Silverstein is a Rockefeller crony, 9/11 was not his decision. He is an accomplice.
Silverstein's consortium of evil has netted over 4 billion so far just counting Manhattan. That doesn't include the profits from all the other things like the war. He owns Building 7 and already profitted 500 million off that alone. Yes he has to make the lease payments when the rest of the buildings are occupied but they will be offset by the rents for those brand spanking new buildings.
Now he is trying to get 12.3 billion more from the airlines and airport security companies. His "consortium" had to pay a crummy $14 million for the lease so far. Ashkenazi judges will make sure he collects for his boss's the Rockefellers.
This is all typical parasitical behavior from the synagogue of satan.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Silverstein is trying to get reimbursement for his consortium's very onerous responsibilities to (1) have a WTC complex with buildings to hand back to the Port Authority when the lease is up, and (2) make up to all his investors for lost revenues. Long story short, even if he wins all these lawsuits, he will not have appreciably more for himself than if the WTC were still standing and renting out office space.
If you insist on supposing that he had something to do with the planning of the Sept 11 attacks, then you ought to estimate how much that attack would have cost him. I'm sure that four jetliners and three hundred FDNY firemen don't go cheaply. Deduct the expense of arranging the Sept 11th attacks from his "windfall" and it doesn't look quite so profitable.
And, believe it or not, there are easier ways for Larry Silverstein to have made money than to initiate World War Three.
|
__________________
United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ...
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)]
|