• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Larry Silverstein Sues Airlines For $12.3 Billion

Pardalis said:
Hasn't the airline industry suffered enough? Besides, what could they have done to prevent 9/11? If anything it's a US intelligence failure, if anybody should be sued it should be them.
Click to expand...

They'll settle.

Silverstein has to go after the airlines. There's no other option. He should, of course, sue bin Laden, but there's no way he'd ever collect. The only other alternative is what, to eat a $1.23 x 1010 loss? He may even be legally obligated to sue by his ongoing partnerships, regardless of his personal feelings...

I'm way out of my field, by the way. I have little concept of the legal subtleties. I also don't personally believe the airlines should be found responsible, but that's why we have the courts, after all.
 
R.Mackey said:
They'll settle.

Silverstein has to go after the airlines. There's no other option. He should, of course, sue bin Laden, but there's no way he'd ever collect. The only other alternative is what, to eat a $1.23 x 1010 loss? He may even be legally obligated to sue by his ongoing partnerships, regardless of his personal feelings...

I'm way out of my field, by the way. I have little concept of the legal subtleties. I also don't personally believe the airlines should be found responsible, but that's why we have the courts, after all.
Click to expand...

A very good point. Didn't the US Government freeze his assets or something at some point (those that they could control at least)? I have a vague recollection of a news story about it around the time of 9/11.

If that were the case, would the US Courts have access to that money to compensate victims of his terrorism?

I guess they would have to put him on trial first, even if they could use his money to pay victims.

Any Lawyers know anything about this stuff?

I might try looking it up myself...
 
OBL doesn't have a huge amount of his family money any more, well on a grand scale. His family disowned him a while back and that resulted in the removal of his trust fund. His Bankrolling of AQ and the Taliban wouldn't have helped thing, however he does have one talent that would have, he's great at rising money. That has likely filled the AQ coffers enough to pay for most things they require, but personally, he's not overly rich now.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
From the other thread:

You're forgetting a couple things here, RebIbis. Things I have a hard time believing you are personally unaware of, which just supports my notion that you're only trolling. Those two things are:

1) The rent that Silverstein's been paying the Port Authority since the attacks. With no income to offset this expense, this is a loss.
Click to expand...

I'm sure his lenders required loss of rent insurance.

2) The cost of rebuilding. He doesn't get to pocket that insurance money.
Click to expand...

Dingdingding!
 
Well I found this from the UN:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc7995.doc.htm

Which talks about freezing assets of terrorists generally.

And this one a bit more specifically about 9/11 and the US Gov.:

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/financial.cfm

Which includes this:
The U.S.-led war on terrorism began, in part, with a concerted financial strike on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. As Bush moved to freeze terrorist assets within the United States, he also urged nations around the world to follow suit. Below are details of the war in the realm of terrorist assets and finances.


How assets are "frozen"

On Sept. 24, Bush issued Executive Order 13224 freezing the U.S. assets and blocking the U.S. transactions of terrorists and those that support them. 1 The order prohibits financial transactions with 27 organizations and individuals the administration has identified as committing or supporting acts of terrorism. On Oct. 12, the administration designated an additional 39 entities to the list, including those on the FBI's most-wanted terrorists list. Following the order on Sept. 24, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a statement asking some 5,000 U.S. banks to immediately halt transactions of all entities on Bush's list and provide federal investigators with any information they had on those entities, thereby ensuring that all of terrorists' assets in the United States are "frozen."
Click to expand...

And this:
According to the White House, as of March 4, 2002, the United States has blocked $32.2 million in terrorist assets, and other countries have blocked $45.8 million for a total of $79.9 million.

Currently, 1,111 accounts are under review in the United States.
Click to expand...

So, unless they have gotten their hands on a lot more since then, I guess it would barely cover Larry's legal costs.
 
Pardalis said:
Hasn't the airline industry suffered enough? Besides, what could they have done to prevent 9/11? If anything it's a US intelligence failure, if anybody should be sued it should be them.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, everybody's in on it!!!11!!!

Silverstein took a hit for 'the cause' as did the the airlines. All are ideologically inclined towards the goals of the NWO.

