World Trade Center owners lose 9/11 compensation bid

Now this is interesting,

World Trade Center owners lose 9/11 compensation bid

Owners of the World Trade Center cannot demand billions more dollars in compensation for the 9/11 attacks, a New York judge has ruled.

The twin towers owners wanted more insurance money, in addition to the $5bn (£3.3bn) already claimed, from the airlines of the hijacked planes.

Looks like Larry got a little greedy and has now been told that he cannot pursue further compensation for the destruction of the world trade center.

what i find interesting is that the article goes on to say that....

The World Trade Center alleged that damage from 9/11 totalled as much as $7.2bn.

It has cost more than $8bn to replace the three buildings.

And what do i find that interesting?

Because i read time and time again from the truther camp (or whatever they like to be called) that a key motivation for the "9/11 false flag" was to get the insurance money.

yet now it seems that "they" are not getting the insurance money that they wanted to get and that "they" are actually about $4 billion out of pocket. Now yes i do know that other sources will actually say that it probably cost less than that to do the rebuilding but either way surly this demonstrate that good O'l Larry didn't really make all that much out (if anything) out of the insurance and that really he has probably lost money.

Just another little hole in the oxymoron that calls itself "9/11 truth".

They say that 9/11 was partly motivated to provide finical gain, yet on the other hand the attacks caused huge financial losses.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Yes well I don't think that many people have contributed anything directly as having been perpetuated by the owners of the buildings.
I also realize there are many ways for a large corp. to make money even off of huge losses.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I don't see how they can call themselves a truth movement when so much of what they say has been proven to be false.

911 liar movement formerly known as the 911 truth movement.

Now all they do is sell their crap to the gullible they ruined their own brand with the BS hey push.

Its worse than watching a connect the dot episode of Glen Beck.

well if their 'buddies' in the government/ banking industry weren't driving up the prices of labor/ materials thru even basic stuff like inflation, plus the shenanigans by the oil companies have driven up the prices/ availabilities of raw materials needed for production of building materials, they might have been able to complete this project at a much lower price.

i.e. they may have initialy projected the price to be maybe 4billion in 2001 when they demolished the original towers, but as building materials have roughly doubled in price, the final cost is now 8billion.

i'm guessin' the OP has a desk job.

lured by dreams of big money, lots of people try to get into the construction business and fail miserably, leaving a trail of unpaid bills behind them.
there's no room for error and you need to 'pad' your estimates to account for any suprises that come up.

after losing money on this one pehaps their g-d hashem (a.k.a. satan) will stop blessing these 'steins'.

It has cost more than $8bn to replace the three buildings.

So? He Had to pay part of the cost of his brand new World Trade Center instead of getting it for free like he wanted. Poor guy......

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Now this is interesting,

World Trade Center owners lose 9/11 compensation bid

Owners of the World Trade Center cannot demand billions more dollars in compensation for the 9/11 attacks, a New York judge has ruled.

The twin towers owners wanted more insurance money, in addition to the $5bn (£3.3bn) already claimed, from the airlines of the hijacked planes.

Looks like Larry got a little greedy and has now been told that he cannot pursue further compensation for the destruction of the world trade center.

what i find interesting is that the article goes on to say that....

The World Trade Center alleged that damage from 9/11 totalled as much as $7.2bn.

It has cost more than $8bn to replace the three buildings.

And what do i find that interesting?

Because i read time and time again from the truther camp (or whatever they like to be called) that a key motivation for the "9/11 false flag" was to get the insurance money.

yet now it seems that "they" are not getting the insurance money that they wanted to get and that "they" are actually about $4 billion out of pocket. Now yes i do know that other sources will actually say that it probably cost less than that to do the rebuilding but either way surly this demonstrate that good O'l Larry didn't really make all that much out (if anything) out of the insurance and that really he has probably lost money.

Just another little hole in the oxymoron that calls itself "9/11 truth".

They say that 9/11 was partly motivated to provide finical gain, yet on the other hand the attacks caused huge financial losses.

edit on 21-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Not for nothing, but clearly Mr. Larry thought he was going to be compensated better. He even attempted to extract more than 5 billion.

I've never even put credence to the insurance money motive -- and even with me still disbelieving it... this actually points more towards that motive than against.

Also, how much did it cost to build the original 3 buildings? Why are we comparing the new building price to that of the original buildings?

Also -- do we even know where the money came from to build the new buildings? If it didn't come out of Mr. Larry's pocket, then he lost nothing.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So how do you know that all those numbers are true ? Oh yes because they say so , well then let's believe them and move along ,there is nothing to talk about here , case closed.

It disgusts me that people are profiting or trying to profit off 9/11.

Shame on you, you stinking greedy fat cats.

but the towers had to come down i heard because of the asbestos in them at a cost of 12 billion i remember reading .

and the investigation into the price fixing of gold and the 2.3 trillion of unacounted money were in the towers plus what was being stored in building 7

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Good ol Larry would have been compensated in other ways. He wouldn't have lost anything.

