World Trade Center owners lose 9/11 compensation bid

reply to post by geobro


The idea that 9/11 was to cover up the unaccounted for 2.3Trillion fails for one very simple reason.

Its assumes firstly that the evidence of these missing funds having been stolen or used in some fraudulent manner were contained within one of the buildings (most say WTC-7). Now even if we assume that is true, then why would Rumsfeld tell us about the missing cash just days before he and his cronies orchestrate the most complex possible plan to destroy the evidence. That makes no sense what so ever and neither does flying planes into buildings and then totally demolishing 3 of them just to make sure they have burned some paper work and destroyed a few hard drives, don’t you think 9/11 would be a little over kill for that.

Why not have just have started a huge office fire in the building and then claim that the RIS, DOD or whoever had those files lost everything in the fire. Without mentioning it a few days before hand.

No evidence is needed to debunk the idea that the unaccounted for 2.3 trillion was the motivation for 9/11 because a little bit of logic can quickly debunk the idea.

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 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.

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

What was in that paperwork and a few hard drives could have cost them their entire fortune, and future profits from tighter legislation.

There's are enough links between all the entities like the Carlyle group to suspect something. Their worth is $170 billion, so $12 billion is still a substantial amount to pay. Any estimates for slow demolition are likely to rise just as much as construction costs, even more so with toxins like asbestos, and the risks of litigation from workers injured on site. $12 billion could easily become $24 or $36 billion. It could be quite tempting if an "accident" were to happen and the buildings accidentally demolished.

reply to post by stormcell


Again even if you are saying they had lose to lose if a bunch of documents came out exposing some massive fraud that is not a reason for them to have committed the atrocities of 9/11. Rather all they would have done was have a huge fire start where ever the documents were located.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

and the gold fixing investigation how much trouble would that have caused

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

and the gold fixing investigation how much trouble would that have caused

yes it would have, but they could have destroyed all the evidence for it in a fire with out demolishing 3 buildings

And besides the very fact that you are talking about some gold fixing investigation means that its out in the public anyway.

There is no "smoking gun" evidence of any kind of massive fraud or corruption that they could not have destroyed in a fire or even had accidentally "misplaced" .

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

and the gold fixing investigation how much trouble would that have caused

yes it would have, but they could have destroyed all the evidence for it in a fire with out demolishing 3 buildings

And besides the very fact that you are talking about some gold fixing investigation means that its out in the public anyway.

There is no "smoking gun" evidence of any kind of massive fraud or corruption that they could not have destroyed in a fire or even had accidentally "misplaced" .

Well wasn't it several massive fires that destroyed these documents along with the towers?

reply to post by dfens

Well wasn't it several massive fires that destroyed these documents along with the towers?

I am not quite sure what the question there is....

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


i have read that the area of the towers had a power cut before the attack that day and it was a voting day in new york .

i worked with the brother in law of the head of barclays and the was phoned the night before the attack and told not to come in that day.

reply to post by geobro

i have read that the area of the towers had a power cut before the attack that day and it was a voting day in new york .

If you have a link to that then i will gladly discuss it with you further but i have never read that there was a power cut at the WTC complex on the morning of 9/11 but before the attacks themselves.

i worked with the brother in law of the head of barclays and the was phoned the night before the attack and told not to come in that day.

that is not evidence of anything....

Firstly you war trusting that this guy was telling you the truth and further more you also expect me to believe that this conversation you are alluding to really did take place and that the information you claim he has provided was accurate.

but a much more pressing point to highlight is this; why would "they" (the evil doers really behind 9/11) inform the head of barclays not to bother coming into work and then why would he turn round and tell his lose lipped brother in law.

That doesn't quite make sense does it??

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Excuse my frustration. I encounter people every day who lack depth, lack a willingness to do actual research and dig deep, and encounter people with true cognitive dissonance that allows them to dismiss anything that does not fit with their pre-arranged conclusions. I never thought 9/11 happened for insurance money, so you provided nothing that "points out a little hole in the 9/11 conspiracy theory" and somehow tripped me and my thinking up. On the contrary.

Considering we are in an internet forum, it's quite impossible to fully explain a thought or position, allowing for the opportunity to be criticized or picked apart. It's only an assumption, but I have a feeling we will not agree in our conclusions of what took place on 9/11, and why.

Normalcy bias. In no way was I suggesting that the motivations of the "evil geniuses" (visions of bald super villains with a pinky between their lips, anyone?) or the truth can never be known by "mere mortals". My point is that normal people - ie. middle class, average humans who work 40 hours a week at a gas station or in retail, trying to eek by and paying their bills, bringing their children to school, helping them with homework, etc.. - even very bright normal people, do not and cannot fully understand the motivations and machinations of incredibly powerful people - such as high level politicians involved with the security state, hedge fund managers on Wall Street trading millions of dollars each day, military generals developing high-level covert strategies for low-intensity conflict - without putting forth the necessary effort which is almost always impossible due to other engagements and responsibilities. I've been lucky enough to have lost of free time and a career that is geared towards uncovering information and connecting dots.

