My First Truther?

[RedIbis]

Red, I was just trying to understand your argument, and, as you know, words have meaning.

As I said, I assume you misspoke and nothing more.

However, as far as I'm concerned, LS was a renter (lessee) who was allowed to sub-lease, regardless of the 99 year term. Is this not correct?

No, that is not correct. A renter would not collect the entirety of the insurance payouts and continue to make claims on the total lost revenue of the complex.

I ask again, if the Port Authority owned the towers, what insurance claims were they able to recover?

The renters were those companies occupying office space.

 

[LashL]

Quite possibly. Heinekens and a long week of work make for impulsive posting. But are we not quibbling over LS's role with the WTC?

You still owe PhantomWolf an apology. And you should simply admit that you are wrong, instead of continuing to try to salvage your "impulsive" posts as though they were factual, when they were not. You claimed that PhantomWolf owed some random truther an apology for making an error that PhantomWolf did not make. So, why are you continuing to dodge your own actual error and why are you not apologizing for it, in keeping with the standards that you would impose upon others?

He bid and received a 99 year lease, essentially allowing him to collect rent and insurance claims on the complex. He's not a renter, he's the leaseholder.

You still don't get it, do you? Viz WTC 1, 2, 4, and 5, Silverstein Properties = Renter = Leaseholder. Like I said before, you are in over your head here, RedIbis. You don't have the foggiest idea about commercial leasing, do you?

Did the PA collect insurance claims on the loss of the towers?

You mean, you don't know?

It becomes even more clear that you are misguidedly and inexplicably purporting to argue a point that you are wholly incapable of arguing, and that you are doing so from a position of ignorance that you are loath to admit.

Sad, really. But not surprising.

 

[RedIbis]

You mean, you don't know?

No, I do know. Do you?

 

[Pardalis]

I apologize on behalf of all French Canadians. Unfortunately we have alot of those anti-American types.

 

[LashL]

Not at all surprisingly you seized upon the tedious qualifier I should have made. The only claim a renter could receive would be on personal property, perhaps the money required to find another property.

Wrong again. Your lack of knowledge of commercial leasing is glaringly apparent. You should just apologize to PhantomWolf and move on.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, that is not correct. A renter would not collect the entirety of the insurance payouts and continue to make claims on the total lost revenue of the complex.

I ask again, if the Port Authority owned the towers, what insurance claims were they able to recover?

The renters were those companies occupying office space.

Red you are getting deeper and deeper, cut your loses and run man. Think. LS has a 99 year lease. He HAS to pay this regardless of the buildings being there or not. He has been paying it since 2001 without any tenents to sublet too. That's called a loss. That can be insured against. He also can insure the buildings WITHOUT being the owner because he was finacially responsible for any damage to them. The PA didn't have to insure them because they don't suffer finacially from them being lost, they get paid for the next 90 odd years if there are office building, a tin shed or a hole in the ground there. They only lose out when the lease ends, but under the lease they can then demand that Silverstien pays them the cost of replacing the buildings if they aren't there. Silverstien faced the risk, so he isured. The PA were the owners. It's that simple, why are you unable to follow it?

 

[LashL]

No, that is not correct. A renter would not collect the entirety of the insurance payouts and continue to make claims on the total lost revenue of the complex.

Wrong again.

The renters were those companies occupying office space.

Wrong again.

You really need to educate yourself about commercial leasing, RedIbis, and you still owe PhantomWolf an apology.

 

[RedIbis]

Wrong again. Your lack of knowledge of commercial leasing is glaringly apparent. You should just apologize to PhantomWolf and move on.

I have no problem admitting that I am no expert in commercial real estate, but you have yet to provide the insurance claims received by the supposed owners, The Port Authority.

And you have yet to explain how LS suffered a loss from his initial investment, compared to his recoveries and claims.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Actually it seems that the PA DID have the Towers insured, however a Judge has stated that since they Leased the buildings to Silverstien who had his own insurance, the PA couldn't claim on theirs.

Story

 

[LashL]

I have no problem admitting that I am no expert in commercial real estate,

That might well be the understatement of the year. You haven't the first clue about commercial leasing. And you still owe PhantomWolf an apology.

but you have yet to provide the insurance claims received by the supposed owners, The Port Authority.

And you have yet to explain how LS suffered a loss from his initial investment, compared to his recoveries and claims.

I am not going to play your goalpost shifting games, RedIbis. Admit that you were wrong and apologize to PhantomWolf, and then we can move on other subjects in appropriate threads.

 

[LashL]

No, I do know. Do you?

I certainly do. I've even read the documents they've filed in court. How about you?

 

[PhantomWolf]

but you have yet to provide the insurance claims received by the supposed owners, The Port Authority.

Admit that you were wrong and apologize to PhantomWolf, and then we can move on other subjects in appropriate threads.

I don't think I'll hold my breath.

 

[Pardalis]

I wonder why such organizations attract twoofery so much.

How does one go from genuinely beeing concerned for the environment to actually believing this crap about 9/11? I encounter alot of that thinking (or lack thereof) and it amazes me, regular people are willing to believe the most outrageous, ridiculously contrived theories over simple logic. How could anyone prefer the Silverstein-blew-up-his-whole-complex-so-that-Bush-can-invade-Iraq nonsense to the terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists much simpler and plausible account? Just because they dislike the Bush administration or the corporate world they allow their brains to shut down?

It baffles me.

 

[T.A.M.]

meanwhile, back on the OP...

I think she represents about 99% of what we would call "truth activists". The hard core wingnuts etc...we encounter here, are a very, VERY small minority of informed (on nonsense) paranoidiacs who have made it their MISSION to spread the snake oil.

She has a typical "flight rather than fight" response...

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I wonder why such organizations attract twoofery so much.

How does one go from genuinely beeing concerned for the environment to actually believing this crap about 9/11? I encounter alot of that thinking (or lack thereof) and it amazes me, regular people are willing to believe the most outrageous, ridiculously contrived theories over simple logic. How could anyone prefer the Silverstein-blew-up-his-whole-complex-so-that-Bush-can-invade-Iraq nonsense to the terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists much simpler and plausible account? Just because they dislike the Bush administration or the corporate world they allow their brains to shut down?

It baffles me.

Very simple...let me illustrate...

When I was in university, I was part of an environmental activist group...because it was cool, and the college "in thing" to do...I actually, at the time didn't give a flying **** about the environment.

Now I actually make a point of taking care of the environment, doing my part, but do not "protest"...why, cause I grew up, and now actually care.

TAM

 

[LashL]

I don't think I'll hold my breath.

I don't blame you. RedIbis has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for making ridiculous, unfounded assertions and unsupported accusations, and when called upon them, he has repeatedly made lame attempts to move the goalposts and/or change the subject, before eventually running away with his tail between his legs because he cannot support his allegations and accusations. I suspect that it will be no different on this issue, as it is obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to commercial leasing, and it is obvious that his assertions are just as unfounded as usual.

This is just another example of RedIbis pretending to have knowledge of matters in which he clearly has none.

It's sad, and somewhat pathetic, really.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I apologize on behalf of all French Canadians. Unfortunately we have alot of those anti-American types.

It must be the beer. It's made with that flouridated water.



(runs away giggling)

 

[jaydeehess]

If one leases a building the owner may require insurance be carried on the structure. The owner may require that he be the beneficiary of the insurance policy OR that the leaseholder be responsible for correcting all damages done that were the cause of an insurance claim and thus the leaseholder would be the beneficiary.

On a large complex, with a long lease period, such as the towers it would make sense to make the leaseholder responsible for maintaining the buildings which would mean that the leaseholder should be the beneficiary named in the insurance policy.

Now tell us again RedIbis, given that Silverstein is responsible for the 'repairs' to the structures he is responsible for the maintenance of, and given that the insurance will not cover the cost of those 'repairs', and given that the insurance payouts will come to him only as he shows that construction is taking place and in installments, how do you calculate the math such that Silverstein makes out with more money in his pocket than he had in the beginning?

Would that be the same calculation stragedy that you used to determine that NIST was making a preposterous claim that removing insulation would increase the heat flow into the steel in the towers?

 

[jaydeehess]

It must be the beer. It's made with that flouridated water.



(runs away giggling)

Making jocular statements concerning our beer!!! You'd best run laddy!

What's next, jokes about vodka and clam juice?

 

[jaydeehess]

Getting back to the OP.
It seems that among 911 CT's there is a great predisposition towards the CT around JFK but less so for the Apollo Hoax.

Of course if you can believe that sooperseekrit space-a-beems were used to 'dustify' the WTC complex buildings then it should be a small thing to believe that the gubmint had the technology in 1969 to send men to the moon and back.