Interesting tidbit about 9/11...

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Josh

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
josh, never posted links to anything backing up any of your claims refuting mine. ( i did give links to much of my sources)

In fact nobody provided links our sources for any information used to supposed "own me and shit on me"

Why is it acceptable for you to toss out information without sources but when there are sources that we post you write them off as drivel. Something isn't right here.....you need to follow your own standards before you declare victory.

I didn't argue much of anything with you besides the Silverstein debacle. You just posted links showing the cost of his lease/his insurance pay out. Like the rest of your conspiracy theorists you just put these two together and figured it's a sure-shot. I will collect all my sources if you will shut up.

If he retains no lease rights to the freedom tower there is still 6.4 million sq ft of space in towers 2,3,4 which he definitely still holds.

6,400,000 x $500 = $3,100,000,000 /month

3 billion per month is much much more than my initial estimate of 1 billion. Thanks for clarifying. Plus any money he is borrowing through liberty bonds are tax exempt with lower than market interest rates.

Slim, the fact you completely ignore my posts is basically criminal.

Here, let me make it clear again.

This article is two years old, but the reality is still the same:
http://www.manhattan-institute...t_dooming_downtown.htm

The mayor claims he opposes the World Trade Center plan because the project is financially unviable: Silverstein, he argues, will run out of money once he has built one or two towers.

Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.

The COST of rebuilding the WTC is projected, at this point to be more than 7.5 billion dollars, the maximum amount of revenue ANYBODY is predicting from the leasing of office space.

Here's a NYT article about Silverstein's income:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...yregion/27rebuild.html

Since the attack, Mr. Silverstein has been paying rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on towers that no longer exist, his lawyer told the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. Mr. Williamson said that his client had also lost rental income from about 400 tenants.

Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said that the $12.3 billion represented $8.4 billion for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings and $3.9 billion in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the Port Authority and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings.

Basically, Silverstein is suing the airlines because he's freaking broke.

He isn't making 3 billion dollars per month in rental fees and I have no idea where you come up with this number. The last number I can come up with is that he has 60% occupancy in WTC 7, which puts his income far below the 3 billion dollars you're touting.

Face it, your arugment burned out pages ago -- If Silverstein's plan was to get rich off destroying the WTC, he failed utterly. More likely, he got screwed like everyone else.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Ns1
ok fuck this shit

Silverstein did it. I'm sure of it now. IBS has opened up my mother fucking eyes, he did it for the money.

So if Silverstein did it, how the fuck could the US government do it? They clearly did not have as much to gain as Silverstein.

Unless, Silverstein was working in conjunction with the US government....

didn't someone write earlier that he lost the rights to some buildings? sounds like incentive to me!

I will keep saying that rich people will kill for money but will also keep saying I never said silverstein had anything to do with this incident, whether he killed others in the past for personal gain I don't dismiss but never said he had any involvement in 911

Upon further investigation it does look like he gave freedom tower rights back to NYPA as a concession for them basically cutting him some slack on the lease payments while he is rebuilding. Even though the freedom tower is 10 mil sq feet he still holds 6.4 mill sq ft in the other buildings 2,3,4. Now He looks like a good guy for doing the right thing giveing the freedom towers back to the state(how generous), so he gets state, federal cooperation and still has rights to the 3 buildings.

He has the rights to three buildings that he doesn't have the money to construct. He lost the rights to the biggest building of the lot, is still on the hook for the original rent ($120 million), interest on his debts to the government, and, even with the federal money he's received, he still might not have enough to finish the buildings. Once they're finished he now has a problem of putting millions of sq ft of office space on the market at a point when we have an economic downturn and many companies are looking to avoid high rent areas.

Sounds like he has it made :roll:

Edit:

you assume 100% occupancy. The original WTC wasn't 100% occupied.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim


commom sense says that he will be generating billions annually and any debt he incurs now will be nothing compared to what wealth will be generated for years to come. Surely his sons will take over the business this will be another american family dynasty. watch.

[yoda]
strong the retard is in you
[/yoda]

 

[RESmonkey]

*pokes head in thread* "What's this thread about?"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: NoCreativity

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

If he retains no lease rights to the freedom tower there is still 6.4 million sq ft of space in towers 2,3,4 which he definitely still holds.

6,400,000 x $500 = $3,100,000,000 /month

3 billion per month is much much more than my initial estimate of 1 billion. Thanks for clarifying. Plus any money he is borrowing through liberty bonds are tax exempt with lower than market interest rates.

What would he have been making per month with the old WTC for the last seven years? How many square feet of office space did he originally lease and what was he charging per foot as rent? What is the increase in office space and rent?

u know as well as I there is no possible way to produce that information at this point. I don't have those resources and neither does anyone on this board. They are good questions but cannot be answered.

That was hard.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/B...stfield.biz/index.html

The leases were worth an estimated $3.2 billion on a present value basis. They covered 10.6 million square feet of office space in the now-destroyed twin towers and two nine-level buildings, and 427,000 square feet of retail space in the shopping mall.

Oh, btw, the buildings were 97% occupied at the time they were destroyed. Rent per sq/ft may have varied with individual lessees, but I think "a lot" should cover it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
*pokes head in thread* "What's this thread about?"

Trolls versus neffers.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

that's a dumbass example.
clinton could keep a secret fine, but lewinsky on the other hand, couldn't wait to smuggly show off clinton's stain to her friends.

how naive do you have to be to think the government has NOTHING that's classified?
are you out of your mind?
i don't know about you, but i feel that it's our duty as a democratic citizen to keep the government in check by speaking out, rather an unquestionably diehard loyalist. that's your job to exercise your right as the people, and not to be trampled over like sheep.
the civil rights movement is a prime example of people exercising their power.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

that's a dumbass example.
clinton could keep a secret fine, but lewinsky on the other hand, couldn't wait to smuggly show off clinton's stain to her friends.

how naive do you have to be to think the government has NOTHING that's classified?
are you out of your mind?

Yeah maybe you should think that one over again.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

that's a dumbass example.
clinton could keep a secret fine, but lewinsky on the other hand, couldn't wait to smuggly show off clinton's stain to her friends.

how naive do you have to be to think the government has NOTHING that's classified?
are you out of your mind?

So an appropriate analogy would include none of the terrorists or hundreds of conspirators showing off their "blue dress". Happy?

Classified docs != an operation that would have required cooperation of hundreds of private and govt employees and agencies, and for every last mofo to keep entirely silent on the issue since

Course it all depends on what level of the 9/11 truth argument you are willing to believe. If I may quote tropic thunder, "you never go full retard."

 

[NoCreativity]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
ok so if my numbers are ridiculously inflated then lets just do $100 per sq ft

thats 640 million per month thats 7.6 billion per year. I think he can live with that. And in 10 or 20 years it would certainly put the Silverstein name(whether him or his heirs) on the richest in the world list.

This estimate is lower than the average ( http://findarticles.com/p/arti...is_16_54/ai_n21175945)

Plus this is the most desirable real estate in the world hardly "average" This is state of the art premier primo #1 top grade A real estate space. Its going to yield well beyond the bargain basement $100

Basing this off the $100 per square foot number, the WTC had total office space of 10 million ft^2 according to globalsecurity.org, wikipedia and skyscraper.org. 10,000,000 x $100 = $1 billion / month or $12 billion per year. Multiply that by the 83 months that has happened since 9/11 and that is $ 99.6 billion that Silverstien didn't make.

To me this doesn't make any sort of business sense at all, unless he were to get a payday significantly larger than that once all the buildings were built.

 

[BeauJangles]

Silverstein is getting ~80 / sq ft from ONE building right now that has ~60% occupancy.

Once again, real estate professionals are puzzled by Mr. Silverstein?s refusal to compromise on his annual asking rent, which now ranges from $75 to $85 a square foot for the top floor. Last summer, the law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton came close to making a deal, but Mr. Silverstein would not shave a couple of dollars off the rent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14larry.html

The article goes on to quote the guy running the building who claims that the rent right now on WTC 7 pays for the debt service. From everywhere else, however, the signs are that if Silverstein can get through the next decade, he'll make a good amount of money. His problem is that he has huge short-term debts and only the hope and promise of filling the new buildings to cover it. In the meantime, he has been forced to publicly give up control over the Freedom Tower and in order to lure more investment money, I'm sure he's given up a share of the future profits. There is no doubt in my mind that there is money to be made for Mr. Silverstein in the future, but he'd have to be retarded to blow up the WTC (which, in itself would have made him plenty of money) in the hopes that he can eek out a few million more over the next eighty years.

Remember, on Sept. 10th Mr. Silverstein had everything to lose. He had one of the biggest, most symbolic complex of buildings in the world under his control. The economy, while flagging, wasn't terrible and he had the promise of more jobs and a better future to fill the WTC. What Slim is arguing is that Silverstein threw away guaranteed money on a roll of the dice that might net him a few million more dollars, at the risk of losing his entire business.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: NoCreativity

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
ok so if my numbers are ridiculously inflated then lets just do $100 per sq ft

thats 640 million per month thats 7.6 billion per year. I think he can live with that. And in 10 or 20 years it would certainly put the Silverstein name(whether him or his heirs) on the richest in the world list.

This estimate is lower than the average ( http://findarticles.com/p/arti...is_16_54/ai_n21175945)

Plus this is the most desirable real estate in the world hardly "average" This is state of the art premier primo #1 top grade A real estate space. Its going to yield well beyond the bargain basement $100

Basing this off the $100 per square foot number, the WTC had total office space of 10 million ft^2 according to globalsecurity.org, wikipedia and skyscraper.org. 10,000,000 x $100 = $1 billion / month or $12 billion per year. Multiply that by the 83 months that has happened since 9/11 and that is $ 99.6 billion that Silverstien didn't make.

To me this doesn't make any sort of business sense at all, unless he were to get a payday significantly larger than that once all the buildings were built.

No, it doesn't make any sort of sense EVEN IF he were to get a payday significantly larger than that. How many billion more than $100billion would convince a person to get involved in something like this? It's utterly proposterous outside of Hollywood.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
What Slim is arguing is that Silverstein threw away guaranteed money on a roll of the dice that might net him a few million more dollars, at the risk of losing his entire business.

...and his soul. He's a real estate developer, not satan.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Silverstein is getting ~80 / sq ft from ONE building right now that has ~60% occupancy.

Once again, real estate professionals are puzzled by Mr. Silverstein?s refusal to compromise on his annual asking rent, which now ranges from $75 to $85 a square foot for the top floor. Last summer, the law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton came close to making a deal, but Mr. Silverstein would not shave a couple of dollars off the rent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14larry.html

The article goes on to quote the guy running the building who claims that the rent right now on WTC 7 pays for the debt service. From everywhere else, however, the signs are that if Silverstein can get through the next decade, he'll make a good amount of money. His problem is that he has huge short-term debts and only the hope and promise of filling the new buildings to cover it. In the meantime, he has been forced to publicly give up control over the Freedom Tower and in order to lure more investment money, I'm sure he's given up a share of the future profits. There is no doubt in my mind that there is money to be made for Mr. Silverstein in the future, but he'd have to be retarded to blow up the WTC (which, in itself would have made him plenty of money) in the hopes that he can eek out a few million more over the next eighty years.

Remember, on Sept. 10th Mr. Silverstein had everything to lose. He had one of the biggest, most symbolic complex of buildings in the world under his control. The economy, while flagging, wasn't terrible and he had the promise of more jobs and a better future to fill the WTC. What Slim is arguing is that Silverstein threw away guaranteed money on a roll of the dice that might net him a few million more dollars, at the risk of losing his entire business.

NOT JUST SLIM. ME TOO!

It's like rolling a 4 on 4d100. It might be hard, but STATISTICS BE DAMNED.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Josh

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
josh, never posted links to anything backing up any of your claims refuting mine. ( i did give links to much of my sources)

In fact nobody provided links our sources for any information used to supposed "own me and shit on me"

Why is it acceptable for you to toss out information without sources but when there are sources that we post you write them off as drivel. Something isn't right here.....you need to follow your own standards before you declare victory.

I didn't argue much of anything with you besides the Silverstein debacle. You just posted links showing the cost of his lease/his insurance pay out. Like the rest of your conspiracy theorists you just put these two together and figured it's a sure-shot. I will collect all my sources if you will shut up.

If he retains no lease rights to the freedom tower there is still 6.4 million sq ft of space in towers 2,3,4 which he definitely still holds.

6,400,000 x $500 = $3,100,000,000 /month

3 billion per month is much much more than my initial estimate of 1 billion. Thanks for clarifying. Plus any money he is borrowing through liberty bonds are tax exempt with lower than market interest rates.

Slim, the fact you completely ignore my posts is basically criminal.

Here, let me make it clear again.

This article is two years old, but the reality is still the same:
http://www.manhattan-institute...t_dooming_downtown.htm

The mayor claims he opposes the World Trade Center plan because the project is financially unviable: Silverstein, he argues, will run out of money once he has built one or two towers.

Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.

The COST of rebuilding the WTC is projected, at this point to be more than 7.5 billion dollars, the maximum amount of revenue ANYBODY is predicting from the leasing of office space.

