informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Sep 07 2006, 11:25 PM Category: Commentary Source: The Four Winds Print

Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein

By lifeforce@rockymountains.net

Related: Loose Change 2E: Nine Eleven... Was There A Conspiracy?You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.

There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

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. 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.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"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."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, “Pull” is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building’s tenants:


US Secret Service
NSA
CIA
IRS
BATF
SEC
NAIC Securities
Salomon Smith Barney
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Federal Home Loan Bank


The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that one of Lucky Larry’s closest friends — a person with whom it’s said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More on that cozy little relationship later.





Latest Commentary
- The Index Card of Allowable Opinion
- Should Government Have the Power to Quarantine?
- Obama Appointee Supports Individual Rights
- Let the Market Contain Ebola
- The State as a Royal Scam
- Glenn Greenwald TED Talk: Why Privacy Matters
- "Crush the Seed of Ishmael": A "Final Solution" to the "Muslim Problem"
- The State Has No Right To Do Anything









Comments 21 - 38 of 38 Add Comment < Page of 2
Mortified_Penguin

Posted: Jan 05 2008, 2:00 PM

Link
72229 Interestingly enough, in addition to the plethora of facts and logical assertions, it is important to fathom that in 2/28/1998, Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 "Global Hawk" initiated its very first flight. It was a mach-speed unmanned aircraft that flew over the CIA's Edwards Airforce Base in California. During the test run, the plane flew at altitudes of 32, 000 feet - which is the standard for nearly all commercial airliners. According to NASA, it is merely a "reconnaissance aircraft."
No what does an unmanned aircraft have to do with 9/11?
There have been quite a lot of eyewitness accounts and rumors that the CIA used non-commercial airliners to crash into the towers and fabricate the hijackers and "dead souls" of the atrocity. NORAD stood down because one of their own was in the process of "completing" the mission. That is, to sculpt the US into a police state and hearken NAFTA.
Frank

Posted: May 06 2008, 3:19 AM

Link
70169 Buildings topple. Whenever one, or three in this case, come down the way WTC did, they were made to do it. It amazes me that so many people think that it is possible for that to happen randomly. And 3 in 1 day, at the same location. It boggles the mind.
Anonymous

Posted: Jun 16 2008, 2:25 AM

Link
6811 Obviously you guys have no proislamic feelings.
treovr pickering

Posted: Jul 31 2008, 1:56 PM

Link
8236 larry silverstein had 4.6 billion from the insurance payout, he now stands to gain a urther 12.3 billion for losses as told by the NY Times larry is not going to be out of pocket on this deal as some may lead you to belive.

source
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?scp=5&sq=larry%20silverstein%20&st=cse
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 31 2008, 3:14 PM

Link
206173 TAKE THE MONEY AND BUILD A SKYSCRAPER IN DUBAI!
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 01 2009, 9:06 PM

Link
68204 Why is it that those people who say there is no conspiracy almost always resort to brutal personal attacks and name calling against the person and not the idea?

I mean I am trying to examine both sides with an open mind and there is a peculiar pattern of behavior against those who try to present the idea that we have not been told the truth.

It seems to only happen in the news media and online. Not on the street when discussing with the common man.

Why is this?
LoneWolf

Posted: Jul 14 2009, 10:59 AM

Link
7111 http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2008/05/05/the-trouble-with-wtc-asbestos/

The New York Port Authority originally planned to use 5,000 tons of asbestos fireproofing. The fireproofing, trademarked Blade-Shield, was manufactured by United States Mineral Products of Stanhope, N.J. It was 20% asbestos mixed with mineral wool — a concrete-like substance made from melted rock.

By 1971, medical studies began to show the cancerous effects of asbestos, and New York City banned its use in construction — but not before asbestos-containing Blade-Shield was sprayed on the beams and supports of the first 40 floors of the Twin Towers.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/16/18297965.php

The structural integrity of the massive World Trade Center Towers was contingent upon the combined -value of *both* the internal, perimeter STEEL columns and the adjoining ALUMINIUM Fascia panels.

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled, and were presented by the engineers to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."

Through the continual effects of wind-sheer and [flex-fatigue] this process had eroded the bolt-holds at roughly floors #7 through #25, that fulcrum-point where the lateral pressures were inherently sustained. Photographs, taken after the disaster, reveal that it was only those lowest exterior column sectional groupings which do not appear to have shown severe de-coupling of the joinery, therein. This is evidenced by the bright 'shiny,' cage-like forms that served to contain the bulk of the physical contents among a burning rubble.


Anonymous

Posted: Nov 05 2009, 11:43 PM

Link
17420 Just glad to be able to comment with out jeopardizing my Anonymous status in this world.

