^you're welcome. Interesting that it was from August 2007 and didn't get more play, eh?
first I'd heard of it too, and some would say I'm obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy.
-----
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by keeshou
You mean like the B52 that supposedly smacked into the side of the empire state building, in "Loose Change"?
|
I think I expressed my reservations with
Loose Change in that other 9/11 thread.
------------
I mentioned before that the destruction of the WTC might have been advantageous for certain interests and I found this:
Quote:
But in exposing this evidence, the 9/11 Truth effort is also shedding light on a significant story-within-the-story: that the World Trade Center (WTC) was obsolete and asbestos-laced, and that its destruction on 9/11 may, for certain interests in the U.S., have been both desirable and profitable--independent of any interest in war.
(Heresy, you say? Please read on.)
|
Quote:
The WTC's original owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had been concerned about asbestos-abatement issues for many years prior to 9/11.
According to Karl Schwarz [6] and other writers, the Port Authority in 1991 filed suit in U.S. District Court against insurers in the hope of recovering funds to help pay for needed asbestos-abatement work at the WTC and one of the region's airports. In the suit, "Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.," the Port Authority sought between 500 million and 1 billion dollars from the insurers.
Note that this suit was filed TWO YEARS BEFORE the first so-called "terrorist attack" on the WTC; the truck-bomb explosion in the Center's underground parking garage in 1993.
Schwarz reports that the U.S. District Court judge ruled against the Port Authority as of May 14, 2001.
Less than three months later, the Port Authority transferred ownership of the WTC buildings to private investors.
|
On 9/11: Was the Asbestos-Laced World Trade Center "Disposable"? - Looking Glass News