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.

13 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. maybe it was all because he wanted a slightly taller wtc7

    ::: slaps forehead :::

    Of COURSE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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...

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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!".

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 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!

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

    ReplyDelete
  12. 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

    ReplyDelete
  13. 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.

    ReplyDelete