The Great 9/11 Insurance Bonanza
#1
Gene Cappa
OpEd News http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypag...6-353.html
March 26, 2010

“An Insurance Policy that had been set up for the WTC Complex only weeks before the Twin Towers went down” says Investigative Journalist Laurence De Mello.

Larry Silverstein – “The Harder I Worked The Luckier I Became”

De Mello continues, “In 1980, Jewish real estate tycoon Silverstein, won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center to the north of the WTC. Building 7 World Trade Center was situated above a (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints.”

When the building first opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building.

But this building was also losing money. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. (he had waited over 20 years for this!).

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was initially outbid by $50 million by Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties with Vornado Realty, who were also competing for the lease”. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial lease applicant and the Port Authority fell through, Silverstein signed the lease on July 24, 2001, only weeks (48 days) before the towers were destroyed on 11th September of the same year.

Larry Silverstein had acquired what was considered a very expensive ”white elephant”. Here comes a Red Flag; After Silverstein closed his deal he stated; “This is a dream come true,” “We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights.” Yet this was a comment that was meant to make the public think this was a good investment. He didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that he was buying the dead asset which the WTC was immediately before 9/11. Why ? Because he already knew what was going to happen!
This was written in “‘Business week” with regard to the WTC before 9/11. From an economic standpoint, the Trade Center — subsidized since its inception — has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.

The Port Authority had made several attempts over the years to get the permits required to demolish the entire site but were always refused because of the “asbestos problem” and the serious danger that “asbestos” would cause to the local community should the buildings be “demolished” in the conventional manner.


His only consent to get around that risk to health was that the building could be literally dismantled “‘floor by floor”, which could never have been a viable operation. Other New York developers had apparently been driven to bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations and the prospect of $200 million to plug those losses, which represented an entire year’s worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers at full rental capacity.

So even after Larry Silverstein’s multi billion dollar acquisition in July of 2001 the Towers still required further funds of some $200 million in renovations and improvements to make the buildings rentable. Most of the 200 million renovation funds related to the removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

Here we see a Red Flag; Where would that money have come from if Silverstein already had to invest 14 million of his own money to close the deal? This 14 million of Silverstein’s personal funds being used in the deal tells us there was no more investors money available when he bought the lease in July 2002, so how would Silverstein have found another 200 million dollars to bring the WTC up to the standard for it to start to pay its own way?

Red Flag; One has to ask why would the biggest real estate developer in the USA acquire a group of buildings that were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per month? Especially as this new lease did not give him the right to redevelop the WTC site to make it a viable investment.

Now here’s the interesting clause to the 99 year lease that was “‘turning Silverstein on”; although Silverstein was not permitted to redevelop the site, HE DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES SHOULD THEY BE DESTROYED.

Now remember, Silverstein invested not only 3.2 billion dollars of other people’s money into the deal, but also 14 million dollars of his own money! Now that’s a very unusual investment step to take by a real estate genius, putting all that money into a site that was continuously a monumental financial loss.

A site that can never be developed in a way that was financially feasible! How does one justify that move to ones 3.2 billion dollar investors? I would love to have seen the Business Plan for that! We should certainly ask for those!

After closing the WTC deal in late July 2001, Silverstein immediately insured his “‘white elephant” buildings. The insurance coverage on the property ‘fortuitously’ covered acts of terrorism.

And more curiously, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein’s view, separate attacks.

The total potential payout was $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

From Forbes.com 6th Dec 2004, “A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes”.

The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. “That means Silverstein got his buildings demolished in hours, he gets his insurance payments giving him 1.3 billion dollars more than he paid for the WTC 99 year lease, he gets free rein to build a state of the art, healthy, cost effective complex in the centre of Manhatten.

And all only 48 days after he signed the contracts! No wonder he used his own 14 million dollars, he KNEW he was getting it back!

Here we also start to think, hold on, if so many BIG people knew that the buildings were not permitted to be demolished due to health risks from asbestos, why were the locals told the air was “safe to breath” immediately after the 9/11 collapse?

The Port authority had applied for years for permits and had been refused yet they lied saying the air was safe. Why?

Then we have those famous words of Silvestein days after the 9/11 horror, “I remember getting a call from the, uh, Fire Department Commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh…and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” ~ Larry Silverstein, owner of New York’s World Trade Center Building 7, which was demolished on 9/11/2001.

So they just pulled it, in just a couple of hours, just like that!

Hhmmm, go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our very qualified friends will tell you just how many weeks of planning it takes to just “pull it”.

Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=9894
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/transpare...um=oen9894

I've read abit about this before but this is a damn good article.
#2
so larry did the deed?
#3
(04-01-2010, 07:13 PM)billy Wrote:  so larry did the deed?
Personally I don't think so. But it looks like he knew about the towers comming down a long time before the rest of the world watched it happen on the main stream media.
#4
and no one else with the wherewithal knew?

if no renovations were allowed how did they plant the xplosives?
cos if they didn't plant explosives it must have been the plane that brought the towers down.
#5
(04-01-2010, 07:22 PM)billy Wrote:  and no one else with the wherewithal knew?

if no renovations were allowed how did they plant the xplosives?
cos if they didn't plant explosives it must have been the plane that brought the towers down.

You may want to read a bit more, lol. The planes? Thats been fully written of as bling bling and no plane hit WTC7.
#6
(04-01-2010, 07:25 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  
(04-01-2010, 07:22 PM)billy Wrote:  and no one else with the wherewithal knew?

if no renovations were allowed how did they plant the xplosives?
cos if they didn't plant explosives it must have been the plane that brought the towers down.
You may want to read a bit more, lol. The planes? Thats been fully written of as bling bling and no plane hit WTC7.
yes but it says that no renovation was allowed because of the asbestos.
and that it would cost 200 mil.
so how did they bring the towers down. with feng shui?

some how i cant see cnn or any other station showing something that didnt happen. i'd say it happend. first one then another. unless of course all those people on the ground who saw them hit were lying. those people who were there. the ones looking up after the first loud bang.

as for being fully written off. no it hasn't some people has said it didnt happen. that's not proof. a video saying it never hit isn't proof.

a guy standing in the street saying look at that fucking plane as the camera shows it hitting the tower, now thats proof. and there was much more than one.
#7
What do you mean by "yes but" lol. WTC7 was not hit by a plane. It was brought down into it's own foot print by nanothermite. I more than likely spelled that wrong but I'll take a chance on it. This is a fact and the evidence has actually been published in science journals using the material found all over the city. The pulverized concrete dust that settled inches deep all over the place.
The fact that the debree was being hauled away by the truck load was nothing out of the ordinary considering the circumstance. What was not know at the time was that it was being destroyed as fast as it could be hauled away. This is contrary to what is know to be standard practice in a crime scene location. Yes it must have taken some time to set up the buildings to be collapsed into their own footprint and it must have been very hard to do without being seen. Thats the very reason that one would think that a full investigation of the crime seen would be carried out. If it was that hard to do we need to know how the hell they did it. Make no mistake, WTC7 was a controlled pull using nanothermite and the same was found to be true of the other 2 towers.
The science for this finding does not suggest it, it says it is the only possibility from the results of the forensic evidence.
Please forgive my spelling.
#8
i've still yet to see proof. all the vids i've seen don't show a single shred.
i find it hard to believe the twin towers were set up with explosives and no one saw any of it.
the amont needed would have been astronomical.
#9
(04-01-2010, 08:51 PM)billy Wrote:  i've still yet to see proof. all the vids i've seen don't show a single shred.
i find it hard to believe the twin towers were set up with explosives and no one saw any of it.
the amont needed would have been astronomical.

Then you did not watch the ones I put up. Bill, it's past the point of argument, the evidence has been found and proven through science. The how they did it will of course be found out now that there is no question that nanothermite was used to bring down all three WTC buildings. The amounts that were needed I personally don't know but what I do know is that the stuff is so top secret that the rest of the world did not even know it existed till a short time ago. This stuff is classed as an exotic explosive in the extreme. It was developed by the USA and no one else could have had access to it at the time or prior.
#10
it isnt passed point of argument. a few people made a few videos.

shome one main stream news channel besides fox that don't think the twin towers were brought down by planes.

opinions i can accept. non existent facts i can't

as for the evidence found and proven, again, show me some main stream to back up the claims.

sorry but for me it's still the planes that did the deed.
#11
(04-01-2010, 09:35 PM)billy Wrote:  it isnt passed point of argument. a few people made a few videos.

shome one main stream news channel besides fox that don't think the twin towers were brought down by planes.

opinions i can accept. non existent facts i can't

as for the evidence found and proven, again, show me some main stream to back up the claims.

sorry but for me it's still the planes that did the deed.

Thats OK Bill, your in the minority but there is always hope for those. There has been a mainstream blackout that is shortly going to explode into a mainstream frenzy. Of course you will need to turn your tele on for that. At that point you can then say it's mainstream media paid for by the elite and you don't believe a word of it.
There are still lots of those big birds out there with their heads stuck in the sand, lol, what are they called again?
The planes, yes thats a certainty, for sure, hell yes, two planes brought down all three of the world trade center buildings at free fall speeds straight down into their own footprints on the same day within hours of each other. How could I have missed it. The official conspiracy theory has been debunked by top phd's in the field. Have a look at the evidence.
Further more this fellow knew about it in advance and made a fortune from the insurance.
#12
again benny

i'm not in the minority show me some real proof that says i am.

heres the only source i'm posting to me it makes perfect sense.

much more sense than the videos i've seen from those who say it was brought down by some undercover operation.

what i find funny is that a while ago the towers were brought down one way by certain people, now this guy was seen to take out some insurance on what was his property under lease it's all changed and he's the major player.

anyway, this is the story i believe in and have yet to see disproved;

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.

What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.

Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.
#13
(04-01-2010, 09:55 PM)billy Wrote:  again benny

i'm not in the minority show me some real proof that says i am.

heres the only source i'm posting to me it makes perfect sense.

much more sense than the videos i've seen from those who say it was brought down by some undercover operation.

what i find funny is that a while ago the towers were brought down one way by certain people, now this guy was seen to take out some insurance on what was his property under lease it's all changed and he's the major player.

anyway, this is the story i believe in and have yet to see disproved;

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.

What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.

Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.

Every statement you made there has been proven to be false. Most of it out right lies. You really need to stop with all the "everything that I have seen" business. It is very obvious to me that you have seen none of the documented evidence released in the past 30 days. What your stating is very old and already proven false material.




Users browsing this thread:
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!