NinjaPuppy wrote:You couldn't have said that two pages ago???
And missed all the fun?
Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!
And missed all the fun?
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!Well then, why didn't ya?
I sold real estate for 20 years and I did not understand the issue. ![]()
That would be one sided fun.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!The buildings are insured for what the insurance companies and Larry think they are worth. I'm sure some one from both sides did an evaluation on them, unless you think they plucked a figure out of thin air? lol Speaking of plucking things out of thin air! Where is the proof or evidence Larry lost billions? ![]() Come on Nostradamus, your psuedo is shining like lighthouse on a dark night. ![]() There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!If you think this is fun, then I would seriously advise you to get out more. ![]() There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!What a poor analogy! lol If insurance companies and Larry think the buildings were worth $3.55 billion, then unless you have counter evidence to show otherwise, then you can't really argue with their figure. Have you done an estimate of how much the WTC were worth to discount what Larry and the insurance companies claims they are worth?? I didn't think so! ![]() There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!If you're willing to pay the premium, you can insure what ever you want at any price that you want. Considering that I understand that this particular policy was specifically to include 'acts of terrorism' it would be hard to argue a price.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!Very true NinjaPuppy, plus the value of the WTC is subjective. What Nostradamus is doing is desperately bringing up these pointless points, like asking me to prove how much the WTC are actually worth, as a distraction to avoid the fact he claims that Larry lost billions. ![]() There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!
You betcha! He does have his moments, that's for sure.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!
Pointless? Is it pointless to show that your inference that an insurance coverage is not what you claimed it was? Here is what you recently wrote:
1. Silverstein did not own the builds, but took out a 99 year lease. If you don't understand the difference take a peek at Hong Kong. 2. Silverstein and associated paid out $3.2B in their lease bid which they won after the higher bidder backed out. The bid does not match the insured value. Here's a story on the insurance issue: http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
Your claim was that the insurance coverage was the value of the property. Then you related that cost to something else. Well stundie your initially inference, the equating two values, was dead wrong. You are the one showing the lack of merit of your assessment of the situation. The point is that Silverstein wanted to have less coverage on the buildings. The insurance value was a negotiated value based on input from a number of sources. It is as noted in the Forbes article, not the value of the property. Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!His lenders were willing to take the risk on the value of the insurance policy, so why you are objecting is beyond me Why do so called debunkers state the bleeding obvious in a poor attempt at a strawman. ![]() This highlights something odd, because if Larry owns the buildings on a 99 year lease, then he owns the buildings for the 99 years after he took over the lease but what is even odder is that you think I do not know this or know the difference, Pathetic! But what else do we expect from someone who claims Larry lost billions, yet you are clutching at straws of your faith based reality rather than the reality which Larry as made a lot of money! It was worth what ever someone paid for it and 3.2 or 3.55 billion! The fact is he got 4.5 billion. Help me out with the maths how is paying out 3.2 but gaining 4.5 a loss exactly? An article from 2003 which states. "which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding." The key word is likely! lol If that word wasn't there you would have a point Mr Debunker! lol Anyhows! The point is that we know how much the rebuilding is going to cost, did you forget that I posted a link to the NYPA website explaining that 1 WTC is going to cost $3.2 Billion! lol No of course you didn't, you just ignored it. lol So how much was the property worth? Likely 5 billion? Likely more? lol And what they thought the risk was worth. The value of something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Its subjective! If someone makes an investment and want to insure it.Some thought probably it was worth more and some probably thought it was less than the insurance value, but they all agreed it was worth 3.2 because that's what they insured it for, what it's truly worth is something which can never be truly attained because it depends on so many factors. So sitting here arguing that I've got it wrong when you have still not been able to back up your original claim is an hilarious distraction routine, you take ages to make your point and when you do, it's useless and still doesn't back up what you claimed. While still forgetting that even if the buildings were worth more than 3.2 or even 5 billion, it is so irrelevant when you bare in mind he got more back from his insurance than he paid for them, even if they were worth 10 billion and he managed to get them at a steal at 3.2 billion. ![]() So please show us something that Larry lost billions instead of ignoring my request while trying to pick holes out of concrete with a feather! lol There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!
This is going to be oh so hard. Even after I tell you that he does NOT own the buildings, but has a lease you write "he owns the buildings". Clearly you do not know the difference. He does not own. He is renting.
I am not objecting. Boy oh boy is this getting hard to explain even the simplest things. I am objecting to you equating the insured value to the value of the property. The insured value is NOT the value of the property. The insured value is NOT the replacement cost of the property.
The answer to that of course is it all depends on a lot more factors than these 2 numbers. There are a lot of other factors and as we have already so clearly seen you do not understand the numbers being discussed. Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!No it's not, you are just making it hard in order to avoid your false claim. lol You didn't tell me it, I knew long before you told me but he owns the lease to the building for 99 years. Your point is what? lol I understand the difference, you are just making a point out of nothing because you STILL can't back up your claims. lol So please tell us the numbers or just fess up, you got it wrong. lol I think the only one who doesn't understand is you? ![]() You are the one who claimed it was going to cost $6 billion to rebuild them, without providing a single piece of evidence for your claim! lol Anyway, still waiting for you to show us evidence for Larry lost billions! lol I'm gonna keep pestering you until you either provide evidence or admit that you messed up! ![]() There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!
Do you know if he is just renting the land or both the building and the land? I can't seem to find anything to clarify this. Since I don't have access to the actual lease contract, I can't tell. Bold is mine-
A story from the "NY Daily News", Aug. 4, 2009-
Here's a real good article that suggests that Siverstein will OWN the buildings once built if the PA doesn't find him in default of his contract-
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/200 ... _them.html I may be wrong but in order to hold title, you must OWN, not RENT.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!As far as I'm aware, Larry leased the buildings but the land belongs to the PA.
One of the stipulations was that if anything happened to the buildings, Larry could had overall say on what could be built on the land. I think the NYPA are being fined by Silverstein because he is waiting for them to do something with the land so he can start building a 3rd tower, which he has to do by 2013. There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
Re: Major General says Pentagon was not hit by plane!
From what I read this morning, the land is owned by the State of NY and the Port Authority leases it from them. Then the PA has the right to lease it ( or sub-lease) as they see fit. Usually if you hold a land lease and/or building lease and something happens to the current structure you usually have contingencies or stipulations for such things as written into the original lease agreement. It seems that Mr. Silverstein and the PA have been at odds on many points regarding these issues since 9/11. It's hard to predict who has what legal rights concerning this issue without review of all of the original lease agreements, insurance docs, etc. Since none of us here are privy to that private information, we might need to agree to disagree on this whole issue. Real estate is funny that way. ![]()
Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests |
|