0 votes

Larry Silverstein Seeking $8.4B from 9/11 Airlines for WTC Losses

On this 11th anniversary eve of 9/11 and in a world where there seems to be no justice, this negligence lawsuit seems destined to be heard. Could there be blowback if this case goes to court?

Jury could decide sticky issues of September 11 airlines lawsuit
By Grant McCool | Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:36pm EDT

(Reuters) - Most of the lawsuits arising from the hijacked plane attacks on the World Trade Center 11 years ago have been settled, but one demanding that United Airlines and American Airlines be held liable for loss of property and business could go to trial.

Two recent rulings by a federal judge in New York denying the airlines' bid to dismiss the lawsuit over a narrow insurance dispute have opened the door to the entire case ending up in the hands of a jury.

At issue is whether the two airlines and other defendants should pay additional damages to Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center property, beyond what he has already received from his own insurer.

Silverstein's World Trade Center Properties blamed United, now United Continental Holdings Inc, and American Airlines, for breaches of security. The 2008 lawsuit also named aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co, the Massachusetts Port Authority, which manages Logan International Airport, and security companies.
Move at:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Require guns with the pilots.

Require guns with the pilots.

"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear." - Benjamin Franklin

There were no planes, so there were no hi-jackers

FAA recovered over 95% of TWA 800 from a depth of 150 ft over several square miles after it crashed in 1996.

Four planed evaporated in three venues in 2001?

Without physical proof of airliners then there were no hi-jackers.

We've been chasing our tails due to a made up tale?

Free includes debt-free!

SteveMT's picture

Require guns with passengers also.

9/11 would not have happened.

Forget $8.4 billion, how about the electric chair?

Just before 9/11 this guy takes out a 100 year lease on WTC buildings, two of which were condemned by the port authority for containing asbestos that was more expensive to remove than the buildings were worth (when combined with the electrical upgrage that was also needed).

Destroying the buidlings was impossibly expensive because of the asbestos, it would require each floor to be removed individually. Why would he do that? Also, he was so concerned about the buildings that he bought insurance against a terrorist attack. How fortunate because then on 9/11 he claimed for two attacks...pity about the Pennsylvania plane because that was likely aimed at WTC7m allowing him to claim three. Then he admits that that just had to demolish WTC7 anyway cos presumably the recently furnished Office of Emergency Management could had some damning info...not to mentioned how tough it would have been to remove all those pre wired explosives. Did I mentioned yet about the SEC were housed in their too and there was a massive fraud investigation that was lost in the dust?

Did I mention also that Dov Zakheim couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars just before 9/11. Fortunately the plane hit the pentagon (probably where the essential missing money paperwork was contained) and people felt so sorry and angry that everyone just forget about this money. Most people up until 9/11 hadn't heard monetary numbers discussed in trillions. Course how its the normal.

The chair is probably too good for some of these criminals.

SteveMT's picture

9/11 "coincidences" abound.

Too many coincidences to be believed, IMO.

Prove there were airplanes.

This strikes me as just another part of the Hoax.

If a jury decides there were planes then the circle is complete.

Free includes debt-free!

Why wouldn't there be planes?

Pretty easy to come by, can even fly them remotely. Why make life tough and try and hoax a plane in front of thousands of eye witnesses?

Very Good Point!

Very Good Point!

This is the same Larry Silverstein who said to "Pull it" on 9/11

Those are the words used when you implode a building.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

SteveMT's picture

Yup. "Pull it" Silverstein pulled WTC7...

and the others also.

So he's an evil genius masterminding a consipiracy

But he decided to say "pull it" publicly just to give ammo to conspiracy theorists?

"Pull it" was term used by demolitions contractors to actually pull over a building, not "implode" it.

One harmless and boring interpretation of Silverstein's comment was to pull the salvage team, or pull the plug on the effort.

Your jargon for "pull it"

Your jargon for "pull it" meaning "pull it over" in demolition is inaccurate and misinformed I fear. According to demolition experts and physicists with credible testimony and film footage abound on Youtube, "pull it" means "implode" on its own footprint in demolition jargon. Everyone would agree that Silverstein is a criminal of tantamount proportions but I doubt he is guilty of masterminding a "conspiracy". There are too many facts to ignore investigating his culpability in 9/11 tragedy to continue keeping it in the realm of a Conspiracy Theory.

Disingenuous or ridiculous

Silverstein just happened to have explosives planted in building 7 on the day that 2 planes happened to fly into the WTC towers?

But he's not "masterminding a conspiracy"? WTF are you talking about?

Was he flying the planes by remote control? He planted the explosives by himself?

You have a lot of explaining to do about who was in on the conspiracy and who was out.

Jefferson's picture


why didn't they pull WTC 7 "over?"

Why didn't bldgs. 4, 5, and 6 which were DIRECTLY underneath the path of debris, collapse?

When cockroach Silverstein tried to explain his slip up, he said he was referring to the "pulling the firefighters" who weren't even in the building. Why wouldn't he say "pull them" or "pull them out."

He was referring to the structure. period.

This is a controlled demolition.

Because obviously he never asked anyone to pull the building

Presumably he meant to pull the recovery effort.

Why would a man this smart just blurt out publically the biggest conspiracy in history? How idiotic do you think he is?

There were a ton of civil engineers on the ground watching building 7 for six hours. None of them thought they could save the building, or that the building was brought down by explosions.

SteveMT's picture

There was no recovery effort. The building was empty for hours.

"Pull it" means destroy it. The BBC said that WTC7 had "collapsed" 20 minutes before it actually was destroyed. Another coincidence? The Firemen said "watch out. Keep your eye on that building. It's coming down." They all were told that WTC7 was going to be "pulled." Read all about it.


Jefferson's picture


"recovery effort?"

It is well documented that there were no firefighters in WTC 7 after 11:30 am. There was no "effort" to "pull."

People slip up all the time.

Why did Rumsfeld say flight 93 was shot down?

Why would Bush say there were "explosives" planted in the buildings?

Why would firefighters and NUMEROUS other people report "secondary" explosions, powerful enough to knock them across the room?

Where is your evidence for these "tons of engineers" because all I have seen is the sobering info that is supported by over 1700 architects and engineers saying that the laws of physics were defied that day.

I think you need to do a little more research.

BTW, you avoided my question about buildings 4,5,and 6. I have addressed your questions, now address mine. (if you think you can)

SteveMT's picture

Right. Pull "it" versus Pull "them."

Interchanging those two simple words is just like interchanging the words benign and malignant.

How goes the battle, btw?

Jefferson's picture


goes the battle, btw?"

Slowly but surely. PM me if you like. I don't like divulging too much of my personal challenges on here.

Thank you for asking.

Hope all is well with you Steve.