Originally posted by geobro
but the towers had to come down i heard because of the asbestos in them at a cost of 12 billion i remember reading .

and the investigation into the price fixing of gold and the 2.3 trillion of unacounted money were in the towers plus what was being stored in building 7

what so your saying that they went to all the trouble of some massively complex false flag to save $12 billion, which is really a drop in the ocean to them. Then they demolished a entire building while they were at it to destroy some paperwork and a few hard drives.

that does not add up to me, its just not logical.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by geobro
but the towers had to come down i heard because of the asbestos in them at a cost of 12 billion i remember reading .

and the investigation into the price fixing of gold and the 2.3 trillion of unacounted money were in the towers plus what was being stored in building 7

what so your saying that the went to all the trouble of some massively complex false flag to save $12 billion, which is really a drop in the ocean to them. Then they demolished a entire building while they were at it to destroy some paperwork and a few hard drives.

that does not add up to me, its just not logical.

i think a few days before they announced that 2.3 trillion could not be traced and the gold fixing start adding it all up and do not forget barclay card had a main office there

reply to post by geobro


But even so if you wanted to destroy all the evidence of insider trading, the "missing 2.3 trillion" you are talking about, then don't you think that who whole 9/11 plot is just going way too far to destroy that evidence?

I mean surly if it was, as you say, about covering up the missing funds, they would just have started a fire in WTC-7 and afterwords just quietly say that the files were all destroyed in a terrible accident.

To me that would make much more sense, it would be illogical for them to go to the lengths of a 9/11 false flag just to destroy some files.

then look at how much has been spent on the military industrial complex since then eiseinhower words are starting to make sense now .

or osama saying the west would bankrupt itself all roads lead to rome

Originally posted by geobro
then look at how much has been spent on the military industrial complex since then eiseinhower words are starting to make sense now .

or osama saying the west would bankrupt itself

all roads lead to rome

So you start of by saying that they done it to save a tiny $12 billion refurbishment for asbestos, then you tell me actually it was to cover up the missing 2.3 trillion after i point out that the whole $12 billion doesn't really matter.

And now you move on to funding the military industrial complex, well 9/11 forced America into a recession it economically harmed America, to the tune of 3.4 trillion according to some. So again that does not add up nor does it have anything to do with good old Larry.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


well who are larrys friends building seven went to hide the shares that were put on certain airlines and who has shares in certain companys .

like obama selling his stock in bp just before the spill follow the money

I do not want to unfairly group everyone together and place a title on that group, such as it is when people call all 9/11 Truthers loonies and assume they all believe the same thing, but I do not have much of a choice - you skeptics are quite ridiculous.

The simple mindedness hurts my brain.

If someone hypothetically did want to stage a massive psychological attack on the citizens of this country they would easily get away with it due to those who need some sort of comfort through a very - VERY - basic comprehension of the details.

The powers that brought down the Trade Center are not stupid. They are geniuses. They may be evil but they are not dumb. Insurance money? Profit? They're making billions every day off of the death and suffering of humans everywhere.

Simple minded people could never truly understand their motivations and why they chose that sight to attack. Neither could very intelligent people, for that matter.

But by all means continue trusting in your Masters and eagerly spewing out their false ideas.

The asbestos problem and cost of removal, the fact the two towers were considered white elephants and no-one wanted to work there and as a result were half full,the fact larry wanted rid and the fact that there was missing money to hide were all convenient and highly suitable for the event. He had nothing to lose by complying and everything to gain)

Originally posted by phyllida
The asbestos problem and cost of removal, the fact the two towers were considered white elephants and no-one wanted to work there and as a result were half full,the fact larry wanted rid and the fact that there was missing money to hide were all convenient and highly suitable for the event. He had nothing to lose by complying and everything to gain

)

errr once again, the massive 9/11 false flag operation is one hell of a roundabout way of committing insurance fraud to get around the asbestos problem. There must be loads of highrise building's in America that have the same problems with asbestos so why not blow them up as well.

Claiming that 9/11 was motivated (or partly motivated) by a insurance scam or some other form of monitory gain is utterly absurd. Yes i do accept that not all truthers hold this belief and as such this thread probably does not really apply to them. However for those who do believe 9/11 was a money making scheme really need to rethink their views on the events of 9/11.

reply to post by PatriotGames2

The powers that brought down the Trade Center are not stupid. They are geniuses. They may be evil but they are not dumb. Insurance money? Profit? They're making billions every day off of the death and suffering of humans everywhere.

Simple minded people could never truly understand their motivations and why they chose that sight to attack. Neither could very intelligent people, for that matter.

I get what you mean if you are trying to say that not all truther's believe that 9/11 was some kind of money scam, i totally acept that and if you are one of those people then this thread doesn't really apply to you.

however....

this above quote, your saying the guys behind the 9/11 false flag were evil geniuses who have a motivation beyond the comprehension of our meager human intellect is quite frankly just silly. It also implies that the "truthers" are some how super-geniuses who can see through their evil genius and everyone else is simple minded because they don't see what you see.

a most arrogant view if ever i have seen one...

Lastly your comment also falls into something that lots of truthers are guilty off, that comment doesn't do anything to address the point that i made in the OP. I am talking about how if 9/11 was some kind of insurance scam (as many believe) then its quite clearly failed and as such was utterly pointless. Yet you fail to adress this point rather you spout off rubbish like this:

you skeptics are quite ridiculous.

The simple mindedness hurts my brain.

The reason it hurts your brain is not because of simple mindedness but because you have just hit a massive cognitive dissonance, you have been presented with information that points out a little hole in the 9/11 conspiracy theory and you cant quite cope with it. The solution is to resort to classic skeptic tactics, cal me a "ridiculous skeptic" and go off on a off-topic rant about how the guys behind 9/11 are evil geniuses whose true motive my "simple mind" could not possibly comprehend.

what a utterly pathetic counter argument, it might sound good, and most people on a conspiracy site love your kind of rhetoric because its the same as their own, but when you break it down you have done nothing to counter any of my points and just presented a anti-skeptic rant.

its very frustrating, why could you not have just posted a "hmmm fair enough looks like insurance might not have been the motive but what about x,y or z"?