Developer Sues to Win $12.3 Billion in 9/11 Attack

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

[Grateful for Hope]

1. Looks like Silverstein might have a fight on his hands

Mr. Barry, speaking for the airlines, contended that Mr. Silverstein had been more than compensated by the nearly $4.6 billion insurance settlement, reached after almost six years of litigation. He argued that Mr. Silverstein was entitled to the market value of the property, which he said had been established by the $3.2 billion lease.

Judge Hellerstein expressed skepticism about Mr. Silverstein’s claim, and asked why he had not stemmed his losses by just “walking away.”


Judge Hellerstein ordered Mr. Silverstein to provide more documentation of his claim, or risk losing it.

[Twist_U_Up]

2. Silverstein IS a cockroach,piece of garbage.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8



wearechange.org is on fire.

[Laurier]

31. Upon what basis do you say that?

Please be specific.

[Twist_U_Up]

36. watch the video.

if you cant figure it out,not that you want to, I aint explaining it to you.
But then again I probably wouldn't anywho.

good day

[Laurier]

51. I have.

But that doesn't tell me upon what basis you call the man a "cockroach, piece of garbage".

If you are unable and unwilling to support your allegations, I guess that tells me all I need to know about the weakness of them.

[OKthatsIT]

73. Silverstein is less than a cockroach...he's a murderer

[Laurier]

77. Really? Who did he murder?

When, where, and how?

Please be specific.

[Laurier]

87. Again, who did he murder?

When, where, and how?

Please be specific.

[mhatrw]

3. 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 fuck the victims' families who are trying to use the court system to get at the truth.

[Grateful for Hope]

4. A lawyer for the victims' families

appears confident that their claims will be given priority, but:

A lawyer for the airlines, Desmond Barry, said that if Mr. Silverstein won his claim, he could push the total claims beyond the amount of insurance that the airlines and security companies have available. “There ain’t that much insurance,” Mr. Barry said.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Paying back the loans and bonds he had to take out to get the buildings rebuilt

had nothing to do with it at all, of course.

:eyes:

It's amazing. No sooner is proof seen that Silverstein lost billions in the attacks than he's smeared for stopping the families from their information quest.

There's a word I'm thinking of. What is it? Anti... anti...

Hm. It will come to me.

ETA: "fine print," LOL. It's the third paragraph of the article.

Here's fine print: "Mr. McQuillan, the spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said on Wednesday the developer felt both an obligation under his lease and a moral obligation to rebuild, rather than walk away. He said that the insurance companies who paid him would be repaid if he prevails."

I myself wonder how much actual choice Mr. Silverstein had in the matter.

[seemslikeadream]

6. As much of a choice as he had to use the word pull?

[Grateful for Hope]

8. And then lie about it later. n/t

[Laurier]

32. What "lie"?

eom

[victordrazen]

91. Chief Nigro denied the conversation

Silverstein says he had with him, for one thing. Also, it is pretty well established that "pull it" does not mean pulling firemen out of the building, which is probably what Hope is referring to.

[Bolo Boffin]

92. Nigro denied that he had a conversation with Silverstein - that's different.

Some other fire chief may have talked to Silverstein at some point.

Silverstein has never given a name for who he talked to. He may not have gotten one.

[Laurier]

94. No, Silverstein never said he spoke to Nigro.

And no, it is not at all "established" that Silverstein's use of the words "pull it" did not refer to the firefighting operation.

And who knows what the hell Hope2006 was referring to, since he refuses to say?

[Laurier]

85. Still nothing to back up your accusations, I see.

How...utterly unsurprising.

[mhatrw]

7. Oh, Jesus Christ, cry us a river for the guy who was only awarded billions already.

You are unbelievable.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. What part of "paying that back" didn't you understand? n/t

[MarkyX]

20. What billions?

He has a 99-year lease and is forced to rebuild because of it.

But he's jewish, therefore a liar.

[mhatrw]

25. What?

Maybe you should stick to replying to subjects that you know something about.

[Laurier]

34. "Maybe you should stick to replying to subjects that you know something about."

Yes, maybe you should.

[seemslikeadream]

27. You really need to stop

I know you may have picked up some bad habits seeing some bad examples here but NONE OF US ARE ANTI-SEMITIC OR HOLOCAUST DENIERS and we don't deserve the name calling.

[Laurier]

35. "we don't deserve the name calling"

So, you take issue with a post that called no names at all, but you take no issue whatsoever with posts that did, in fact, resort to namecalling such as "cockroach", "piece of garbage", "fucking liar cheat nazi" (all in the absence of any evidence in support of such namecalling), and you take no issue whatsoever with accusing someone of being complicit in the murder of thousands of people without even a hint of evidence.

How bizarre.

[OKthatsIT]

74. antisemetic twist, when you're losing an argument

Jewish schmooish...this is getting ridiculous.

[OKthatsIT]

75. People who consistantly argue with truthseekers are really...

working for the desperate Bush Administration. After Bush is gone, who will pay them? Will they continue flooding the message boards without pay?

Can you imagine 'propagandist' working for nothing? I guess we'll see after January 2009.

[SDuderstadt]

76. What bullshit....

this is a classic "false dilemma" or "either-or" fallacy. It assumes that the only two positions are to accept what "truthseekers" yammer about or you must be paid to work for the Bush administration (for the record, I despise the Bush administration). Of course, another possibility is one can despise the Bush administration and still call this poster on their nonsense.

[Laurier]

78. "truthseekers"

:rofl:


9/11 conspiracy fantasists seem to be anything but "truthseekers" in any legitimate interpretation of the word.

people who consistently argue with truthseekers (you mean fantasists) are really working for the desperate Bush Administration. After Bush is gone, who will pay them? Will they continue flooding the message boards without pay?

Can you imagine 'propagandist' working for nothing? I guess we'll see after January 2009.

Are you seriously accusing Democrats here of being on the payroll of the * administration? Are you seriously suggesting that those who find the 9/11 conspiracy fantasies ludicrous must be secret * supporters and on the * payroll?

Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of the population who do not buy the nonsensical claims of conspiracy fantasists are being paid to express their views in opposition to the idiocy of the conspiracy fantasists?

Seriously?

[LeftishBrit]

89. Where have I seen such arguments before?

Oh, that's right, when the Right have accused everyone who disagreed with Bush and his war of supporting the terrorists.

'Everyone who is not with me is against me' - Not a very liberal attitude in any form.

[stopthe911lies]

10. He's going to pay back his insurance companies he just sued???

[AZCat]

11. Wow, that was fast.

Less than an hour later, tombstoned. The mods must have had their Wheaties this morning.

[SidDithers]

12. Must be a sock puppet for a previously banned poster...

nothing in that post or screen name that would cause a banning.

Sid

[AZCat]

13. Do you think...

that another recently departed came back for another go?

[SidDithers]

14. I was thinking this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=215545

But then again, they could all be one and the same.

Sid

[AZCat]

15. I detected a sort of familiarity with yours.

I think he/she/it had been to these stomping grounds before.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

16. It's endemic to many in the 9/11 Conspiravangelist™ movement

It's amazing. No sooner is proof seen that Silverstein lost billions in the attacks than he's smeared for stopping the families from their information quest.

There's a word I'm thinking of. What is it? Anti... anti...

Hm. It will come to me.

Though many try to obfuscate this fact by "putting lipstick on their pigs*".

*Prejudiced Ignorant Guys/Gals

[mhatrw]

26. Where was it proven that Silverstein lost billions in the attacks?

That's what he claims. Let's see the numbers.

[Laurier]

33. That is exactly what the court is for

So why are you whining about him presenting his claims to the court for the court to make that determination?

[mhatrw]

37. I'm complaining because his bullshit claims are dwarfing those of the victims' families.

He was already awarded billions.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. And he is last in line to claim anything. n/t

[mhatrw]

39. His claims are fucking up the victims' families' case.

I realize that you love billionaire developer tycoons, but take off the blinders.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. He is last in line to get anything.

I realize you love to slander rich Jews, but take off the blinders.

[mhatrw]

41. Really? Do you have quotes from Silverstein or his lawyers to that effect?

Do you have quotes from the victims' families of their lawyers welcoming Silverstein's obscene intrusion into their case?

Why are you defending this billionaire real estate developer, anyway? Is it because your Lord and Savior was also Jewish?

[Bolo Boffin]

43. It's in the fucking OP article, mhatrw.

A lawyer for the victims’ families, Donald Migliori, said he was confident that their claims would not be affected because they would take priority over the property claims.

Cease your idiotic charade about my being a Christian immediately. I will begin to consider it harrassment and report it to the moderators.

[mhatrw]

48. And Bush is "confident" that we have turned the corner in Iraq.

If Silverstein had never filed this suit, the victims' families wouldn't have to worry about their claims being dwarfed by Silverstein's.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Nine victims' families.

I do enjoy precision in speech, don't you?

[Laurier]

55. Again,

His WTC companies filed cross-claims against certain airline industry co-defendants, as they were perfectly entitled to do. If the suing victims' families had not sued the WTC companies in the first place, there would be no cross-claims. So, don't blame Silverstein for the suing plaintiffs dragging him into their lawsuits. It was the plaintiffs' doing, not his.

[Laurier]

54. No, they aren't.

As I have already explained (see post #30), his WTC company claims are cross-claims against certain co-defendants. His companies were sued by the plaintiffs along with airline industry companies. His companies are perfectly entitled to cross-claim against the airlines. In those cross-claims, however, the WTC companies make it clear that in the event that the maximum payable by the airlines is exceeded, then the families of the deceased and the injured plaintiffs should be paid first, even if it means that the WTC companies do not get whatever damages a court determines they are entitled to.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Your post assumes that Mhatrw knows what...

a cross-claim is. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be that confident of his/her abilities.

[Laurier]

59. Good point.

I did explain it in my post #30 but strangely enough, mhatrw still doesn't seem to understand, or maybe he's just being willfully blind. Hard to tell.

[Laurier]

53. If they didn't want him involved, they shouldn't have sued him.

Pretty simple, really.

[Twist_U_Up]

17. Typical tactic from boffin..............

Typical tactic from bolo who will scream anti-semitic from the highest rooftop at anyone that tells them their shit stinks.
And BOY DOES IT STINK!

larry silverstein is a fucking LIAR cheat nazi, just like your lead NIST Engineer-Investigator john gross.

wearechange.org confronts larry silverstein
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8

9/11 Truth: NIST Engineer john gross caught lying
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gLJ_1-qMujE

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Calling a Jew a Nazi is a typical tactic of a specific group of people, twist

What is that group? Anti... anti...

I know it will come to me.

[Twist_U_Up]

19. Say what you will bolo but one thing is for certain .........

hes complicit in 3000 murders along with the untold 1000s of first responders that are slowly dieing from the fallout.
Your shameless in your defending this piece of garbage.

[MarkyX]

21. Why is he complicit? Because he's jewish?

N/T

[seemslikeadream]

22. You are new here so I will be nice and say

Twist_U_Up NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING

[Twist_U_Up]

24. I could give 3 turds.......

But I can spot a bold face liar from a mile away.
I'm pretty good at spotting government apologists too.

[Laurier]

82. So, what did he lie about?

I see several posters here claiming that Silverstein "lied" but I don't see any of them willing to articulate what it is that they accuse him of lying about. Perhaps you will be the first.

[Laurier]

86. Again, what did he lie about?

There seems to be a whole lot of bald accusations in this thread but not even a scintilla of evidence in support of those accusations.

So, perhaps you can be the first to answer the simple question, "What did he lie about?"

[Grateful for Hope]

88. Stop the harrassment

I am choosing not to answer your question. This should have been clear to you many posts ago. Again, I do not wish to interact with you. A third time: I choose not to answer your question because I do not wish to interact with you.

History is often not soon forgotten.

[AZCat]

90. Why are you not supporting your allegations about Silverstein?

As you probably know, the poster to whom you respond is not the only person reading the posts. You (and others) have made unsubstantiated claims about Silverstein. Why is it okay for you to do that, but not okay for other people to ask for some evidence to support your claims?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

98. Self delete

However, thanks for the reply, AZ.

[AZCat]

99. I wondered who the author of the "deleted message" was.

I've had a post deleted for what I believe is the same reason, although it was a while ago. For better or worse, it's a privately owned forum and they can establish the rules regardless of our opinions.

[Laurier]

95. Harrassment?

Since when does asking someone to back up his unsupported accusations constitute "harrassment"?

It is entirely within the rules of this forum to challenge someone to support his allegations, and it entirely within the rules to prompt someone to do so when he fails to do so initially. And certainly readers are entitled to see whether or not he is willing or able to provide any evidence of his unsupported accusations.

Like Twist_U_Up, I see that you, too, have failed and refused to back up your unsupported accusations. Gee, I wonder why that is. Any intelligent reader will, no doubt, quickly ascertain that it is because neither he, nor you, can do so.

As for your second to last sentence, "I choose not to answer your question because I do not wish to interact with you", well, the fact that you jumped in to respond to my post, which was directed to someone else, certainly seems to belie that statement. If you truly do not wish to interact with me, I suggest that you simply stop interacting with me, stop jumping in to respond to my posts directed to others, refrain from responding to my posts, and be done with it, instead of posting unsupported accusations, whining about being asked to back them up, and then interjecting to respond to other posts not even directed to you. It's simple, really. If you can't manage to control yourself, despite your stated desire not to interact with me, may I gently suggest that you utilize the ignore function?

Meanwhile, I still do not see any evidence whatsoever in support of the allegations made in this thread that Silverstein lied or was complicit in murder, or that he improperly insinuated himself into the litigation, etc. The complete dearth of supporting evidence for those accusations is pathetic, but not surprising.

[Grateful for Hope]

96. Still don't get it, I see.

I am finding out that "ignore" can definitely be one's friend.

Bye-bye.

[Laurier]

97. Still can't back up your accusations, I see.

[sabbat hunter]

28. how exactly

is he complicit?

[seemslikeadream]

23. and there will be hell to pay if you use WORDS

that belong only to some people




flowers, flowers I'm looking for some flowers

[Anarcho-Socialist]

29. How is Silverstein a Nazi?

Do you have evidence that he's a practicing Fascist or involved with the far-right?

[Laurier]

30. Have you read the claims?

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

I don't think that this assertion is supported by the evidence.

The Silverstein claims are cross-claims made against certain co-defendants. Several family members of deceased victims and several people who were injured as a result of the attacks made claims against the airlines, airline security companies, Boeing, Silverstein Properties, the PANYNJ, and numerous others. Some of those defendants (including Silverstein's WTC property entities) made cross-claims against certain of their co-defendants. The cross-claims allege, to grossly oversimplify them, that if the airlines, airline security companies, Boeing, etc. are liable for the losses of the family members and injured people, then they are also liable to the WTC property entities for their economic losses.

If you actually read the cross-claims, though, you will see that the cross-claims of the WTC property entities say that because the total amount of money available to pay damages arising out of the hijackings is limited by legislation, the WTC property entities entities want the families of the deceased and want the injured parties to be paid prior to any recovery by the Silverstein entities.

That hardly seems to be an indication that the Silverstein companies are trying to "fuck the victims' families".

[mhatrw]

42. One question. Do the families and their lawyers welcome Silverstein's intrusion into their case?

No. Silverstein is fucking them but good.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. All nine of them?

Plaintiffs also revealed that after a spate of settlements, there are seven wrongful death cases and two injury cases remaining, out of more than 90 filed.

[Grateful for Hope]

45. Nine of them

They are significant regardless of their number. They lost a loved one on 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Aaaaannnd the shiv in the corner!

I figured it would be you that would hit me on that, if you got a chance.

I never said they were insignificant because they were only nine. I didn't say that their loss wasn't severe. Fuck you very much for implying otherwise.

[Grateful for Hope]

47. Bolo

Again with the insults.

Look back at your post. Enough said.

[Laurier]

65. Hope

I was looking back at your post #8 in which you accused someone of lying but then did not support your accusation.

