Advertisement
Look at all the insurance money paid out! It was just like the neighborhood arson, only bigger
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: IT was an insurance scam
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 11:00 AMI don't have a good nose for following money trails, but some people claim that Larry Silverstein is skating like a fat rat, as a result of 911. Are you saying that he orchestrated the whole thing? Assuming that your answer is yes, did Silverstein have the resources to pull off an operation of this magnitude? Or are you simply saying that Silverstein was one of several people who played significant roles in bringing about 911, and/or in spinning it for their own purposes? -
-
Re: IT was an insurance scam
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 1:18 PMSilverstein in the long and short of it lost money as a result of these attacks, it was no insurance scam. -
-
Re: IT was an insurance scam
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 5:36 PMThrough a miscarriage of justice, Silverstein was able to double-dip on his insurance. For insurance purposes, 911 was counted as two separate terrorist attacks. Silverstein got twice as much money as would have been the case if 911 was counted as a single terrorist attack.
Our resident Bush-supporter claims that Silverstein lost money as a result of 911. I'd like to see some hard numbers to back that up, rather than glittering generalities. How much has Silverstein collected already? How much is still in litigation? Prior to 911, what was the assessed value of the WTC? Prior to 911, what were the projected rents for the next few years? -
-
Re: IT was an insurance scam
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 6:54 PM<<Silverstein got twice as much money as would have been the case if 911 was counted as a single terrorist attack.
That does not = that he made money off of the attacks. From what I understand, he still lost money, but i will take a closer look. -
-
Re: IT was an insurance scam
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 7:00 PMAs of April 13th, Silverstein had not been paid off based on the double dip he is claiming.
covertoperations.blogspot.com/200...html -
-
Re: IT was an insurance scam
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 8:50 PMIt would have been less disingenuous and less intellectually dishonest to simply say that Silverstein's 911 profit--or 911 loss--status is still in legal limbo, rather than making your earlier sweeping claim:
"Silverstein in the long and short of it lost money as a result of these attacks, it was no insurance scam."
It would take A LOT of evidence to convince me that 911 was NOTHING BUT an insurance scam; I think that we have some common ground on that one point. However your vacuous factoids shed more heat than light on the big questions of 911.
-
-
-
-
-
