portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

Silverstein admits PRE-RIGGING WTC7 to "pull it" on 9-11; & 1 BLOCK OVER,collects insur.?!

Price of false cover story on 9-11 getting bigger and bigger...as it frays thinner and thinner.

"A federal jury decided Monday that the destruction of the World Trade Center was two events for insurance purposes, meaning leaseholder Larry Silverstein can collect twice from companies because separate planes hit two towers.

Monday's verdict, after 11 days of jury deliberations, represents a big victory for Silverstein. The verdict doubles Silverstein's $1.1 billion payout from nine of his insurers, for a total of up to $4.6 billion. Silverstein had [suddenly] insured the twin towers [MERELY SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE 9-11] for $3.5 billion, and he sought a double payout of $7 billion based on the [greedy bastard's] theory that the two planes that destroyed the two towers were two events [even though remote controlled planes hit the two towers in a single NORAD covert operation].

And who is on the FEDERAL jury? Unknown. Unable to find any information on it except that the decision was split. Jury had 11 people.

Though we know that Hartford Insurers (of Skull and Bones home base Connecticut) are sure glad it hit only their competitors.)

All documentation below.
"I blew up my own building on 9-11, you know, next door to 2 terror strikes!"
1.

Jury Says Destruction Of Twin Towers Was Two Events
Insurance Case Clears Way for Bigger Settlement
By Larry Neumeister
12-6-2004

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal jury decided Monday that the destruction of the World Trade Center was two events for insurance purposes, meaning leaseholder Larry Silverstein can collect twice from companies because separate planes hit two towers.

The verdict in U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the latest twist in Silverstein's efforts to turn his $3.5 billion insurance policy on the trade center complex into a $7 billion payout.

The jury was asked to rule specifically whether the terrorism could be considered one or two events for nine of the trade center's 24 insurance companies.

Regardless of the insurance payout, Silverstein and redevelopment officials have promised to rebuild the trade center complex in the next decade, including 10 million square feet of office space, a memorial and cultural buildings.

The insurance companies involved in the case were: Travelers Indemnity Co., Industrial Risk Insurers, Royal Indemnity Co., Allianz Insurance Co., Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Tig Insurance Co., Westfield WTC LLC and Zurich American Insurance Co.

In her closing argument, lawyer Carolyn H. Williams argued on behalf of the companies that the hijacked planes were like guided missiles and that the insurance payout should not depend on whether terrorists used "one or two or 10 or 100 weapons."

On behalf of Silverstein, attorney Bernard Nussbaum said there was precedent in the insurance industry to find the terrorism was two events. A California case concluded that four separate insurance events occurred when an arsonist set four separate fires, including two six minutes apart in courthouses 200 yards apart.


2.

"Hartford, which was not among the trade center's insurers, said the verdict "will not have a material impact on The Hartford." [Hartford, CT, Skull and Bones home terror-tory escapes safely and financially sound--its competitors go under and become less competitive and more expensive.]

 http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-bc-ny--attacks-insurance1207dec07,
0,1360400.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

3.

"The jury of nine women and two men disagreed."

 http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/12/120704a.html

4.

ALL THIS AND SILVERSTEIN STILL WANTS MORE PERKS!

The decision lifts Silverstein's rebuilding capital from $3.5 billion to $4.6 billion. Following the decision, ***the developer issued a statement*** that the $4.6 billion, ***combined with tax-exempt Liberty Bond financing,*** would "ensure [state terrorism is publicly subsidized and thus encouraged in the future, while allowing for] a timely and complete rebuild. [Now, instead of costing 5.9 billion dollars to remove, as planned out in 1989--see below--it actually profits them to remove it instead--and the taxpayers pick up the tab of the removal.]"

5.

Of course all this below information failed to make it into the 'federal" trial. What were they afraid of a local trial for? Had to appeal to a federal trial, eh? Under whose authority was that? Guess they forgot to call these people as witnesses to something else going on:

2 TWO EYEWITNESSES to prepatory subbasement demolitions of WTC1&2, coinciding w/ WTC1&2 hits
12:10 Dec-01 (4 comments)
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/304905.shtml

6. ANOTHER WITNESS TO CALL

WTC Collapse: A rebuttal to the NIST report
00:33 Nov-12 (7 comments)
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303154.shtml

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."

. . .[Letter writer: recently fired.]

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303154.shtml

7. ANOTHER WITNESS TO CALL: THE ARCHITECT

Plans To Scrap WTC Towers For $5.6 Bn In 1989!
From Karl W. B. Schwarz
 kw.schwarz@worldnet.att.net
12-6-4


To Jimmy Walter

Hi Jimmy, your comment completely misses the point.

That is why, in 1989, they planned a $5.6 billion takedown and rebuild, it was tanked.

The witness came to me...and we are protecting them.

The building had the structural equivalent of osteoporosis.

I am about to fund $25-50 million to THE LAWSUIT - United States Citizens v United States Government. Something major happened over the past several days.

Karl

-----Original Message-----

From: Jimmy Walter
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:49 PM
To: 'Karl W. B. Schwarz'
Subject: RE: galvanic versus flying beams

No amount of galvanic action will hurl steel beams straight out horizontally and cause the building to fall at the speed of gravity. However, it would be cause for insurance fraud!
But keep trying

_____

From: Karl W. B. Schwarz
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM
To: Jimmy Walter

Hello Jimmy

You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-)

The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components - erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.


"""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier."""


In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.

Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.

The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day.

That could explain why there appears to be explosives set only about every 25 floors. Once the failure started, the brittleness of welds, rivets, bolts, etc would fail much easier as the loads became progressively greater on the way down.

That same process would also explain why the concrete was "powderized" over time because electrolytic processes weaken concrete too by "debonding" the Portland that causes concrete to bond in the first place. However, bear in mind that the "concrete floors" were not load bearing reinforced concrete. They were supported by what was a weakening by the day superstructure and cross members.

There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm [Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings] that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over". Consider that - and consider that NYC and the US Govt could not stand the global embarrassment of being so stupid or negligent that they did not consider the effects of galvanic corrosion on the superstructure. That is structural design 101 in architectural school and why they want architects to take physics and chemistry for Christ's sake. I did.

I am an architect by the way, quit practicing in 1988.

 http://www.npl.co.uk/ncs/docs/the_electochemistry_of_corrosion_figures.p df

 http://www.npl.co.uk/ncs/docs/the_electochemistry_of_corrosion.pdf

 http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/galvdefi.htm see bimetallic corrosion to get to the two links above

 http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Landmarks/statue-saddle.htm

Guess what?

The fat lady HAS SUNG. You know, the one in New York Harbor with the torch of Liberty and Freedom held high.

I want to find the sick bastard that thought it would be a cute idea to have close to 3,000 in the building and use that as an excuse to go take on a whole new energy policy, war policy, and lining the pockets of just certain people.

I think a Statute of Liberty hanging for that person would be most appropriate.

best regards,

Karl W. B. Schwarz
President, Chief Executive Officer
Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC


8.


""There was apparently a 300% increase in the insurance on the World Trade Center towers in June and July of 2001. I mean they increased the total insurance payable by 300%, at least."
 http://www.rense.com/general60/interviewwithkarlschwarz.htm


9. ANOTHER WITNESS TO CALL: THE PHOTOGRAPHER

Title: 9-11: secret RESEARCH TEAM disbanded in 1988 seeking ways to cheaply remove WTCs
Author: tg
Date: 2004.01.26 04:49

Description: go covert-----and find below: statement from an accidental witness to the 1988 disbanding of the WTC's demolition team, disbanded because of the incredible expense of billions of dollars it would have taken to remove WTC1 and WTC2. Expensive only if it was done legally that is... THERE IS A HUGE MOTIVATOR TO REMOVE THEM WITHOUT BILLLIONS IN COST: In other words, the motivation to take them down illegally was VERY HIGH. So, when you put 2 and 2 togther with other known connections (US secret police to both the failed 1993 and successful 2001 attempts to INTENTIONALLY take them down)---explains a lot about FBI/CIA being in on both of these these illegal attempts at demolition in 1993 and 2001: a) 1993 bombing created with a fake cover context of "arab terrorism" to take them down, is very similar to the b) 2001 fake context of "arab terrorism" in 2001--except that a lot more interests had time to simmer for 8 more years and many more ideas were bundled into the 2001 WTC demolitions. In this later case, the cover story was elaborated---even adapted--from existing Arab terror plans. The US made sure it was done 'right.' By 'right,' I mean it was to be a useful example of how state terror could help out the Bush family interests consolidate power: 2001 version of illegal demolition of the WTCs extended into a cause for global war by adding in 'the icing on the WTCs cake'--fake hits on the Pentagon and other potential DC targets (fourth plane failed to reach its target, though would have). They said it themselves, they were ready with the shadow government that very day. Personally, this is the second statement from this team that I believe I have read. I have read a statement by an architect who was dismissed from this or a similar team. This is the statement from the 'accidental photographer,' accidentally included into the group in 1988.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/279230.shtml


10. ANOTHER WITNESS TO CALL: MARVIN BUSH--SOMEONE ILLEGALLY SIMULTANEOUSLY WTC INSURER AND WTC SECURITY--WITHOUT A PUBLIC REQUIRED S.E.C. FILINGS ABOUT IT....WHY KEEP IT SECRET, MARVIN BUSH?

Eight of Clubs Marvin Bush, pt. 1
Eight of Clubs Marvin Bush, pt. 2
Eight of Clubs Marvin Bush, pt. 3

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/299286.shtml