Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Larry Silverstein: Evil Jewish Landlord

Many of the conspiracy theorists, including Loose Change, mention businessman Larry Silverstein, who owned WTC7 and began leasing the twin towers a few months before 9/11, as being part of the conspiracy. Apparently it wasn't enough that the White House, CIA, FBI, NTSB, NORAD, the NYPD, New York Fire Department, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Society of Civil Engineers, (take deep breath) United Airlines, American Airlines, Raytheon, Controlled Demolitions Inc., Marvin Bush, and Popular Mechanics magazine were all in on the plot, the evil landlord had to be involved too! I guess it is sort of a Mr. Roper's revenge.

Well, they make all sorts of sinister implications, but what exactly are they accusing him of? Let's look at what they say.

From the 4:57 mark:


July 24th, 2001. Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center 7, signs a 3.2 billion dollar, 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex, six weeks before 9-11. Included in the lease is a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism.
OK, considering the WTC had already been a target of terrorism in 1993, why would it be odd that it had a terrorism clause in its insurance policy? Is this some type of elaborate insurance scam? That would seem kind of unlikely, given that Silverstein originally wanted a smaller policy, and was only forced to take the $3.5 billion policy as part of the deal.


In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse:GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.
As you can see, the article even mentions the fact that this new policy may not even cover the costs of rebuilding. This apparently is a new type of insurance scam, evidently he submitted a public bid on a lease for the complex, all for the opportunity to have his investment destroyed, so he could have the chance to spend years in court, all for the possibility of breaking even! What a scam.

Over an hour later, apparently having forgotten the first part of their movie, they change the story to Larry Silverstein "bought" the World Trade Center.


First, we have Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the World Trade Center in July, 2001. After September 11th, Silverstein demanded $7.2 billion dollars form his insurers, claiming that each plane counted as a separate act of terrorism. However, on December 6th, 2004, the courts only rewarded him with $2.2 billion dollars.

As per their usual the Loosers like to use news articles several years out of date to make their point. The court award actually ended up being $4.6 billion, although Silverstein will not get all of that. Regardless, one thing they have failed to show, is any indication that he had any motivation at all to purchase this investment, only to see it destroyed.

And if it is so evident that these buildings were the victims of a controlled demolition, then why did the insurance companies pay out billions, rather than bring this subject up? I had my car broken into recently, and my insurance company wouldn't replace my $300 digital camera without me sending them receipts and police reports, but apparently multi-billion dollar insurance fraud can be carried out without anyone asking questions.

Unbelievable.

17 Comments:

At 14 June, 2006 19:19, Blogger debunking911 said...

I brought this up to one of the "truthers" and they said the insurance companies don't care because they just use the event as an excuse to pass on the bill to all of us. When I pointed out the insurance companies have already spent years in litigation which Silverstein to save 3 billion they shriveled up and disappeared like a Silverstein's testicles at a polar bear club meet.

 
At 14 June, 2006 19:40, Blogger default.xbe said...

another obvious flaw is that simply passing the bill on to consumers means you lose customers to other, less expensive insurance companies

but im sure there some big insurance conspiracy too, its one large singular consortium

 
At 14 June, 2006 19:48, Blogger Chad said...

I know I don't need to point out the obvious here, but....

What kind of dumbass would scam an insurance company by buying the old WTC7, razing it to the ground, collecting the money from the alleged "terrorist attack", and then USES that money... to build another WTC7?

If you're scammin' someone, you take the money and run.

PS... I work for an insurance company and they are some stingey ass mofos. No way they'd pay up without looking into anything and everything.

 
At 14 June, 2006 20:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

maybe it was all because he wanted a slightly taller wtc7

 
At 14 June, 2006 20:09, Blogger Chad said...

maybe it was all because he wanted a slightly taller wtc7

::: slaps forehead :::

Of COURSE!!!

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:17, Blogger nesNYC said...

ZIONIST

All these snakes are tied together!

Murdoch and the ADL

“Henry Kissinger, Rupert Murdoch and Mortimer Zuckerman are on the [ADL] dinner committee,” according to a recent New York Times report on the ADL’s recent fund-raiser in which the controversial Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi received the ADL’s Distinguished Statesman Award.

Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist “charity” organization, to which Murdoch and Lowy generously contribute. In 1997, Henry Kissinger presented Murdoch with the UJA’s award for “Humanitarian of the Year.”

Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel. Eisenberg, who was instrumental in obtaining the lease for Silverstein, is on the Planning Board of UJA.

Eisenberg in his role with the Port Authority was the key person who negotiated the 99-year leases for Silverstein and Frank Lowy’s Westfield America, who were in fact the low-bidders for the lease on the 110-story towers and the retail mall.

more...

 
At 18 June, 2006 12:16, Blogger nesNYC said...

it's easy to build a big straw-man by debunking some of the errors in loose change. what is not so easy is coming to grips with all of the true claims in loose change, and especially coming to grips with all the very important facts not included in loose change.

Yeah, that's what these guys do. They are obsessed with trying to explain how 9/11 wasn't an inside job by going after some facts that are speculative at best. However, the hard core proof that the government colluded with those who orchestrated of 9/11 is simply something they conveniently overlook. Case in point, Silverstein's relationship with Murdoch and the Zionist element that was horny for the US to attack Iraq and Iran. And what about those MOSSAD agents captured by FBI after they danced and cheered as the building fell? All roads here point to Israel and yet these folks here rather concentrate of whether Silverstein did or didn't make profits from the insurance scam he pulled off.

But the big problem I have with Loose Change is that they refuse to connect Zionists to the 9/11 fiasco. In doing so, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions like Silverstein's obvious Zionist connections.

 
At 19 June, 2006 06:09, Blogger Alex said...

However, the hard core proof that the government colluded with those who orchestrated of 9/11 is simply something they conveniently overlook.

If it was "hard core proof", we wouldn't be able to overlook it. Baseless speculation and illogical cocnlusions on the other hand we have no problem ignoring. Personaly I just wouldn't feel comfortable saying "Some guys that may have been Jews may have been dancing, so the Jews did it!".

 
At 18 July, 2006 09:54, Blogger Gibby said...

Why did wtc 7 fall in the first place? Was there any reason for it to fall? Why have only three steel based skyscrapers ever collapsed during to fire damage in the history of mankind? Why did all three happen on 911? Why were firefighters not allowed to fight the fires in wtc7? WHy did silverstein admit in a 911 documentary on PBS that he made a decision to "pull" the building? Why did FEMA claim that the tower collapsed due to debris faliing from the tower that caused a fire that eventually cause a kink in the building that made it collapse? Why does that and Popular Mechanics version of what happened conflict with what Silverstein said? Why did no other building north of the towers collapse like WTC7? Why does this all remind me, someone who is working on a history degree, of the Gliewitz Incident that sparked WWII? (Hitler dressed up some prisoners, including a known Polish sympathizer who was in jail, as POlish army, had the SS march them to a radio station, poisoned them shot them in the radio station, had the SS shoot up the radio station then declare on the airwaves that they were Polish military invading Germny, then use this incident as justification for the aggression on Poland that starts the 2nd World War. After all, I guess we are calling this WWIII now? But the Gliewitz thing is all specualation and me searching for a historical metaphor if indeed some things that the people like Dav von Kliest, Alex Jones and the producers of Loose Change are saying are true. But none of that answers my original question. Why did WTC 7 falldown? If it looks like a controlled demoliiton, smells like a controlled demolition, and if a controlled demolition is the most obvious explanation to teh collapse, then by God it might have been a controlled demolition. One more question. 911 was teh worst day in teh history of our nation. Why have there never been any real public debates, exposiitons, explanations, etc to the event. We the American people should know EVERYTHING that happened that day. We have gotten nothing. As a result, we a reduced to trying to build a puzzle with most of the pieces missing. The end result is that all we can do is create theoies like "Loose Change" which I personally think makes too many assumptions and wild accusations. Use critical thinking skills. Don't just listen to one side. Get explanations from both sides, construction, demoliiton, indutries, physics experts, FEMA, Pop. Mechanics, teh gov't, the 911 commisions, the media left and right wing, Documentaries claiming that 911 wasa hoax, scholars for truth.org, 911 truth.org, etc. Then use your critical thinking and reasoning skills to make up your mind.
GIBBY - STL

 
At 23 August, 2006 16:39, Blogger stevenwarran said...

Playing the Jew card is a cheap dodge. WTC #7 was obviously not central to that day's purpose. Perhaps it was piggybacked on stupidly through greed. A likely motive was to destroy the records at the SEC offices relating to Enron and other corporate investigations. Or maybe Rudy's command bunker had knew too much, like the Navy Command Center at the Pentagon, which was playing overlapping war games that day, and which a sideways missile clearly targeted. The Silverstein asbestos abatement program over at 1 and 2 went as planned—right into the lungs of the first responders. Government was much more careful at the Pentagon though.

 
At 23 August, 2006 16:41, Blogger stevenwarran said...

Playing the Jew card is a cheap dodge. WTC #7 was obviously not central to that day's purpose. Perhaps it was piggybacked on stupidly through greed. A likely motive was to destroy the records at the SEC offices relating to Enron and other corporate investigations. Or maybe Rudy's command bunker had knew too much, like the Navy Command Center at the Pentagon, which was playing overlapping war games that day, and which a sideways missile clearly targeted. The Silverstein asbestos abatement program over at 1 and 2 went as planned—right into the lungs of the first responders. Government was much more careful at the Pentagon though.

 
At 05 January, 2008 02:43, Blogger catgirlz said...

Silverstein made this comment not long after 911. Think about it. The building obviously came down in a controlled demolition. How better to cover his own tail than to say that the fire dep. made the snap decision to "pull it"-thereby distracting from the notion that the whole thing was planned ahead of time.
The problem is that it takes a couple of weeks minimum of planning and placing charges to demolish a building in that manner-Silverstien either didn't know that or was hoping we wouldn't.

 
At 09 November, 2008 17:48, Blogger kaching said...

Just close this blog, what a useless piece of info you are trying to 'expose' here about loose change? I don't really care what the f that silverstein guy did but watch the video where the twin towers collapse and you'll see the EXPLOSION coming out of the building hence the controlled demolition. That's enough proof that government told a lie.

 
At 05 December, 2008 14:01, Blogger Mythsdebunker said...

Six weeks after the collapses there was cherry red steel and molten metal in the debris piles. Yet the debris, immediately after collapses, was mostly comprised (by weight) of non-combustibles, was starved of oxygen, and was mostly at ambient temperature to boot.
Even if we ignore the ample evidence for molten steel and iron, controlled demolitions is a proven fact.

If the controlled demolitions deniers' brains were dynamite, they wouldn't have enough to knock over a house of playing cards!

 
At 18 January, 2010 11:15, Blogger Timothy said...

i have to say it amazing how many idiots still believe the nonsense that is loose change.

 
At 04 November, 2010 03:53, Blogger abdul said...

There are also other Landlord Insurance products such as Landlord Building Insurance and Landlord Household Contents Insurance, plus Tradesmens Insurance and Tenants Insurance.
landlord building insurance

 
At 24 December, 2010 10:12, Blogger cindy said...

BUILDINGS don't fall down and
go KAPUT from localized fires, that is just TOOO painfully obvious.
All these idiots on this blog arguing semantics about EVIL JEW
LARRY'S INSURANCE are missing the FOREST despite the TREES.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home