Larry Silverstein, president and CEO of Silverstein Properties, the developer of the World Trade Center in New York is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from the airlines and other companies for damages related to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The defendants include American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines and Boeing.
Of the $12.3 Billion, $8.4 billion is sought to replace buildings and $3.9 billion would pay for lost income and expenses.
This could be a fascinating case and could lead to some interesting discovery, particularly the failure of the airlines to heed repeated warning in prior years to reinforce cockpit doors and spend more money on security. It will also make for some interesting questions of the superseding intervening acts of the terrorists. While crime will often cut off liability in tort, some crime is foreseeable and actionable. The process of defending against such allegation could prove quite embarrassing for the airlines, who have been relatively quite about their failures leading up to the attacks.
For the full story, click here.
He needs to sue radical Islam.
This one won’t fly.
Deeply:
I wouldn’t be too sure on this one. I think the magnitude of the suit will speed settlement. This is the classic case that is too big for either side to lose and that makes for good settlements. When the Fortune 100’s and their insurers collide money is always the debris.
Conspiracy theories have had a fertile environment in the mist and haze created by many conflicting stories, multiple personal accounts and ostensibly inconsistent supporting facts surrounding the disaster of the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center. There are even those that feel they have sufficient cause to believe it was an inside job including American traitors.
Feelings aren’t facts. Regardless of the cacophony opinion, whether based on careful examination of media accounts or a deck of Tarot cards – this case increases the possibly for some clarity. If nothing else though – it will, without question, spawn a new media industry and at the very least – a dedicated cable / satellite channel.
“There are even those that feel they have sufficient cause to believe it was an inside job including American traitors.
Feelings aren’t facts.”
The fact that each plane PERFECTLY exploited holes in primary radar is not a feeling. Factually speaking, such information is not readily available to the public or recorded on any published maps; much like the maintenance schedule of a chain that stretched across the Hudson protecting West Point.
Gee, can you imagine if a Benedict Arnold type let the ‘terrorists’ know exactly where and when he’d be replacing a link in the chain with a piece of rope; e.g. mapped out where and when to attack by exploiting holes in the primary radar???
“Arnold began to correspond secretly with General Clinton about his plan to let West Point fall into British hands. As a result, Clinton sent Major Andre up the Hudson in the British Sloop-of-War, Vulture, on September 20, 1780 to meet with Benedict Arnold. Andre was rowed ashore at the long cove just south of Haverstraw, where the two men conferred until sunrise. Their plans for the handing over of West Point still not complete, they rode on horseback to the home of Joshua Hett Smith, which stood on what is now known as Treason Hill. There it was agreed that Arnold should have one of the links removed from the great iron chain which stretched across the Hudson from West Point to King’s Ferry to prevent the passage of British ships up the river. Arnold planned to replace the iron link with rope, on the pretext that the chain needed mending….”
Just a wild conspiracy theory? The good folks at Roe’s Tavern & Mabies Tavern didn’t seem to think so.
http://www.76house.com/history_tavern.html
Regards,
Bob
Bob, Esq:
Really fascinating story about Arnold. Could you suggest any reading materials? Not sure it proves that 9-11 was an inside job however, but I must say it raises issues worthy of examination. I do remind you though that in examining a catastrophe requiring interlocking paths of complex events to occur, the simplest answer might be the best choice as Hakim’s Razor instructs. Maybe those terrorists were just lucky or good at their villainous plot.
Defense for the airlines might be the following: None of our fleet of aircraft hit the twin towers. Prove it?
The US government certainly isn’t able to produce any evidence, an independent review of CNN video to determine if it is computer generated isn’t going to happen, and there is ample evidence that bombs exploded within the twin towers.
Mespo,
You are right of course. I was just trying to get off a rather tastless piece of snarkery.
Mea culpa.
Oh, and it is Occam’s Razor, isn’t it!? or is Hakim’s Razor an updated version?
DW
mespo727272,
Since the following comment is “awaiting moderation” I’ll attempt to repost it in segments:
1/4
“Really fascinating story about Arnold. Could you suggest any reading materials?”
http://www.amazon.com/General-Washingtons-Spies-Long-Island/dp/094572618X/ref=pd_bbs_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206743518&sr=8-9
“Not sure it proves that 9-11 was an inside job however,”
Wasn’t presented as direct evidence; merely as a “jaws of life” against the ‘tranquility over the truth’ mindset.
2 of 4
“but I must say it raises issues worthy of examination. I do remind you though that in examining a catastrophe requiring interlocking paths of complex events to occur, the simplest answer might be the best choice as Hakim’s Razor instructs.”
Actually, Ockham’s Razor tells us “It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less.” Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.
For example, when four planes just happen to intentionally turn off course and into gaps in the primary radar during an ‘orchestrated’ attack, most notably flights 11 and 93, without any other explanation offered, Sir Ockham would advise us to postulate the reality of another entity; such as a TREASONABLE DESIGN.
http://tinyurl.com/2jjdxa
3 of 4
“Maybe those terrorists were just lucky or good at their villainous plot.”
Of Course…
“Of all the radar gaps in all the air space in all the U.S to exploit that day…”
http://tinyurl.com/38btue
4 of 4
Do you have any idea how many times you’d have to lie to yourself in order to accept the ‘official’ story?
http://tinyurl.com/2mhyz3
Regards,
Bob
Just for the record, if I hadn’t already been one of ‘those’ that have seriously believed something is criminally awry with the official story – Bob’s very concise assessment would have easily convinced me to consider examining the challenges to the ‘official’ story.
Very nicely done!
JT attracts wackos galore.
Deeply:
In my haste, I forgot it was William Occam who gave us the Razor. Just too lazy to look up the spelling. Must be old age creeping up again. Sorry for the faux pas.
Mespo,
No problem, I figured you were engaged in a witticism. Did you notice my spelling got corrected? Probably a philosophy major! Hey Bob, esq., who was Odo of Tournai?
“You say Po-tah-toe, I say Po-tay-toe…”
On another note: Just because a faction or entity stands to gain from the occcurance of an event, doesn’t imply they caused the event.
I know the 911 theorists can present lists of implausible coincidences that buttress their theory….
But so do the creation science folks.
Occam/Ockham still rules.
Hope George W. and Dicky Cheney are included in the suits.
After all it was Dick who was conducting war games following the EXACT scenario of terrist flying plans into building on the SAME day that terrist actually flew plans into buildings.
wackos, wackos, wackos galore here. I found the mother lode.
Vincent Caminiti,
Thanks, but you sound apologetic for your unwillingness to accept the ‘official’ story.
Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio — The Burden Of Proof Is Upon Him Who Affirms – Not On Him Who Denies.
Arguing is reason giving.
When people argue, they make claims.
1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur. — One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow.
Part of my reason for raising the treason of Arnold by analogy is to recall the firm conviction of Washington to put Andre to death by the felon’s noose instead of an officer’s firing squad; as many of his most loyal officers wept &/or plead for–including Talmadge & Hamilton.
At that moment in time, Washington was The Categorical Imperative Incarnate.
The closest cinematic version of that form of resolve I’ve ever seen was in the film “Unforgiven.”
No apologies; no accepting absurdities in lieu of argument because someone feels the object of analysis doesn’t ‘deserve’ it.
“Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
Regards,
Bob
“Did you notice my spelling got corrected? Probably a philosophy major!”
Actually, I’m still not sure if it’s spelled with a lower case or upper case K.
“Hey Bob, esq., who was Odo of Tournai?”
I have no idea; but I’m sure you’ll tell me.
“You say Po-tah-toe,…”
I say misprision of treason.
Regards,
Bob
niblet: “wackos, wackos, wackos galore here. I found the mother lode.”
“It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover [sterilization]. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. [One generation] of imbeciles [is] enough.”
BUCK v. BELL, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200
Quick, run; it’s still good law!
Bob:
Data Venia – I’ll take an F for failing to express myself well. However, you are mistaken about my position on the ‘official’ story.
VC
Bob, esq. I am abashed. It wasn’t meant as a taunt, more as a hopeful call for a fellow philosophy major (at one time) to appear! Odo and Occam were not contemporaries but were on opposite sides of the great Medieval tussle between the realists and the nominalists.
That’s all I can with Google’s kind assistance remember from my one Medieval Philosophy course taught by the great Professor Francis Kovach (in memory ever green).
Vincent Caminiti,
“Data Venia – I’ll take an F for failing to express myself well.”
You speak english goodly enough for I.
“However, you are mistaken about my position on the ‘official’ story.”
Would love to hear it sometime.
Regards,
Bob
deeply worried,
Funny, starting a post with the salutation above reminds me of the song “Dear Abby” by John Prine…
“Bob, esq. I am abashed.”
Wow, that might be the first time I’ve ever seen that word used in a sentence; as opposed to unabashed. Makes ya wonder if there’s such a word as “gruntled.”
“It wasn’t meant as a taunt, more as a hopeful call for a fellow philosophy major (at one time) to appear!”
Physics major>>Philosophy — metaphysics, epistemology, Plato, Kant with a strong independent interest in C.G. Jung. This might interest you, as opposed to anyone else, but it was while reading Derida’s essay on “Difference v. Differance” that got me so pissed off I made up my mind to run away to law school. Deconstructivism annoyed me so much, my entrance essay was on the topic of “Cardinality” — namely a desire to see a one to one correspondence between thought and reality….but I digress…
“Odo and Occam were not contemporaries but were on opposite sides of the great Medieval tussle between the realists and the nominalists.”
Ockham was like Xeno for me; a philosopher usually mentioned during an example by the professor in discussing something else I was more focused on; e.g. Kant’s “Critique.” Still stands as the Mt. Everest of Philosophy works for me; helped me analyze the Ninth Amendment.
But getting back to Ockham, it was out of sheer frustration of people bringing up the razor as a shield for their own intellectual laziness that I finally analyzed the hell out of it and realized the common interpretation (the easiest answer is usually the correct one) is completely wrong. Lisa Simpson gets an F.
Wow, it’s 3am.
Gotta jump.
Regards,
Bob