ASBESTOS: the REAL Reason behind 9/11?

[spooked]

I posted this theory in another forum, but I was thinking that I'd like to get the opinion of this board.

My Theory: (tell me if anyone else has come out with this)

I believe that the World Trade Towers HAD TO COME DOWN because they were a HUGE ASBESTOS liability.

Using the World Trade Towers in a terrorist attack was so convenient for Cheney and the Pentagon as well as Larry Silverman who gets BILLIONS in Insurance money rather trhan having to pay out ASBESTOS claims!

For over a year I have been trying to find more information on ASBESTOS and the WTC. I just know there is a huge link there.

http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.ht...

"Six months before the attacks on the World Trade Center, the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion 6 weeks before 911. But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate prize the Silverstein Group might have been led to believe. The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. 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 attacks on 9/11 changed the picture. 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, seperate 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."


Those of you who have been researching 9/11, what do you think about this theory? Have you found any information that would support this idea?

[okieinpain]

1. wow, ok.

[purduejake]

2. I don't know how they could pull something like this...

with only 6 weeks or so of planning, if that is what the article is implying. However, I am highly suspicious of the people who profited from this, especially since building 7 came down as if it was professionally detonated. Wasn't evidence against World Com in that building?

[RoeBear]

3. Dude...stop taking whatever you're taking...

...we just got hammered by the MSM for nutty tsunami theories, let's not give them any more ammo.

[Wilms]

17. Go easy Roe. Have a look here.

<http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225>

[RoeBear]

19. You mean because you

found another misguided crackpot who believes the same crazy theory?

Did they not SEE those planes fly into those buildings?

[Wilms]

20. Again Roe, go easy.

In addition to his new title of "Another Misguided Crackpot", Bill Manning is the editor in chief of Fire Engineering.

You're arguing that planes flown into the buildings precludes explosives having been planted as well. Have you taken college 101 Logic (and passed the class)? :shrug:

As a note, I heard some group of folk think a hologram was used to project an image of a plane in NY. For the record, I don't belong.

[RoeBear]

21. I heard the holgrams were projected by

aliens.

[RoeBear]

22. Having scanned your link a bit more

did Mr manning have anything to say about asbestos being the reason that the WTC buildings were brought down?

[Wilms]

23. Yes. I agree. If a hologram was used, I'd first suspect aliens!

Asbestos was not a factor in the collapse, so I don't think Manning is specifically concerned with that.

The issues he takes are outlined in the article. And I think you'll find the issues valid concerns. Read it through. Post a thread and we can all dig in.

PS. Thanks for scanning it.

[JimmyJazz]

4. I would have to disagree. Do you have any evidence that asbestos

removal was imminent? I would think not in buildings that size. Remember that just because a building or a ship was insulated with asbestos, doesn't necessarily mean that the asbestos had to be removed. If air quality testing was done and the tests passed the minimum ppm's, there would be no need to remove the asbestos.

Do you have any proof that the air quality in those building was poor. If so, you might have a point, but otherwise, I would tend to disagree with your theory.

[FloridaPat]

5. He'd have to be pretty stupid to buy something that expensive and not

know the cost to change it. It that's the case, he should fire his attorneys, or whomever. Yes, he did file two insurance claims, but last I heard, they would only give him the one. That was right after 9-11.

You might have something if the Sears Tower comes down. He bought that about a year ago.

[melnjones]

6. Holy crap...

You must have a lot of time on your hands.

[LARED]

7. Is there any evidence

the asbestos had to be removed? The mere presence of asbestos does not mean there is a hazard, nor does it mean it must be removed.

[MercutioATC]

8. About the $7.1B insurance payout:

If I'm not mistaken, that was decided in Court a couple of weeks ago. It's being considered as one event, not two, which limits the insurers' liability to $3.6B.


Yes, it's still a lot of money, but it's only half of the "potential payout".

[spooked]

9. I must clarify

that of course I don't believe 9/11 HAPPENED because of Asbestos, I'm saying when they were considering possible targets it could have been one of the influencing FACTORS in choosing the aging Twin Towers.

[nonny]

10. 9-11 served a multitude of purposes -- By Karl W. B. Schwarz

Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble
Part 3: 9-11 served a multitude of purposes

By Karl W. B. Schwarz

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/121704Schwarz/121704schwarz.html

snip--

Out of the blue, a new source came forward with information that in 1989 there was a plan being designed and priced to put up scaffolding, take the WTC towers down and rebuild them. The reason stated was not only asbestos related, but also because of a considerable design flaw in the WTC towers involving galvanic corrosion resulting from direct contact of dissimilar metals. In this instance, the heavy exterior aluminum panels were reportedly directly connected to the steel superstructure of the WTC towers. The price in 1989 was reportedly $5.6 billion to do this demolition and rebuilding to correct what would be a serious design flaw.

If that is the case, there would have been rapid and very damaging corrosion to the steel superstructure due to a process that is called galvanic corrosion. The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired for that same reason where the copper exterior had over time come into contact with the iron skeleton structure inside that makes the shape of the monument, so the process can occur in structures standing in air.

Evidently someone did not want to spend $5.6 billion (1989 dollars) to tear the WTC towers down and rebuild them properly, without the asbestos and without the defect that would rapidly deteriorate the superstructure of the building.

snip--

[spooked]

11. WOW!! Thanks for posting that!

I had not been able to find anything that specific about this idea.

Served more than one purpose indeed.

[gbwarming]

14. But it's wrong. The aluminum would corrode, not the steel

As jmworeader pointed out earlier today,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=29277&mesg_id=29321&page=
The WTC aluminum/steel interface is NOT like the Statue copper/iron interface because of where these different metals fall on the galvanic series. We have no reliable information there was any flaw in the WTC interface design, but if there was, the aluminum would be the metal subject to galvanic corrosion.

Check out this chart of galvanic potentials for various metals:
http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/galv_series.htm

Pick a pair of metals - the one further to the right (on this chart) is the one that corrodes. Notice zinc to the far right - this is the metal used for sacrificial anodes on boats and water heaters. Aluminum is to the right of mild or low alloy steel (like the WTC, if they weren't adequately insulated), but steel falls to the right of copper (Statue of Liberty).

[spooked911]

15. I agree-- the corrosion model doesn't make sense

The outer aluminum casing might get corroded but certainly not the load-bearing steel.

[dbeach]

34. Karl points at the Caspian Oil ..

worth about 10 trillion..reading his book now 'send em back to Crawford"..Karl is a go getter and brilliant..

[peacetalksforall]

12. I believe the cabal does nothing that doesn't have multiple

benefits. I think it is a grand possibility. depending on whether there is asbestos. Check out the internet for asbestos and lawsuits in New York to see if the WTC is listed or ever was listed. I'm not sure from your post whether you think or know there is asbestos.

I'm not sure why so many people are ridiculing your thoughts - it is a given that it if something is evil, illegal, profitable, and fulfills a propaganda purspose - they'll work it in.

Don't be discouraged by the replies here. But, research a little.

[Dancing_Dave]

37. IN FACT, ASBESTOS RELEASED BY THE WTC HAS DONE ENORMOUS DAMAGE

To public health in New York City, and currently is an issue in many lawsuits developing out 9/11 and the official public health cover-up.

Here's two sites to get info on the environmental and public health impact of the WTC disaster in New York:
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/wtc-index.htm
http://www.911ea.org/Front_Page.htm

[nonny]

13. Bush takes Aim at Asbestos Lawsuits

This AP article was just in the news last week.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=392132

snip--

"The volume of asbestos lawsuits is beyond the capacity of our courts to handle, and it is growing," Bush said earlier this week. "More than 100,000 new asbestos claims were filed last year alone."

snip--

Duh.......

[seemslikeadream]

16. U.S. insurance industry asbestos-related losses $65 billion

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/asbestos /

If you watch this hearing I believe they say the losses maybe 200 billion.

Senate Judiciary Cmte. on Asbestos Legislation (01/11/2005

http://www.cspan.org/


W.R. Grace files for bankruptcy


W.R. Grace files for bankruptcy
Taxpayers may get cleanup bill for asbestos contamination

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

By ANDREW SCHNEIDER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT



Because of the filing, taxpayers may get stuck with millions of dollars for cleaning up sites contaminated by the 150-year-old company.

Grace President Paul Norris said yesterday that his company has received more than 325,000 asbestos personal-injury claims, which have already cost the company nearly $2 billion.

The federal government has done health screening on 6,114 people or who live or lived in or near Libby. Analysis of the first 1,067 examinations showed that 30 percent of the people had signs of asbestos-related disease. With it often taking 20 years or more for the disease to become apparent, no one is willing to guess how many people will be sickened because of the exposure to asbestos in Libby and other sites that processed the vermiculite.

It is estimated that hospitalization, oxygen, medication and home care can cost a person between $300,000 to $500,000 during the course of the illness. Grace is the sixth major company to cite asbestos claims as their reasons for filing chapter 11 since January. Twenty-six companies have made such filings since 1982.

Most of the hundreds of thousands of pending asbestos suits are filed against multiple defendants. The litigation will often list 10, 20 or more corporations that either produced asbestos or used it in products they manufactured.


The Environmental Protection Agency is conducting investigations at 55 sites throughout the country where Grace ran expansion plants that turned the vermiculite ore into insulation and garden and construction products. Sixteen other sites have been identified as being contaminated enough to need cleanup.

"We budgeted between $14 and $16 million for this year, and it now becomes a problem of getting that money," Peronard said. "It's looking more and more like taxpayers will pick up what Grace drops."
EPA has been working closely with forensic accountants in the Justice Department to see whether the company has moved its assets to other, newly formed corporations.

more
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/grace03.shtml


U.S. Seeks to Intervene in W.R. Grace Asbestos Bankruptcy

LIBBY, MONTANA—June 14, 2002—On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a motion to intervene in a bankruptcy action involving offshoot companies of W.R. Grace, a major asbestos defendant. The government charges that just prior to bankruptcy filing, W.R. Grace transferred funds to spin–off companies to hide assets and avoid liability for asbestos claims (Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana, May 27, 2002). The company and 61 domestic subsidiaries had filed for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in April, 2001.

W.R. Grace is the manufacturer of construction materials and chemicals and the former owner of an asbestos–contaminated vermiculite mine in Libby Montana. Vermiculite is an ore resembling mica that is used in housing insulation, soil conditioners, and fertilizers.

The United States is a Grace creditor and hopes to recover expenses for the environmental cleanup of Libby, which has been declared a Superfund disaster area. The company has received over 325,000 asbestos personal injury claims from Libby and elsewhere, according to a press release (see W.R. Grace web site, click on GRACE in the News, click on 2001 News Releases, then on April 2, 2001).

topAsbestos Insulation and Fireproofing
One W.R. Grace product, Zonolite insulation, often contains vermiculite that is contaminated with tremolite asbestos and derived from the Libby mines. The Environmental Protection Agency is removing Zonolite from homes in Libby, although it has no immediate plans to eliminate the insulation from millions of other residences nationwide (see article on Asbestos Zonolite Insulation in Libby).

more
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:_QRtYz5UJgsJ:www.asbestosnetwork.com/news/nw_061402_wrgrace.htm+w.r.+grace+bankruptcy&hl=en

OMB and EPA squash the EPA Report


December 29, 2002
Bush administration squashes EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos.
According to the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Wichita Eagle, the Bush administration has squashed the release of an EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos. The warning was originally planned to be released in April 2002, along with a declaration of a public health emergency in Libby, Montana, where ore from a W.R. Grace vermiculite mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their families. Shipping records from W.R. Grace show that at least 15.6 billion pounds of vermiculite ore was shipped from Libby to 750 plants and factories throughout North America, with between a third and half ending up in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes, businesses and schools from the 1940s through the 1990s.

In early April 2002, the U.S. EPA had a public health warning ready to go: News releases had been written and rewritten, and lists of governors to call and politicians to notify had been compiled. But the declaration was never made - just days before EPA was set to make the declaration, the warning was squashed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), even though the EPA had already greatly watered down the warning at the direction of the OMB.

Both OMB and EPA acknowledge that the OMB was actively involved in quashing the warning, but neither agency would discuss how or why. EPA’s chief spokesman Joe Martyak said, "Contact OMB for the details," while OMB spokeswoman Amy Call said, "These questions will have to be addressed to the EPA." Both agencies have also refused requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to provide documents to and from OMB about the asbestos warning.
http://www.eces.org/articles/000256.php


White House budget office thwarts EPA warning on asbestos-laced insulation

The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the last minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has never been issued.

The announcement to warn the public was expected in April. It was to accompany a declaration by the EPA of a public health emergency in Libby, Mont. In that town near the Canadian border, ore from a vermiculite mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their families. Ore from the Libby mine was shipped across the nation and around the world, ending up in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes, businesses and schools across America. Zonolite insulation was sold throughout North America from the 1940s through the 1990s. Almost all of the vermiculite used in the insulation came from the Libby mine, last owned by W.R. Grace & Co.

Interviews and documents show that just days before the EPA was set to make the declaration, the plan was thwarted by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which had been told of the proposal months earlier. Former EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus, who worked for Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, called the decision not to notify homeowners of the dangers posed by Zonolite insulation "the wrong thing to do." "When the government comes across this kind of information and doesn't tell people about it, I just think it's wrong, unconscionable, not to do that," he said. " What right does the government have to conceal these dangers? It just doesn't make sense."

The question about what to do about Zonolite insulation was not the only asbestos-related issue in which the White House intervened. In January, in an internal EPA report on problems with the agency's much-criticized response to the terrorist attacks in New York City, a section on "lessons learned" said there was a need to release public health and emergency information without having it reviewed and delayed by the White House."

The EPA's files are filled with studies documenting the toxicity of tremolite, how even minor disruptions of the material by moving boxes, sweeping the floor or doing repairs in attics can generate asbestos fibers. Most of those who have studied the needle-sharp tremolite fibers in the Libby ore consider them far more dangerous than other asbestos fibers. In October, the EPA team leading the cleanup of lower Manhattan after the attacks of Sept. 11 went to Libby to meet with Peronard and his crew. The EPA had reversed an early decision and announced that it would be cleaning asbestos from city apartments.

Peronard told the visitors from New York just how dangerous tremolite is. He talked about the hands-on research in Libby of Dr. Alan Whitehouse, a pulmonologist who had worked for NASA and the Air Force on earlier projects before moving to Spokane, Wash. "Whitehouse's research on the people here gave us our first solid lead of how bad this tremolite is," Peronard said.

Whitehouse has not only treated 500 people from Libby who are sick and dying from exposure to tremolite. The chest specialist also has almost 300 patients from Washington shipyards and the Hanford, Wash., nuclear facility who are suffering health effects from exposure to the more prevalent chrysotile asbestos. Comparing the two groups, Whitehouse has demonstrated that the tremolite from Libby is 10 times as carcinogenic as chrysotile and probably 100 times more likely to produce mesothelioma than chrysotile.

more
http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102011.asp?cp1=1

[OKthatsIT]

36. $65,000,000 divided by 3,000 = $21,666

BUT...its was the American tax payer who gave the families of 911 much much more for the loss of their loved ones.

$#%^@corporate scum

[Wilms]

18. They always had a hard time getting tenants for those buildings.

It picked up in the 90's but I think still a lot of vacancies. (Which is also helpful if you need to place explosives).

Except for transmitter engineers, not many people gave a shit about WTC until it came down. Asbestos ain't the REAL reason, but it wouldn't surprise me if it helped.

[DulceDecorum]

24. Cement , concrete and Cassandra

All modern concrete is going to fail
and most of it is failing as we speak.

Q: What causes most serious failures?

MATHER: About a fourth of them will be structural failures and the other three-fourths will be durability problems.

WARNER: The problems are usually that the concrete is not appropriate for the intended use and/or is not of sufficient durability. When water and salt get into concrete, the reinforcing steel corrodes. That’s why the concrete cover over the reinforcing steel has to be dense and of low permeability. There is a commonly held misconception that high-strength concrete will provide high durability. This is not correct. Concrete strength and durability are not directly related. Very high strength concrete can be of low durability.
The measure most often used for concrete is strength, not durability. But durability is all important.
http://aec.engr.wisc.edu/resources/rsrc07.html

High Strength Concrete or High Performance Concrete
is very very strong
but it is NOT durable.

It is said that the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was built of this material and was almost completely rotted out by the continual heat and monsoon rains to which it was subjected.
The recently rebuilt Wedge of the Pentagon is made of this material.
The results are predictable.
Sprinkler + fire > spalling = collapse.
HAC is just really crappy stuff. That is why it has been outlawed just about everywhere else other than within the US.

Each Twin Tower of the WTC
turned into dust
which flowed downward after being forcibly ejected.

Extreme temperatures provide their own set of concerns. In May, 1994, the 31-mile tunnel linking Folkstone, England to Coquelles, France popularly referred to as the Chunnel, was opened to rail traffic. Two and a half years later, it was closed as result of a tunnel fire. Fortunately, there was no loss of life and service was interrupted for only 15 days. However, the damage to the concrete lining was extreme. In fact, at the site of the fire, the tunnel lining was completely destroyed, revealing the substrata through which the tunnel had been carved. Fortunately, the substrata was stable enough to support the tunnel and prevent further collapse, otherwise the incident could have had a much different conclusion. Research carried out at MIT after this fire showed that, “when mature, dried concrete is exposed to extreme heat for long periods of time, the chemical bonds between the water molecules in the concrete break, destroying molecular bridges that bind together the various materials that make up concrete.” (MIT News, April 20, 1999). A small portion of the exposed concrete actually explodes, peeling off in thin layers like an onion (referred to as spalling). This will continue to happen until the heat is reduced or removed. Fire fighters attacking the Chunnel fire had to be relieved every five to eight minutes because of the heat. At the same time, explosive spalling of the concrete hindered their advance as the concrete dust worsened visibility. The debris rained down on their helmets and formed a treacherous carpet of loose, red-hot rubble.
http://www.cfaa.ca/journal-2003-Spring-tunnel.html

That it took a potentially catastrophic fire to finally make them probe the matter is, at the least, worrying.
If their design desks do not give the answers being sought then they will finally turn to laboratories, where many of the answers have been available for years, say researchers.
It is not clear why state-of-the-art knowledge of construction materials has been seemingly marginalised by engineers.
But the Chunnel fire, researchers now believe, means that engineers will finally listen to what they have been trying to tell them.
The basic message is that concretes behave differently in fires. Dense watertight concrete can also be highly explosive.
Aggregates play a major role, and strength is lost in different ways. It is a confusing picture but there are two fundamental ways to tackle the problem: optimise the mix design to suit the potential loading and in some cases, in addition, employ a fire-proof coating.
The difficulty is, few engineers appear to have paid heed to the research findings.
http://www.contractjournal.com/home/Default.asp?type=2&liArticleID=25085&liSectionID=11

Nobody ever wants to look at the concrete.
They are mesmerized by the steel.
Cassandra.

[MrSandman]

25. IIRC, containment of asbestos is approved abatement...

There are a lot of public schools around with asbestos that is "sealed" in place because the disturbance of removal will cause more exposure than containment.

[stickdog]

26. Plane Crashes, WR Grace, Deadly Asbestos, WTC Collapse & Wellstone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5471&forum=DCForumID43&archive=yes

[nomatrix]

27. Encore is running the documentary

"Dust to Dust" about Libby, Montana and Zolite and the people dying from Asbestosis. The dust crystalizes in the lungs and grows over the years like needles. A very painful death. Grace knew it was toxic. The dust was everywhere, on the Little League ball field, playgrounds, blowing out of the uncovered train cars. Some cleanup was done but the company restructured and filed bancruptcy. The people are now living in a Superfund site, with entire families, who never worked at the mine, with stages of Asbestosis appearing. Remember, the company knew.

[TomClash]

28. Tin foil hat

Silverstein destroys his own building for the insurance money and to avoid renovation costs?

This is insane.

He's only getting half the insurance money.

He has other buildings in the area that were threatened by the collapse.

