Larry Silverstein is well known in 9/11 research circles.
The real estate tycoon made strange and revealing remarks in a PBS documentary detailing the events of September 11, 2001.
In a seeming blunder he revealed that there was an understanding, a plan, to ’pull’ the WTC 7 building (assumedly with explosive demolition) to stave off ’further loss of life’.
This, however, goes directly against the official theory and official investigation reports, which conclude the buildings fell of their own accord due to fires.
Silverstein is now back in the spotlight, reports NYDailyNews. He accuses AmericanAirlines of avoiding liability (and payouts) for the attacks. He wishes to disqualify the airline from using the “act of war” defense to dodge property liability.
Silverstein’s infamous lines that officials made a decision that day to ’pull it’ - to demolish purposefully the WTC7:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ’We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
We know that the term ’pull it’ means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we’re getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for planned demolition. Source
A prized asset, The World Trade Center was sold to Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion six months before 9/11. The Center was promptly and carefully insured, and when the events of Sept. 11 ended with the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsing, Silverstein profited hugely.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year’s worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.
The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.
Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday. [MontereyHerald 11/22/2003]
Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which ’fortuitously’ covered acts of terrorism. Even better, 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 is $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.
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. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
One would think that making billions of insurance dollars off the backs of the events of 9/11 would be "shameful", but Silverstein’s laywers reportedly take issue with AmericanAirlines withholding even more payouts and refusing to take responsibility for the attacks.
Developer Larry Silverstein accused American Airlines Wednesday of a “shameful display of duplicity” for asserting the World Trade Center terror attack was an “act of war” that should shield it from liability.
In court papers, Silverstein said the airline and its parent company repeatedly promised not to invoke such a defense to avoid paying property damage claims arising from the 9/11 attack.
"Now, having obtained many billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded benefits from a massive federal bailout, which benefits continue to accrue, they have reversed course, asserting with breathtaking cynicism a supposed distinction — but one without a difference — between an act of war exclusion and an act of war defense,” Silverstein attorney Richard Williamson said in court papers.
Silverstein Properties sued American Airlines and United Airlines in 2008, contending their negligence caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.
In September, Manhattan Federal Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the lawsuit could go to trial and that Silverstein could seek $2.8 billion in damages.
In 2007 Silverstein’s company reached a $4 billion settlement with insurers.
Silverstein suggesting AmericanAirlines is engaging in a ’shameful display of duplicity’ regarding 9/11 is an outrageous claim, and a enormous distraction from his own fabrications.
Pro-Israel bias: BBC admits editorial breach in interview with Israeli defense chief 2015-05-23 7:58
The BBC has reached a â€śprovisional findingâ€ť to uphold complaints made by Palestinian activists that the broadcaster breached its editorial guidelines in a â€śsoftâ€ť interview with the Israeli defense minister.
Complaints focused on BBC journalist Sarah Montagueâ€™s alleged failure to challenge controversial claims made by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaâ€™alon.
Journalist Amena Saleem, who works with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), wrote ...
41% of Americans Support Criminalizing "Hate Speech" 2015-05-23 7:31 The following are from a recent poll about what some are calling on for "hate speech"
1. Support for Hate Crimes Legislation
Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person?
2. Support for Expanding Hate Crimes
FBI Admits No Major Cases Cracked with Patriot Act Snooping Powers 2015-05-23 7:36
FBI agents canâ€™t point to any major terrorism cases theyâ€™ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Departmentâ€™s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk ...
Sweetener Stevia Was Once Hailed As An Anti-Fertility Agent for Population Reduction 2015-05-23 7:13
Maybe it's not so sweet now... If you've thought stevia, the natural alternative to sugar and artificial sweetners with aspartame, et al., is too good to be true, there may be a catch. Check out this textbook written in 1970 by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the precursor to the textbook Ecoscience they wrote with Obama Science Czar John P. Holdren ...
TPP Aproved: Senate Republicans Give Obama New Powers - Details Remain 'Classified' 2015-05-23 6:43
President Obama won a big victory for his trade agenda Friday with the Senateâ€™s approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations.
A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight ...