The New York Times reports (and Yahoo! News repeats without any paywall) that the government of Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell $750 billion in treasury securities and other unidentified assets if Congress passes the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The bill would allow foreign governments to be sued by 9/11 victims and their families. The threat was issued by Saudi Arabian foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir to unnamed US lawmakers while he was visiting Washington sometime last month, on the grounds that these assets could be in danger of being frozen by US courts.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:04AM
The towers were too costly to keep renovating since they had asbestos. ((Silverstein)), who purchased the WTC property just before 9/11, couldn't demolish the towers legally because it would be too expensive due to the asbestos. This is why he agreed to allow the building to be used in the PSYOP to manufacture consent for war. [conspiracy-watch.org] ((Silverstein)) took out an insurance policy that covered terrorist attacks. He was awarded over $2 billion in damages due to the 9/11 "attack", which more than covered his investment, but he sued the insurance company because there were TWO terrorist attacks on his property (one for each plane)... And he won, thus more than doubled his investment via a payout of over $4.5 billion.
It's far more likely that it was an inside job coordinated with US covert ops and the Israeli Mossad along with other Jews like Silverstein. So, of course you can see why Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia would be pissed when the rent seeking legal shakedown comes to town when everyone with half a brain knows it wasn't remotely their fault.
Would you like to know more? [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:03AM
wrong, 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy.
(Score: 3, Touché) by shortscreen on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:57AM
Not a conspiracy? You mean the hijackers just spontaneously sprang into action without any prior coordination?
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by HiThere on Sunday April 17 2016, @03:56PM
Saying is wasn't a conspiracy is mind-blowingly stupid. Arguing about what kind of conspiracy it was is wasting time due to lack of and concealed evidence.
There is considerable evidence that the FBI knew that SOMETHING was about to happen. How much they knew is not determinable. There is dubious evidence that the towers were sabotaged. The wreckage was hauled away before being analysed in situ, so you aren't going to be able to prove anything either way. Etc.
The government has a long history of hiding the evidence and making arguments that are somewhere between inconclusive and fraudulent. Did Oswald shoot Kennedy? The evidence is inconclusive. Was the Twin-Towers an inside job? The evidence is inconclusive.
You get your choice of whether the government is incompetent, corrupt, or both. But do remember the government is not a unitary entity. That one section is incompetent or corrupt doesn't prove anything about some other section.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.