3 1/2 years later and there's no construction except at 7.

There are thousands of buildings in NYC with asbestos; no owner destroys their building to get out of hte liability. They seal the asbestos. Why buy the towers in the first place then? Even a third rate engineering report would reveal the problem. Destroying the building and releasing the asbestos so you can be subject to class action lawsuits is not a good idea.

This theory is a nice way to devalue and deflect a legitimate inquiry tough. Gee, who would want that?

:tinfoilhat:

[demodewd]

29. lease terms

From what I've gathered,Silverstein only had to come up with 100 million or so of hard cash to sign a long term lease on the twin towers.

[TomClash]

30. And right now he has no tenants

And he won't have any for at least two more years.

No one has signed up for 7 yet.

And he's pretty old. This theory doesn't add up.

[stickdog]

31. Why not? You've said nothing. The man got billions in an insurance

settlement.

Nobody has sued him over asbestos and nobody ever will 'coz it was the terra'ists' fault.

So tell us just what doesn't add up again.

[TomClash]

32. Ok, I'll repeat it one more time

The "billions in insurance" is less than the amount necessary to rebuild on the site. He's only getting half the insurance money. And you have to subtract lost profits because he has no tenants for 4-5 years. And he has to make loan payments for the purchase. Given a choice, Larry Silverstein would spend $200m to fix the problem or sue the Port Authority before he would knock down the buildings.

And why would Westfield America, which owned the retail space in the concourse, acquiesce in this grand cospiracy? That connection does not lead to "asbestos" but does lead elsewhere.

Silverstein has other buildings in the area that were threatened by the collapse, including 120 Broadway, 120 Wall and 140 Broadway. None of these is an "asbestos bulding." Why would he threaten their tenancy and damage?

3 1/2 years later and there's no construction except at 7.

There are thousands of buildings in NYC with asbestos; no owner destroys their building to get out of the liability. They seal the asbestos. Why buy the towers in the first place then? Even a third rate engineering report would reveal the problem. Destroying the building and releasing the asbestos so you can be subject to class action lawsuits 10 years down the line from people like me is not a good idea.

This theory is a nice way to devalue and deflect a legitimate inquiry tough. Gee, what intelligence or law enforcement agency would want that?

Now do you get it?

[DulceDecorum]

33. Ummm, not exactly....

But the deal also allows Mr. Silverstein to keep $100 million of the GMAC loan originally set aside for planned improvements to the complex. Rather than using the loan-reserve proceeds to help repay the GMAC loan, the Port allowed Mr. Silverstein to use insurance proceeds to repay the entire $563 million.
..... Mr. Silverstein claims the 2001 attacks constituted two separate occurrences, entitling his group to two payments of the $3.5 billion face value of the policy, or $7 billion. The insurers, led by Zurich-based Swiss Reinsurance Co., contend the developer is entitled to a single payment.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/regionalnews/northeast/20031126-starkman2.html

[TomClash]

38. Read the article and do the math

And what about rebuilding 7? And rebuilding the remainder of the complex? And the lost cash flow from 4-5 years of lost rent?

No one is claiming Silverstein is getting ripped off. I'm claiming he dind't lease the complex and then cause 2 planes to fly into 1 and 2 WTC to get out of the asbestos commitment. That's just nonsense.

[stickdog]

39. HE GOT 7 BILLION DOLLARS!!!

No one is claiming he CAUSED 9/11, just that it makes perfect sense that his silence/complicity was handsomely bought with a huge insurance settlement and a huge reduction in potential asbestos liability.

[TomClash]

40. No he didn't

He got approximately $3.5b.

That is eaten up by rebuilding costs and lost rents. That's what the insurance carrier pays him for. He got paid for business interruption costs and replacement value.

To think that insurance companies just give money away is crazy.

[reorg]

42. well ...

I think it's always best to document one's claims, especially if one is to use strong language in favor of them.

I'm not at all sure how important this Silverstein angle may be, but this is where the battle over the insurance claims currently stands, for what it's worth:

WTC destruction two occurrences: Jury
By Douglas McLeod
December 06 18:05:00, 2004

NEW YORK—World Trade Center leaseholder Silverstein Properties Inc. could collect $4.68 billion in insurance payments after the jury in the second phase of the WTC property insurance litigation decided that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks should be treated as two insured events for nine of the program’s two dozen insurers.

