• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deniers sue Silverstein?

Bell

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
21,050
I thought I'd add a questionmark in the title there, in the good old deniers way.

Anyhow. Since these deniers so desperatly want want a 'real' investigation into 9/11, and want the 'real' people who perpetrated these attacks to be held responsible, let's imagine what could happen. I say imagine, since the deniers are too lazy to get away from YouTube or Google to actualy do something about it (well, beside wearing a black tee and anoying the heck out of people who want to show their respect at GZ) we have to imagine what could happen.

Deniers: "Don't you agree that Larry Silverstein, who is a Jew by the way, is guilty of blowing up WTC7??!!"
Judge: "No. I want to see some evidence."
Deniers: "Did he not say 'pull it' on tv? Does the video looks very simular to a controled demolition??!!1!"
Judge: "Yes. I want to see some evidence."
Deniers: "Evidence!!!??/! We are just asking questions!!?@ Why don't YOU show evidence that Silverstein is NOT guilty!!?#!!?"
Judge: "Not guilty. Case closed."

:cool:
 
thats something deniers never seem to want to answer

if the evidence is so obvious that larry ordered the building demolished, why isnt he under investigation for insurance fraud?
 
I thought it was neo-CONS. They are not like normal con men, they are Super Con Men, which why they are referred to as neo-CONS
 
Bell said:
Deniers: "Don't you agree that Larry Silverstein, who is a Jew by the way, is guilty of blowing up WTC7??!!"
Judge: "No. I want to see some evidence."
Deniers: "Did he not say 'pull it' on tv? Does the video looks very simular to a controled demolition??!!1!"
Judge: "Yes. I want to see some evidence."
Deniers: "Evidence!!!??/! We are just asking questions!!?@ Why don't YOU show evidence that Silverstein is NOT guilty!!?#!!?"
Judge: "Not guilty. Case closed."

:cool:
Click to expand...

The story goes that Silverstein was informed that there was structural damage to building 7. He told them to pull it, as he said naively in a TV program. What followed was controlled demolition. That building already had bombs in it.

As you mentioned that Silverstein was Jewish, there was a rumor going around that Jews who worked in those towers were told to stay home Tuesday (Sept. 11). I've never been able to nail that down. I might try looking at whatreallyhappened.com (They hate Jews.)

kc440
 
There was also a rumor to be careful overseas when you were out. It seems people after going out to a bar and meeting a woman were waking up in a tub with a note saying to get to the hospital. It seems one their kidneys was removied.

I think this story is more believable than the "Jews did it"
 
Last edited:
kc440_ said:
The story goes that Silverstein was informed that there was structural damage to building 7. He told them to pull it, as he said naively in a TV program. What followed was controlled demolition. That building already had bombs in it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can prove this claime?

kc440_ said:
As you mentioned that Silverstein was Jewish, there was a rumor going around that Jews who worked in those towers were told to stay home Tuesday (Sept. 11). I've never been able to nail that down. I might try looking at whatreallyhappened.com (They hate Jews.)

kc440
Click to expand...

Guess that kind of says it all. Thank you very much, kc1933
 
Bell said:
Because of the gubmint, stupid!!
Click to expand...

I can't see Lloyd's of London careing to much about that if they thought someone was trying to pull a multi-million pound insurence fraud.
 
kc440_ said:
The story goes that Silverstein was informed that there was structural damage to building 7. He told them to pull it, as he said naively in a TV program. What followed was controlled demolition. That building already had bombs in it.
Click to expand...
I can't force you to read the posts on this subject in this forum, but I highly recommend that you do.

kc440, you bring no evidence to support your irresponsible and ignorant claims. You do not deal with the evidence that's provided to you. Please tell me: what sort of person behaves like that, and why do you care enough about 9/11 to argue about it, but not enough to learn about it?

I await your response.
 
