Human beings aren’t made to withstand much of anything, but some of them survived the collapse more or less intact. Kind of gross and creepy to think about but still true.
The one I own is one of these.
I still have to question the fact that the silver in the vault belongs to the first person that found it. What right does this company have to it?
That’s what I want to know. There are well-established standards when it comes to salvaging at sea; as i understand it, if your ship goes down carrying the modern-day equivalent of a treasure chest full of gold doubloons, and I go to the wreck and risk my booty to bring up the booty, then I am entitled to a reward but not necessarily the doubloons. Why would it be different here?
If my house burned down, and you went in and found my unharmed flat screen TV (assuming I had one), would you get to keep it?
I don’t see how copyrights enter into it. Wouldn’t you want some kind of certification?
I found this discussion on a coin forum which might shed some light on how the contents of a government vault made it to the open market. The first reply has a link to another discussion that may be of interest too. This is related to the coins that I mentioned, not the OP coins, but it’s still related to the vaults.
I don’t see anything to indicate that the contents of the vaults were loaded on Brinks trucks and sent to Collectors Universe. More likely, it was sent to the rightful owner and CU got the coins from them either from buying them or making a deal to help release them, it’s not entirely clear.
If the coins from the OP are truly from the WTC, they probably followed the same route. The metals probably went to the rightful owner and later made it to market somehow. There probably was no “finders keepers” going on at WTC.
I don’t know who said that it was a finders-keepers situation. Perhaps Collectors Universe Inc had an outstanding agreement to purchase the coins as soon as they were recovered? (I mean it’s not like it was a surprise that they came across those coins; presumably the vault owner had an inventory and knew what they expected to find.)
This would be the correct answer.
Since Jews control all the money, and since the Jews orchestrated 9-11, they simply removed all the money BEFORE the attacks 
Fubaya, thanks for the link–very helpful, especially this post:
“They didn’t actually come from the towers, from what I understand they were located in the Comex vaults at 4 or 5 WTC, which were the short black buildings on the east side of the complex, just across from the old church. The buildings were destroyed for the most part, but the vaults withstood the destruction relatively unscathed, and these coins survived undamaged. So someone got a marketing idea to sell them as WTC coins, which most people find in poor taste, but there’s a market for everything I guess.”
Even though those coins aren’t the ones in the OP, it would sure explain a lot if the silver in the OP coins were recovered from 4 or 5 WTC. I guess like most people, when I hear “World Trade Center,” I think of 1 and 2, not the other five buildings.
Still hoping nobody buys 'em, but at least I have a better idea of what lies behind the whole scam.
The encapsulation itself contains certification by PCGS. Here’s the obverse and reverse. The light area on the reverse is a hologram.
That doesn’t really explain why copyright was mentioned.
I don’t know, but I call dibs. 
And yes, I’ve seen the ads. I don’t find it just tacky – but beyond tasteless. Ugh. Let’s commerate of greatest tragedies in U.S. history – by taking materials from the site of said tragedy and turning it into tacky souveniors!!!
I didn’t really understand your question. I mentioned it here because it was mentioned on the page I linked to yesterday. I think it’s mentioned there to illustrate that the inserts can’t be duplicated because they’re copyrighted, thus no other company could get regular coins and stick the same insert in their packaging and claim them to be WTC coins. Does that answer the question?
No, that doesn’t really make sense. Whether there is some kind of insert that includes copyrighted work included with the coin has no bearing on whether they are genuine. Other coins might be genuine or not, but copyright has nothing to do with it.
Right, but I don’t think they’re claiming the insert has anything to do with certifying them as genuine. It just shows that the coins belong to the group released by that company. This company claims to have a chain of custody proving their particular set of coins as genuine. Someone else can release other genuine coins, but they’re on their own as far as proving them to be real. They can’t claim they were part of the coin lot released by this company because they would have to duplicate the copyrighted insert.
That’s how it reads to me. I’m not much of a coin guy.
This company doesn’t seem to know what copyright law is for. What they seem to be trying to do is to find a way to indicate the origin of their goods, and related characteristics such as quality or authenticity. That’s what trademark law is for. It’s silly to claim that the inclusion of a copyrighted document somehow helps them establish authenticity or origin. All they need is a trademark, which very often is nothing more than the name of the company.
Here’s Anderson Cooper on the 9-11 coins: Video News - CNN
Next, you’ll be telling us that the International Star Registry volumes “registered with the US Copyright Office” have no more validity than if the original proof had been used to prop up a short table in the scammer’s – er, entrepreneur’s – office. 