It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[14] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.
The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.[16]
Upon leasing the World Trade Center towers, along with 4 World Trade Center and 5 World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the buildings. The insurance policies on these four buildings were underwritten by 24 insurance companies for a combined total of $3.55 billion per occurrence in property damage coverage.
Insurance dispute
The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence"--the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance-- and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation or the “two occurrence” interpretation.
Originally posted by Vildbasse
reply to post by Hudson
When the van pulls up to help the wounded journalist, it gets massacred with 30mm rounds. Killing 3 civilians, and wounding 2 children. That is exactly collateral murder.
I'll take your last point, and redirect it on yourself.
Originally posted by booblessed
Love to know what's in it myself too. Who wouldn't?
But I pose a question to you all:
If it is sensitive enough and contains matter relating to diplomatic relations, technology, intelligence reports, et al, if released would it not just provoke tensions leading to something serious? A possible serious war perhaps?
So, the ramifications don't seem nice at all regarding this. Of course, it all depends on what it contains. It could even just be a stir to see how the government would react to such sensitive info, and merely containing useless garbage.
Originally posted by Snarf
Amazing how ALL YOU people support this type of non sense.
The idiot founder of Wikileaks ADMITS TO THE FACT that he manipulates data in order to further his political agenda.
HE ADMITS TO IT
Yet, you're still there to coddle his ego and stroke his pride.
Pathetic. It really is, especially when you consider all of you people consider yourselves to be smart and intellectual....skeptics and believers.
Yet you fall for a guy who is OPENLY admitting that HE LIES TO YOU
Originally posted by Hudson
You should be suspicious, seeing as how this guy has purposely mislead many of you. I'll never trust this guy ever since he released that video of an Apache engaging armed insurgents and claiming it was "collateral murder".
The guy clearly has an agendas and doesn't mind lying to advance it.
Originally posted by 01codebreaker
reply to post by ExPostFacto
Today I read a news article on the code to open the insurance. you have found the web page on Wikileaks?
thanks
italian page:
dirittooblio.blogspot.com...
BERLIN — The online whistle-blower WikiLeaks said it will continue to publish more secret files from governments around the world despite U.S. demands to cancel plans to release classified military documents.
"I can assure you that we will keep publishing documents — that's what we do," a WikiLeaks spokesman, who says he goes by the name Daniel Schmitt in order to protect his identity, told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday.
Originally posted by Snarf
Amazing how ALL YOU people support this type of non sense.
The idiot founder of Wikileaks ADMITS TO THE FACT that he manipulates data in order to further his political agenda.
HE ADMITS TO IT
Yet, you're still there to coddle his ego and stroke his pride.
Pathetic. It really is, especially when you consider all of you people consider yourselves to be smart and intellectual....skeptics and believers.
Yet you fall for a guy who is OPENLY admitting that HE LIES TO YOU
Originally posted by JohnySeagull
Originally posted by 01codebreaker
reply to post by ExPostFacto
Today I read a news article on the code to open the insurance. you have found the web page on Wikileaks?
thanks
italian page:
dirittooblio.blogspot.com...
u might translate this?
Segnalazioni sul codice più ricercato in rete per ottenere il contenuto di Insurance.
La prima segnalazione riguarda una pagina web che sembra attualmente non raggiungibile:
hxxp://www.__._/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010/code_insurance_aes_256/
Prima di inviare segnalazioni in merito, scivi a:
01codebreaker[@]gmail.com
These are reports on the internet`s most wanted code to obtain the "Insurance" content.
The first report refer to a web page currently unavailable:
hxxp://www.__._/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010/code_insurance_aes_256/
In order to send your reports on this subject, please write to:
01codebreaker[@]gmail.com