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.

 

Need help from BOTH camps determining Larry Silversteins role in 911

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Ok, I have brought this up before, I will explain what I have learned in a nutshell, and I am asking anyone good at legal research to give me a hand in finding out the answer to this burning question...

The basic overview is this: Mr. Silverstein went to trial against the many carriers of insurance. The trials were split by carrier into 2 sessions. The case he was presenting was that there were 2 occurrences, and therefore there should be 1 payout for each occurrence. In insurance, there is an industry standard of "occurrence", it is case law that they (occurrences) be separated by 72 hours. He lost the first trial on that principal.

In the second trial, his lawyers had found a precedent that had been set: An insurance carrier had been able to break the 72 hour law with good lawyers. It was less costly to them to have 2 occurrences within the same 72 hours for some reason. Since his lawyers dug up this case and pointed out the precedent set, he won the second trial.

Now the burning question in my mind is this: When was this precedent set?

I could not find the name of the case (that set the precedent that 72 hours does not have to separate an occurrence) in my research. If this precedent was set before the towers went down, there is almost no way Silverstein could have been involved, as he would have won the first trial on the same precedent. If the precedent was set in between the first trial and the second trial, it is much more likely that he was involved in some nefarious plot.

My logic being that one does not intentionally loose a multi billion dollar trial with one of the best legal teams worldwide. If he had planned on collecting double I'm pretty sure the research would have been done beforehand.

If anyone can find the name of the case that set the precedent, or any information about it at all that would be great. The only other piece of info I have relating to it is that it was involving a storm. Cant wait to see what else gets dug up.




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I'd like to ask the skeptics, who was the alleged FDNY Commander that Larry said called him?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I'd like to ask the skeptics, who was the alleged FDNY Commander that Larry said called him?


It was NY fire dept. chief Daniel Negro who made the decision to pull out all fire fighter units from WTC 7. His was the desk that the buck stopped at, not Silverstein's, so whoever it was from his department that contacted Larry and gave him the illusion he was part of the decision making process is largely irrelevent.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I see no one from either camp can find, or is willing to find the information. My research is saved on another computer but I am positive the info I asked for is not included in any of the articles I have, but I will try to dig deeper when I get a chance.

It kind of amazes me the both truthers and debunkers are willing to speculate about Larry's involvement but not look into it. Amazingly, when I searched for the topic initially, ATS wasn't the first link that popped up either.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
This is an interesting post, becuae i often have been wondering hte same thing, and have toaked witha f ew freinds at work, regarding silverstein and 9/11...it knida dosnt make anys sense. I saw a documentary on 9/11, hbo few years ago..my understanding was, he won 2 property insurance thingys..when WTC was leased for 1, not 2. So how he got 2, when thiers only 1 piece of property is beyond me and the understanding the law, other than it favors the rich. HE made off with $14 billion was it? I dont quite remeber the exact number figure..
Persoanly, if inverstigating this silverstien, ide look into WHO his clsoe friends and business parterns, firms, political, and wall street friendds were, even down to security guards... maybe they had conenctions*
It is commonly said in public, it is rumoreed rather...on the morning of 9/11, all flights were stopped except a flight carrying obama out of here. HIm and bush are rumored,t o be frineds actually more or less. If its true then, DEF silverstien is an accesory then* HE certainly has dropped form existance sicne he got his chekccs hugh? no ones heres nuting about him today....quite odd indeed.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
These types of litigation are so complex only someone experienced looking at the paperwork could forward an intelligent guess. Factors involved that the reportesr would not have privy to or comprehend.

What few remember to factor in was the enormous lost revenues Silverstein incurred. Rents and storage fees over so many years would be in the billions. Primarily on the 3 Towers that collapsed as well as the other buildings. This was about the highest rent district in the world.

And then there would be the losses due to lack of liquidity - ie repayment of loans, punitive interest charges.

There probably were internal lawsuits and counter suits between tenants, which even if settled out of court would have cost millions.

Unlikely Silverstein came out ahead. Insurance collecting is rarely rewarding.



[edit on 10-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


Unlikely Silverstein came out ahead. Insurance collecting is rarely rewarding.



So you can show us that he suffered a loss then? So far all accounts show that he made out just fine because the insurance was there to act as um...a kind of insurance against all the things you listed. Are you just guessing again?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael


Unlikely Silverstein came out ahead. Insurance collecting is rarely rewarding.



So you can show us that he suffered a loss then? So far all accounts show that he made out just fine because the insurance was there to act as um...a kind of insurance against all the things you listed. Are you just guessing again?


Not true that all accounts show he made out just fine :-

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...:insuranceprofitmotive%3F

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Alfie1]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Sorry link wouldn't work, trying again:-

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...:insuranceprofitmotive%3F

No, still wont work, but it is still untrue that all accounts put Sivlerstein ahead. Try a bit of googling yourself.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Alfie1]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


OH ok. Well it is true that he profited. I can do that too.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The mental defectives who make stuff up about 9/11 for other mental defectives to swallow of course do no real research beyond Googling conspiracy sites and videos. The story of the WTC needing asbestos replacement still circulates though it was proven completely untrue years ago.

Live Leak tore apart the popular myth about Silverstein profiting with insurance.


www.liveleak.com...

Another popular CT claim is that Larry Silverstein purposefully demolished his own buildings to profit from the insurance money. This couldn't be further from the truth of the situation. Larry lost billions.



[edit on 10-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


Live Leak tore apart the popular myth about Silverstein profiting with insurance.



Did they?


Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday.



Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion


source



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Silverstein and investors lost billions. The false Truther fabrications highlighted in the video.

New York City lost billions in unrealized income streams, infrastructure repairs, and clean up costs.

Cumulative loss to the US economy close to a trillion.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Silverstein and investors lost billions. The false Truther fabrications highlighted in the video.

New York City lost billions in unrealized income streams, infrastructure repairs, and clean up costs.

Cumulative loss to the US economy close to a trillion.







But the thing is, MM, I at least provided some evidence to show that Silverstein himself actually gambled on a pretty high return. 7 billion for a few 100 mil is a NOT A LOSS.

Can you prove he lost money or just repeat it?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


well dave if he ordered to pull firefighters from the building... interesting since they were pulled earlier in the day according to my sources.
and this eye witness died mysterously.
www.youtube.com...
gee dave why dont you ask a fireman.... ?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



you should have a PhD in the days events and you have no suspecions dave...?
Dave, if (IF) you have social security card dave... look on the back of it...
do you see that number?> good ... call the social security office sometime in the middle of the night and just ask ...

"This is what I was told"..
Sir, I asked my Manager and I was told to tell you that the number on the back to to show which printing press it was printed on... but - I dont believe him. unquote.

"I called the IRS to put an end to this INCOME tax debate... and well dave... sorry to say boss ... but the law says it granted no new taxing authority to congress... and the lady I talked with only kept telling me the same oh line of bull#.... and refused to answer simple questions... give them a call over in Porto Rico for your self dave... or are you part of the dis-info campaign and your not an American. if you were why all the dumb play on word games you do...? or are you just a liming dying to jump.. ?
no, your employed the question I have is who is your employer...?> us or them...?



[edit on 10-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


well dave if he ordered to pull firefighters from the building... interesting since they were pulled earlier in the day according to my sources.
and this eye witness died mysterously.
www.youtube.com...
gee dave why don't you ask a fireman.... ?



Problem with trying to use parts of a Barry Jennings interview as proof of conspiracy as Truthers like to do is that Barry Jennings himself didn't approve of his words being taken out of context to promote their beliefs.

Check comments on the same page:


'It said it felt like I was stepping over people, but I never saw them. You know, that’s the way they [the 'Loose Change' makers] portrayed me and I didn’t appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview.

Do I think that our government would do something like that to its people? No. I honestly don’t believe that’ (Barry Jennings' comments - 47 minutes 36-47:51)


[edit on 10-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


Can you please explain to me what was mysterious about the death of Barry Jennings, some 7 years after 9/11 ?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


I'm a fireman....

Went to seminar 6 months after 9/11 (Feb 2002) - listened to chiefs
from FDNY describe operations that day, including the incident commanders at WTC 7

Silverstien could not have ordered the fireman out because they had already been pulled out (there is that pull thing again....) shorthly after
12pm.




Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp


The fires continued to burn unfought for the remainder of the afternoon

The IC ordered a surveyor transit focused on a corner of the building

By 2 pm could see the building was shifting - established collapse zone around WTC 7



Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
www.firehouse.com...


It was at this point that Silverstein was called informing him that the fires
were out of control and that WTC 7 could not be saved



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Barry Jennings misconstrued remarks are sought as some kind of support for controlled demolition. But demonstrably not what some hope they are.

Jennings, who looked to be 100 pounds overweight died at age 53.

Some think that like William Rodriguez, also hounded by Truthers, Jennings gave in and decided to cash in on his instant celebrity status.

There is a story floating aroind that one of the Loose Change guys hired a Private Detective to investigate the cause of Jennings death. The PI returned the money and withdrew. One would think a phone call to his boss or family member would have been suffcient.

Stories about Truthers an their dubious tactics keep piling up.



"http://m.digg.com/politics/Barry_Jennings_Testimony_Confirms_WTC_7_Was_Blown_Up_Before?offset=20

This stuff has been debunked for ALONG time: "This interpretation can be verified by a corroborating account in the Traverse City Record-Eagle , where Barry Jennings identifies himself as the person with Michael Hess, and confirms that this happened at the time of WTC 1’s collapse.

Some within the Truth Movement dispute this, taking Mr. Jennings’ timeline and vagaries in other commentary to mean that the event must have taken place before WTC 1 collapsed, or in fact even before WTC 2 collapsed, but our interpretation can be verified in two ways.

First, an isolated explosion of that size would have been detected by seismographs, and would also have left visible damage on the outside the building. The seismic records prove there was no such event – only the two aircraft impacts, the two collapses, and related effects like air blast appear between 8:40 AM and noon, nothing else. There are also no corroborating reports, such as from the many rescue workers who had set up a triage center in the lobby of WTC 7, evacuating after WTC 2 collapsed and damaged the lobby area. Video also shows WTC 7 standing undamaged until WTC 2 collapsed.

Second, Mr. Hess and Mr. Jennings were briefly trapped in WTC 7, and were not freed until well after WTC 1 had collapsed, yet they only report these events above. It is not credible for them to have felt a minor explosion prior to the collapses, and then failed to notice the impacts from the collapse of WTC 1. We therefore understand that there was no such explosion, and these events are one and the same. Even if this mystification of Mr. Jennings’ statements was valid, it is unclear why an explosion would have been triggered so long before WTC 7 collapsed, as it could serve no useful purpose."



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you prove he lost money or just repeat it?


I would also like to see a business timeline showing just how Mr. Silverstein is loosing money.

Don't forget to include future earnings.




[edit on 10-12-2009 by Nutter]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join