So, "Look back at your post. Enough said."

[Grateful for Hope]

66. I chose not to respond to you. Too bad you didn't get the hint.

BTW, Google is your friend.

Enough said.

[Laurier]

67. You shouldn't accuse people of lying without backing up your claims.

Not only is it very poor form, it will lead most rational people to conclude that you cannot support your accusations.

[Grateful for Hope]

68. Thank you for your opinion. n/t

[Laurier]

69. Thanks for confirming your inability to back up your baseless accusations.

[Grateful for Hope]

70. Again, thank you for your opinion. n/t

[Laurier]

71. Again, thanks for confirming your inability to substantiate your claims.

It is always appreciated.

[Grateful for Hope]

72. Keep on keeping on, n/t

[Laurier]

79. Keep on confirming your inabilty to substantiate your accusations.

It's all good.

[Grateful for Hope]

80. Feels like the good 'ol days n/t

[Laurier]

81. You're unable to support your claims, I see.

Why is this so difficult for you? You made unsupported accusations, and when asked to provide anything at all in support of your accusations, you've refused to do so. You seem to think that it is appropriate to simply make unsupported accusations and then simply walk away from any questions about them without providing even a pretense in support of them. To me, that seems very, very strange, and very, very weak. Especially for someone who purports to be a "truthseeker".

If you have anything - anything at all - to back up your accusations, why are you so hesitant to do so?

Edited to fix typo in the subject line.

[Grateful for Hope]

83. Whatever floats your boat. n/t

[Laurier]

84. Unfounded and unsupported accusations apparently float your boat.

It strikes me as simultaneously sad, pathetic, and utterly cowardly for someone to make bald accusations against a person and then refuse to substantiate his accusations. I don't understand why you would condone or engage in that kind of behavior but hey, if it works for you, I guess readers can draw their own conclusions.

[mhatrw]

49. Yes, all nine of them. n/t

[Laurier]

52. He isn't "intruding" into anyone's case. The plaintiffs sued his companies.

His companies were sued. He cross-claimed against some of the airline industry co-defendants, as he is perfectly entitled to do.

It wasn't him who asked to be dragged into the lawsuits in the first place. It was the suing plaintiffs who named his WTC companies as defendants, along with the airlines etc., who dragged him into it. If they didn't want his companies involved in their lawsuits, they shouldn't have sued his companies.

[mhatrw]

60. Yes, he is fully "entitled" to fuck the families even though he has already been

awarded billions.

[Laurier]

61. Can you not read or comprehend?

The WTC Property entities did not ask to be dragged into the lawsuits. The WTC Property entities did not "interfere" in anything. The WTC Property entities are not "fucking" the families in any way, shape or form. The plaintiffs sued the WTC Property entities along with a bunch of aviation industry defendants. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the WTC Property entities cross-claiming against those aviation industry defendants. It's very simple, really. Even simple enough for you.

If a court determines that the aviation defendants are liable for the damages incurred by the suing plaintiffs, then it is quite likely that a court will also determine that the aviation defendants are also liable for the damages incurred by the WTC Property entities. What is it about this that you do not understand?

Read the damned cross-claims already, and educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting the rantings of conspiracy fantasists.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laurier]

63. Nothing to say once facts are presented

that refute your unsupported opinions?

[Laurier]

64. You are quite wrong.

You are quite wrong when you say:

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

He was sued by the plaintiffs along with several aviation industry defendants, and he filed cross-claims against some of those aviation industry co-defendants, as he was perfectly entitled to do. He is not in any way "fucking the victims' families" and has even specified in his cross-claims that, in light of the cap on the total amounts payable by the aviation entities pursuant to legislation, any eventual judgments should go first to the plaintiffs before anything goes to his companies.

He's not fucking the plaintiffs at all. It was the plaintiffs who dragged him into the litigation, not the other way around.

You really should educate yourself before going off half-cocked like this.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

58. bye bye

again

Wait a minute do you mean you've been a member of DU before or you left and came back and only have posted 7 times total

[Laurier]

100. ...

kick