Here's a NYT article about Silverstein's income:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...yregion/27rebuild.html

Since the attack, Mr. Silverstein has been paying rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on towers that no longer exist, his lawyer told the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. Mr. Williamson said that his client had also lost rental income from about 400 tenants.

Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said that the $12.3 billion represented $8.4 billion for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings and $3.9 billion in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the Port Authority and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings.

Basically, Silverstein is suing the airlines because he's freaking broke.

He isn't making 3 billion dollars per month in rental fees and I have no idea where you come up with this number. The last number I can come up with is that he has 60% occupancy in WTC 7, which puts his income far below the 3 billion dollars you're touting.

Face it, your arugment burned out pages ago -- If Silverstein's plan was to get rich off destroying the WTC, he failed utterly. More likely, he got screwed like everyone else.

Thank you for posting that last link. It really contains an hugely enticing piece of information. If he stands nothing to gain.....why didn't hasn't he cut his losses and walked away? Amazing.....such a compelling argument comes down this question? Whats in it for him by staying?

 

[NoCreativity]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Remember, on Sept. 10th Mr. Silverstein had everything to lose. He had one of the biggest, most symbolic complex of buildings in the world under his control. The economy, while flagging, wasn't terrible and he had the promise of more jobs and a better future to fill the WTC. What Slim is arguing is that Silverstein threw away guaranteed money on a roll of the dice that might net him a few million more dollars, at the risk of losing his entire business.

Well said.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
ok so if my numbers are ridiculously inflated then lets just do $100 per sq ft

thats 640 million per month thats 7.6 billion per year. I think he can live with that. And in 10 or 20 years it would certainly put the Silverstein name(whether him or his heirs) on the richest in the world list.

This estimate is lower than the average ( http://findarticles.com/p/arti...is_16_54/ai_n21175945)

Plus this is the most desirable real estate in the world hardly "average" This is state of the art premier primo #1 top grade A real estate space. Its going to yield well beyond the bargain basement $100

keep in mind that if silverstein only ponied up $14 million for the original lease and his partners put up the rest of the billion (or whatever) then silverstein would only be making a proportional share + whatever his management cut was. so, no where near what you're claiming.


edit: in other words: SILVERSTEIN DID IT FOR TEH LULZ!@

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Josh

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
josh, never posted links to anything backing up any of your claims refuting mine. ( i did give links to much of my sources)

In fact nobody provided links our sources for any information used to supposed "own me and shit on me"

Why is it acceptable for you to toss out information without sources but when there are sources that we post you write them off as drivel. Something isn't right here.....you need to follow your own standards before you declare victory.

I didn't argue much of anything with you besides the Silverstein debacle. You just posted links showing the cost of his lease/his insurance pay out. Like the rest of your conspiracy theorists you just put these two together and figured it's a sure-shot. I will collect all my sources if you will shut up.

If he retains no lease rights to the freedom tower there is still 6.4 million sq ft of space in towers 2,3,4 which he definitely still holds.

6,400,000 x $500 = $3,100,000,000 /month

3 billion per month is much much more than my initial estimate of 1 billion. Thanks for clarifying. Plus any money he is borrowing through liberty bonds are tax exempt with lower than market interest rates.

Slim, the fact you completely ignore my posts is basically criminal.

Here, let me make it clear again.

This article is two years old, but the reality is still the same:
http://www.manhattan-institute...t_dooming_downtown.htm

The mayor claims he opposes the World Trade Center plan because the project is financially unviable: Silverstein, he argues, will run out of money once he has built one or two towers.

Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.

The COST of rebuilding the WTC is projected, at this point to be more than 7.5 billion dollars, the maximum amount of revenue ANYBODY is predicting from the leasing of office space.

Here's a NYT article about Silverstein's income:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...yregion/27rebuild.html

Since the attack, Mr. Silverstein has been paying rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on towers that no longer exist, his lawyer told the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. Mr. Williamson said that his client had also lost rental income from about 400 tenants.

Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said that the $12.3 billion represented $8.4 billion for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings and $3.9 billion in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the Port Authority and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings.

Basically, Silverstein is suing the airlines because he's freaking broke.

He isn't making 3 billion dollars per month in rental fees and I have no idea where you come up with this number. The last number I can come up with is that he has 60% occupancy in WTC 7, which puts his income far below the 3 billion dollars you're touting.

