Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av ElGiganten
Om jag hade varit Silverstein så hade jag inte heller brytt mig om vad foliehattar skriver på sina hemsidor. Finns ingen anledning till att gå ut och klargöra en sak som är så självklar för alla utom visa galenpannor som kan göra hemsidor.
Uttalandet om "pull it" bla. har redan gåtts igenom och fast ställts här på KONSPIRATIONS delen av FB. Så sök o skall du finna.
Tack för informationen ElGiganten. Högst märkligt, själv hade jag varit rätt mån om att klargöra vad jag menade för att inte sånt här skulle uppstå. Larry Silverstein har ju blivit misstänkliggjord genom sin kommentar av många som är tveksamma till den officiella versionen. Det såg vi bland annat på ett klipp jag postade nyss.
Kerry har inte heller gått ut med något?
Vänta lite, jag hittade något på Wikipedia.
Citat:
Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein
Sep 2005, det var väl rätt lång tid efter de första anklagelserna om att han ingick i en konspiration pga det uttalandet?
Jag läste även i samma artikel att..............
Dispute with Insurers
Citat:
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers.
In October of 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a Southern District verdict by a jury that the attacks must be considered a single occurrence. Yet, the same court also upheld a victory in the second phase of trial which was awarded to Mr. Silverstein in which temporary insurance policies in effect when the buildings were destroyed did require that the attack to be treated as two occurrences. Thus, nine insurance companies will pay double the approximately $1 billion in coverage under their policies.
Han ville alltså ha det till två separata händelser?
Dessutom så är det här en smula underligt. Från samma Wikipedia artikel.
Citat:
In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001, seven weeks before the buildings were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.
The deal was described in a press release on July 24, 2001:
"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion – the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history.
The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money. Silverstein was also given the right to rebuild the structures, should they be destroyed.
Tycker åtminstone jag är en smula underligt, en ren tillfällighet?
Säg det!