Most people, on both sides, see an article such as the one you posted in the OP and automatically assume that since the insurers have been denied MORE money that they somehow didn't get what they wanted, or have not profited in any way - as if $900 million in profit or $50 million, let alone billions, in profit is a "small amount of cash". The lease holders have already made a killing, claiming that 2 terrorist attacks happened that day, getting double the money and WAY more than what they lost. They stop their research and investigating right there. They don't realize that tax payer money is being siphoned away from the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund and put into private hands. They don't understand the complex insider trading that put money into people such as Buzzy Krongard's, former executive director of the CIA, hands immediately before and WHILE the Towers were on fire and getting ready to fall. Not to mention the Towers had been subsidized since their inception. Of course, the leaseholders have been rebuilding (again, with some tax payer money) and the $4.6 billion from the original insurance coverage is helping in that endeavor. BUT, as far as I'm concerned, Silverstein most likely did not even have prior knowledge of the event. He's most likely just a greedy, heartless bastard like most of the billionaire moguls operating in the world of international finance. However, supposedly Larry had breakfast every day at the top of the WTC. Obviously he wasn't there on 9/11. "Larry Silverstein survived the attacks supposedly because his wife forced him to go to a doctor's appointment instead of a meeting at the WTC; Silverstein's son and daughter survived because, independently of each other, they were running late; his top aide survived because he cut short a meeting he was in at the top of the North Tower; his publicist agreed to join a meeting at the WTC at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m.; and others associated with Silverstein Properties may have avoided danger due to the cancellation of a meeting on the 88th floor of the North Tower." Believe what you will... Swiss Re, the insurance company handling Silverstein's claim, "has been unusually personal and vitriolic, describing Mr. Silverstein as a rapacious developer whose insurance claims are 'extortionate' and a 'self-motivated hoax.'" If it's at all relevant. There are political figures in NYC who have refused to help in rebuilding the Freedom Tower and it's complex because they believe they will not have enough money to finish it and that it is economically not viable. But those buildings are being built. Silverstein still holds the lease for Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center, as far as I know, and as far as his future... Well, let me just say... I'd love to be Larry right about now.

You see me as arrogant. I see you as simple minded, or lacking a true understanding (though to be fair, my original post was not really directed towards you). I still do not know you personally, though I did take exception with your rebuttal, so I will respond here and leave it at that. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to rehash once again the suspicious aspects of the September 11 attacks. I've spent years pouring over documents and details. People like you remind me of someone in a dark room with a flashlight, only concentrated on what the light reveals to them and oblivious to the dark room around them filled with hidden objects. I'm guessing we are both wrong in ways, so we will have to chalk it up to a tie.

It's really quite useless arguing anyways, people will believe whatever they want. There are those out there who believe the courts ruled AGAINST Silverstein and his claim that he should get double the money because 2 planes hit therefore it was 2 terrorist attacks. Yet, as far as the original ruling went....

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Real estate developer Larry Silverstein, who envisions replacing all the commercial office space destroyed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, won a court victory Monday that may help him do so. A jury in Manhattan federal court agreed with his argument that he should be compensated for the destruction of the two 110-story twin towers as two separate events. After a six-week trial and 10 days of deliberations, a jury determined that nine insurers sued by Silverstein owe him the maximum payout per catastrophic occurrence for each tower.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

awe, he lost a bit of compensation after he had the buildings "pulled" with people inside? cuz people lost their lives in those buildings.

it would have cost him a lot more to have the buildings properly destroyed because of all the asbestos in the towers. sure he's trying to get more money, but have you ever considered that the judge thinks 9/11 was an inside job?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

for my answer to your question why he told me this i asked him what time did he hear about 9-11 in the u.k .

or you can go to the thread 9-11 my personel story 10 years on and see what other people around the world said also on this subject my comments are on page 17

reply to post by PatriotGames2


If you are not one of the people who believe that 9/11 was some massive fraud or insurance scam then none of this applies to you (even though in your above post you start to ramble on and on about how people made money out of it and had prior knowledge and so on:puz

Other than that most of your post lacks any kind of substance, you seem to have this attitude that suggests the only way any one could possible believe that 9/11 was not a false flag is because they are ignorant or "simple minded". I can assure you i am neither, I have reasearched 9/11 just as thoroughly (probably more so) than most truthers.

Just because we have reached different conclusions does not mean that either of us is ignorant or "simple minded".

When it comes to the debate between "truthers" and "OSers" there will never be any kind of agreement.

reply to post by geobro


Do you have a link to that please?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
you do not need one just ask the average person on the street or use the search function at the top and look up that thread

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Insurance money? That is not why the false flag occurred. It was to give government more rights than the kings of england hand, national security nazi ism. And launch wars in the middle east.

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

you do not need one just ask the average person on the street or use the search function at the top and look up that thread

Dude I am asking for a link to this thread you keep going on about, if you want to discuss it then provide me with a link so we can have a discusion about it.

And i doubt the average person on the street is going to know your personal 9/11 story.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Looks like Larry got a little greedy and has now been told that he cannot pursue further compensation for the 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.

You're funny, using this as an excuse to make a case against 9/11 truth, which is about truth, (as opposed to fiction) of what happened on 9/11. Larry Silverstein's little crock of gold has little to do with 9/11, other than him trying to cash in on it. It's well known that he tried to have each aeroplane hit on the towers, treated as two incidents of attack on the WTC as a whole, by way of how his insurance was worded. It didn't work, even so he got off lightly enough given what the twin towers alone would have cost, just to bring them up to scratch. So if you think that insurance was the big one for 9/11 truth, think again!

reply to post by smurfy


I am not saying it was the "big one" rather I am saying that its a common trend that truthers will argue that part of the motivation behind 9/11 was financial.

if it was, it has clearly failed

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by smurfy

 

I am not saying it was the "big one" rather I am saying that its a common trend that truthers will argue that part of the motivation behind 9/11 was financial.

if it was, it has clearly failed

Financial as in what specifically if not insurance, do you mean theft of some kind. You do realise of course, that you too seem to have some doubts about 9/11 considering your last sentence.