Face it, your arugment burned out pages ago -- If Silverstein's plan was to get rich off destroying the WTC, he failed utterly. More likely, he got screwed like everyone else.

Thank you for posting that last week. It really contains an hugely enticing piece of information. If he stands nothing to gain.....why didn't hasn't he cut his losses and walked away? Amazing.....such a compelling argument comes down this question? Whats in it for him by staying?

He is legally obligated to rebuild the towers. You'd be fighting tooth and nail at this point too.

I'll say it again:

Silverstein is legally on the hook for $120 million per year + interest on the bonds AND he must rebuild the WTC.

He has every incentive in the world to try and make this work because, if he doesn't, he loses everything.

edit: Look at Jonk's post. 97% occupancy, projected income of 99 billion dollars over 80 years. Why the fuck would he throw that away for the slim chance of making a few billion more?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


He is legally obligated to rebuild the towers. You'd be fighting tooth and nail at this point too.

I'll say it again:

Silverstein is legally on the hook for $120 million per year + interest on the bonds AND he must rebuild the WTC.

He has every incentive in the world to try and make this work because, if he doesn't, he loses everything.

If he walked out on the lease he would not be on the hook to rebuild dude. He could give the port authority the insurnace settlement and be done with the whole thing and let htem sort it out.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


He is legally obligated to rebuild the towers. You'd be fighting tooth and nail at this point too.

I'll say it again:

Silverstein is legally on the hook for $120 million per year + interest on the bonds AND he must rebuild the WTC.

He has every incentive in the world to try and make this work because, if he doesn't, he loses everything.

edit: Look at Jonk's post. 97% occupancy, projected income of 99 billion dollars over 80 years. Why the fuck would he throw that away for the slim chance of making a few billion more?

that was over 10 years.

 

[ElFenix]

and...


Cut your nested quotes! There is no need to quote 3 quotes previous to what you're responding to! Use that delete button!

ATOT Moderator ElFenix

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
ok so if my numbers are ridiculously inflated then lets just do $100 per sq ft

thats 640 million per month thats 7.6 billion per year. I think he can live with that. And in 10 or 20 years it would certainly put the Silverstein name(whether him or his heirs) on the richest in the world list.

This estimate is lower than the average ( http://findarticles.com/p/arti...is_16_54/ai_n21175945)

Plus this is the most desirable real estate in the world hardly "average" This is state of the art premier primo #1 top grade A real estate space. Its going to yield well beyond the bargain basement $100

keep in mind that if silverstein only ponied up $14 million for the original lease and his partners put up the rest of the billion (or whatever) then silverstein would only be making a proportional share + whatever his management cut was. so, no where near what you're claiming.


edit: in other words: SILVERSTEIN DID IT FOR TEH LULZ!@

His partners???? You mean the bank?

 

[Josh]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Thank you for posting that last link. It really contains an hugely enticing piece of information. If he stands nothing to gain.....why didn't hasn't he cut his losses and walked away? Amazing.....such a compelling argument comes down this question? Whats in it for him by staying?

Oh I dunno... maybe that whole 99 year lease thing-a-majig he signed. Yea, you know a little thing called a "contract" that holds up in our court of law. Or is the justice system a big conspiracy too? Seriously, that was one of the dumbest fucking questions yet.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

that was over 10 years.

What was over 10 years?

AND, he can't just "walk away." Silverstein invested 3.5 billion dollars into the WTC. He has other investors that are in it with him. I don't know anybody that can afford to lose 3.5 billion dollars, especially when there is a chance to at least recover some of it.

 

[Josh]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


He is legally obligated to rebuild the towers. You'd be fighting tooth and nail at this point too.

I'll say it again:

Silverstein is legally on the hook for $120 million per year + interest on the bonds AND he must rebuild the WTC.

He has every incentive in the world to try and make this work because, if he doesn't, he loses everything.

If he walked out on the lease he would not be on the hook to rebuild dude. He could give the port authority the insurnace settlement and be done with the whole thing and let htem sort it out.

"walked out on the lease" - have you ever RENTED a place before? Please try and walk out of a lease. Please. I'll be in court laughing at you.

 

[torpid]

Are we seriously debating the destructive power of fire in this thread? I just realized maybe we are. I'm all for it. I wish to first understand why a random building burning in venezuela would have to collapse in order for it to be possible for some other building to collapse. To my untrained eye it seems like a logical fallacy along the lines of "some guy survived a shot to the head with a bullet. Therefore this other guy who got shot in the head with a bullet couldn't have died from that".