Love for Life

"Lucky Larry." Follow the money.

The article below was written by one of the many professional people, including engineers, scientists, government officers, intelligence officers who have joined the 911 Truth Movement. This would include members of S.P.I.N.E, Physics 911, and 911Truth among many other 911 organizations. The writer's life has been threatened and so he asks for anonymity. He writes under the pen name
of Ryan Rumpole.

What are the details of the 911 WTC building transaction and insurance deals?

The precise details are unknown---at this time. (One would need to examine the legal documents...) However this much is known and is public information:

On July 24, 2001 the Port Authority of New York awarded control of the WTC complex to a partnership consisting of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. Mr. Silverstein was the lead (general) partner and controlled Silverstein Properties. Mr. Frank Lowy controlled Westfield America.
(Representing the Port Authority of New York was Mr. Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the Port Authority for New York. Eisenberg, was also former chairman of Goldman Sachs Inc., and is currently the chairman of the Republican National Committee. )

The winning bid from Silverstein and Lowy was 3.2 Billion dollars. Silverstein and Lowy were required to make a down payment of $125,000,000.00. (According to the website "What Really Happened," Silverstein had two other financial backers, a Lloyd Goldman and a Joseph Cayre, who also put up a portion of the down payment.)

However, contrary to popular belief, Silverstein et.al., did not buy/purchase the WTC. The partnership only gained control of the WTC by obtaining from the P.A.N.Y. a 99 year lease in Buildings 1,2,4 and 5 and 9 and 400,000 square feet of retail space.

Mr. Silverstein immediately insured the complex for 3.6 billion dollars. This was accomplished under contract with Willis Group Holdings Ltd. who arranged and negotiated the coverage with a consortium of 25 insurance companies.

The contracts included coverage in the case of "terrorist attack." When the attack occurred Silverstein claimed that there were two different terrorists attacks and therefore the actual amount due under the contracts was double or about 7.2 billion dollars.

In a subsequent lawsuit on this issue a jury awarded Silverstein an additional 1.1 billion dollars for a total recovery of 4.6 billion dollars. In December of 2003 the Port Authority of New York agreed to return to Silverstein and Lowy the entire deposit of $125,000,000.00 that the partnership had invested to acquire control of the World Trade Complex. The P.A.N.Y. rejected a request by the Wall
Street Journal to review the transaction.
See www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein or www.911research.wtc.7/wtc/background/owners
www.911review,com.motive/insurance

Third, will the Silverstein/Lowy partnership be required to rebuild the WTC on behalf of the P.A.N.Y? I don't see why. They did not hold legal title to the WTC. They only had a 99 year leasehold interest. Why should they have to replace a physical building that they did not own? That means, as far as I can
tell, they walk away not only with 4.6 billion dollars in insurance proceeds but also the 125 million dollars that they put up as a down payment.

For six weeks that has to be the greatest return on an investment in world history. I think what has a lot of people confused is why should silverstein collect all the insurance when the Port Authority of New York owned the property----and therefore took the loss. I guess that would have to be a
question that can only be answered by an examination of the 99 year lease, the insurance contracts and the officers now in control of the Port Authority of New York. Perhaps Mr. Lewis Eisenberg can explain this peculiar turn of events.

Fourth, are there URL's that discuss or identify the issues relating to asbestos abatement and the problems associated with electrolytic corrosion at the WTC? There are a number of excellent articles on the web discussing the environmental disaster that lay within the WTC, because of the existence of
asbestos fire retardant. Two in particular are worth mentioning and they were both written by the powerful and influential New York Law firm of Arnold & Porter LLC. Just google the name of the firm with the word asbestos and world trade center, and the articles should come right up. (That there was asbestos contamination is beyond doubt since hundreds of first response people have died
and many are now dying from numerous respiratory problems.)

Noted below, the first URL is the affidavit and deposition of T.Scott Gordon. Mr. Gordon was with the architectural firm of Emery Roth Associates. These documents were submitted to the U.S. Senate Oversight Committee and relate partly to the serious problem of electrolytic corrosion at the WTC.

The second URL is one of just several websites that covered the disclosures by Mr. Gordon. The third URL is an interview of Karl W. B. Schwarz, former member of the Republican National Committee, and currently the president and CEO of Patmos NanoTechnologies Inc.

Also, in February of this year Mr. Schwarz was interviewed by the Republic Broadcasting corporation (You won't see any of this on either CBS or in the New York Times) concerning the 911 event. In that interview he disclosed the plans that were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC. These plans were initiated not only because of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems at the WTC. Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively expensive. The URL for Mr. Schwarz's website is www.karlschwarz.com. and the URL for Republic Broadcasting is www.rbnlive.com.

There is a persistent report on the net that either the state of New York or the EPA had ordered that the dismantling of the WTC commence no later than 2007. As far as I know, this has never been confirmed. However, it is well established that the WTC presented expensive and problematic issues concerning asbestos abatement. It was estimated that the cost of asbestos abatement alone
would be in the neighborhood of 200 million dollars. And I think there is serious and credible evidence that the building was suffering from corrosion brought on by electrolytic reactions between the steel frame and the aluminum facia.

And then, according to Business Week, "the trade center was always subsidized by the city of New York. It never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough and tumble New York real estate market." It was just another government subsidized white elephant.

Silverstein, a denizen of the New York real estate market, had to know of these problems before he gained control of the WTC. So, the question becomes: Why would Silverstein, a sophisticated, intelligent and knowledgeable real estate developer, pay 125 million dollars to get control of a building that was uneconomic, was an environmental basket case, and had serious corrosion
problems.

And if it is subsequently determined to be true that the WTC towers had to be dismantled as a matter of law, (and that is a very big IF) then the question becomes again why anyone would pay 125 million dollars to acquire control of the WTC when they knew that the buildings would have to be dismantled.

A 99 year lease would make no sense at all. But, casualty insurance would make a lot of sense if you knew ahead of time that the buildings were going to be destroyed.

It should be emphasized that dismantling the WTC by order of the EPA etc. would not result in the recovery of insurance proceeds. This would not be a casualty. Insurance recovery would only occur if there was a casualty, which is a legal term of art, and carefully defined within insurance law. One of those casualties, of course, would be a terrorist attack. hmmmmmm.....

But, cutting to the chase, if it can ultimately be shown that an order was issued that the towers be dismantled sometime in the near future----say not later than 2007, and if it can be shown that Silverstein et.al., knew this, then I have to believe it would be Grand Jury time. Lots of serious questions have not been asked nor answered. One that comes immediately to mind; is there a
record of this "problem" at the EPA? Has anyone ever asked to review these public records? F.O.I.A. ?

Bottom line: The destruction of the towers had several effects, all beneficial to the "lessees."

First, the "removal" of the twin towers and WTC 7 substantially tightened up the commercial real estate market in lower Manhattan. (Over 10 million square feet of office space was removed from the market in the blink of an eye---and that does not include the office space at the WTC 7.)

The problems associated with the removal of a serious environmental hazard (asbestos) vanished in a span of less than eleven seconds---the time it took for the towers to collapse to the ground.

Third, the "lessees" of the WTC complex were relieved of the enormous financial burden of removing the asbestos and perhaps the dismantling of the WTC complex.

Fourth, the government of the state of New York and the City of New York had to assume the burden and the enormous financial costs of removing the toxic remains of the WTC. The City of New York continues to be burdened with all the costs of all the people who died of respiratory ailments and continue to suffer from these ailments. Law suits anyone? (But, you can't sue "Lucky Larry." It was
those damned arabs that did this.)

Fifth, Mr. Silverstein and company walked away with a windfall of 4.6 billion dollars plus their entire deposit of $125,000,000.00. Again, I can only guess as to how they did this when the only "insurable interest" they had was a 99 year lease. But, it was a pretty sweet deal----unless of course you are one of the 3000 people who were murdered on that day. And, this was all because of those pesky Arabs. They made it all possible. Those daring young men in their flying machines.

We are now five years down the road, and so far no serious investigations have occurred, no grand juries have been impaneled, and nobody has either been prosecuted or otherwise held accountable for the greatest single event of mass murder in U.S. history. A lot of serious questions need to be asked of a lot of people who had the means, the motive and the opportunity to commit this crime.

This is not rocket science. This is just a murder investigation----that has yet to occur. And what is the response of our government? Why we have to get Osama, and his merry band of terrorists, the Al Qaeda.

Whoops, I almost forgot. According to Fox news, Osama has been dead for nearly five years................... hmmmmm,

Tom