When will we get the @#$ truth of this to come to light, I will not raise my hand to the Flag again until this is bought to light.

ban the pledge until the truth is told.
Anonymous

Posted: Mar 22 2010, 9:55 AM

Link
17381 Why does this article have the erroneous information that Silverstein bought the lease on the WTC complex "6 months" before 9/11? He signed it on July 24, 2001 - SIX WEEKS before 9/11 - not 6 months.
waysane

Posted: Jun 08 2011, 9:07 AM

Link
7135 And so, the civil war has begun
Voo Doo

Posted: Sep 06 2012, 11:24 AM

Link
24196 9/11 was an inside job. Period.
There is no doubt in my mind
Michael Otto Carl H. von Pallutz

Posted: Nov 24 2012, 12:09 AM

Link
98182 Anonymous
Posted: Sep 08 2006, 7:39 AM....yes this article is full of flaws,but so is your response to it, nope i didn't owe 7 or something Billion , he bought the complex for 3.2 Billion,paid 124 Million,insured it for 7 Billion and received 4.6 Billion ,still owed 3.Billion and 76 Million ,which left him a nice win of 1 .524 Billion ...now that is what i call a " fat cat ",if you( like you said ) are so familiar with Real Estate Investments ,than you surely know that phrase well ?! So whatever reason you had to point out the poor research quality here, well, you not correct sir ...it is not common business to do what Silverstein did here ,this is more the ethics of an insider speculation ,so the article does raises some questions here again ,.... how far it goes of course is up to in which view points you believe in.....
Anonymous

Posted: Jun 18 2013, 3:15 AM

Link
130216 he put $124million deposit on the "$3.2billion complex" and got $7billion worth of payouts which equates to $4billion. There is no error or loss for the property. I believe that Silverstein may have used his superior position to make a few lucrative dollars. He has been in the RE Development game for a while and what more tempting to own than a building that was condemned? If you asked me, I believe that he wanted to go into retirement with, dare I say, a BANG!!

-Ares
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 13 2013, 6:36 PM

Link
204116 We were all dooped. By the time most of us realized what really happened (many many year later) the people involved were out of sight out of mind.
Anonymous

Posted: Jan 18 2014, 2:46 PM

Link
76189 Regardless if he owed 7 billion dollars, receiving even one billion dollars in a terrorist scam is making money; business men are not concerned about debt when they realize that debt has little to do with momentary enjoyment. A businessman is concerned only about moving forward and making enough money to have more power; power is only relevant to the moment, so 7 billion dollars in debt doesn't matter. If he hadn't faked the 9/11 attacks, he would still owe 7 billion dollars and wouldn't have the $5+ he received in insurance and lawsuits. Additionally, dealing with asbestos and demolition have some major setbacks:
1) Eventually with asbestos poisoning, the buildings will find themselves relatively useless and at some point the collective voice to tear those buildings down would overwhelm the owners of the property and be forced to do so—not to mention having to face lawsuits for delayed demolition and prolonged toxic poisoning with decreased value in real-estate.
2) Tearing a building down, let alone two sky-scrapers known for being some of the tallest and largest buildings in the world and certainly the city, would be a controversial and incredibly expensive task; with such toxic asbestos poisoning and the dangers of falling debris, it would be nearly impossible to demolish these buildings safely and environmentally, making it impossible to do at a cheap and reasonable cost. Paying for a manual break down of the towers would be incredibly expensive—although certainly a requirement—and not lucrative; however, a terrorist attack (and mirroring a 1993 "terrorist" event) could be a plausible method for creating insurance fraud. In this case, an individual would not need to deconstruct a building manually and pay its overwhelmingly expensive costs, losing more momentary dollars, but instead simply stage an attack and actually be paid an astronomical amount of money for nothing.
3) Even 5 million dollars in insurance, terrorist fraud (not to mention 5+ BILLION) comes with the added benefit of a cheap demolition and a payout to go toward any debt still owed. Having to deconstruct a building from top-to-bottom and pay for it without making any money is, for a sociopath, a no-brainer: Although, in God's realm—a no-hearter.
Anonymous

Posted: Jan 18 2014, 2:50 PM

Link
76189 Additionally, the desire to rebuild would cost money; in order to rebuild you must first destroy what you have. Here, the cost to deconstruct and then the cost to rebuild would be absolutely impossible ... Unless, of course, you stage an attack and scam the insurance companies and the country for enough money that you don't have to deconstruct and pay out of pocket for it, and yet you also receive money to rebuild.

The Pentagon being hit is a ridiculous scam; the towers falling is obviously a planned demolition ... And the entire event is a hoax. Not to mention the war
George Bush

Posted: Apr 24 2014, 4:39 PM

Link
207161 Ok ok, you got me guys!
I blew up the towers!
Anonymous

Posted: Aug 23 2014, 12:55 PM

Link
68224 Flt. 93 should have ended up at bldg. 7, if it did we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Comments 21 - 38 of 38 < Page of 2


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Mission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement' - 10/23Chicago Cop Who Assaulted 89-Yr-Old For Requesting He Stop Cursing Gets 3 Years - 10/23Either Praise the Police, or Shut Up - 10/22SWAT Officers Wrongfully Detain This Man For Filming in Public, Then it Gets Really Infuratiating - 10/22Obstruction Convictions Uncover Recordings of LA Sheriff's Dept. Officers Threatening FBI Agents And Federal Witnesses - 10/22EFF Guide: Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police - 10/22Prison Guard Admits to Sexually Assaulting Dozens of Inmates, Selling Drugs in Prison. No Jail Time - 10/22Land of the Free -- 1 in 3 Americans Are on File with the FBI in the U.S. Police State - 10/22

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-ThirdsCop Who Karate Chopped NY Judge In Throat Gets Off Scot-FreeFlorida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions"VIDEO: Lapel Cam Reveals A Day In The Life Of A U.S. Police Officer (Tasing, Beating, Breaking & Entering, Stomping On Heads... and Laughing About It)Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'Insult Person On Twitter, Go To JailSWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma InsteadCop Karate Chops NY Judge In The Throat
(more)

 
Top