The nine insurers involved in the second trial will now have to pay out double their combined coverage limits to Silverstein.

As deliberations entered their fourth week after a four-week trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Silverstein and against the nine insurers representing $1.13 billion of the WTC’s $3.55 billion insurance program. Fifteen other insurers representing the other $2.42 billion in coverage were previously found to be liable for only one occurrence in an initial phase of the litigation or in prior court rulings or settlements.

(...)

Jury verdicts in the first phase of the case, decided last March and April, have been appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but appellate action has been stayed. Any appeals of today’s verdicts are expected to be joined with those already pending.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=4747&print=Y

As to your suggestion that "to think that insurance companies just give money away is crazy" ... I don't know about that. One of the larger insurers in this case, the German Allianz AG, dismissed the suggestion of a shareholder, John-Paul Leonard, at a recent general meeting that unanswered questions on 9/11 and certain claims at various websites should be investigated (he cites Jim Hofmann, Eric Hufschmid, www.911forthetruth.com) - by stating:

"In den USA haben sich zwei offizielle Kommissionen im Detail mit den Vorfällen des 11. September 2001 beschäftigt. Daraus haben sich keine Hinweise auf die Richtigkeit der vom Antragsteller vorgebrachten Behauptungen ergeben."

"In the USA two official commissions have dealt with the incidents on September 11 in detail. No clues on the veracity of such claims as cited by the plaintiff (applicant?) have been found."

from PDF "Gegenanträge" at:

http://www.allianzgroup.com/azgrp/dp/cda/0,,301453-49,00.html

[TomClash]

44. Yes, you are absolutely right

I should link to some article instead of using my personal knowledge of the insurance and reinsurance industry.

Property and casualty claims are paid based upon business interruption and either replacement or actual cost. Silverstein is not exactly getting a bargain.

So the jury awarded him $4.68b. That could be $3.5b plus statutory interest. That's not $7b. And here's guessing that award will be modified on appeal. Or he must have demonstrated that amount in actual damage in accordance with his policy. So where is the big windfall that compelled him to be part of the "Big Asbestos Conspiracy?"

I'm sorry I just don't buy "let's purchase the WTC to blow it up because of asbstos" theory.

Your last insurance quote has no bearing on whether insurance carriers are miserly with their money.

[stickdog]

45. Tell us how much asbestos abatement would have cost.

It would have been cheaper just to demolish the building than to attempt to deal with the 500 tons of asbestos in it.

EXCEPT for the fact that it would (generally) be illegal just to demolish the building and poison greater Manhattan in the process.

[TomClash]

46. An earlier post said asbestos abatement would cost $200m

Tell me why Larry Silverstein would lease the buildings in the first place, knowing they had some huge asbestos problem? If he was "in on the plot" he'd have to anticipate the insurance payoff and hope the insurance industry would not collapse like the Twin Towers. Yeah, right.

I'm willing to listen to theories that challenge the Official Story, but not ones I suspect to be disinformation, straight out of an LAP project.

By the way, you're failing to connect a piece of the puzzle that might help your argument. Think about it.

The Truth lies elsewhere.

[stickdog]

47. What earlier link? Seriously.

I'm not saying that Silverstein's profit/loss on 9/11 was a major/driving factor of the towers' collapse. What I'm saying is that he bought into and/or was in on the plot and was well paid for his silence and/or complicity.

Please explain your argument(s) against my contention. And please use evidence and/or hard numbers this time. Seriously.

[stickdog]

43. Let's see the link. From my understanding, he got a lot more than that

after threatening to talk. When was this award overturned?

[spooked]

41. EXACTLY! They are all scratching each other's backs

They planned 9/11 FOR YEARS!
They were smart enough to place put options on United and American Airlines, why wouldn't they arrange a profitable senario with their building targets as well??

[dbeach]

35. there was a wall St investigation in WTC

and all documents were lost and the investigations wre dropped


I know its just another coincidence..