But, in order to deflect suspicion away from LS (well the suspicion of ordinary people, not the special 'truthers' who saw through this ruse, even to the point of imagining TV shows on which LS explicitly describes demolishing WTC7) he had to suffer a loss to begin with, cushioned of course by the insurance giants who were also ideologically committed to the cause and, therefore, not inclined to investigate beyond what LS personally wrote on the claim form.

But now, the insurance companies want their 'loan' back ("Hey, we're running a business here! Take your owl and dangle.") so LS has to move to Phase 2.1 in which he sues the airlines who will then all file for chapter11 bankruptcy protection, eliminating certain suppliers who keep secretly releasing secret documents about secret things to the 'sooper seekrit internet investigation fantastic six' and 'radioactive brain', and then being bailed out by the US government (taxpayer) who will pay the money to the airlines who will pay it to LS who will reimburse the insurers and the lawyers will skim the rest.

It's obvious.
 
Boeing has the kind of money where they could absorb this sort of thing if LS won. It would hurt but they could do it. The airlines on the other hand do not. I don't know what sort of insurance AA and UA have for this sort of thing. However even if they do it would could still be potentially crippling to their operations.
 
Pardalis said:
I hope the courts will decide in favor of the airlines, it's really not their fault, why should they pay for 9/11?

I wonder if the events will be filed under "act of god", of "force majeure"?
Click to expand...
assuming they dont find the airlines were negligent in their security

the outcome of this case will be interesting (assuming we actually get a court ruling and not a settlement) because it will likely determine whether airlines were actually negligent in their security procedures

i was readig the jersey girls "unanswered questions" last night and many of them refer to failure to follow security protocols at the airport, this may go a long way to determining if those claims are founded or not
 
Getcher CT angle right here! Red hot!

Read the fine print.

His case was consolidated last week with similar, earlier lawsuits brought by families of some victims of the attack and by other property owners. But in seeking $12.3 billion, he is by far the biggest claimant in the litigation.

The only reason he even filed this claim (in 2004 no less) was to :rule10 the victims' families who are trying to use the court system to get at the truth.
Click to expand...

I kinda don't like the smell of antisemitism in the afternoon.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Larry has just been watching the airlines settle with the remaining holdout family members one by one as long as they don't reveal anything they have found out along the way. He probably thinks it's a safe bet they'll settle with him also before it ever goes to trial.
 
LastChild said:
I guess it all depends on the case and the jury.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D61631F932A25754C0A964958260
Pan Am Is Held Liable by Jury In '88 Explosion

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E6D71E3EF936A25757C0A962958260
A Jury Clears Pan Am in a 1986 Hijacking
Click to expand...
wow, a useful post from lastchild

those are inded intersting, although unsurprising, precedents

in the first case the bomb passed through normal airport security and was loaded onto the plane by pan am personel

in the second case the hijackers bypassed security and forced their way onto the plane, a clear case of force majeure from pan ams perspective


so as i said before the decision come down to whether the airlines were in fact negligent in allowing the terrorists to board to the plane (which, in turn, will come down to whether procedures actually called for them to detained at the airport or not)
 
Last edited:
Didn't the airlines sub contract security in most cases? I though Massport handled security in Boston. Wouldn't they also be liable?

I admittedly only glanced though the article but I don't recall seeing anything about this.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
wow, a useful post from lastchild

those are inded intersting, although unsurprising, precedents

in the first case the bomb passed through normal airport security and was loaded onto the plane by pan am personel

in the second case the hijackers bypassed security and forced their way onto the plane, a clear case of force majeure from pan ams perspective


so as i said before the decision come down to whether the airlines were in fact negligent in allowing the terrorists to board to the plane (which, in turn, will come down to whether procedures actually called for them to detained at the airport or not)
Click to expand...

Has it ever been settled in the 9/11 case what kind of weapons the hijackers were able to get on the plane and what they didn't compared to what the people reported in the phone calls?

Not in court anyway.

Don't forget in the first 1993 WTC bombing a civil trial jury found the Port Authority to more liable then the terrorists for letting the bomb get near the building. I think the Port Authority was in charge of Newark Airport on 9/11.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/22136

Port Authority Is Held Liable in Bombing That Killed Six in 1993 Attack on WTC

As part of the verdict, the jury was asked to assign a percentage value to the liability of both the Port Authority and the terrorists responsible for the blast. They concluded that the Port Authority was 68% liable and the terrorists 32% liable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom