $10K and then the house burns down you still owe the creditors.
Yeah I know and Larry got back most of his and the consortium down payment and was paid the more than the value of his losses by over $1 billion.
Nostradamus wrote:Stundie's claim is that you put down only $10K!
WTF?? lol
Nostradamus wrote:Big deal. If the mortgage was $200K you still owe $200K. If the building is under insured by $20K, then you end up in the red.
The same applies to the WTC.
And that is why the PA still charge him $120 million per year because he still hasn't paid them there $3.2 billion.

Read the links I gave you and please stop with the strawman arguments that I have never made.

If you cannot show that Larry lost billions or even millions, the most honourable thing to do is admit your mistake and apologise. ;)

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 13 Dec 2009, 00:54
by Nostradamus
Not at all, Larry tried to claim for 2 incidents and therefore a total sum of $7 billion.


Thanks for agreeing with me that you misrepresented the case.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 13 Dec 2009, 01:52
by stundie
Nostradamus wrote:
Not at all, Larry tried to claim for 2 incidents and therefore a total sum of $7 billion.


Thanks for agreeing with me that you misrepresented the case.
Err!!! lol I do not agree with you Nostradmus!! lol

You have not explained how I have misrepresented the case neither have you shown Larry lost billions. lol

Do you post at the JREF Forum? Because you are employing their groupthink tactics to deal with the fact you are wrong. lol

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 13 Dec 2009, 01:57
by Nostradamus
the buildings were worth 3.55 billion


Here's what I'll kindly call a misrepresentation.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 13 Dec 2009, 02:07
by stundie
Nostradamus wrote:
the buildings were worth 3.55 billion


Here's what I'll kindly call a misrepresentation.
You have NOW changed what I am suppose to have misrepresented? lol
Wiki wrote:The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion.
Are you going to show us some evidence that Larry lost billions at any point?

Or are you just going to pretend that he did, even though there is no evidence that he did other than your personal beliefs? :lol:

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 13 Dec 2009, 07:12
by Nostradamus
Silverstein insured the WTC for the value they were worth at the time which was $3.55 billion.


You wrote this line. Prove it.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009, 04:25
by stundie
Nostradamus wrote:
Silverstein insured the WTC for the value they were worth at the time which was $3.55 billion.


You wrote this line. Prove it.
I already have provided it numerous times.........lol Why don't you just read the links provided?? :roll:

Wiki wrote:....Upon leasing the World Trade Center towers, along with 4 World Trade Center and 5 World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the buildings. The insurance policies on these four buildings were underwritten by 24 insurance companies for a combined total of $3.55 billion per occurrence in property damage coverage.......

.............The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion............

You are playing every debunking trick in the book and failing very badly Nostradamus!! :lol:

SO.....Are you going to show us some evidence that Larry lost billions at any point? :lol:

Or do you often believe in things which there is no evidence for?? Me thinks so! :shock:

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009, 08:00
by Nostradamus
I didn't ask you to provide it. I asked you to prove it.

Huge difference.

Your statements are failures.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009, 16:52
by NinjaPuppy
Nostradamus wrote:I didn't ask you to provide it. I asked you to prove it.

Huge difference.

Your statements are failures.

ND, so now I have a question. What is the difference between providing a statement that backs up a claim and proof? What am I missing here?

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009, 19:58
by ProfWag
NinjaPuppy wrote:
Nostradamus wrote:I didn't ask you to provide it. I asked you to prove it.

Huge difference.

Your statements are failures.

ND, so now I have a question. What is the difference between providing a statement that backs up a claim and proof? What am I missing here?

If I may interject an opinion, it's in the source. If one is trying to prove psychic powers and use Sylvia Browne as a source, well, all the statements provided by that source does nothing to show proof. It's like someone trying to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy and then providing a statement from Richard Gage. Not really proof. ND, over to you.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009, 21:12
by Nostradamus
It's rather simple. The amount that something is insured for is rarely the value of the item. The claim that Silverstein insured the building for its value is simply wrong. He did not. In fact, he wanted to insure the buildings for less. In real estate there are many different values for a property. There is the amount it sold for, an appraised value, a bid, cost of replacement, probably other values as well, but the insured value is not the value of a property.

Such mistakes at the start of an argument are given as facts. They are not. The insured value is not issue. It is the deceptive inference taken from that amount that has to be proved. So my demand is that the inference be proved. It may not be apparent to others what I am asking stundie to prove, but I'm fairly certain that stundie who has looked into this issue knows what I am getting at. If stundie does not understand the issue, then stundie needs to go back and learn the issues that led up to the insured amount of the policy held n the buildings.

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009, 22:51
by NinjaPuppy
You couldn't have said that two pages ago???

Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!

PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009, 23:14
by Nostradamus
I could have.