The unexplainable evidence 9/11 was allowed to happen. *Very short video*

a reply to: EartOccupant

You mentioned insurance.

He got about 4 billion.

Prove the insurance companies paid the man directly where he could physically move the money around.

He was losing revenue for years with no renters.

The total cost of rebuilding was over 7 billion.

Years of lost rent and 3 billion in the hole to rebuild.

What was you point again?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

2. He slipped up saying 2000. But he said the month of April (2000) they started planning. If it was April 2001 that would still be before the attacks. If he meant April 2002 that would make it impossible to have plans that soon before construction in May 2002 when construction started.

If this is correct then something is terribly wrong. Remember Silverstein did not own the WTC he was a leaseholder, the Port Authorities are the real owner, as I recall.

I agree there is no such thing as a perfect crime, many criminals believe they are smarter than the rest of the population, they believe they have everything covered.

Now I am reading on your thread of excuses that Silverstein was a senile old man and he misquoted, or miss read his papers.

Interestly Silverstein didn't get where he is today by miss reading anything in my "opinion". I am sure Silverstein has lawyers who handle everything for him.

a reply to: Informer1958

You have proof he is just not old and senile?

You have proof a murderous 9/11 government would not fix their liability? I would think a government that killed 3000 on 9/11 would find a way to make Silverstein go away if he was so damning?

Is this just your opinions debunked on metabunk and skeptics international?

a reply to: neutronflux

You have proof he is just not old and senile?

You have evidence that he is?

Funny how you employ your "opinions" as credible facts.

You is this just your opinions debunked on metabunk and skeptics international?

Interestly nothing has been debunked here. Take a chill pill dude.

a reply to: Informer1958

Sorry. Logic dictates if Silverstein let the cat out of the bag numerous times on what the truth movement calles a guilty and murderous government, the government would have fixed Silverstein as a damning liability long ago.


Sad the truth movement cannot keep to the context of their own logic.

a reply to: neutronflux

Sad the truth movement cannot keep to the context of their own logic.

The sad truth, there is no "Truth Movement", the fact is, it was completely destroyed by disinformationist many years ago, where have you been?

a reply to: Informer1958

Why do you still use their talking points?

And it's not really disinformation!

The truth movement suffers from the same pains of ufology and cryptozoology.

Groups of faithful people easily conned by people seeking notoriety because the faithful grasp at any "smoking gun", lack the will to police their own movement, and lose sense of reality.

The truth movement, Ufologists, and cryptozoologists abandon any measure of balanced research and pour money and adoration upon those that speak what the movement wants to hear.

It's not disinformation if the truth movement, ufologists, and cryptozoologists get what the want and pay for. It's entertainment, roleplaying, and life style.

And sometimes it's not about believing in flat earth for example.

It's about seeing who you can get to jump on the flat earth bandwagon. Some really believe and others just like to stir the pot.

It's just the pseudoscience of the truth movement preys on misconceptions and uses pseudoscience. You don't get to the truth through lies.

In 2001, “Lucky Larry,” who had previously owned only WTC-7, orchestrated a deal with his fellow-ultra-Zionist Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the mobbed-up NY Port Authority, and another Zionist extremist billionaire, Frank Lowy, to sell the entire WTC complex to Silverstein and backers on a 100-year lease. The deal was finalized in July, 2001, and Larry took possession of the buildings … and security arrangements. But first, he hard-balled his insurers into doubling the terror insurance coverage and changing the terms to “instant cash payout.”

On September 11th, Larry hit the jackpot. The condemned-for-asbestos and largely vacant Twin Towers, with their obsolete communications infrastructure and money-hemorrhaging balance sheet,

www.veteranstoday.com...

a reply to: stonerwilliam

What jackpot?

How many years did Silverstein miss out on collecting rent from tenates

Silverstein had to pay 360 million to the Port Authority to retain the right to build on the empty sites.

The insurance only paid 4 billion and the total cost of building was over 7 billion.

The WTC sites were actually underinsured.

From www.911myths.com...

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm

$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).

rationalwiki.org...

Rebuttal: What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[10]
We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

a reply to: neutronflux

Cue Bono ...

All that figures of tens or hundreds of millions is mearly loose change to the gold , silver bonds and jewels and the trillions that have been invested in the heroic war effort

Chaos is good for buisness ,

a reply to: stonerwilliam

And your point is the explanation of an terrorists attack?

How many bombs did Obama drop while in office.

How many police actions and bombs dropped before 9/11?

The US government doesn't need some grand US based excuse to drop bombs?

a reply to: cosmania

He was in Israel. I imagine he speaks openly there.

I mean, it's not like CNN was going to pick up this slip. It will remain in the ethers of the underworld of knowledge.

It's not the news ever showed all those sick halloween consumes in Israel where kids dressed up as the twin towers with planes crashing into them.

The concept that Israel had prior knowledge cannot be disputed by those that have all the info.

AAC

a reply to: mrthumpy

No it didn't. Construction started May 2002

AAC

a reply to: loveguy

That's interesting.

Perhaps a trade-off for tight lips.

AAC

originally posted by: EartOccupant
Something else i find very disturbing.

Buildings go down: He gets the insurance billions ( Sylverstein )
New buildings go up: He tells they used bonds and investors.

Isn't insurance ment to " rebuilt" your losses ?

Not matter wat the law says, I've got a problem with that kind of behavior.

( By the way, i was once in Barcalona harbor the neighbor of Mr. Silverstein... i do know where the money went )

I find it even more crazy that Silverstein only paid I think 200 million to control the lease of the Towers when on one else wanted the problems with all the asbestos issues that claimed it would be cheaper to demo the entire building then remove the asbestos. Seems they found a way around it all.

AAC

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: EartOccupant

You know how many times the insurance angle has been debunked? Do some research?

Silverstein's insurance "scam" Rebuttal?
rationalwiki.org...

What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[10]
We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

You call that a debunk? And I am sorry I starred your post. It was most certainly an accident.

Are you aware that Silversteins entire investment in the towers was only 200 million?

Look at the whole picture other than your tunnel vision on what you want to be true.

AAC

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neutronflux

Typical move, only posting partial information out of context.....

From the same article you referenced!

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings.

What is your point?

This wasn't about profiteering from a few building owners. It was profiteering from the War on Terror they were concerned with. You know, that thing that has cost a total of 8 trillion dollars in 10 years? This event put Globalism into high gear. And that, sir, is the real motivation for 9/11.

Again, you have tunnel vision.

AAC

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: neutronflux

What are you talking about? I posed a real anomaly regarding this subject. Silverstein DID NOT misspeak. That did not happen.

So, if he did not misspeak, then how the hell did he know he's need a new plan for a building in 2000?

And if you're not going to directly answer the question, please don't reply. I'm a critical with zero agenda. I just covet truth. If you cannot look at your enemies reasonings to better understand your enemy then you are a weak soldier. Pardon the Sun Tzu paraphrase.

AAC

Your "smoking gun" is an old man, who is senile, poor of vision, and cannot read his own handwriting or the printed font?

Also, why would a murderous 9/11 government leave a senile liability loose end alive and speaking? Hell, just cut his tongue out right? Remember, you are the one making allegations of a murderous government?

Obama said he was in 57 States? What is that conspiracy about?

A little bit of logic, and 9/11 conspiracies are found lacking.

Sorry.

hahahaha Allegations of a murderous government? That's what governments specialize in. And America is the biggest murderer. The Gulf of Tonkin - LIE. How many were killed in Vietnam because of that lie? US Liberty - LIE. American Sailors were murdered just because Israel didn't want the US Liberty picking up their radio comms exposing that the war of 67 was actually an offensive by Israel - not the story we all got that Israel protected itself.

In fact, Operations Northwoods, a strategy submitted by the War Department that called for American commercial planes to fly into American buildings to blame on Castro to justify war. Look it up. We actually just did Operation Northwood but instead of Castro we pointed the fake finger at Muslims. Muslims that Israel does not want gaining strength in the region.

You are either grossly uninformed or you are a paid shill.

AAC

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: stonerwilliam

And your point is the explanation of an terrorists attack?

How many bombs did Obama drop while in office.

How many police actions and bombs dropped before 9/11?

The US government doesn't need some grand US based excuse to drop bombs?

When countries are growing up they all go through that narcisistic teenage years thing , shouting and bawling and banging doors , we have all been there at one time America is just growing up

How many bombs did Obama drop while in office.

Way to many for a Nobel Peace prize [ see 2nd sig ]


The US government doesn't need some grand US based excuse to drop bombs?


Well when you turn up to the international courts with a sick note to excuse you from class , yes i do get that ,