Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?

Gumboot, it's obvious you've never done any accounting. You're mixing assets with income, and you're mixing debts with expenses.
 
Dabljuh said:
Gumboot, it's obvious you've never done any accounting.
Click to expand...

I have actually.

Dabljuh said:
You're mixing assets with income
Click to expand...

I've not brought assets into it. The cost, alone, of rebuilding the WTC site (which Silverstein doesn't own, and may even lose the lease on) is substantially greater than all of Silverstein's "benefits" from the attacks. Silverstein must rebuild the WTC site. He is legally required to.


Dabljuh said:
and you're mixing debts with expenses.
Click to expand...

Repaying debts is an expense. Have you ever done any accounting?
 
gumboot said:
I've not brought assets into it.
Click to expand...
Yes you have. The liberty bonds for example is almost certainly a purpose-limited credit. Which means it's at the very best an asset, not an income.

The cost, alone, of rebuilding the WTC site (which Silverstein doesn't own, and may even lose the lease on) is substantially greater than all of Silverstein's "benefits" from the attacks. Silverstein must rebuild the WTC site. He is legally required to.
Click to expand...
He has to rebuild it, right. But he doesn't have to pay for it. Say it costs 20 billion. He takes 18 billions worth of credit and invests 2 billions himself. He already has 3.5 bill from the bonds. so he needs only some 15 bill credit, which means he can get away with as little as 1.5 bill risk capital investment himself. That's pretty good because just before, he was awarded 3.5 billions.

And even then, the costs for building the WTC isn't an expense, it's an investment. Due to its forced nature, it's not the wisest one and a lot of it will be depreciated. But consider this: The amount of accrues before 9/11 was large enough for him to get the lease without having to invest a single dollar (other thant he lease) in the first place, except for having to renovate the WTC eventually and - of course - having to rebuild it if it gets destroyed. That means his assets with regards to the WTC went from 0 (or more likely, a negative value due to accrues) to 3.5 billion cash due to 9/11.

Repaying debts is an expense. Have you ever done any accounting?
Click to expand...
No, it's not an expense. Interest payments are an expense. Repaying a debt isn't, your assets decrease and so do your debts. You're probably thinking because it's a cash drain however, which is more important.
 
BTW, I am actually glad that a stark raving idiotic jew hating anti-semite made their appearance in this thread PROVING beyond all doubt that the subject can be answered with a big YES. And to our anti-semitic idiots...please remember..

 
Dabljuh said:
So much wrong there. He doesn't pay $1.75B rent, he pays an additional $1.75B rent in 99 years to his already pre-set lease of $4.95B rent in 99 years - which is the 50 million a year. That means the new lease is some 67 million a year.

But here's the thing: He spends 50 million, +15 million on the insurance, and the next thing that happens is that he can get 4.6 billion from the insurers. Alright, they appeal and it gets toned down to 3.5. It was worth a try, to get 1.1 billion extra cash, not?

65 million immediate expenses. 3.5 billion income.

He gets awarded 250million from the state, which means effectively he didn't have to pay for the last 5 years of the lease.

The (new) lease means a yearly cost of 67 million - plus a probably much higher than before insurance fee - and those will be paid by the future tenants of the new WTC. And a large part of this will again be paid by the government by guaranteeing tenancy.

And how much of the new WTC is paid by him? You guys need to understand how capital works. If you can pay the interest (~3-3.5% a year for long term investments of that scale) you don't need to invest much of your own hard cash to get billions of dollars of investment capital available to build a new WTC. But getting hard cash for yourself (like you do when you get awarded from an insurance) that's an entirely different thing. Liquidity is power.

For Silverstein, who would have had to renovate the building due to the asbestos (which would have cost ridiculous amounts of money and time) the blowing up of the WTC was probably the best deal of his life.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could quantify "ridiculous amounts" since you are such a high finance expert. Getting hard and liquid won't do it.
 
Dabljuh said:
Yes you have. The liberty bonds for example is almost certainly a purpose-limited credit. Which means it's at the very best an asset, not an income.
Click to expand...

Whose talking about income? Okay, I might have used the wrong word when I said "incoming". Shall we rename it "plusses"? It's positive cashflow that he has.


Dabljuh said:
He has to rebuild it, right. But he doesn't have to pay for it. Say it costs 20 billion. He takes 18 billions worth of credit and invests 2 billions himself.
Click to expand...

And he gets $18 billion in credit from...?


Dabljuh said:
He already has 3.5 bill from the bonds. so he needs only some 15 bill credit, which means he can get away with as little as 1.5 bill risk capital investment himself. That's pretty good because just before, he was awarded 3.5 billions.
Click to expand...

Except we don't know the conditions of the insurance. It appears he has to use the money to rebuilt. Whether he's legally bound to or not, he has singed a contract with the PANYNJ to use his insurance for rebuilding. All of it.


Dabljuh said:
And even then, the costs for building the WTC isn't an expense, it's an investment.
Click to expand...

For the PANYNJ it's an investment, sure. Because they own the site. Silverstein doesn't. He's having to invest $3.5 billion into rebuilding someone else's property. If he can't find people to fill the shortfall in funding he also has to provide that himself. And while he's rebuilding he still has to pay rental on the property to maintain the right to then making an income off renting it out, assuming anyone wants to rent in the world's most obvious terrorist target, and assuming he doesn't lose the lease altogether due to construction delays. Worse still, his rent has increased so he's now paying more money for an empty non-income producing piece of land than he was for a very profitable piece of very occupied land. How is that a plus?




Dabljuh said:
The amount of accrues before 9/11 was large enough for him to get the lease without having to invest a single dollar (other thant he lease) in the first place, except for having to renovate the WTC eventually and - of course - having to rebuild it if it gets destroyed. That means his assets with regards to the WTC went from 0 (or more likely, a negative value due to accrues) to 3.5 billion cash due to 9/11.
Click to expand...

$3.5 billion in cash that he's just given straight back to the PANYNJ...

Dabljuh said:
No, it's not an expense. Interest payments are an expense. Repaying a debt isn't, your assets decrease and so do your debts. You're probably thinking because it's a cash drain however, which is more important.
Click to expand...

I was thinking in very basic terms; once the WTC site is rebuilt will Silverstein be better off financially or worse off. It seems fairly clear to me that he will be rather phenomenally worse off. Best case scenario he's got a 99 year lease on heavily populated buildings with about $15 billion in mortgage after about a decade of lost earnings, continuing overheads, and a brand spanking new WTC7 that he pretty much broke even on rebuilding. If he can manage $170 million a year in pure profit off renting out the site he'll just manage to break even by the end of it all.

Worse case scenario he's got all of the above but no lease and therefore no income to cover that $15 billion mortgage.
 
SDC said:
Confuseling, metamars, Red I.... Anyone who doesn't believe that the name "Silverstein" doesn't draw the Jew-haters like flies to sugar... OK, who hired Dabljuh to pay us all a visit? He's (assumption: he) is acting like a textbook case. He makes things up, he misstates, he gets everything all confused anyway due to apparent vast and unconquerable ignorance, and it all gets focused on -- his term -- the "dirty jew."
Click to expand...

Good question. His initial statement is so poorly worded I can't tell if it's sarcastic or sincere.
 
metamars said:
If A-Train and MaGZ are virulent Jew-haters, pointing this out would not be smearing them. OTOH, as you well know, the topic of this thread is
Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?

If you claim that the WTC7 aware subset of 911 Truthers that believe it's collapse was CD is due to anti-Semitism, based on the status of A-Train and MaGZ, then I'd say that your self-celebratory proclamation of yourself as a "triumphant rationalist" should be re-visited. Pronto. You would be making an unwarranted extrapolation from a miniscule subset of a population that is likely in the 10's of millions, if not 100's of millions.



I see. So let us conclude - at least the "rationalists" amongst us - that all progressives at this young ladies' campus also thought it smacked of McCarthyism to call a Communist, well, a type of Communist. Based on one data point. Is that it?

This would be a ludicrous assertion. (Unless, of course, she were the only progressive on her campus.)

This reminds me of an argument I had with a mushy headed liberal who insisted that Jesus must have been crucified through His wrists, not His hands (as recorded in scripture). When I looked into this, I could find one instance, based on skeletal remains, that showed a nail through the wrist.(and no evidence for nailing through the hands). From documentary sources, it was clear that the Romans employed a number of variations in their sadistic execution method, including those involving tying the arms to a cross with rope. Ergo, no need to nail through the wrists, as the upper body would have been supported via the ropes. Meanwhile, slitting wrists is a well-known method of suicide. It stands to reason that nailing through the wrist would cause bleeding to death faster than nailing through the hand. (No, I'm not sure about this.). If so, it's clear that nailing through the hands is a superior way to go about things, if your goal is prolonging dying.

Now, should I ever aspire to the lofty status of "triumphant rationalist", I suppose that I could just blithely go ahead, anyway, and make a general proclamation, that indeed all crucifixions (including Christ's) must have had nails going through the wrist, since I can cite a single bit of data to that effect. Maybe many mushy headed liberal would have my back. Especially those who loathe Christianity. But is that a good thing?

