I am not in whole-hearted agreement with some of the positions Glenn Beck has taken this primary season, but I think he has really tapped into something that has largely gone unreported. Why would a candidate (Ron Paul) who claims to be against big government and the NWO be working with Barney Frank and George Soros?!
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
Twitter Feed
- #ObamaInHistory - remembered as a Prez with a massive ego &insatiable need 4 compliments, as is evidenced by his obnoxious twitter promos 6 days ago
Please explain to me why Larry Silverstein, the guy who owned the World Trade Center in the 90′s, SPECIFICALLY put the clause of [paraphrasing] in the event of a terrorist attack with airplanes crashing into the buildings BEFORE 9/11 happened? Furthermore, he paid hundreds of millions of dollars for it and after the plane crashes — which I must emphasize no one have ever been done before anywhere in a non-war time event so how did he decide to suddenly put this clause into his insurance contact??? — he profited multiple billions of dollars.
Probably because Rick Rescorla (the guy who predicted 9/11) had warned numerous times that this was how the terrorists would strike. Seeing as how he predicted and then witnessed the first attack on the World Trade Center, his warnings were taken very seriously. His story has been very well documented (the most famous being the History Channel’s The Man Who Predicted 9/11) and is not in dispute. The insurance controversy you are speaking of is grossly distorted. Larry Silverstein has never been questioned for protecting his asset from an air attack for the aforementioned reasons. When a security adviser who was ignored before and proved to be correct advises, one would do well to listen. The controversy surrounding his claim came about when he tried to receive double payment because he believed that each plane that hit constituted a separate claim. The court agreed with the provider that it could only be claimed as a single event. That was the only aspect of his claim that was ever called into question.