SCEPCOP Forum

NinjaPuppy wrote:You couldn't have said that two pages ago???

And missed all the fun?

Well then, why didn't ya?

Nostradamus wrote: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.

I sold real estate for 20 years and I did not understand the issue.

ProfWag wrote:And missed all the fun?

That would be one sided fun.

Nostradamus wrote:I didn't ask you to provide it. I asked you to prove it.

Huge difference.

Your statements are failures.

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.

ProfWag wrote:

NinjaPuppy wrote:You couldn't have said that two pages ago???

And missed all the fun?

If you think this is fun, then I would seriously advise you to get out more.

ProfWag wrote:

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.

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!

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.

NinjaPuppy wrote: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.

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.

stundie wrote:

NinjaPuppy wrote: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.

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.

You betcha! He does have his moments, that's for sure.

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.

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:

The buildings are insured for what the insurance companies and Larry think they are worth.

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

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

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.

Nostradamus wrote: 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.
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:

stundie wrote:The buildings are insured for what the insurance companies and Larry think they are worth.

His lenders were willing to take the risk on the value of the insurance policy, so why you are objecting is beyond me

Nostradamus 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

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!

Nostradamus wrote: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.

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?

Nostradamus wrote:Here's a story on the insurance issue:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_ ... stein.html

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

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

Nostradamus wrote: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.

So how much was the property worth? Likely 5 billion? Likely more? lol

Nostradamus wrote: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.

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

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 knowthe difference,

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.

His lenders were willing to take the risk on the value of the insurance policy, so why you are objecting is beyond me

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 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?

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.

Nostradamus wrote:This is going to be oh so hard.

No it's not, you are just making it hard in order to avoid your false claim. lol

Nostradamus wrote:Even after I tell you that he does NOT own the buildings, but has a lease you write "he owns the buildings".

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

Nostradamus wrote:Clearly you do not know the difference. He does not own. He is renting.

I understand the difference, you are just making a point out of nothing because you STILL can't back up your claims. lol

Nostradamus wrote:The answer to that of course is it all depends on a lot more factors than these 2 numbers.

So please tell us the numbers or just fess up, you got it wrong. lol

Nostradamus wrote:There are a lot of other factors and as we have already so clearly seen you do not understand the numbers being discussed.

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!

Nostradamus wrote: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.

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-

Since 9/11, the company has remained passionately committed to the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site. In May 2006, SPI opened 7 World Trade Center, a 52-story, 1.7 million square foot office tower, at 250 Greenwich Street, just north of the World Trade Center site. The building - which replaced a 2 million-square-feet tower that was the last building to go down on 9/11 - is New York City's first green commercial office building, certified at the Gold level by the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED rating system. 7 World Trade Center is over 80% occupied and leased to a diverse group of tenants including: Moody's Corporation; the intellectual property law firm Darby & Darby PC; Mansueto Ventures (publisher of Fast Company and Inc. magazines); Arnell Group; New York Academy of Sciences; NCR; German investment bank WestLB; and others.

A story from the "NY Daily News", Aug. 4, 2009-

As the brouhaha spread around town, developer Larry Silverstein, who is at war with the PA over funding, said he would ask a panel of fact-finders to resolve the fight.

His move to seek binding arbitration involves at least one potentially explosive demand - the return of up to $2.7 billion he's paid the PA from insurance and ground rent, insiders say.

PA Executive Director Chris Ward slammed Silverstein for being eager to risk the public's dollars - but not his own private investment.

"It is clear Silverstein will accept nothing less than two fully subsidized office buildings and that is irresponsible and unacceptable," he said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/200 ... port_.html

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-

The handover of the World Trade Center parcel will start the clock ticking on a contractual deal that requires Silverstein to construct the Church St. buildings within five years - or else.

"He will be in default, and the conclusion of that will be - and I emphasize the word conclusion - that the Port Authority would take title to all three towers," said Chris Ward, the agency's executive director.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/200 ... _them.html
I may be wrong but in order to hold title, you must OWN, not RENT.

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.

stundie wrote: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.

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.