Who Destroyed the WTC?
(Connect the dots)
by Donald Cassidy
Memorial Day, 2008

A memorial to the millions of innocents who died
and will die as a result of September 11, 2001.

Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. — Henry Kissinger, 1991

I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas. — Henry Kissinger, 2000

September Eleven was good for Israel. — Benjamin Netanyahu

Do the following quotes from news reports on the internet, limn a cabal so evil, so dreadful that — "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." — J. Edgar Hoover. And it rules Washington absolutely!

The text in square brackets below is the author's own.
The footnotes in curly braces were added by Serendipity's editor.

The Principals

Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman Sachs partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the Lessor. Larry Silverstein, New York developer and friend of Netanyahu (every Sunday Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the Lessee.

In April 2001 Silverstein was informed he had lost his bid in the privatization of the World Trade Center ("WTC"). Then events took a surprising turn. The winner dropped out, leaving Silverstein and his partners, who had finished second, as the new winner.

The Lease

The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion on July 24, 2001. Silverstein put up $125 million, only $14 million his own money. The net lease covers four buildings at the World Trade Center, including the Twin Towers and the retail Mall. It may have been one of the most elaborate deals in the leasing history of New York City.

The speed with which this painstakingly complex deal was closed is notable. "There are a million items that need to be dealt with", said Marc Schauer, of NAI Lawrence, a leasing firm. The entire negotiation period — from start to finish — lasted only a few [3] months, a relatively swift duration in the world of colossal lease transactions especially with a governmental entity. [This frantic rush to close [for possession] by some deadline was the principal cause of the litigation to follow. Why the rush?]

The Property

Chairman Eisenberg said, "The Port Authority and the region both benefit from this transaction." PA Executive Director Neil Levin said, "It was this excellent record of managing the complex that now allows the Port Authority to realize the enhanced value of the complex." Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." [Was that, "raising" or "razing"?]

But from an economic standpoint, the trade center — subsidized since its inception — has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the real estate marketplace. It would cost $800 million just to upgrade the electrical, electronic, and cooling systems.

And it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. Plans were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems. Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively expensive. The only reason the building was still standing on 9-11 was it was too costly to disassemble floor by floor. There is a persistent report on the internet that either the state of New York or the EPA had ordered the dismantling of the WTC. And dismantling the WTC would not result in the recovery of insurance proceeds since it would not be a casualty.

Why would Silverstein, a knowledgeable real estate developer, pay millions of dollars to get control of a building that was uneconomic, was an environmental basket case, and had serious corrosion problems? Many New York developers had gone bankrupt complying with mandated renovations.

But all of Lucky Larry's problems disappeared on Sept. 11, 2001. Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 bn., more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself. Lucky Larry would also miss his usual breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on the 107th floor of the North Tower and survive that fateful day together with 3,999 of 4,000 Israelis who normally were in the WTC (a statistical anomaly of huge proportions). {1}

The Insurance

The story of the Silverstein insurance program, assembled in the summer of 2001, is so far-fetched that any law professor who dreamed it up would be laughed out of the classroom. Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to find enough coverage to satisfy his lenders. Willis is a giant insurance broker, specializing in coverage for big commercial properties. Silverstein's lenders insisted on first $2.3 bn., then right before the lease deal closed, $3.55 bn. Willis scrambled to place the insurance, ultimately to 25 carriers. Negotiations were frenetic.

Willis hustled in June and July, contacting carriers in the United States, Europe and Bermuda to place coverage. Willis distributed a sample policy that Willis had developed, the Wilprop form. This form included a specific definition of "occurrence" under which the destruction of the WTC was plainly, a single occurrence. But Willis later testified that it considered its form a starting point for negotiations after the closing.

On July 24, 2001, Silverstein closed with only binders, slips of coverage and certificates of insurance totaling $3.5 bn. from his insurers ["slips" are binders in Europe]. According to federal Judge Martin, "The New York Court of Appeals has made clear that when a binder is signed, "the contract of insurance is closed and the binder is in effect the same as a regular insurance policy." Swiss Re [a major insurer] asserts that the language used in the binders that it and 21 other insurers signed was the "WilProp" form under which the attack on the WTC is unambiguously a single occurrence.

But Travelers Insurance [CEO Sanford Weill] had a major role to play in the total insurance picture for the WTC. It insisted on using its own form, which did not specifically define "occurrence"; however, its form was not present at closing. Willis needed Travelers to stay in the deal and promised to substitute the Travelers policy after the closing. Only one formal policy was in effect on September 11, 2001.

The developer has often repeated that he would need at least $7 bn. to rebuild the WTC site. But Silverstein chose to insure the entire property for $3.55 bn., half of its true replacement value, to save premiums and declared the full replacement cost for insurance purposes as $3.945 bn. to avoid co-insurance. [Shouldn't this make him a co-insurer under insurance law, sharing half the cost of damages, exactly the reverse of double indemnity?]

The Dispute

Contrary to the express understanding of insurance professionals, Silverstein trumpets at every opportunity that the attack on the WTC was two separate occurrences." Barry Ostrager, an insurer's attorney, weighed in with, "Silverstein's elaborate two-occurrence argument is a hoax. We believe we have established that the Silverstein case is a fiction conceived by lawyers and public relations advisors after Sept. 11, 2001." {2}

Silverstein and Willis now say that all of the insurance companies agreed to and should be held to the terms of the Travelers policy which did not define "occurrence". Swiss Re and a host of other carriers notified Willis that they'd bound coverage on the basis of the WilProp form, and had never agreed to substitute the Travelers form at all. Most of the carriers deny that anyone from Willis ever told them Travelers was replacing WilProp; many said that the first they'd heard of it was after Sept. 11.

When Willis' Boyd called their London office after Sept. 11, he said, according to the notes of one, "In their opinion this is one occurrence." Another broker said something similar to Swiss Re's Bollier. Silverstein's own risk manager hurriedly faxed a copy of portions of the WilProp form to a lawyer for the PA with a cover note: "FYI the 'occurrence' definition and the insuring agreement and the exclusions in the Willis policy that we are working with." Several hours later he sent the same materials to one of Silverstein's lenders.

Building No. 7

* In the history of the world, no high rise steel buildings have ever collapsed from fire except the three Silverstein buildings on 9-11-01. Structural steel is not affected by fire. For example in 1991 eight floors in the middle of the high rise Meridian Building in Philadelphia burned for 20 hours. According to the official fire report, "Beams and girders sagged and twisted — some as much as three feet — under severe fire exposures. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage." And stood for many years later. {10}

WTC 7 occupied a city block north of the WTC complex. Silverstein's estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. FEMA concluded that the collapse of WTC 7 was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1 which resulted in a payout of nearly $861 million or a profit of about $500 million to Silverstein. Buildings a lot closer to the Twin Towers strangely remained upright.*

Silverstein stated in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided to demolish WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001. {3} And the building quickly fell into its own basement. [How did the FDNY know that WTC 7 was prepared for demolition? Did Silverstein? This requires weeks of careful preparation by demolition experts.] Senator John Kerry stated that, WTC 7 was brought down as a result of a controlled demolition, directly contradicting FEMA. So WTC 7 was "pulled" by a controlled demolition, meaning that the FEMA version of what happened is false, casting serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of foreign origin destroyed the WTC as well as on the rest of the official account of 9-11 [and today disbelieved by most Americans and the rest of the world].

The OEM crisis center in WTC 7 has been identified on the internet as the control center for the pre-planned demolition of the WTC. {4} {5} The center and all of the evidence was destroyed when the 47-story tower was completely demolished. So, who decided to build the OEM crisis center in WTC 7? "Jerry Hauer recommended it as the prime site", Mr. Giuliani said. "It was largely on his recommendation that that site was selected."

The Attorneys

On Sept. 13, two days after the towers fell, Silverstein hired top legal gun Herbert Wachtell to defend him in the tangle of litigation sure to come. It was Wachtell, according to Ostrager, who originated the double indemnity theory of two ocurrences. Willis agreed that attorneys John Gross, Eric Roth and Marc Wolinsky could come to New Jersey on Monday, Sept. 17, to talk to the brokers. It was at these meetings that Ostrager claimed that Wachtell exerted "fantastic pressure" on Willis as the lawyers and brokers figured out what to tell the insurance market.

Ostrager claimed repeatedly in the litigation that only after Wachtell Lipton lawyers got involved did Willis witnesses convert to the story that favors Silverstein. He later said they never meant to suggest that Wachtell Lipton lawyers had suborned perjury, merely that in hours of preparing Willis witnesses for deposition, Wachtell Lipton had subtly shaped their recollections and perspectives. Silverstein's attorney, Howard Rubenstein called the statements "a cynical and manipulative attack on Silverstein and an attack on rebuilding lower Manhattan."

Willis was represented at these meetings by Andrew Amer. Amer, who presumably heard the Willis witnesses tell Silverstein's lawyers that the Travelers policy governed the WTC coverage, declined to comment. Gerson of Epstein Becker, the lawyer who replaced Amer soon after those initial meetings rejects any suggestion that Willis witnesses were coerced at the Sept. 17 meeting with Wachtell Lipton lawyers.

The Litigation

In 2002, US District Judge Martin rejected the Silverstein claim "that at the time the insurers signed the binders they were well aware that they were committing to be bound to some future agreement" and granted summary judgment in favor of three insurers who specifically referred to the WilProp form in their binders. Two Bermudan insurance companies also mentioned the WilProp form in their binders and paid only their policy limits. Judge Martin seemed eager for the case to settle, and appointed federal Judge Lewis Kaplan to oversee talks. Judge Martin retired and Judge Mukasey took over.

In May 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a jury decided, with respect to 10 of the remaining insurers were bound by the Wilprop form and only one occurrence had taken place and therefore were only obligated for $2 bn. rather than $4 bn. The jury said that three others insurers were bound by other forms and had to pay double on their claims. Thus, by the Fall of 2004, about $2.4 or $2.5 bn. in insurance proceeds had been awarded to Silverstein. The remaining claims were for either $1.1 or $2.2 bn.

In December 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a second jury held that the remaining nine insurers were not bound by the Wilprop form, thus two occurrences had taken place, holding all nine insurers collectively liable for $2.2 bn. By the dawn of 2005, then, $4.6 bn. was awarded in insurance settlements. This is a far cry from what Silverstein wanted ($7 bn.), but much more than what many pundits thought he would recover ($3.55 bn.). Brooklyn-Queens Congressman Anthony Weiner vowed to punish the insurers with fines or operating restrictions if they do not pay up. [The WTC is in Manhattan.] Both sides appealed.

[A judge can greatly influence a jury by regulating the evidence they receive and the final instructions that guide their decision. The second jury was obviously and totally confounded and overwhelmed by the mass of conflicting evidence and the burden of having to reconstruct the intent of the various parties years after the fact and very dependent on Mukasey's "shepherding".]

In October 2006, the Court of Appeals (Judge Walker) in a 70 page opinion affirmed Judge Mukasey and wrote, "Judge Mukasey did a masterful job shepherding this complex, hotly contested case through both phases of a lengthy jury trial."

Judge Walker opens his opinion with, "whether the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, whereby two jetliners separately crashed into the WTC, destroying both buildings, constituted one or two 'occurrences' under ... multiple insurance contracts." And concludes with, "The jury had before it evidence that none of the remaining nine insurers were bound to the WilProp form ... their hours limitation clauses did not specifically refer to losses caused by fire, aircraft, or acts of terrorism ... and the destruction of the WTC was caused by separate fires, resulting from separate collisions by separate aircraft into separate buildings."

[Persuasive evidence was allowed from a Silverstein expert as to trade customs in the insurance industry as well as testimony by a Travelers executive as to other claims against Travelers which were treated as separate occurrences. Reading this lengthy opinion, one is struck by the absence of Weill's Travelers as the replacement insurer when the news reports are filled with it.]

Silverstein had spent about $100 million paying lawyers, which critics said was an unconscionable siphoning of money that should have been used for rebuilding but that $100 million produced an additional $1.1 bn. And Silverstein made a huge profit. The Port Authority, after Silverstein won the second case, quietly filed its own lawsuit seeking double indemnity on its own insurance policy.

More Litigation

In 2005, Lloyd's of London filed a lawsuit against the PA, claiming the agency's demands for $2.1 bn. in insurance money to rebuild WTC are unreasonable. The PA has already received $950 million for damages incurred on September 11. The PA and Silverstein are still pressed for money to complete the reconstruction of the WTC and the PA wants to seek damages for two events instead of one, making it eligible for about $1.5 bn. more in insurance money.

In August 2006, seven insurers contended the new ownership of the WTC did not affect their insurance obligations, arguing that the insurers' obligations are intertwined with the litigation that has been ongoing since 2002 . (The PA had taken back ownership of the $2 billion Freedom Tower and Silverstein had assigned the insurance proceeds to the PA to reduce rent payments.) But Judge Mukasey ruled that he lacks jurisdiction to handle the latest lawsuit and sent it back to state court, where it will be handled by Justice Herman Cahn.

In 2007 Silverstein and seven insurance companies agreed to a $2 billion settlement to end an almost six-year dispute over the insurance policies covering the WTC. Governor Eliot Spitzer announced the settlement at a news conference in lower Manhattan, "The settlement will end all litigation on the issue". Spitzer compared the insurance dispute to a Stanley Cup playoff hockey series in which the two sides play a "very hard match" and "at the end of the series they always shake hands and move on." [Forgetting the thousands who died so horribly and were disposed of in a landfill.] New York and PA officials said that the deal removed any uncertainty over how much money would be available for rebuilding and would enable them to obtain private financing for the $9 bn. project. "There's a high level of cooperation," says Travelers counsel Harvey Kurzweil, who, along with his partner Saul Morgenstern, has become a spokesman for the other insurers. [Cynics comment the insurers' litigation was only intended to shelter them from billions in claims by their own shareholders, participants, re-insurers and excess insurers.]

In 2003, Spitzer, then NY Attorney General, got involved behind the scenes and in the courts, filing an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief on Silverstein’s behalf [after the Martin decision in 2002]. The courts ended up agreeing with Spitzer and Silverstein. Spitzer helped mid-wife a fat compromise and an eventual $4.5 billion payout for Silverstein. Requests for comment from Governor Spitzer were ignored.

But the money Silverstein is set to receive from his insurers — $4.6 bn. — is not enough to reconstruct. So much of Silverstein's insurance proceeds have already been spent, there is not enough money to rebuild. The developer has often repeated that he would need at least $7 bn. to rebuild the WTC. Silverstein and the PA had spent more than $1.5 billion of the insurance money already, including more than $500 million for Silverstein's rent to the PA; about $190 million for the PA to buy out Westfield America's retail rights; and more than $700 million to repay Silverstein's lender, GMAC, and to repay Silverstein and his partners most of their equity.

In another case, Judge Harold Baer of the U.S. District Court rejected arguments by Silverstein that it should recover an additional $700 million to make a rebuilt complex safe, modern and politically acceptable. What's most noteworthy is that Judge Baer interpreted the policy language as the insurers thought it was written.

February 2008: The Port Authority lost its right to collect insurance money on the destroyed Twin Towers and much of the WTC when it leased the property two months before the 9-11 terror attacks. Federal Judge Barbara Jones limited claims by the PA to buildings that weren't leased to developer Larry Silverstein. The judge noted Silverstein had his own insurance.

March 2008: Larry Silverstein joined in a suit by the Families of the Victims of 9-11 and is seeking $12.3 bn. in damages from airlines and airport security companies. He filed the claim in 2004, saying the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists from destroying the WTC. The $12.3 bn. represented $8.4 bn. for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings [that he declared for insurance purposes as $3.9 bn.] and $3.9 bn. in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the PA and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings. Judge Hellerstein expressed skepticism about Silverstein's claim and asked why he had not stemmed his losses by just "walking away". Any trials in the case appear to be more than a year away.

[Judge Hellerstein also played an important role in the 9-11 Victims lawsuits, judicially "blackjacking" them into settlements rather than lawsuits.] He ruled out testimony from top government officials raising serious questions as to why the judge would cover up and potentially obstruct government testimony and evidence under oath by key players when it would be in the interests of both parties to the suit.

An atmosphere of intimidation was apparent when an attorney for the victim families explained that his clients wanted a trial not a settlement, to which Hellerstein retorted, "Sit down." The judicial coercion continued; attorney Schiavo told Hellerstein that she was also experiencing problems with "difficult clients" who were adamant about going to trial with full discovery and government witness testimony, to which the judge said, "This is the way it's going to be. Go back and you tell them we are going to settle, period." Hellerstein finally decided to personally "select and quickly hear" three cases "without any discovery or interruptions." Though remaining families want a trial, Hellerstein has been coercing them all along to negotiate a settlement with his "special mediator," Sheila L. Birnbaum.

