Sunday, August 13, 2006

Reluctant Curiosity : 9-11 Questions Part 2

If you have read my old webblog article entitled “Reluctant Curiosity : 9-11 Questions Part 1”, you would already know that I am quite skeptical of the government’s account of the tragedy of September 11th, and the conditions claimed to have surrounded the attack and the collapse of the World Trade Center. There was one angle, however, that seems to have been overlooked, and did not come to my attention until I spoke with an environmental engineer familiar with asbestos removal and the pending asbestos lawsuits around the country.

In order for a conspiracy to work, there must be a definitive motive for the players in said conspiracy to commit the act and, ex post facto, remain equally motivated to keep their roles in this conspiracy an utmost cherished secret. I was at a loss to understand how deep this ‘motivation’ went and under what circumstances a conspiracy would be fostered. I thought through many possible scenarios, but could not find the ‘center of the web’ until asbestos came into the picture. The asbestos problem proves to be a key link in this already super-tangled web of 9/11 conspirators.

Larry Silverstein managed the WTC complex and had it insured for around four billion dollars. Some would believe that Silverstein would have participated in the conspiracy to collect the insurance money, but I believe the asbestos problem pushes that theory to another level. The WTC was loaded with asbestos and asbestos removal, as required by law, would have cost Silverstein millions of dollars to accomplish, not to mention the possible law suits that could come up in the meantime should anyone become ill from asbestos in the WTC. For Silverstein, it wasn’t just the payoff he received from his insurer, but the added bonus of never having to lay out millions to remove the hazardous materials from his buildings. (I do not know if there was pending legal action against Silverstein in the weeks prior to 9-11, but I’m looking for it.)

This is all fine and good, but what does the US government and Dick Cheney have to do with Larry Silverstein, asbestos, and law suits? Somehow they would have to be linked, at least financially, in order to provide any reasonable clue as to why they would conspire for anything. If you are familiar with the goings-on in Washington these last few years, the President has endorse a policy to limit or prohibit asbestos related law suits coming to court. Now what possible motive would the President have in stopping people from collecting damages from asbestos poisoning? That answer will answer the burning (asbestos pun intended here) question.

The asbestos bill, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006, which was introduced on the Senate floor three years ago, has been through a number of amendments to address various issues and concerns surrounding the proposed legislation. While proponents of the asbestos bill claim that the new trust fund would ensure prompt recovery for injured claimants, it could potentially deny many people the full compensation they deserve. The bill directly benefits companies like subsidiaries of Halliburton and others subject to these suits. Now tell me, how did this bill get to Congress and why does the President stump for its passage? Who wrote this bill? There is no doubt that anyone who faces potential litigation over asbestos wants to rid themselves of any liability.

Also from http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/asbestos.html

“Halliburton subsidiaries DII Industries, LLC (formerly known as Dresser Industries) and Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2003 for the purpose of minimizing asbestos liability. Halliburton purchased DII Industries in 1998 under the direction of former CEO Dick Cheney. The acquisition meant that Halliburton inherited 300,000 asbestos claims filed against DII, who had for years manufactured construction products which contained the harmful substance. Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root also had manufactured products containing asbestos and has been fighting asbestos lawsuits since 1976.”

Now we find the connection between Dick Cheney, and Larry Silverstein. The demolition of the WTC complex killed many birds with one stone. I do not believe that avoiding asbestos lawsuits or removal was the motivation for the conspiracy, but the plan could not have provided more appreciable circumstances that would end up benefiting those involved so much that speaking out would become nigh impossible. Larry Silverstein stood to gain millions, if not billions from it. That’s reason enough to go along with the plan. WTC 7, for example, was insured for $800 million, and with a cost to rebuild of around $400 million Silverstein, overnight, doubles his money. This over and above the cost of repairs or environmental clean-up that would be required had he not decided to demolish WTC 7.

If you must ask, there is video tape of Larry Silverstein telling someone to “pull” WTC 7, a building that sustained little damage and had a few smaller fires burning inside it at the time of demolition. Now why would Larry insist upon destroying one of his own buildings, if it wasn’t necessary? Answer: asbestos. WTC 7 was also laden with it. Otherwise, what real profit in leveling the building? Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Mr. Silverstein turned a huge profit form the WTC attack, and perhaps even doubled it by avoiding any asbestos removal (the technical term is ‘abatement’) and subsequent law suits that could have followed. Dick Cheney, as best friend of Halliburton, would also see his former employers dodge yet another huge fireproof bullet. This is just another example of the rich shamelessly exploiting anything and everyone to satisfy their greed. Now we have a theory as to why Larry Silverstein would not have objected to such a scheme.

The WTC attacks of 9-11 proved to be the absolute best conspiracy I have ever studied. Everyone involved seems to have profited so heavily from the scheme that their silence, in return for such profits, would be readily guaranteed. Now you may think that isn’t possible, but in business, especially in advertising and marketing, many details are hidden from consumers and clinical studies are often misrepresented in order to sell products and boost profits. This scheme is no different. How much would your silence cost? Larry? Dick? GW? Marvin? Osama? Anyone?

At the root of 9-11 is ruthless greed masking itself as patriotism; not 19 alleged Moslem hijackers belonging to some once-obscure enclave of Islamist radicals bearing box cutters. In all things, watch for the money, see who profits most, and follow the trail of opportunism and profiteering back home to the beneficiaries of the disaster. It is interesting to note that the same group of corporations seems to have profited at each step of the disaster. To put it simply, I believe the destruction of the WTC was a deliberate act of arson designed to avoid any potential legal responsibilities and also to reap enormous and sudden profit in terms of the incident itself and the subsequent national policies. All they needed were the right ‘patsies’, and the Arab world was more than happy to provide them.

Just making an observation and asking some questions. As usual.

Kol Tuv

3 comments:

Gavin Baskerville said...

An excellent theory and one that I'm leaning towards. I think there may be an extra level to add though. I tried to dismiss alQaeda from the equation but the documentary "The Secret History of 9-11" makes a compelling argument for their involvement.

The thing that piqued my interest was something that Ramzi Yousef said about his original attack on the WTC. He claimed taht the only reason he failed to bring down the building was a lack of funds.

The CIA was well aware of alQaeda's desire to attack the WTC. Is it possible that Silverstein provided the funds and inspired the attack via the CIA?

Bush was taken out of the loop by 'communication problems' with Air Force One leaving Cheney in charge in the White House bunker. Convenient, no?

I've decided to use a new term for 9/11 to distance myself from the more implausible conspiracy theories. Instead I refer to Coincidence Theories.

All the best
Gavin

Shlomo said...

Gavin,

I think you make a very good distinction between conspiracy and coincidence; too many coincidences does not a cohesive, planned operation make, BUT it certainly does trigger suspicion.

Let me ask you this. What about WTC 7? Didn't Silverstein say to 'pull' the building? How did he know to rig the building to pull it? Were all his buildings rigged? And how would you feel if you found out that your office complex was pre rigged with exposives while you worked in it?

Now if it wasn't pre rigged, then how did Silverstein order it to be 'pulled'? When did the crew have time to wire WTC 7? Were they on call? And if so, how did Silverstein know he would need them on 9/11 to have them ready?

The only way to avoid the conspiracy is to say that there are special demolition crews that run into burning skyscrapers and bring them down. I don't know if such a thing exists, bit it's highly likely that it doesn't.

Gavin Baskerville said...

Hi Kol

Yes... This is the big problem with the whole demolition theory. How did he do it?

I try to keep as rational as possible about these things. Clearly demolishing a building would require specially rigged, and one would suspect, fairly conspicuous explosives. However the way the buildings collapsed is way too unusual. This is my favourite analysis of the collapse:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

There is a fair bit of conjecture about Silverstein's order to 'pull it'. It certainly sounds to me like a slip but I wouldn't use it as proof.

As far as how you would demolish the buildings goes, the first stop would be to investigate the comapny CDI. They were hired to do the clean up on the Oklahoma bombing and the WTC site. They also,conveniently (coincidentally) enough do controlled implosions and cater for some 'special' services as outlined in this link.
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/collapse.html#cdi

One wild speculation I have about the towers is that maybe a 'nuclear' style (high heat) exlosion in the basement may have demolished the core structureof the towers (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig3.gif) pulling them in on themselves. This may account for the molten steel seen in the wreckage. If the centre was falling faster than the outside that may also account for the 'squibs' of dust being shot out of the lower windows during the collapse. The towers did collapse top down, WTC 7 came down more traditionally.

I don't profess to have any of the answers. But I do have a lot of questions. I'm beginning to think that Bush was oblivious to the plan 9too incompetant to be involved)and it was Cheney's idea. Your asbestos theory at least links him to Silverstein. WIthout proof I guess we'll never sort it all out.

All the best
Gavin