Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Why not? He was dumb enough to lease the twin white elephants of New York City.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant
You had to look up white elephant? Evidence for why you can't figure out pull it. Too bad pull it is not in wiki.


He was using hearsay and delusions to make his conclusions, so we thought it best to "pull it". We voted, and then we watched him collapse, crying. They blew up the guy doing the research, they used thermite, or was it thermate in his coffee...

Our son was parting instead of studying at MIT. We sat down and decide after wasting money on 2 years of dismal grades and a DUI, we thought it best to "pull it". We pulled the funding, and his fun collapsed faster than free-fall. We blew up our son, he was failing at MIT, and life in general. We used super-secret-fantasy-nano-thermite, we don't know what it does, or how it was made, but we used it under his bed.

You really had to look up white elephant? "pull it", like "blucher", but dumber.
 
Last edited:
Damn you beachnut, I can't find my spooked horses gif. :p
Blucher!

"pull it"

We created the new coke, dropped the old one to compete with Pepsi. Sales went down. After a the meeting, we decided to "pull it" and we brought back coke, classic coke. They blew up the new coke by using some super nano-rust right in the new coke formula, and a new coke can that turns to dust, dustified cans react with the nano-rust in new coke to blow the living daylight out of the "pulled" product. Just use the Bass-o-matic 911 portable DEW by Judy Wood to dustify the coke.

Yesterday I had "pulled" pork, my mouth blew up... super-tasty-nano-yadda-yadda-yadda-thermost did it.
 
Last edited:
I think you know you're just talking out of your posterior here, but here goes anyway. How much of the funding for the "complicated foundation structures" was provided by public funding and subsidies?


IIRC he has only used insurance money for the foundation structures. Public funding was used for the Port Authority train station, Memorial, and WTC1.

If you want more information I would advise you to look through this lengthy thread which details the construction process including the many legal fights over who is to pay for what.
 
full.png


My first attempted.. Based on a comment in this thread by one of our resident truthers that "Lucky Larry" said 'pull it' on TV to show all the "zionists and neocons" they can let slip the conspiracy on TV and still get away with it..
 
My first attempted.. Based on a comment in this thread by one of our resident truthers that "Lucky Larry" said 'pull it' on TV to show all the "zionists and neocons" they can let slip the conspiracy on TV and still get away with it..

haha :D

Sometimes all there is left is satire.
 
IIRC he has only used insurance money for the foundation structures. Public funding was used for the Port Authority train station, Memorial, and WTC1.

If you want more information I would advise you to look through this lengthy thread which details the construction process including the many legal fights over who is to pay for what.

Thanks Travis, that's an extremely informative thread. Did you see the posts where they explain that Silverstein is only responsible for rebuilding what is above sidewalk level for 2 and 3. These posters appear skeptical that any rebuilding above that level is going to happen.
 
Thanks Travis, that's an extremely informative thread. Did you see the posts where they explain that Silverstein is only responsible for rebuilding what is above sidewalk level for 2 and 3. These posters appear skeptical that any rebuilding above that level is going to happen.
This doesn't mean he's off the hook for it. Wouldn't he need to reimburse the PA for the lost space according to the terms of the lease?
 
This doesn't mean he's off the hook for it. Wouldn't he need to reimburse the PA for the lost space according to the terms of the lease?

Not that I've seen. If you have reference to that in any of the agreements, I'd be interested in seeing it.
 
Not that I've seen. If you have reference to that in any of the agreements, I'd be interested in seeing it.
It's in the terms of the lease and repeated in the insurance contract. Do you really believe the insurance companies would pay Silverstien for something he didn't own? When you insure a building you lease you are required to replace the asset.
 
It's in the terms of the lease and repeated in the insurance contract. Do you really believe the insurance companies would pay Silverstien for something he didn't own? When you insure a building you lease you are required to replace the asset.

Where in the insurance contract? Travis and I have been able to locate most of the relevant information regarding the payouts and responsibilities for rebuilding. If you're so sure, it should be easy for you to quote and post the source.
 