Not one single September 11 Victim lawsuit has been permitted to proceed to a public trial by jury with testimony by major government officials, complete and unhindered discovery of documents and interrogation by career prosecutors {6} despite meritorious evidence of prior knowledge of the attacks by the Bush administration. {7}

When Silverstein applied for $3.35 bn. in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to help finance the Freedom Tower and his other buildings on the site, Mr. Bloomberg [mayor of New York] found a lever. The city and the state each control half those bonds, and the mayor said that he would not agree to the city's half unless Mr. Silverstein made certain concessions. Silverstein needed the Liberty Bonds because insurance proceeds, which amounted to about $4.6 billion, would not nearly cover the expected costs of the five towers [now $9 bn.].

Victim family attorneys have strangely failed to seek testimony from Ashcroft and Chertoff regarding the selection of Kenneth R. Feinberg as Master of the multi-billion dollar 9-11 Victim Compensation Fund which forced families to sign away their right to sue the U.S. government for criminal negligence. Feinberg’s law firm represented major insurance firms which would have lost billions in payouts if Congress had not used American taxpayer funds to cover expected losses by insurance companies.

What is almost certainly the most sophisticated and complete understanding of exactly how and why the World Trade Center fell has been compiled as part of a secret proceeding in federal court in Lower Manhattan. But everyone fears that the closely held information may remain buried in sealed files or even destroyed.

Epilogue

In 2008 Mukasey, an Israeli citizen {8}, was installed as US Attorney General at the urging of Senators Schumer and Feinstein where he will "shepherd" the prosecution of AIPAC for treason and/or espionage just like Kissinger was chosen to head the 9-11 Commission and replaced by Zelikow. Former Attorney General Gonzalez came under intense pressure to resign from Senators Schumer, Feinstein and Spector. The deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general also resigned clearing the way for more Mukasey shepherding. [Got the picture yet?]

Four of the Israelis, arrested on 9-11 for celebrating the mass murder of thousands of Americans, filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the US Justice Department, claiming they were arrested illegally, then held without charge and interrogated and tortured for months. They were released by Chertoff, another Israeli citizen who now heads Homeland Security. {9} The FBI concluded at least two of the five were Mossad agents and all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. Their lawyer claims the case will debunk theories that Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks. As of 2008, there have been no further media reports about this lawsuit. [What are the odds they were paid?]

After Sept. 11 over 100 young Israeli "art students", illegally in the country and spying all across America, were quietly ordered "deported" to Israel by a high American official [Chertoff again?]. [Have they filed suit against US, too?]

Conclusion

As anticipated by Kissinger, the destruction of the WTC and the loss of thousands of lives resulted in the demolition of the American Constitution; the American people did unite behind Bush and endorse wars of aggression and genocide on the nations of the Middle East and the theft of their resources for the benefit of Israel. Now it comes out that the president actually practiced for 9-11 in advance and on that terrible day didn't know whether it was real or another practice session. And still noone in government or the 9-11 litigation even dares to suggest that the WTC was an "inside job" although the evidence is now almost overwhelming. Reportedly, even the National Institute for Standards and Technology has repudiated the "collapse initiation" theory of its 10,000 page report, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." Well, nearly everybody else on the planet can.

There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. There should be an inquiry by an international body, such as the International Criminal Court, to assess responsibility for this monstrous crime against humanity; ironically like the Nuremberg Trials brought by the zionist cabal against German officials.

Despite zionist efforts to confuse the two, Zionism is not a religion but a political conspiracy, centuries old. Zionism is Jewish like Nazism was Lutheran. You can read all about it in the Protocols. Many years ago,

George Washington called them "our greatest enemy."

Benjamin Franklin said, "They are vampires. If they are not excluded from the United States ... they will rule and destroy us."

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." — FDR letter to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933.

"We control America and they know it." — Ariel Sharon

Welcome to the Goldene Medin, the New Khazar Empire (ceded by Congress: 413-8)!

D. Cassidy
Memorial Day, 2008


Relevant articles (list added by Serendipity's editor):

  1. Odigo says workers were warned of attack
  2. Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?
  3. Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7
  4. Was WTC 7 a Dud?
  5. Eagle's Nest at Ground Zero
  6. 911 Lawsuit Is A Booby Trap
  7. Bush Flubs it Again: Details and Confirmation of Prior Knowledge
  8. Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?
  9. Controlled Press Hides Chertoff's Israeli Roots
  10. Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

In Remembrance of the September 11th Dead!
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
Serendipity Home Page