Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
12 Dec 2009, 21:36
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.
14 Dec 2009, 08:00
I didn't ask you to provide it. I asked you to prove it.
Huge difference.
Your statements are failures.
14 Dec 2009, 21:12
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.
14 Dec 2009, 22:51
You couldn't have said that two pages ago???
14 Dec 2009, 23:14
I could have.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.