See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Insurance giant withdraws 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia
Source:
Daily Mail (UK)
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 22, 2011
Author: Daily Mail Reporter
Post Date: 2011-09-22 03:29:19 by Original_Intent
Ping List: *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE* Subscribe to *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*
Keywords: 911, PsyOps, spin, bogus
Views: 245
Comments: 8
Insurance giant withdraws 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia
Last updated at 8:37 PM on 21st September 2011
An insurance firm has withdrawn its lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, which had claimed the country funded the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
A division of Lloyd's of London had filed documents in a U.S. court
on September 8 demanding the return of $215million compensation it paid victims. Lawsuit: The headquarters of Lloyd's of London
Attorney Stephen Cozen of law firm Cozen O'Connor, which represents Lloyd's, told Insurance Journal that he cannot comment on why Lloyd’s decided to drop the case less than two weeks after filing the complaint.
Mr Cozen told the journal: 'We were instructed to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice. That of course means that the suit is free to be refiled and certainly similar suits may be filed by others.'
Disaster: Legal documents had been filed in Johnston, near where the United 93 jet crashed after being hijacked by 9/11 terrorists
POSTER COMMENT: It seems that the lawsuit came up just in time for the 911 tenth anniversary and went away as soon as it was no longer needed for Propaganda Effect.
Lloyd's is voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit 'without prejudice,' meaning the motion seeks to close the case without precluding the possibility of renewal at a later date, the court clerk's office said.
The lawsuit - filed in Johnston, Pennsylvania, where United Airlines flight 93 crashed on 9/11, named nine defendants, including a leading member of the oil-rich state's royal family.
Saudi Arabia has always denied claims that Osama bin Laden's organisation received official financial and practical support from his homeland.
Subscribe to *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz, Shoonra, All (#0)
Ping.
If the lawsuit was not a propaganda ploy and was followed through it would be next to impossible to avoid bringing in Israel's role in 9/11 so Organized Jewry may well have leaned on Lloyds. Also, there's the possibility there were no Saudis on the planes at all. The planes may have been programmed irreversibly on auto pilot to home in on targets, the auto cut in taking effect sometime after take off. Would explain reports from some of the alleged hijackers that they were still alive.
My best guess is that Flight 93 was the exception. The auto control system cut in and someone on board was savvy enough to find it and disconnect/disable it. Since a plane load of living passengers that could testify that there were no Arabs with "boxcutters", and a flight crew that would testify the plane was taken over, would have blown the entire cover story higher than WTC 7 they could not be allowed to live. So, the plane was shot down. That there was a debris field spread over at least 8 miles, and there was some very heavy stuff out at the 8 mile mark that could not be accounted for by the plane into ground impact where everything else was pulverized, it supports the plane shot down theory. There are other data points as well so at this point some version or variation of what I mentioned above is, I believe, the case.
Anyone recall if at anytime there was pilot communication (after takeoff) between the "doomed" planes and ground? Might indicate a programmed disabling of radio as well.
Indicates some sort of out-of-court negotiation, presumably between the insurance company and the Saudis (if not the official Saudi govt, then the royal Saudis or some other really bigshot Saudis), possibly to avert further investigation and/or publicity about the lawsuit. This negotiation may have involved huge sums of money being paid, not necessarily to the insurance company but to the individuals who were running the lawsuit ... or maybe instead of money some sort of threats of personal violence.
Speculation. The data is that the suit was withdrawn without prejudice. While I am not above speculation or drawing inferences from circumstance I don't see anything in evidence to either prove or disprove your contention. While your suggestion is certainly possible, it is equally possible that there was a decision made not to go forward with a lawsuit for which the plaintiffs could provide no substantive support.
No data really. I do know that the flight controllers were put under a gag order and all of the tapes of conversations with the controllers were put under lock and key or in one case destroyed - which leads me to suspect that there is something there which could lay the lie to the official story. However, data insufficient to say exactly what.
#2. To: Original_Intent (#0)
(Edited)
Disaster: Legal documents had been filed in Johnston, near where
the United 93 jet crashed after being hijacked by 9/11 terrorists
Flight 93 crater supposedly made by a plane.
NOTE: Absence of plane. 
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#3. To: Original_Intent (#1)
#4. To: Tatarewicz, wudidiz (#3)
#5. To: Original_Intent (#4)
#6. To: Original_Intent (#0)
#7. To: Shoonra (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: Tatarewicz (#5)
Anyone recall if at anytime there was pilot communication (after takeoff) between the "doomed" planes and ground? Might indicate a programmed disabling of radio as well.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest