My First Truther?

[PhantomWolf]

Well sort of. She was actually advocating for Greenpeace. Not sure that I'd want to live in the society she was projecting, sounded like a pre-industry communist state, but anyways... She was a french Canadian over here and while talking about enviromental issues she mentioned that she didn't trust the MSM but rather independant sources. Ihappened to point out that even so called independent media have their biases and can report bunk as fact, pointing to 9/11 as a case in point.

Well you guessed it, she appartently believes the US Govt was behind it. Her opening gambit was "Do you know who owned the towers?" It sort of threw her when I said "Yes, the New York-New Jersey Port Authority." She was expecting me to say Larry Silverstein, or not know. After pulling the rug out from under her on that I asked if she'd read the NIST report, which of course she hadn't (she hadn't heard of it.) Her response to this was that she refused to trust anyone paid by the Govt or Big Business. I asked if she'd trust the Structural Engineering Department of the University of Sydney in Australia. At that point I think she realised I was rather well versed on the matter and decided that "hey I need to get going" and so we left it there.

She did seem to believe in Apollo though, at least she wanted to know if we can get to the moon, why can't we build a non-polluting battery and when we discussed Apollo using Hydrogen Fuel Cells she didn't object to their having gone.

Pity that I didn't have more time or a few resources printed out, could have been more fun.

[RedIbis]

Her opening gambit was "Do you know who owned the towers?" It sort of threw her when I said "Yes, the New York-New Jersey Port Authority." .

Unfortunately, you were wrong and owe that woman an apology. The PA owned the land, LS owns the bldgs.

[PhantomWolf]

Unfortunately, you were wrong and owe that woman an apology. The PA owned the land, LS owns the bldgs.

No, LS had a 99 year lease on 1 and 2, he only owned 7

[WildCat]

Unfortunately, you were wrong and owe that woman an apology. The PA owned the land, LS owns the bldgs.
Yet another error by RedIbis!

LS leased the towers, he didn't own them. He owned WTC 7 only.

Find that "official report" on the C-Ring hole yet RedIbis? :rolleyes:

[RedIbis]

No, LS had a 99 year lease on 1 and 2, he only owned 7

Of which he collected the insurance payouts. But that wasn't enough, he's now suing for get this... 12.3 billion more.

http://www.nytimes.com:80/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?ex=1207281600&en=0261765c3042a010&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[SDC]

I'm still waiting for Red Ibis' smoking gun with regard to Gen Myers' shenanigans on the morning of 9/11. You all remember -- he (Myers) hid out in a congressman's office... Say! You don't suppose... Red Ibis, was this a Larry Craig situation? No, couldn't be.

ETA: Not that there would be anything wrong with that.

[RedIbis]

I'm still waiting for Red Ibis' smoking gun with regard to Gen Myers' shenanigans on the morning of 9/11. You all remember -- he (Myers) hid out in a congressman's office... Say! You don't suppose... Red Ibis, was this a Larry Craig situation? No, couldn't be.

ETA: Not that there would be anything wrong with that.

Possibly the most blatant and dated derail in the history of jref.

[SDC]

[quote=RedIbis;3568562]Of which he collected the insurance payouts. But that wasn't enough, he's now suing for get this... 12.3 billion more.


RedIbis, and the relevance of that statement would be what, exactly? Something about Jews and money? (Let me state here that I am sorely annoyed with my Jewish ancestors who seem almost to have had an aversion to holding onto money.)

[SDC]

Possibly the most blatant and dated derail in the history of jref.

Nope. Not close. Have you been following the exciting adventures of Tc329, lately?

[RedIbis]

Of which he collected the insurance payouts. But that wasn't enough, he's now suing for get this... 12.3 billion more.


RedIbis, and the relevance of that statement would be what, exactly? Something about Jews and money? (Let me state here that I am sorely annoyed with my Jewish ancestors who seem almost to have had an aversion to holding onto money.)

And of course the inevitable Jew reference, which invariably is delivered by a so called debunker.

I will remind you that this tactic is no less bigoted than that which you feebly attempt to criticize. Not well done.

[PhantomWolf]

Of which he collected the insurance payouts. But that wasn't enough, he's now suing for get this... 12.3 billion more.

http://www.nytimes.com:80/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?ex=1207281600&en=0261765c3042a010&ei=5070&emc=eta1

So? You do realise that part of the lease was that he returned the buildings and site to the PA in a similar condition as they were when he leased them? You are aware that he is paying the PA and has been paying the PA the rent as if the buildings were still there for the past 6 years? You are aware that he (well his company) is the one that has to foot the bill for building the new towers and since the Insurance he got doesn't cover that cost (he already lost about $2 billion on WTC 7) he's going to go after anything he can to alleviate the loses suffered in the attacks?

Of course you were, or you wouldn't have brought this up right?

By the way, are you planning to apologise yourself?

[LashL]

Unfortunately, you were wrong and owe that woman an apology. The PA owned the land, LS owns the bldgs.


Not surprisingly, you are wrong, and you owe PhantomWolf an apology. The PA owns the land and owned the buildings. Mr. Silverstein leased WTC 1, 2, 4 and 5 from the Port Authority.

[SDC]

Oh, piffle. I saw you in the shop of the Scandinavian institute on ... Park Ave? And I didn't buy you there. So you are sore.

Anyhow, this is your chance to explain why Silverstein's lawsuit is relevant to 9/11. Please go ahead.

[RedIbis]

Nope. Not close. Have you been following the exciting adventures of Tc329, lately?

Seriously, if you're just going to shamelessly cross thread stalk and continue to derail threads, ask the mods for permission to set up a one on one debate on any subject about 9/11.

I'll heark squawking about this, but you have to defend an official position. You might be able to provide a compelling argument, but if it's not delivered by an official entity, a debate defending the official position is lost by you.

This is my new way of dealing with stalkers. It seems to be working so far.

[PhantomWolf]

Do I need to get a mod to clean out the off topic posts in just the 15th post?

[Alferd_Packer]

Was she cute?

[RedIbis]

Not surprisingly, you are wrong, and you owe PhantomWolf an apology. The PA owns the land and owned the buildings. Mr. Silverstein leased WTC 1, 2, 4 and 5 from the Port Authority.

He bid for the 99 year lease. It gave him the rights to lease the real estate, as well as collect the insurance.

If he were simply a leasee, as opposed to the leaseholder, he wouldn't be collecting on anything.

[SDC]

Stalkers? Oh you saucy devil. At the Scandinavian institute I thought you were pretty darned cute, but not enough to buy. So you are jealous.

OK, mods, I'm yours. Tear me from limb to limb.

Let's see, what else did RedIbis instruct me to say ... Well, for one thing, I don't know what "heark squawking" means. You'll have to explain. Second, a debate... is lost... Hey, sailor, I am not debating. I'm just remembering your crushing destruction of Gen Myers. That was as close as you ever came, I believe, to staking out a position. Pretty weak.

Here's mine: the consensus 9/11 story, as represented by "official" entities, are essentially correct.

[PhantomWolf]

He bid for the 99 year lease. It gave him the rights to lease the real estate, as well as collect the insurance.

If he were simply a leasee, as opposed to the leaseholder, he wouldn't be collecting on anything.

That doesn't make him the owner, the PA was still the owner. Just admit you got it wrong Red, you'll be the bigger for it. Right now you look pretty silly and are getting sillier by the minute as you try and squirm out of it.

[PhantomWolf]

Was she cute?

She was okay, but I wouldn't go drooling down the road after her personally.

[LashL]

He bid for the 99 year lease. It gave him the rights to lease the real estate, as well as collect the insurance.

If he were simply a leasee, as opposed to the leaseholder, he wouldn't be collecting on anything.

The word you were looking for there is "lessee", not "leasee". The lessee is otherwise known as the leaseholder, and your semantic games are not going to get you past the fact that you were wrong.

If you are honest in applying your own standards, you still owe PhantomWolf an apology.

[SDC]

Was she cute?

Al ... May I call you Al? Love your culinary talents... if you meant to ask me about my chance to buy RedIbis at the Scandinavian institute... In the shop on Park ave (I don't have the address, it was around 38th St, can look it up) they had some glass birds, and what to my wondering eyes should appear, but our friend RedIbis.

Like I say, I resisted buying him/ her.

ETA: Whoops-la! www.amscan.org (http://www.amscan.org) Park ave between 37 and 38. American-Scandinavian Foundation. Nice lunches, except for too much herring.

[Mr. Skinny]

He bid for the 99 year lease. It gave him the rights to lease the real estate, as well as collect the insurance.

If he were simply a leasee, as opposed to the leaseholder, he wouldn't be collecting on anything.
Can I ask what the difference is between a leasee and a leaseholder?

[RedIbis]

That doesn't make him the owner, the PA was still the owner. Just admit you got it wrong Red, you'll be the bigger for it. Right now you look pretty silly and are getting sillier by the minute as you try and squirm out of it.

I will admit that obtaining a 99 year lease is just a damn euphemism for what LS was. He enjoyed the benefits of holding all of the commercial leases.

Now recall for me his initial investment. Compare that with his first insurance recovery. Now add this new claim.

Explain how that is a loss, please.

[RedIbis]

Can I ask what the difference is between a leasee and a leaseholder?

What's the difference between a renter and the landlord?

If the bldg collapses, the renter doesn't get to collect on the insurance claims.

[RedIbis]

The word you were looking for there is "lessee", not "leasee".

Thank you.

[DavidJames]

Wow Red. I never expected someone as civil and polite as you to be such as ass and not admit you were wrong.