Tell me, who has your back?

Another question - have you ever taken a course in probability and statistics? Some of your improbable (pun intended) pronouncements, which you mistakenly assume to be rational, would be more understandable if we got a good idea on what you know about this subject.

It would also do you well to take a course in mathematical logic.



If a person has an irrational attitude towards Larry Silverstein, it could indeed be due to their being anti-Semitic. However, if they're not anti-Semitic, to begin with, then it can't be anti-Semitism.

Does this make logical sense to a "rationalist", such as yourself?



I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Apparently, some 911 Truthers accuse Larry Silverstein of having ordered the CD of WTC7, but they can't give details, such as the names and addresses of the people carrying out the CD, nor can they name the CD agents definitively (even if they suspect thermate) nor can they state exactly on which locations CD agents were placed.

Is this what you mean? Something like this?

Of course, if this is what you mean, I expect no 911 Truther would be able to give such details.



Maybe you can't see what I have clearly put in front of your eyes because you don't know the meaning of the word quantitative. You seem to be ignorant of even common sense notions of statistics, so this may also explain your continuing failure to "see the light".
Click to expand...




You are an amusingly brazen bluffer. Your deficiencies in logic are on display 24/7. You exhibit no knowledge of probability and statistics (your imaginary conspiracy can be readily shown to be mathematically impossible, as I have demonstrated many times). You make the staggeringly silly assumption that your tiny, evil movement numbers in the tens of millions. Physician, heal thyself!


Your uninformed blather boils down to a desperate attempt to pretend that the high percentage of Jew-haters I have encountered in my dealings with the fantasy movement is, inexplicably, not representative of the movement as a whole. Why should anyone believe you? Visit any YouTube video celebrating some angry adolescent's ability to fabricate nonsense and you will be overwhelmed by anti-Semitic drivel. The psychotic coward Killclown has labeled me a "Nazi Shill" for the Zionists (it makes as much sense as anything he writes). You are trying to peddle your fiction to people who know better.

You wrote:

"If a person has an irrational attitude towards Larry Silverstein, it could indeed be due to their being anti-Semitic. However, if they're not anti-Semitic, to begin with, then it can't be anti-Semitism.

Does this make logical sense to a "rationalist", such as yourself?"


Anti-Semitism can't be the source of irrationality that doesn't stem from anti-Semitism. Hmmm, that would be correct (you might want to look up "tautology"). Yeah, you've taken lots of courses in Logic. I think we can safely agree that the twoofers whose irrational attitude toward Larry Silverstein doesn't stem from anti-Semitism are probably not anti-Semites. We are left with the ones who are anti-Semites, which I estimate to be at least one-third. Again, based on personal experience, I would estimate the percentage of Jew-haters to be higher, but I have purposely erred on the conservative side.
 
pomeroo said:
...You make the staggeringly silly assumption that your tiny, evil movement numbers in the tens of millions. Physician, heal thyself!
...
Click to expand...

Hundreds of millions sounds like a very conservative estimate, if we're considering populist opinion in Muslim nations.

Although I concede that that hinges on a wide definition of 'the movement'.
 
Last edited:
Confuseling said:
Hundreds of millions sounds like a very conservative estimate, if we're considering populist opinion in Muslim nations.

Although I concede that that hinges on a wide definition of 'the movement'.
Click to expand...


Is it a "wide" definition. Oh, I don't know. I'm sure that many slave-holding nomads have a lot to say about iron spherules and pyroclastic flows.
 
:D Perhaps. But be fair, metamars said tens of millions if not hundreds, which sounds like a perfectly sane guess to me.
 
Since the truth movement loves to deal with numbers, I estimate 100 million percent of the accusations are based on anti-semitism.
 
metamars said:
You would be making an unwarranted extrapolation from a miniscule subset of a population that is likely in the 10's of millions, if not 100's of millions.
Click to expand...


911 False Flag, a German film, has commentary by Andreas von Bulow who says "That led eventually to the situation in which we are today in which 10-20% of the public can imagine that it was in fact an inside job."

Population of Germany is over 82 million; add 8.2 million to the total; proceed to the rest of Europe....
 
metamars said:
911 False Flag, a German film, has commentary by Andreas von Bulow who says "That led eventually to the situation in which we are today in which 10-20% of the public can imagine that it was in fact an inside job."

Population of Germany is over 82 million; add 8.2 million to the total; proceed to the rest of Europe....
Click to expand...


Being able to imagine something is not the same as believing in that something. (See: unicorns, dragons, etc.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom