why did they blow up the WTC buildings?

[LoTec]

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, ..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 2001, 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!



Hmmm, 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''.

[PALEHORSE]

[NYsentinel]

If Osama Bin Laden walked into the[Brooklyn Public] library I'm convinced that Ginnie and friends would not call the police. They would be more concerned about his intellectual freedom. The best one word description I heard describing her[Ginnie Cooper]: COMPULSIVE. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **Posted by: former BPL employee | June 17, 2006 9:36 AM

What Lucy Gertner had to say is real cause for alarm. When I was there, there was a particular librarian with multiple offenses. At the Clinton Hill branch, he had a fight with a supervisor using expletives and was transferred to the Flatlands branch. There he had another fight with his supervisor and also maliciously ran up a co-workers credit card when she left her computer for a moment. He also praised the 9/11 attacks. He was then transferred to another branch where, after about a year, he harassed a Kingsborough Community College employee using the library's phone. As a constant repeat offender, he only received a 5 day suspension and transfer to the Highlawn branch for this. It's a real outrage that Lucy was given an 8 day suspension for simply trying to protect a collection. This shows what abominants that Cooper, Kinney, Jennings, and the rest of the Grand Army Plaza 3rd floor vermin are. Also, there was a popular, well-liked Training Manager who was called up to serve in Iraq. Cooper knifed him in the back while he was serving and eliminated his position. *****Posted by: Concerned | June 23, 2006 10:06 AM

Janet Kinney and Ginnie Cooper were responsible for the lack of security in the library. We attended a meeting on our Unattended Child Policy and we were told that if we saw a seven year old child in the library wondering on his own during school hours we should not ask the child why he is there because that child might be home schooled. In my years of working in the library I have never, been told such crap. New York City has laws about truant, children, not to mention child welfare laws. I could not believe what I was hearing. Thought what they were saying was not in our policy the head of security along with several others in charge were telling us to condone this nonsense. Security officers were asked to allow unruly child to stay in the library and disrupt the library. Since the new heads of security has taken over security there has been no security. Our best officers have quit or have been fired for ridiculous things like taking sick days that are legally given to them under our city contract and union laws. The library has gotten wilder and though the patrons complained and Janet Kinney and Ginnie Cooper did nothing. The staff was asked to attend a mandatory workshop called "Creating Safer Libraries. In this workshop we were basically being trained to handle issues that would normally be handled by security. One colleague followed the Creating Safer Libraries procedure and got her finger cut off, and administration told her it was her own fault.**Guess what we are not a security guards, babysitter or social workers, we are libraries. *I hope that our Board of Trustees learns from their mistakes. And I pray that Washington puts their foot down and doesn't allow Ginnie Cooper to disrespect you like she did Brooklyn. * *Posted by: Soon to be a former BPLer | June 30, 2006 5:37

I'd just also like mention that a few years ago, not long after Sept. 11 there was an incident at a branch library when a customer asked reference staff probing questions about Pres. Bush's parade route (he was visiting New York). The staff were concerned and called Security who then called the police. The individual was arrested and taken in for questioning and later released. Ginnie was upset about this and later developed Intellectual Freedom Training for the entire staff. Among the items covered was public computers and accessing pornography. Many of us were disturbed by the outcome: BPL instructed us to allow patrons to access pornography; according to them it was their intellectual right. When we asked about children accessing pornography we were told to discourage it but that we shouldn't actually tell them they couldn't access it via the internet. That was also (to their way of thinking) their right, even though they were underage. Since then library computers have been filtered but it is still not impossible to do pornography. People even send it to themselves via email. If Ginnie feels that pornography is o.k. in a library setting, then why not just order XXX DVDs. By not ordering them you are censoring according to their philosophy. I know that most patrons, esp. parents do not think like this. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **Posted by: former BPL employee | June 3, 2006 9:55 AM

(Paul Isaac Jr-NYsentinel at Large)

[Heavy-Mental]

is this really KTL?? lol Why are you sheep still here rambling about 911?? All of these agent movies about the towers are self evident that they contain an agenda only, and no real truth.

Look at how the masses fiene in circles about 911, watching 18 hour long jewtube videos. Yapping in circles gaining confusion about 911 and the elite. Reaching nothing but headaches and long pointless discussions on the web. clutter jibber of information present in the agent films providing smoke and blur.

This is why the videos exist on the net. cause they are all cia created agendas redirecting your path to truth knowledge.