Wednesday, April 2, 2014

NY Times references Silverstein’s WTC demolition scam

By Kevin Barrett, Editor, Veterans Today

The New York Times promises “all the news that’s fit to print.”

Until now, the Times apparently believed the controlled demolitions of three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 was news that was unfit to print.

But today, on April 1st, 2014, the Times has finally published an apparent reference to World Trade Center owner Larry Silverstein’s mother-of-all-insurance-scams. And no, that is not an April Fool’s joke.

Today’s Times exposé of Silverstein’s boundless greed and chutzpah is headlined:

For a Ground Zero Developer Seeking Subsidies, More Is Never Enough

Journalist Michael Powell seems to have snuck one by the Times editors by writing that Silverstein “has internalized a developer’s rule of thumb in New York: Only a rube puts much of his own money at risk. Billions of dollars in Liberty bonds, insurance money, developer fees: Year after year, Mr. Silverstein has shaken the public tree and benefits have fallen to the ground.”
This alludes to the fact that on 9/11, Silverstein shook the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, and a multi-billion-dollar windfall “fell to the ground” – at free-fall speed.
When he bought the largely vacant, money-hemorrhaging, condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center in July of 2001 – just two months before 9/11 – Silverstein (obviously not a rube) put up less than $15 million of his own money while doubling the WTC’s terror insurance policy to $3.5 billion. On 9/11, he skipped his customary breakfast in the Windows to the World restaurant atop the North Tower, allegedly due to a lucky dermatologists’ appointment. Everyone in the restaurant that day died. Silverstein’s family members also cancelled WTC appointments that morning.

The 9/11 demolitions-without-a-permit allowed Silverstein to collect double indemnity on his terror insurance policy by claiming that his “losses” were the result of two completely separate and unrelated terror attacks. You don’t have to be an Edward G. Robinson of a claims adjuster to know that there’s something fishy about a guy who buys a white elephant, doubles the insurance, takes a “total loss” two months later, and sues for double indemnity based on a bizarre twist in the policy.

Continue Reading at ...