There's already been litigation between Silverstein and the insurers, about whether the two airplane strikes should count as separate incidents or a single incident under the insurance policy. The court ruled in favor of Silverstein; I understand that the insurers have appealed.

Insurance companies like to collect premiums and hate to pay claims, especially big ones. They're pretty good at detecting and investigating attempts at defrauding them.

In this case, while they haven't hesitated to defend their interests vigorously on a matter of interpreting the policy, if they've breathed a single word about the possibility of fraud it doesn't seem to have made the news- and newsworthy it surely would be.

For kc440: these items might be of interest (MikeW comes through again):

4000 Israelis (or maybe just Jews) warned not to go to work

Israeli shipping company hurriedly vacated WTC shortly before the attacks

Employees of Israeli company received text messages warning them to flee the WTC
 
geni said:
I can't see Lloyd's of London careing to much about that if they thought someone was trying to pull a multi-million pound insurence fraud.
Click to expand...
That's an excellent point. IRI held the insurance policy on WTC 7. They paid up right away, no arguments. Are insurance companies known for parting with $861 million when they think fraud was involved? They are not. And in case someone may think that Silverstein had a sweetheart deal with the board of IRI, think again. IRI did fight Silverstein on the WTC 1&2 lawsuit.
 
kc440_ said:
The story goes that Silverstein was informed that there was structural damage to building 7. He told them to pull it, as he said naively in a TV program. What followed was controlled demolition. That building already had bombs in it.

As you mentioned that Silverstein was Jewish, there was a rumor going around that Jews who worked in those towers were told to stay home Tuesday (Sept. 11). I've never been able to nail that down. I might try looking at whatreallyhappened.com (They hate Jews.)

kc440
Click to expand...

You are rapidly rising to the rank of Troll. Go do some homework and stop spreading this nonsense. The earliest nonsense that was debunked was the series of BS concerning foreknowledge, particularly Israelie foreknowledge.
1. Zim Container Line moved out of WTC, not the day before nor 12 days before because of a warning, but because their lease was up and they had moved the mass of their staff back in April - they still had a few workers in the building on 9/11.
2. The Israeli Hitech company (can't recall their name) did NOT send text messages warning people an hour before hand. They received nasty messages the night before (but they received them every night, evidently) saying things like "You're doomed heh heh heh!" This got retold into a tale of them warning their people not to go to work.
3. There were not 4000 Israelis in the area and they aren't all on a beam network from the Grand Rabbi, anyway. There was no such warning. The number of Israelis who didn't show up for work that day was probably the same as the number of Belgians!

ETA: The original urban legend is 4000 Israelis. Interestingly, you turned it into Jews. Do you have a particular agenda?
 
Ugh it's disgusting when a truther accuse someone of being involved in the 9/11 conspiracy because he is a "jew". I have my suspicions that silverstein was involved not because he is jewish but because of who he is as himself, a corrupted individual. 9/11 was an inside job but I'm still 50/50 on the collapse of the wtc buildings because many have made compelling argument that they collapsed not because of explosions. Oh well.
 
I never knew about the big hole in the south side of wtc7 and would like to hear jowenko's (sp) opinion on that when he's told about it that's all.
 
A Matter of Opinion

Gravy said:
I can't force you to read the posts on this subject in this forum, but I highly recommend that you do.

kc440, you bring no evidence to support your irresponsible and ignorant claims. You do not deal with the evidence that's provided to you. Please tell me: what sort of person behaves like that, and why do you care enough about 9/11 to argue about it, but not enough to learn about it?

I await your response.
Click to expand...

Gravy, I plan on reading all the posts. I think it's really what you believe vs what I believe. In many circumstances I'm on the far left. You, obviously, are quite the opposite. I read Tom Flocco and Rense.com. I read the alternative news, nothing of which gets any air on TV. When I look at the face of Shepard Smith -- I'm seeing the face of govt- controlled news.

What evidence have you shown me?

kc440
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom