The WTC Leaseholder and His Associates That Cheated Death on 9/11: Was it Coincidence or Foreknowledge?

May 30, 2010

As always, the comments section at 9/11 Blogger have a good discussion being tossed around.

by Shoestring  source: 9/11 Blogger  May 30, 2010

New York real estate developer Larry Silverstein and several key individuals associated with his firm, Silverstein Properties, appear to have had remarkable luck on September 11, 2001, when changes in their schedule or coincidental circumstances saved them from being high up in the World Trade Center when it was attacked.

Silverstein Properties took over the lease of the World Trade Center seven weeks before 9/11, the only time the complex had gone under private control [1], and after 9/11 Larry Silverstein sought damages of over $7 billion from his insurers for the destruction of the Twin Towers. [2] On September 11, the firm had temporary offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. (American Airlines Flight 11 impacted that tower between its 93rd and 99th floors.) Of its 160 employees, 54 were working in those offices at the time of the attacks and four of them died. [3]

HIGH-LEVEL INDIVIDUALS AVOIDED DANGER ON 9/11
The fortunate circumstances that kept the high-level individuals out of danger the morning of 9/11 were quite extraordinary. Larry Silverstein survived the attacks supposedly because his wife forced him to go to a doctor’s appointment instead of a meeting at the WTC; Silverstein’s son and daughter survived because, independently of each other, they were running late; his top aide survived because he cut short a meeting he was in at the top of the North Tower; his publicist agreed to join a meeting at the WTC at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m.; and others associated with Silverstein Properties may have avoided danger due to the cancellation of a meeting on the 88th floor of the North Tower.

Read the rest of this entry »


This Week in 9/11 (March 22 – March 28)

March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

A summary of news relating to 9/11/01 - For the week of March 22 through March 28, 2010. (Last week is here)

To many the week’s biggest news might have been the documents obtained by the ACLU, detailing many things including the words of John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Tenent to the 9/11 Commission Chairmen to “not cross” a certain line of investigation. According to the specific document (or page 26 in the original PDF of documents at ACLU) :

There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross — the line separating the Commission’s proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government’s ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks. The Commission staffs proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line.

Of course that is only a small piece of the withholdings by officials regarding 9/11, but many can use this in specific discussions of the whitewash known as the 9/11 Commission Report and its improper investigation to skeptics. 

 Another tape allegedly from Bin Laden made headlines across the U.S.. However none of the headlines from the mainstream “corp-press” mentioned the fact that Bin Laden has been reported dead by many media outlets:

Read the rest of this entry »


The Great 9/11 Insurance Bonanza

March 28, 2010

By Gene Cappa   source: Op Ed News   March 28, 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!).

Read the rest of this entry »


New York Judge Dismisses Claim Negligent Construction Contributed To WTC 7 Collapse

August 1, 2009

source: Infowars

A New York judge presiding over a multi-million dollar insurance case has dismissed the claim that negligent design or construction of WTC Building 7 contributed to its collapse, and in doing so has destroyed a key justification cited by debunkers in claiming that WTC 7 was not deliberately imploded.

Though the ruling by no means advocates any factor other than fire and debris from the twin towers as the cause of the collapse of Building 7, it does reject the premise that the diesel tanks stored in the structure contributed to the building’s destruction.

According to a report by James Glanz which was published in the New York Times on September 11, 2002 concerning diesel tanks stored in WTC 7, “The tanks contained more than 40,000 gallons of fuel to provide backup power for the city’s emergency command center, a Secret Service office and other tenants. A 6,000-gallon tank for the command center, which was on the 23rd floor, was mounted 15 feet off the ground near an elevator bank. It was cited as unsafe by Fire Department officials in 1998 and 1999, but the Port Authority has asserted that the tank and the structure met the city’s fire code and posed no special danger.”

Debunkers have seized upon the diesel tanks as a reason for the collapse of WTC 7 , the only steel-framed building in history to collapse from fire damage alone, considering it was not hit by a plane on 9/11. Despite the fact that diesel tanks being in the building do not explain its 7 second free fall collapse into its own footprint, debunkers have still clung to the issue as a sacred cow with which to try and uphold the official story.

However, a New York judge presiding over a 7-year long insurance case concerning Consolidated Edison has dismissed the claim that the tanks or faulty construction of the building contributed to the collapse.

Consolidated Edison and five of its insurers filed a $314.5 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in September 2002, charging that the tanks were improperly designed and maintained. The suit claimed that the tanks fed the fires that brought down WTC 7 and thus were a major contributor to its collapse which destroyed the New York utility’s substation on 9/11.

Read the rest of this entry »


New Incriminating Implosion Footage 9/11

July 8, 2009

source: SF911truth, open your eyes

Another angle of Building 7, showing a vertical line of windows being blown (several floors worth) just before the collapse. (You can see yet another line of windows blown in “911 Mysteries” — Building 7 section.) Continue on to watch the core columns of the North Tower revealed as the exterior is destroyed. The question to official sources: If it’s a “pancake collapse” — floor by floor, each floor smashing down on the next — why does the core last to the very end? Oh, yes! It’s because the core was in a hollow shaft, and there were no “floors” to come down on it, but then why does it too give up and turn to dust in less than half a minute?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers