It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

page: 6
50
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: urasoul

Sorry, but the video is so full of inaccuracies and lies that i could not watch the whole thing. Silverstein, did not get enough money to rebuild the entire site. Wirt Walker is NOT related to Bush.......too many lies.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

as far as i am aware, silverstein's original investment in the original tower complex was around 120 million - so walking away with 4.5 billion is hardly irrelevant. even if he only walked away with 10% of the cost of building the new tower complex, he still walked away with a massive 'profit'.

as for 'wirt walker'. technically every human is a 'distant relative' of every other.

i haven't researched that question in depth, but this page appears to have a lot of data on it: 911blogger.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: urasoul. When you are spending 10 billion plus to rebuild......how is 4.5 billion walking away with a profit? That doesn't compute even with common core math.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

the issue is how much he started out with and the relative value returned from that initial amount. he is not the only entity involved here, as made clear by the various resources on the topic. to quote the nytimes concise summation: "Federal funds approved by Congress and President Bush to help New York recover from the attack and insurance payments would pay for most of the rebuilding."

so most of the cost of the now 10 billion dollar complex didn't come from larry's pocket, yet he 'owns' a considerable amount of it now. it is rare to multiply an initial investment by such a factor, is it not?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: urasoul

No, the issue is, out of his insurance proceeds, he has to date, paid over 1.68 billion in rent to the PA to preserve his rights to rebuild. Not to mention, even WITH the money coming from the Government (which mostly went into the Freedom Tower) work on the other two towers is hampered because of funding.

"Should Judge Hellerstein's decision withstand the appeals process, it would bring an end to Mr. Silverstein's quest to receive additional money for the attacks. That litigious pursuit has been motivated in part by the fact that rebuilding the 10 million square feet lost in the attacks is proving to cost billions more than the $4.1 billion Mr. Silverstein received from his insurers.

The four towers planned at the 16-acre site carry a price tag of roughly $10 billion. Some of that cost—multiple billions of dollars—has been borne by various government agencies. Two towers—One World Trade Center and the 72-story 4 World Trade Center—are well under way and due to open by 2015. One World Trade is being developed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

But Mr. Silverstein has been unable to start work on the two remaining towers—the 1,349-foot-high 2 World Trade Center and 3 World Trade Center—and won't be able to do so without signing on tenants. "

www.wsj.com...

WTC 2
nypost.com...

So, yeah, anyone who thinks he has cleared a massive profit, hasn't researched very well.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: urasoul




so most of the cost of the now 10 billion dollar complex didn't come from larry's pocket, yet he 'owns' a considerable amount of it now. it is rare to multiply an initial investment by such a factor, is it not?

You seem to forget Larry has been paying on the original loan for 14 years.
And in all those years he hasn't received any rent.

I wonder if the math you are using is common core math.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   


You seem to forget Larry has been paying on the original loan for 14 years. And in all those years he hasn't received any rent.
a reply to: samkent

i have not seen a total breakdown of accounting for the project overall. there are certainly many moves being made to help him out from government money. it remains to be seen (by me) whether he comes out of this 'profiting' or not.


afaik, it was his decision to take on the task of rebuilding the tower complex and i am not aware of him being in any way obliged to use the insurance payout to rebuild. maybe i am missing some details here (that have not been written by others here in response to me so far), but whether or not he turns out to make a profit or not on the rebuild doesn't change the fact that he apparently received a vast payout against a relatively small initial investment, shortly before 911. he then chose to use that money to rebuild, to attempt to make further profit.

i am not saying he is guilty due to what evidence is available, i am simply saying that among the wide variety of evidence relating to 911 that shows the presence of denial and numerous obviously highly questionable claims, lies and what appear to be coverups being put forward by those writing the 'official narrative, it is for those with conscience to monitor the situation closely and not jump to conclusions.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: urasoul

afaik, it was his decision to take on the task of rebuilding the tower complex and i am not aware of him being in any way obliged to use the insurance payout to rebuild. maybe i am missing some details here (that have not been written by others here in response to me so far), but whether or not he turns out to make a profit or not on the rebuild doesn't change the fact that he apparently received a vast payout against a relatively small initial investment, shortly before 911. he then chose to use that money to rebuild, to attempt to make further profit.

i am not saying he is guilty due to what evidence is available, i am simply saying that among the wide variety of evidence relating to 911 that shows the presence of denial and numerous obviously highly questionable claims, lies and what appear to be coverups being put forward by those writing the 'official narrative, it is for those with conscience to monitor the situation closely and not jump to conclusions.


Which, him wanting to rebuild, SHOULD destroy any notions that he was looking to profit off of the actual attack. Think about it. If he wanted to profit, he would have taken the insurance money, told the Port Authority he was out and left.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

not necessarily. it would definitely ramp up the accusations against him and increase his risk if he were to 'take the money and run'. on the other hand, if he just does what 'a reliable capitalist' would do, he should at least stand to profit to some extent in the region of billions as a result. there was no reason to think when he began (as far as i know) that the project would run at a loss. a relevant question too is 'where are the billions being spent on the project actually going?' - usually there are corporate tie-ins whereby his 'associates' will receive much of the money being spent. i don't know the answer to that in this case.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
There is nothing in the video that even remotely suggest a false flag operation.

Look at the governments history of false flags, operation northwoods? The government was gonna stage faked terrorist attacks on their own people and say it was Cuban "terrorists" in order to invade a country in their effort for never ending wars around the world. The 911 attacks that two thousand architects and engineers saying couldn't have happened without being a demolition sure were pretty convenient for the people who made billions from oil by the attack happening, pretty convenient for someone guy who took an insurgence policy in the building month before with his own money and then made a few billion dollars from it
edit on 27-9-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Telepathy3



Look at the governments history of false flags, operation northwoods?


That doesn't mean that 9/11 was a false flag, especially since countries around the world had warned the United States in the months and weeks before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be responsible.


The 911 attacks that two thousand architects and engineers saying couldn't have happened without being a demolition...


Let's take a look at the real numbers.



Architects and Engineers

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...



... sure were pretty convenient for the people who made billions from oil by the attack happening, pretty convenient for someone guy who took an insurgence policy in the building month before with his own money and then made a few billion dollars from it


That is false. Larry Silverstein came out on the short end of the stick and even lost a court battle.

Who made billions from oil? Please elaborate.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join