But true to form, like every other CTist on the planet, guys like you never fail to live below even my lowest expectations.

[SDC]

What's the difference between a renter and the landlord?

If the bldg collapses, the renter doesn't get to collect on the insurance claims.

Wait a minute... So when I was a renter... I had no insurance??

We need a real estate insurance expert, not a civilian.

[WildCat]

What's the difference between a renter and the landlord?
The landlord is the lessor, the renter is the lessee.

[LashL]

Can I ask what the difference is between a leasee and a leaseholder?


A lessee (not "leasee") = a leaseholder. There is no difference. The terms of various leases, of course, vary immensely, but the terms "lessee" and "leaseholder" are interchangeable.

[Mr. Skinny]

A lessee (not "leasee") = a leaseholder. There is no difference. The terms of various leases, of course, vary immensely, but the terms "lessee" and "leaseholder" are interchangeable.
Well, that's what I thought.

I guess RedIbis just misspoke.

Thanks.

[LashL]

What's the difference between a renter and the landlord?


You are, clearly, in over your head here, RedIbis. You should just admit your error and cut your losses.

If the bldg collapses, the renter doesn't get to collect on the insurance claims.


This is not true. It all depends upon the terms of the lease. Your knowledge of commercial leasing is, obviously, lacking.

[RedIbis]

Well, that's what I thought.

I guess RedIbis just misspoke.

Thanks.

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?

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

[WildCat]

Could you all please take the insurance/lease/Silverstein discussion to the thread on that? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110000

[RedIbis]

This is not true. It all depends upon the terms of the lease. Your knowledge of commercial leasing is, obviously, lacking.

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.

My point is that the leaseholder enjoys all of the benefits of an owner. Now explan for me how Larry doesn't make out like a bandit, as not even the PA can do.

[RedIbis]

Could you all please take the insurance/lease/Silverstein discussion to the thread on that? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110000

Good call. I will oblige.

[PhantomWolf]

My point is that the leaseholder enjoys all of the benefits of an owner. Now explan for me how Larry doesn't make out like a bandit, as not even the PA can do.

Because Red, HE HAS TO PAY TO HAVE THE BUILDINGS REBUILT!

Oh, and BTW, he's said that the settlement will pay back the Insurers so he won't get both of them like you seem to be implying above.

[Mr. Skinny]

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?

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

[Arus808]

wow red, you are clearly clueless about renting and commercial buildings).

renters/leaseholders can apply for their own insurance on the space/buildings they rent/lease to recover costs, should something out of their control happens (of course if the renter/lessee deliberately damages the building/space then that is not covered)

and per agreement, renters/lessees must return the property they are renting/leasing in the condition they received it in, or else pay $$$ to make repairs to damages.

[PhantomWolf]

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?

He seems to be hanging his argument on the fact that Silverstein had the buildings insured, but this is ignoring the 80-tonne Gorilla riding the 400 tonne pink elephant, that under the lease that Buildings had to be returned in a similar condition to when leased. That means the renter (Silverstein) is finically responsible for any and all damage to the buildings. What moron wouldn't insure them under that contract?

[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 (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262008/news/regionalnews/pa_is_shut_out_of_wtc_insurance_99273.htm)

[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.

[Hyperviolet]

I will admit that obtaining a 99 year lease is just a damn euphemism for what LS was. He enjoyed the benefits of holding all of the commercial leases.


Oh, wheest.


You were wrong.
Accept it.

[AZCat]

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?

Wow, I guess I missed this one. Do you happen to know in which thread RedIbis made this claim? </derail>

[jaydeehess]

Wow, I guess I missed this one. Do you happen to know in which thread RedIbis made this claim? </derail>

The actual quote is in my sig. Sadly, no, I do not recall the title of the thread.

[Walter Ego]

To return to the OP (or is that OT?), I met a lovely truther named Sarah last month in Savannah. (Caution NSFW language).


4izUFafakmg

[AZCat]

The actual quote is in my sig. Sadly, no, I do not recall the title of the thread.

Ahhh, I had signatures turned off. I can see it now.

[PhantomWolf]

Search and ye shall find (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2883201&highlight=preposterous+NIST+removal+fireproofing#p ost2883201)

[AZCat]

Search and ye shall find (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2883201&highlight=preposterous+NIST+removal+fireproofing#p ost2883201)

Reading back through that thread really demonstrated to me how unchanging RedIbis's tactics have been. Six months ago, and it reads like threads from today. Same cavalier attitude about facts, and same disappearing act when confronted.




Oh, and thanks for the linky (although jaydeehess also sent it my way - you guys sure are on top of things).

[LashL]

RedIBis has long been a complete and utter liar, as demonstrated yet again in this thread.

Sad, really.

[Jonnyclueless]

I think Redibis has now passed the ignore threshold. Too much absurdity that wastes my time trying to read the threads.