Where in the insurance contract? Travis and I have been able to locate most of the relevant information regarding the payouts and responsibilities for rebuilding. If you're so sure, it should be easy for you to quote and post the source.
I don't have a link handy. (Your sources also support this)

You do know what "responsibilities" means, right? If he's responsible for building something and doesn't, what makes you think he's going to get paid for it (or already has)?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
I don't have a link handy. (Your sources also support this)

You do know what "responsibilities" means, right? If he's responsible for building something and doesn't, what makes you think he's going to get paid for it (or already has)?

:confused:

The research that has been posted here numerous times that you have obviously not read.
 
The research that has been posted here numerous times that you have obviously not read.
Yes, actually I have.

The problem is your "research" does not support your assertions. You seem to think Silverstien can use insurance pay-outs for anything he wishes. He has obligations and dead-lines that have to be met (or renegotiated) or he risks default. This is all spelled out in the 2010 agreement (and subsequent negotiations).

Surely your "research" has discovered this.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis:

Some light reading

http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=1269


The agreement strikes an important balance between the redevelopment goals, financial risks and rewards between the public and private sector. Further, the public mediators developed private development benchmarks to protect public interests. The proposed development plan and framework would include the following key elements:


Tower 4: The continued construction of Tower 4, which is expected to be completed in 2013. With approximately 60 percent of the tower being pre-leased to the Port Authority and City of New York, the Port Authority would provide a master lease for the project supporting the issuance of Silverstein's Liberty Bonds to finance a portion of the tower's construction costs. Any Port Authority payments made under the master lease would be reimbursed by Silverstein Properties.
Tower 3: The immediate construction of the Tower 3 transit and retail podium, with the construction of the office tower to follow so long as Silverstein Properties hits the following private-market triggers: (1) Raises $300 million of private unsupported equity, (2) Pre-leases 400,000 square feet of the office tower, and (3) Obtains private financing for the remaining cost of the tower without a full public backstop. To help Silverstein Properties obtain this private financing without a full public backstop, it would receive a capped public backstop of $390 million from the Port Authority, New York State and New York City, together with $210 million of equity from the City and the State of New York, with each public entity's contribution limited to a total of $200 million. Any payments under the backstop would be reimbursed by Silverstein Properties and the public sector entities would also have a future Tower 3 capital events participation. The City's contribution is to be paid for using foregone revenues that will not be collected if the tower does not go forward. Until the public backstop is removed, Silverstein Properties would not be entitled to take profits out of Tower 3.
Tower 2: The Tower 2 site would be built to at least street level under a plan to be jointly developed by the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties. This plan would preserve flexibility for the future development of the office tower driven by market demand.

Insurance: Silverstein Properties would use its remaining insurance proceeds toward the construction of Towers 3 and 4 and the payment of ground rent to the Port Authority.
Liberty Bonds: Silverstein Properties would use all of its Liberty Bonds for Towers 3 and 4.
Construction Partnership: Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority would jointly develop a plan to better integrate their construction teams given all of the interrelated work on the east side of the WTC site. This would include a more formal process of information-sharing, decision-making and schedule development and implementation, as well as reciprocal mechanisms relating to delay to provide investors, lenders and tenants with reasonable certainty of timely project delivery.

I took the liberty of highlighting interesting parts.
 
Yes, actually I have.

The problem is your "research" does not support your assertions. You seem to think Silverstien can use insurance pay-outs for anything he wishes. He has obligations and dead-lines that have to be met (or renegotiated) or he risks default. This is all spelled out in the 2010 agreement (and subsequent negotiations).

Surely your "research" has discovered this.

I'll just wait until you have the time to find the link to which you referred that obligates Silverstein "to reimburse the PA for the lost space according to the terms of the lease?"

Take your time. I'm not one of these obnoxious posters who assumes that we can sit on the internet all day and respond with immediacy to every request.
 

Back
Top Bottom