- A Memorial to the millions of innocents who died and
will die as a result of September 11, 2001.
-
- "Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops
entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. This
is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat
from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence."
Henry Kissinger, 1991.
-
- "I can think of no faster way to unite the American
people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target
overseas." Henry Kissinger, 2000.
-
- "September Eleven was good for Israel" (Benjamin
Netanyahu)
-
- Do the following quotes from news reports on the internet,
limn a cabal so evil, so dreadful that--"The individual is handicapped
by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe
it exists."-- J. Edgar Hoover. And it rules Washington absolutely!
-
- The Principals
-
- Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman
Sachs partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the
Lessor. Larry Silverstein, New York developer and friend of Netanyahu (every
Sunday Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the
Lessee. (Italics added.)
-
- In April 2001 Silverstein was informed he had lost his
bid in the privatization of the World Trade Center ("WTC"). Then
events took a surprising turn. The winner dropped out, leaving Silverstein
and his partners, who had finished second, as the new winner.
-
- The Lease
-
- The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for
$3.2 billion on July 24, 2001. Silverstein put up $125 million, only $14
million his own money. The net lease covers four buildings at the World
Trade Center, including the Twin Towers and the retail Mall. It may have
been one of the most elaborate deals in the leasing history of New York
City.
-
- The speed with which this painstakingly complex deal
was closed is notable. "There are a million items that need to be
dealt with", said Marc Schauer, of NAI Lawrence, a leasing firm. The
entire negotiation period--from start to finish--lasted only a few [3]
months, a relatively swift duration in the world of colossal lease transactions
especially with a governmental entity. [This frantic rush to close [for
possession] by some deadline was the principal cause of the litigation
to follow. Why the rush?]
-
- The Property
-
- Chairman Eisenberg said, "The Port Authority and
the region both benefit from this transaction." PA Executive Director
Neil Levin said, "It was this excellent record of managing the complex
that now allows the Port Authority to realize the enhanced value of the
complex." Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized
asset and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."
[Was that, "raising" or "razing"?]
-
- But from an economic standpoint, the trade center --
subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended
to function, unprotected in the real estate marketplace. It would cost
$800 million just to upgrade the electrical, electronic, and cooling systems.
-
- And it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.
Plans were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because
of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems.
Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively
expensive. The only reason the building was still standing on 9/11 was
it was too costly to disassemble floor by floor. There is a persistent
report on the internet that either the state of New York or the EPA had
ordered the dismantling of the WTC. And dismantling the WTC would not result
in the recovery of insurance proceeds since it would not be a casualty.
-
- Why would Silverstein, a knowledgeable real estate developer,
pay millions of dollars to get control of a building that was uneconomic,
was an environmental basket case, and had serious corrosion problems? Many
New York developers had gone bankrupt complying with mandated renovations.
-
- But all of Lucky Larry's problems disappeared on Sept.
11, 2001. Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount
of the policy, based on two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The
total potential payout is $7.1 bn., more than enough to build a fabulous
new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including
Larry Silverstein himself. Lucky Larry would also miss his usual breakfast
at the Windows on the World restaurant on the 107th floor of the North
Tower and survive that fateful day together with 3,999 of 4,000 Israelis
who normally were in the WTC, a statistical anomaly of huge proportions).
-
- The Insurance
-
- The story of the Silverstein insurance program, assembled
in the summer of 2001, is so far-fetched that any law professor who dreamed
it up would be laughed out of the classroom. Silverstein hired Willis Group
Holdings Ltd. to find enough coverage to satisfy his lenders. Willis is
a giant insurance broker, specializing in coverage for big commercial properties.
Silverstein's lenders insisted on first $2.3 bn. then right before the
lease deal closed, $3.55 bn. Willis scrambled to place the insurance, ultimately
to 25 carriers. Negotiations were frenetic.
-
- Willis hustled in June and July, contacting carriers
in the United States, Europe and Bermuda to place coverage. Willis distributed
a sample policy that Willis had developed, the Wilprop form. This form
included a specific definition of "occurrence" under which the
destruction of the WTC was plainly, a single occurrence. But Willis later
testified that it considered it's form a starting point for negotiations
after the closing.
-
- On July 24, 2001, Silverstein closed with only binders,
slips of coverage and certificates of insurance totaling $3.5 bn. from
his insurers ["slips" are binders in Europe]. According to federal
Judge Martin, "The New York Court of Appeals has made clear that when
a binder is signed, "the contract of insurance is closed and the binder
is in effect the same as a regular insurance policy." Swiss Re [a
major insurer] asserts that the language used in the binders that it and
21 other insurers signed was the "WilProp" form under which the
attack on the WTC is unambiguously a single occurrence.
-
- But Travelers Insurance [CEO Sanford Weill] had a major
role to play in the total insurance picture for the WTC. It insisted on
using its own form, which did not specifically define "occurrence";
however, its form was not present at closing. Willis needed Travelers to
stay in the deal and promised to substitute the Travelers policy after
the closing. Only one formal policy was in effect on September 11, 2001.
-
- The developer has often repeated that he would need at
least $7 bn. to rebuild the WTC site. But Silverstein chose to insure the
entire property for $3.55 bn., half of its true replacement value, to save
premiums and declared the full replacement cost for insurance purposes
as $3.945 bn. to avoid co-insurance. [Shouldn't this make him a co-insurer
under insurance law, sharing half the cost of damages, exactly the reverse
of double indemnity?]
-
- The Dispute
-
- Contrary to the express understanding of insurance professionals,
Silverstein trumpets at every opportunity that the attack on the WTC was
two separate occurrences." Barry Ostrager, an insurer's attorney,
weighed in with, "Silverstein's elaborate two-occurrence argument
is a hoax. We believe we have established that the Silverstein case is
a fiction conceived by lawyers and public relations advisors after Sept.
11, 2001."
-
- Silverstein and Willis now say that all of the insurance
companies agreed to and should be held to the terms of the Travelers policy
which did not define "occurrence". Swiss Re and a host of other
carriers notified Willis that they'd bound coverage on the basis of the
WilProp form, and had never agreed to substitute the Travelers form at
all. Most of the carriers deny that anyone from Willis ever told them Travelers
was replacing WilProp; many said that the first they'd heard of it was
after Sept. 11.
-
- When Willis' Boyd called their London office after Sept.
11, he said, according to the notes of one, "In their opinion this
is one occurrence." Another broker said something similar to Swiss
Re's Bollier. Silverstein's own risk manager hurriedly faxed a copy of
portions of the WilProp form to a lawyer for the PA with a cover note:
"FYI the 'occurrence' definition and the insuring agreement and the
exclusions in the Willis policy that we are working with." Several
hours later he sent the same materials to one of Silverstein's lenders.
-
- Building No. 7
-
- WTC 7 occupied a city block north of the WTC complex.
Silverstein's estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. FEMA concluded
that the collapse of WTC 7 was a direct result of fires triggered by debris
from the collapse of WTC Tower 1 which resulted in a payout of nearly $861
million or a profit of about $500 million to Silverstein. Buildings a lot
closer to the Twin Towers strangely remained upright.*
-
- Silverstein stated in a PBS documentary that he and the
FDNY decided to demolish WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001.
And the building quickly fell into its own basement. [How did the FDNY
know that WTC 7 was prepared for demolition? Did Silverstein? This requires
weeks of careful preparation by demolition experts.] Senator John Kerry
stated that, WTC 7 was brought down as a result of a controlled demolition,
directly contradicting FEMA. So WTC 7 was "pulled" by a controlled
demolition, meaning that the FEMA version of what happened is false, casting
serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of foreign origin destroyed
the WTC as well as on the rest of the official account of 9/11 [and today
disbelieved by most Americans and the rest of the world].
-
- The OEM crisis center in WTC 7 has been identified on
the internet as the control center for the pre-planned demolition of the
WTC. The center and all of the evidence was destroyed when the 47-story
tower was completely demolished. So, who decided to build the OEM crisis
center in WTC 7? "Jerry Hauer recommended it as the prime site"
Mr. Giuliani said. "It was largely on his recommendation that that
site was selected."
-
-
- The Attorneys
-
- On Sept. 13, two days after the towers fell, Silverstein
hired top legal gun Herbert Wachtell to defend him in the tangle of litigation
sure to come. It was Wachtell, according to Ostrager, who originated the
double indemnity theory of two ocurrences. Willis agreed that attorneys
John Gross, Eric Roth and Marc Wolinsky could come to New Jersey on Monday,
Sept. 17, to talk to the brokers. It was at these meetings that Ostrager
claimed that Wachtell exerted "fantastic pressure" on Willis
as the lawyers and brokers figured out what to tell the insurance market.
-
- Ostrager claimed repeatedly in the litigation that only
after Wachtell Lipton lawyers got involved did Willis witnesses convert
to the story that favors Silverstein. He later said they never meant to
suggest that Wachtell Lipton lawyers had suborned perjury, merely that
in hours of preparing Willis witnesses for deposition, Wachtell Lipton
had subtly shaped their recollections and perspectives. Silverstein's attorney,
Howard Rubenstein called the statements "a cynical and manipulative
attack on Silverstein and an attack on rebuilding lower Manhattan."
