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: The most profitable disaster in history.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Something I've been thinking about for a while is how clear it seems to me that 9/11 was an insurance scam.


The agreement, which the insurers described as the largest single insurance settlement ever undertaken by the industry, ended a protracted legal battle with insurers over payouts related to the terrorist attack.

New York Times

And having paid 3.2 billion for the property, Larry A Silverstein spent more than 1 billion less than the eventual insurance payout. It was the most profitable disaster in history.

If this were a murder investigation, that would be considered motive.

And since the money to rebuild is coming from a Liberty bond, he gets a FREE replacement building complex worth MORE than the original was. This cements the deal. He's gotten 1 billion dollars and a brand new building complex for free.

But in order to get his Liberty bond, there had to be a war, and in order to be a war, there had to be 9/11. It was a case of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", or; big business government. The war led to some enormous profits for the companies involved. But more importantly it led to a shift in power as far as the economy was concerned. The people who now pulled all the strings were the ones who'd transferred all the wealth out of the treasury and away from the government and the people. They now had the ability to buy out whoever they wanted, completely outside of government.

The truth is we may never find out about many of the things that occured, but when the people who should've been worst off from the attacks turn out to be the ones who benefited most, thats when we should start asking questions.




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Thank god for the wearechange crew. Latest confrontation with the mobster, hopefully not the last either...



watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
You can add this to Mr Silverstein's profits off of 9/11....


Developer Sues to Win $12.3 Billion in 9/11 Attack
(NewYorkTimes)-Larry A. Silverstein, who has won nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments to cover his losses and help him rebuild at the World Trade Center site, is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack.

Mr. Silverstein, the developer of ground zero, sought the damages, whose amount was not previously known, in a claim filed in 2004, that says the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists from hijacking the planes used to destroy the buildings.

www.nytimes.com...

Full story here
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Most of the de-bunkers dismiss lary making money based on just the insurance. But also he saved millions not having to replace asbestos. He saved millions not having to pay for the demotion and clean-up of unprofitable buildings.

As the OP noted, he now has a clean slate, free of charge, with a little extra cash help, to invest in a new, modern more profitable building complex.

It's what Silverstein Properties do for a living. That is a once in a dozen lifetimes deal. What greedy profiteer would turn down such a deal?

'Pull it', the other ones got bells on it..


[edit on 27/3/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Mr. Silverstein, the developer of ground zero, sought the damages, whose amount was not previously known, in a claim filed in 2004, that says the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists from hijacking the planes used to destroy the buildings.


What's going to happen in court when the defence lawyers point out that the planes were never positively identified as being the alleged flights AA11 and UA175?

What's going to happen in court when the defence lawyers will be asked why it took until 14 January 2002 to deregister AA11 and until 28 September 2005 to deregister UA175, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be deregistered within 24 hours?

It will prove to be one interesting court case, indeed...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Mr. Silverstein, the developer of ground zero, sought the damages, whose amount was not previously known, in a claim filed in 2004, that says the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists from hijacking the planes used to destroy the buildings.


What's going to happen in court when the defence lawyers point out that the planes were never positively identified as being the alleged flights AA11 and UA175?

What's going to happen in court when the defence lawyers will be asked why it took until 14 January 2002 to deregister AA11 and until 28 September 2005 to deregister UA175, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be deregistered within 24 hours?

It will prove to be one interesting court case, indeed...


Oh I would hope that the defense lawyers would be dumb enough to go down that road. Lets check some other accidents....

TWA Flight 800
N93119
Destroyed 7-17-96
Deregistered 3-10-97

United Flight 232
N1819U
Destroyed 7-19-89
Deregistered 6-15-90

United
N999UA
Destroyed 3-3-91
Deregistered 2-5-92

US Air
N388US
Destroyed 2-2-91
Deregistered 7-2-97

You're right....definite grounds for dismissal of charges.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

'Pull it', the other ones got bells on it..




Hahaha thats priceless.


I've got to say that one of the most frustrating things about this whole thing is how out in the open and arrogant the perpatrators are. The whole thing is just right in front of us staring us in the face. And like I said, if this was a murder investigation, lots of people would be taken in for questioning right now and there'd be a huge list of suspects. It wouldn't be difficult to figure out who did what.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MouseOnMars
 

Great topic MouseOnMars, have a flag for this thread.

I must say, this really should open some eyes, just follow the money, I know that's an old axiom, but it's true. Good ole Larry isn't the only one to benefit from the tragic events of 9/11. Defense contractors and oil companies did too, but those are another topic. I'll be checking this thread on a regular basis to see where this goes.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by MouseOnMars
 

Great topic MouseOnMars, have a flag for this thread.

I must say, this really should open some eyes, just follow the money, I know that's an old axiom, but it's true. Good ole Larry isn't the only one to benefit from the tragic events of 9/11. Defense contractors and oil companies did too, but those are another topic. I'll be checking this thread on a regular basis to see where this goes.


Another old phrase I like to use for 9/11 is it's the "elephant in the room".

Follow the money IS good to a certain extent... but a better bet is "follow the power". Since money generally equals power, the two can be used to achieve the same results, but sometimes there are certain things that are done which don't make a whole lot of sense until you consider who benefits in terms of positions of power.

As far as I'm concerned those towers might as well have been big stacks of money in Larry's eyes. He saw them, he knew people who wanted an excuse to go to war, he found a way he could benefit from giving them what they wanted. The rest, as they say, is history. Imagine the huge benefit of making some very good friends in very high places. To some people that would be worth more than any amount of money or any amount of futuristic real estate.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
The 4 Billion Dollar Mr Silverstein got will not even cover the cost of him rebuilding it.
www.forbes.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by theskeptical1
 


The 12.3 billion dollar law suit should help though. Also, as was mentioned before, he saved millions if not more on the asbestos removal. I thought I heard before that the towers would need to be demolished soon, but that could have been a rumor.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
reply to post by theskeptical1
 


The 12.3 billion dollar law suit should help though. Also, as was mentioned before, he saved millions if not more on the asbestos removal. I thought I heard before that the towers would need to be demolished soon, but that could have been a rumor.
I don't think he is going to win that lawsuit



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by theskeptical1
 


Hehe well here is proof of what I said in my post above...

The towers were old and in need of repair and upgrade. It was cheaper to re-build, especially when you consider the billions it would have cost to demolish those buildings and do the clean up.

They had a dilemma I think, no one has ever demolished a building as big as the WTC towers. I don't think they could know for sure that they wouldn't damage other buildings, and end up paying out billions in repair costs and law suits. It could have potentially cost Larry billions to improve on his investment. The insurance is a distraction, it's not why he was involved. He basically wiped away all those logistical and financial problems, paid for by the lives of 3000 New Yorkers, and your tax dollars.
Larry knew the economy was going to crap. What's a few lives, to a class of people that send thousands to die in wars for their agendas, to help save his slice of the economy? You should really stop and think about these things before you simply dismiss what we're saying as BS.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What's a few lives, to a class of people that send thousands to die in wars for their agendas, to help save his slice of the economy? You should really stop and think about these things before you simply dismiss what we're saying as BS.

Here, here!

I agree.

There's a bigger picture to how events pan out and are planned. Nothing that these people do is done for isolated reasons.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by theskeptical1
The 4 Billion Dollar Mr Silverstein got will not even cover the cost of him rebuilding it.
www.forbes.com...


I don't think you quite understand how much money 4.5 billion dollars really is. And that's reasonable, because its actually theorised that the human brain is actually incapable of comprehending any amount of money above about 100 million. It's 4500 million dollars... thats enough money to buy a fleet of 30 fully armed F22 raptor jets. As far as buildings are concerned, you could build a huge modern shopping complex and 5 screen cinema for 150 million dollars. You could build something 30 times larger for 4.5 billion. Thats like taking a 4 storey shopping complex, and adding another 120 floors, with fully fitted shops and cinemas on every floor.

Lets not forget here, that Larry got 1 billion more than he spent off his insurance claim. He's also got a liberty bond for 8 billion dollars. Collectively he has 12.5 billion dollars, and he is currently suing for the same amount again, which if he is successful will total 25 billion dollars. That would be a profit of 21.5 billion dollars, which is more than enough to build the worlds tallest structure and walk away with 10 billion to spare.

Thats not to mention all the hidden profits and benefits Larry got for getting into bed with the New World Order agenda. We can only speculate on how much he got from this, but I'd be willing to bet that right now if Larry Silverstein wanted a 50 foot concrete statue of molech in his garden tomorrow he would be in a VERY good position to make it happen.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MouseOnMars
I don't think you quite understand how much money 4.5 billion dollars really is. It's 4500 million dollars... thats enough money to buy a fleet of 30 fully armed F22 raptor jets.

4.5 billion dollars will also buy a black budget toilet seat, or a hammer, right? They have to itemise their expenses somehow... (joking)

Seriously though, I can't understand why ANY person needs BILLIONS of dollars? It's actually obscene to have that much money and then continue to keep working to make more of it. They are psychotic, meglomaniacs.

The world is screwed.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Imagine what the money could do if spent to make things a little better for everyone.

It's a sick insult to the people of America and those that died, even if he had nothing to do with it, for a person/company to suck that kind of cash out of the economy.

4.5b could feed and house an awful lot of people. Problem is people of larries class have the working class convinced that their lives are dependent on his wealth.

This is what people need to wake up to. The working class (most of you are working class not middle class) have been systematically raped by the likes of silverstein since the industrial revolution. They have us trapped in a system that continually makes wealth, but that wealth is monopolised by a very small group of people who don't believe in sharing that wealth that WE create.
Yes folks we make the money and the rich take, it's a myth that they work harder and thus deserve it...They make money off of our sweat and lives, not their own labour...We fight their wars, we pay their taxes, we live the life they dictate.

It's about time we really had a say in how things should be run!



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
reply to post by theskeptical1
 


The 12.3 billion dollar law suit should help though. Also, as was mentioned before, he saved millions if not more on the asbestos removal. I thought I heard before that the towers would need to be demolished soon, but that could have been a rumor.


You do realize that only one-third of one tower had asbestos in it dont you? As for the "towers needed demolished" rumor, it is just that, an unsubstantiated (and not supported by ANY evidence) internet rumor.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You do realize that only one-third of one tower had asbestos in it dont you?

Source, please? I'd like to read that for myself. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by theskeptical1
 


nice find. it says right in the article that normally the insured opts to insure only one occurance, but that mr sliverstein opted for 2 thru one of the only companies (out of 20 plus) that would insure 2.

That implicates prior knowledge at the least.

also notice that he is still in the appeals process and is attempting to collect the second payout. if successful the total payout would be 7 billion for the insurance and 12.4 for the civil suit, bringing the grand total to 19.4 billion.

In addition to that note that while obligated to rebuild, he is not obligated to build the grand complex they have envisioned, but simply rebuild.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join