Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[DGM]

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.

Look up. (second high lite. this applies to all conditions of the lease)

 

[DGM]

RedIbis:

FYI: You can link to all of the PA press releases here:

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

 

[The Big Dog]

Yesterday

For all of your tedious and badgering posts, I'd think you'd at least take a shot at my direct and specific questions. But then again, I'm something of an optimist.

|
|
|
|
|
|
V​

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.

Is a day too long? Or a year? That is when I reminded you of your baseless claims.

No, no, take your time.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Not that I've seen. If you have reference to that in any of the agreements, I'd be interested in seeing it.

At the very least it was part of the development plan agreed upon in 2010 (edit: Whoops. Already posted. ):

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.

Source: Joint Statement on World Trade Center Development Plan

However, a couple sources prior to that agreement indicate that...

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild.

Source: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm, 2004

 

[DGM]

RedIbis:

Let's start with an easy one. In 2006 when the PA took over the redevelopment of WTC 1, do you have evidence they also absolved Silverstien of all financial responsibility for the original building? I've seen none. If so, I'm all ears.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.............................................


.

You really had to look up white elephant? "pull it", like "blucher", but dumber.

Last time I looked links were used to share information.

You really had to look up white elephant? "pull it", like "blucher", but dumber.

??

Please explain.

 

[beachnut]

Last time I looked links were used to share information.

??

Please explain.

Serious? Ask mom, or dad. You googled white elephant, and...

Share common knowledge? You have to post links for common knowledge, yet you post no evidence to support your lies and delusions. ironic

 

[adkinsjr]

Why not?

Why not? Because if the 9/11 "truth" cult is correct, Silverstein participated in the murder of a few thousand people by cooperating in a bizarre false flag operation. That would be your "why not?"

He was dumb enough to lease the twin white elephants of New York City.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant

That's not a very compelling argument, but nice try. I still haven't heard a coherent explanation for why he would decide to confess in the middle of an interview. Even if you could coherently explain why, it still wouldn't convince me that he did, I just think it's an amusing side issue. The fact remains that he did not confess.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Serious? Ask mom, or dad. You googled white elephant, and...

Share common knowledge? You have to post links for common knowledge, yet you post no evidence to support your lies and delusions. ironic

The lack of common knowledge among debunkers is legend planet wide. Just trying to provide some enlightenment for the debunker cave.

leg·end (ljnd)
n.

2. Inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.


Leasing of not one but TWO of New York City's most infamous white elephants for 99 years proves Larry was not the sharpest real estate businessman in 2001 by a long shot.

 

[Edx]

Leasing of not one but TWO of New York City's most infamous white elephants for 99 years proves Larry was not the sharpest real estate businessman in 2001 by a long shot.

Evidence it was losing money?

http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

And btw I want to again point out that you require him to be monumentally stupid and completely insane, while also everyone else being equally stupid because they dont notice such a casual admission.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis:

Let's start with an easy one. In 2006 when the PA took over the redevelopment of WTC 1, do you have evidence they also absolved Silverstien of all financial responsibility for the original building? I've seen none. If so, I'm all ears.

First, it's Silverstein. I thought you were just making a typo, but you've repeated this error.

Secondly, I do appreciate your research and especially your straightforward, even tone. Your approach should serve as a model to the more hostile posters in this very thread.

To the point, here's a quote from a NYTimes article from 2009. Now if you have more conclusive evidence that he is responsible for more than the article suggests, albeit vaguely, I'd like to see it.

Mr. Silverstein recently asked the Port Authority to serve as a guarantor of the construction loans for two of his three towers. The authority, which is already building its own $3 billion office tower known as 1 World Trade Center and the hub, offered to help with only one of Mr. Silverstein’s towers. The other two towers, the authority said, could be built as the real estate market improves. Or, Mr. Silverstein could proceed with private financing.

That's the best I can address your question, emphasizing in bold that this does not sound like someone who is on the hook for the rebuilding process.

 

[twinstead]

That's the best I can address your question, emphasizing in bold that this does not sound like someone who is on the hook for the rebuilding process.

Do you mean that it sounds like that to you, or that you can provide compelling evidence that he wasn't?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's the best I can address your question, emphasizing in bold that this does not sound like someone who is on the hook for the rebuilding process.

You mean you weren't paying attention when, way back on page 11, I posted the following...

If the Premises ... or any structures, improvements, fixtures and equipment, furnishings and physical property located thereon, or any part thereof, shall be damaged or destroyed by fire, the elements, the public enemy or other casualty, or by reason of any cause whatsoever and whether partial or total, the Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, and whether or not such damage or destruction is covered by insurance proceeds sufficient for the purpose, shall remove all debris resulting from such damage or destruction, and shall rebuild, restore, repair and replace the Premises ... and any structures, improvements, fixtures and equipment, furnishings and physical property located thereon substantially in accordance, to the extent feasible, prudent and commercially reasonable, with the plans and specifications, for the same as they existed prior to such damage or destruction or with the consent in writing of the Port Authority, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, make such repairs, replacements, changes or alterations as is mutually agreed to by the Port Authority and the Lessee.

Id. at § 15.1.

Source: IN RE SEPTEMBER 11TH LITIGATION

...? I mean, you even posted an hour later. What's your malfunction?

 

[beachnut]

The lack of common knowledge among debunkers is legend planet wide. Just trying to provide some enlightenment for the debunker cave.

leg·end (ljnd)
n.

2. Inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.


Leasing of not one but TWO of New York City's most infamous white elephants for 99 years proves Larry was not the sharpest real estate businessman in 2001 by a long shot.

That explains it, why 911 truth takes "pull it" and come up with explosives, thermite, or some other delusional claptrap. 911 truth logic, the ability to make concise on topic posts explains why "pull it" might become anything when using superior logic and critical thinking skills of 911 truth. Are you the god of logic for 911 truth?

You had to look up white elephant, and legend. If you use those research skills for 911 issues, you might get something right.

 

[Travis]

AT the moment he isn't continuing to construct towers 2 & 3. The issue is that constructing the towers will cost more money than he has left and no one wants 1/3 of a skyscraper sitting there being an eyesore for years. So he's stopping construction right above street level which will be finished and used for retail shops.

My understanding is that he will retain the right to continue construction when he gets more financing if he maintains rent payments.

 

[MrSkunkwork100]

Mostly on account of him, y'know, surviving.

There were also survivors who were rescued from the bottom of WTC 1 AFTER it collapsed as well!

NONE of which report eardrums being blown out or being blown across any rooms or away from where they were standing (as they would have, had there been explosives planted in the buildings and particularly at the base where they were when they were rescued).

 

[MrSkunkwork100]

That explains it, why 911 truth takes "pull it" and come up with explosives, thermite, or some other delusional claptrap. 911 truth logic, the ability to make concise on topic posts explains why "pull it" might become anything when using superior logic and critical thinking skills of 911 truth. Are you the god of logic for 911 truth?

You had to look up white elephant, and legend. If you use those research skills for 911 issues, you might get something right.

You mistake conspiracy theorists for honest, facts-driven, well-intended individuals, who somehow missed the final conclusions made by the official investigations into the events of that horrible day and are "trying to find out the facts." Even those who really don't understand, by now, and with all of the available information out there, have no excuse for being this clueless! It's just a game to them, and a means to badger, irritate, and annoy everyone else who has researched the facts for themselves. They are only interested in poisoning the well and getting attention. That's the tragedy of it.

 

[RedIbis]

AT the moment he isn't continuing to construct towers 2 & 3. The issue is that constructing the towers will cost more money than he has left and no one wants 1/3 of a skyscraper sitting there being an eyesore for years. So he's stopping construction right above street level which will be finished and used for retail shops.

My understanding is that he will retain the right to continue construction when he gets more financing if he maintains rent payments.

And the real estate market improves enough that lower Manhattan needs enormous amounts of square footage at a premium.

 

[000063]

First, it's Silverstein. I thought you were just making a typo, but you've repeated this error.

Secondly, I do appreciate your research and especially your straightforward, even tone. Your approach should serve as a model to the more hostile posters in this very thread.

It has been noted that truthers in general and you in particular react in basically the same fashion no matter the manner in which they are addressed. For example, you have been asked to back up a certain assertion dozens of times, in various tones, and have yet to do so, because it is manifestly incorrect.

To the point, here's a quote from a NYTimes article from 2009. Now if you have more conclusive evidence that he is responsible for more than the article suggests, albeit vaguely, I'd like to see it.



That's the best I can address your question, emphasizing in bold that this does not sound like someone who is on the hook for the rebuilding process.

That's not actually a definite assertion.

 

[dc1971]

Your approach should serve as a model to the more hostile posters in this very thread.

Such as?