-
- Willis was represented at these meetings by Andrew Amer.
Amer, who presumably heard the Willis witnesses tell Silverstein's lawyers
that the Travelers policy governed the WTC coverage, declined to comment.
Gerson of Epstein Becker, the lawyer who replaced Amer soon after those
initial meetings rejects any suggestion that Willis witnesses were coerced
at the Sept. 17 meeting with Wachtell Lipton lawyers.
-
- The Litigation
-
- In 2002, US District Judge Martin rejected the Silverstein
claim "that at the time the insurers signed the binders they were
well aware that they were committing to be bound to some future agreement"
and granted summary judgment in favor of three insurers who specifically
referred to the WilProp form in their binders. Two Bermudan insurance companies
also mentioned the WilProp form in their binders and paid only their policy
limits. Judge Martin seemed eager for the case to settle, and appointed
federal Judge Lewis Kaplan to oversee talks. Judge Martin retired and Judge
Mukasey took over.
-
- In May 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a jury decided, with
respect to 10 of the remaining insurers were bound by the Wilprop form
and only one occurrence had taken place and therefore were only obligated
for $2 bn. rather than $4 bn. The jury said that three others insurers
were bound by other forms and had to pay double on their claims. Thus,
by the Fall of 2004, about $2.4 or $2.5 bn. in insurance proceeds had been
awarded to Silverstein. The remaining claims were for either $1.1 or $2.2
bn.
-
- In December 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a second jury
held that the remaining nine insurers were not bound by the Wilprop form,
thus two occurrences had taken place, holding all nine insurers collectively
liable for $2.2 bn. By the dawn of 2005, then, $4.6 bn. was awarded in
insurance settlements. This is a far cry from what Silverstein wanted ($7
bn.), but much more than what many pundits thought he would recover ($3.55
bn.). Brooklyn-Queens Congressman Anthony Weiner vowed to punish the insurers
with fines or operating restrictions if they do not pay up. [The WTC is
in Manhattan.] Both sides appealed.
-
- [A judge can greatly influence a jury by regulating the
evidence they receive and the final instructions that guide their decision.
The second jury was obviously and totally confounded and overwhelmed by
the mass of conflicting evidence and the burden of having to reconstruct
the intent of the various parties years after the fact and very dependent
on Mukasey's "shepherding".]
-
- In October 2006, the Court of Appeals (Judge Walker)
in a 70 page opinion affirmed Judge Mukasey and wrote, "Judge Mukasey
did a masterful job shepherding this complex, hotly contested case through
both phases of a lengthy jury trial."
-
- Judge Walker opens his opinion with, "whether the
coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, whereby two jetliners
separately crashed into the WTC, destroying both buildings, constituted
one or two "occurrences" under...multiple insurance contracts."
And concludes with, "The jury had before it evidence that none of
the remaining nine insurers were bound to the WilProp form... their hours
limitation clauses did not specifically refer to losses caused by fire,
aircraft, or acts of terrorism...and the destruction of the WTC was caused
by separate fires, resulting from separate collisions by separate aircraft
into separate buildings."
-
- [Persuasive evidence was allowed from a Silverstein expert
as to trade customs in the insurance industry as well as testimony by a
Travelers executive as to other claims against Travelers which were treated
as separate occurrences. Reading this lengthy opinion, one is struck by
the absence of Weill's Travelers as the replacement insurer when the news
reports are filled with it.]
-
- Silverstein had spent about $100 million paying lawyers,
which critics said was an unconscionable siphoning of money that should
have been used for rebuilding but that $100 million produced an additional
$1.1 bn. And Silverstein made a huge profit. The Port Authority, after
Silverstein won the second case, quietly filed its own lawsuit seeking
double indemnity on its own insurance policy.
-
- More Litigation
-
- In 2005, Lloyd's of London filed a lawsuit against the
PA, claiming the agency's demands for $2.1 bn. in insurance money to rebuild
WTC are unreasonable. The PA has already received $950 million for damages
incurred on September 11. The PA and Silverstein are still pressed for
money to complete the reconstruction of the WTC and the PA wants to seek
damages for two events instead of one, making it eligible for about $1.5
bn. more in insurance money.
-
- In August 2006, seven insurers contended the new ownership
of the WTC did not affect their insurance obligations, arguing that the
insurers' obligations are intertwined with the litigation that has been
ongoing since 2002 . (The PA had taken back ownership of the $2 billion
Freedom Tower and Silverstein had assigned the insurance proceeds to the
PA to reduce rent payments.) But Judge Mukasey ruled that he lacks jurisdiction
to handle the latest lawsuit and sent it back to state court, where it
will be handled by Justice Herman Cahn.
-
- In 2007 Silverstein and seven insurance companies agreed
to a $2 billion settlement to end an almost six-year dispute over the insurance
policies covering the WTC. Governor Eliot Spitzer announced the settlement
at a news conference in lower Manhattan, 'The settlement will end all litigation
on the issue". Spitzer compared the insurance dispute to a Stanley
Cup playoff hockey series in which the two sides play a ``very hard match''
and ``at the end of the series they always shake hands and move on.'' [Forgetting
the thousands who died so horribly and were disposed of in a landfill.]
New York and PA officials said that the deal removed any uncertainty over
how much money would be available for rebuilding and would enable them
to obtain private financing for the $9 bn. project. "There's a high
level of cooperation," says Travelers counsel Harvey Kurzweil, who,
along with his partner Saul Morgenstern, has become a spokesman for the
other insurers. [Cynics comment the insurers' litigation was only intended
to shelter them from billions in claims by their own shareholders, participants,
re-insurers and excess insurers.]
-
- In 2003, Spitzer, then NY Attorney General, got involved
behind the scenes and in the courts, filing a amicus curiae ("friend
of the court") brief on Silverstein's behalf [after the Martin decision
in 2002]. The courts ended up agreeing with Spitzer and Silverstein. Spitzer
helped mid-wife a fat compromise and an eventual $4.5 billion payout for
Silverstein. Requests for comment from Governor Spitzer were ignored.
-
- But the money Silverstein is set to receive from his
insurers--$4.6 bn.--is not enough to reconstruct. So much of Silverstein's
insurance proceeds have already been spent, there is not enough money to
rebuild. The developer has often repeated that he would need at least $7
bn. to rebuild the WTC. Silverstein and the PA had spent more than $1.5
billion of the insurance money already, including more than $500 million
for Silverstein's rent to the PA; about $190 million for the PA to buy
out Westfield America's retail rights; and more than $700 million to repay
Silverstein's lender, GMAC, and to repay Silverstein and his partners most
of their equity.
-
- In another case, Judge Harold Baer of the U.S. District
Court rejected arguments by Silverstein that it should recover an additional
$700 million to make a rebuilt complex safe, modern and politically acceptable.
What's most noteworthy is that Judge Baer interpreted the policy language
as the insurers thought it was written.
-
- February 2008: The Port Authority lost its right to collect
insurance money on the destroyed Twin Towers and much of the WTC when it
leased the property two months before the 9/11 terror attacks. Federal
Judge Barbara Jones limited claims by the PA to buildings that weren't
leased to developer Larry Silverstein. The judge noted Silverstein had
his own insurance.
-
- March 2008: Larry Silverstein joined in a suit by the
Families of the Victims of 911 and is seeking $12.3 bn. in damages from
airlines and airport security companies. He filed the claim in 2004, saying
the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists
from destroying the WTC. The $12.3 bn. represented $8.4 bn. for the replacement
value of the destroyed buildings [that he declared for insurance purposes
as $3.9 bn.] and $3.9 bn. in other costs, including $100 million a year
in rent to the PA and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well
as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings. Judge Hellerstein
expressed skepticism about Silverstein's claim and asked why he had not
stemmed his losses by just "walking away. Any trials in the case appear
to be more than a year away.
-
- [Judge Hellerstein also played an important role in the
911 Victims lawsuits, judicially "blackjacking" them into settlements
rather than lawsuits.] He ruled out testimony from top government officials
raising serious questions as to why the judge would cover up and potentially
obstruct government testimony and evidence under oath by key players when
it would be in the interests of both parties to the suit.
-
- An atmosphere of intimidation was apparent when an attorney
for the victim families explained that his clients wanted a trial not a
settlement, to which Hellerstein retorted, "Sit down." The judicial
coercion continued, attorney Schiavo told Hellerstein that she was also
experiencing problems with "difficult clients" who were adamant
about going to trial with full discovery and government witness testimony,
to which the judge said, "This is the way it's going to be. Go back
and you tell them we are going to settle, period." Hellerstein finally
decided to personally "select and quickly hear" three cases "without
any discovery or interruptions." Though remaining families want a
trial, Hellerstein has been coercing them all along to negotiate a settlement
with his "special mediator," Sheila L. Birnbaum.
-
- Not one single September 11 Victim lawsuit has been permitted
to proceed to a public trial by jury with testimony by major government
officials, complete and unhindered discovery of documents and interrogation
by career prosecutors despite meritorious evidence of prior knowledge of
the attacks by the Bush administration.
-
- When Silverstein applied for $3.35 bn. in tax-exempt
Liberty Bonds to help finance the Freedom Tower and his other buildings
on the site, Mr. Bloomberg [mayor of New York] found a lever. The city
and the state each control half those bonds, and the mayor said that he
would not agree to the city's half unless Mr. Silverstein made certain
concessions. Silverstein needed the Liberty Bonds because insurance proceeds,
which amounted to about $4.6 billion, would not nearly cover the expected
costs of the five towers [now $9 bn.].
-
- Victim family attorneys have strangely failed to seek
testimony from Ashcroft and Chertoff regarding the selection of Kenneth
R. Feinberg as Master of the multi-billion dollar 9/11 Victim Compensation
Fund which forced families to sign away their right to sue the U.S. government
for criminal negligence. Feinberg's law firm represented major insurance
firms which would have lost billions in payouts if Congress had not used
American taxpayer funds to cover expected losses by insurance companies.
-
- What is almost certainly the most sophisticated and complete
understanding of exactly how and why the World Trade Center fell has been
compiled as part of a secret proceeding in federal court in Lower Manhattan.
But everyone fears that the closely held information may remain buried
in sealed files or even destroyed.
-
- Epilogue
-
- In 2008 Mukasey, an Israeli citizen, was installed as
US Attorney General at the urging of Senators Schumer and Feinstein where
he will "shepherd" the prosecution of AIPAC for treason and/or
espionage just like Kissinger was chosen to head the 911 Commission and
replaced by Zelikow. Former Attorney General Gonzalez came under intense
pressure to resign from Senators Schumer, Feinstein and Spector. The deputy
attorney general and the associate attorney general also resigned clearing
the way for more Mukasey shepherding. [Got the picture yet?]
-
- Four of the Israelis, arrested on 9-11 for celebrating
the mass murder of thousands of Americans, filed a multimillion dollar
lawsuit against the US Justice Department, claiming they were arrested
illegally, then held without charge and interrogated and tortured for months.
They were released by Chertoff, another Israeli citizen who now heads Homeland
Security. The FBI concluded at least two of the five were Mossad agents
and all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. Their lawyer claims the
case will debunk theories that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. As of
2008, there have been no further media reports about this lawsuit. [What
are the odds they were paid?]
-
- After Sept. 11 over 100 young Israeli "art students",
illegally in the country and spying all across America, were quietly ordered
"deported" to Israel by a high American official [Chertoff again?].
[Have they filed suit against US, too?]
-
- Conclusion
-
- As anticipated by Kissinger, the destruction of the WTC
and the loss of thousands of lives resulted in the demolition of the American
Constitution; the American people did unite behind Bush and endorse wars
of aggression and genocide on the nations of the Middle East and the theft
of their resources for the benefit of Israel. Now it comes out that the
president actually practiced for 911 in advance and on that terrible day
didn't know whether it was real or another practice session. And still
noone in government or the 911 litigation even dares to suggest that the
WTC was an "inside job" although the evidence is now almost overwhelming.
Reportedly, even the National Institute for Standards and Technology has
repudiated the "collapse initiation" theory of its 10,000 page
report, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total
collapse." Well, nearly everybody else on the planet can.
-
- There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. There should
be an inquiry by an international body, such as the International Criminal
Court, to assess responsibility for this monstrous crime against humanity;
ironically like the Nuremberg Trials brought by the zionist cabal against
German officials.
-
- *In the history of the world, no high rise steel buildings
have ever collapsed from fire except the three Silverstein buildings on
9-11-01. Structural steel is not affected by fire. For example in 1991
eight floors in the middle of the high rise Meridian Building in Philadelphia
burned for 20 hours. According to the official fire report, "Beams
and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet --under severe
fire exposures. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued
to support their loads without obvious damage." And stood for many
years later.
-
- Despite zionist efforts to confuse the two, Zionism is
not a religion but a political conspiracy, centuries old. Zionism is Jewish
like Nazism was Lutheran. You can read all about it in the Protocols. Many
years ago,
-
- George Washington called them "our greatest enemy."
-
- Benjamin Franklin said, "They are vampires. If they
are not excluded from the United States...they will rule and destroy us."
-
- "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know,
that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government
ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." FDR letter to Colonel House,
November 21st, 1933.
-
- "We control America and they know it." Ariel
Sharon
-
- Welcome to the Goldene Medin, the New Khazar Empire (ceded
by Congress: 413-8)!
-
- D. Cassidy
- Memorial Day, 2008
-
-
- More 911 Truth Links
-
- http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/26/18502304.php
-
|
