KILLING SEVERAL BIRDS WITH ONE STONE
Just after the nefarious freedom-stealing Patriot Act was extended and during the heat of criticism over Bush illegalities and a push for impeachment, Bush conveniently announced that a terrorist plot had been averted early in 2002 �In his speech, Mr. Bush said the plot had been �derailed in early 2002, when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key Al Qaeda operative.� He added that �subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target and how Al Qaeda hoped to execute it.� I wonder if any of the infamous 19 Arabs were going to participate in this attack � after all, they had already been trained. Administration minions claim that this announcement was not politically motivated; however, the timing is extremely suspect. I imagine more concocted details about this alleged foiled attack will be forthcoming to demonstrate just how our government is keeping us safe.
�In his remarks, Mr. Bush referred to the West Coast target as �the Liberty Tower,� but White House officials said he had meant to say Library Tower, the name of the U.S. Bank Tower in 2002. The building, completed in 1989, is 1,018 feet tall and was �destroyed� by alien invaders in the 1996 movie Independence Day.� I suspect if they had not �foiled� this terrorist attack that selectively efficient FEMA representatives would have immediately responded and quickly destroyed all of the critical evidence. And surely Controlled Demolitions Incorporated would have been there with their special trucks and equipment.
Another attack is unnecessary � an occasional Osama audio or video tape supposedly released by �objective� sources appears to keep Americans appropriately in tow. Once the government established the enemy as a fanatical Islamo Fascist segment of Islam, all the corroboration that is needed is persuasive media depicting mob violence, planted cartoons, public beheadings, flag burning, a few kidnappings and whatever else is necessary to incite American distrust and hatred against a contrived enemy.
What about those flags for burning? Where exactly do they all come from � particularly in a third world country? How quick could you, in America, spontaneously obtain flags of other countries? Do you think all those Kuwaitis really had tiny American flags ready and waiting when we invaded to save them from our proxy � Saddam Hussein? Those flags were supplied by the Rendon Group, an American special public relations company.
�The Rendon Group is a secretive public relations firm that has assisted a number of U.S. military interventions in nations including Argentina, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Panama and Zimbabwe. Rendon's activities include organizing the Iraqi National Congress, a PR front group designed to foment the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.�
�In a 1998 speech to the National Security Conference (NSC), company founder John Rendon described himself as "an information warrior, and a perception manager. This is probably best described in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, when he wrote �When things turn weird, the weird turn pro.��
��Through its network of international offices and strategic alliances,� the Rendon Group website boasted in 2002, �the company has provided communications services to clients in more than 78 countries, and maintains contact with government officials, decision-makers, and news media around the globe.��
�The Chicago Tribune reports that the Rendon Group has garnered more than $56 million in Pentagon work since September 2001.� Fifty-six million dollars can finance a lot of flag burning and media mobs. It is all about mind manipulation and brainwashing � ours!!!!
There is a pall of amnesia or ignorance hanging over America � we don�t remember or never knew that the government organized the CIA to create America�s perpetual enemies. The CIA�s job description includes: provoking and financially supporting both sides of the conflict in third world countries, orchestrating media propaganda by infiltration or otherwise to support their covert agenda, assassinating or supporting leaders in our own country and other countries, establishing camps to train others how to torture and kill and a host of other questionable activities that destabilize and divide all countries to further global governance.
The CIA has �unvouchered funds, by which operations can be funded with minimal risk of exposure in Washington." No one, the government or the media is going to call your attention to the CIA�s activities. Whistle blowing of any kind can be decidedly deadly.
When the CIA was established the official government directive included the following clandestine activities: �propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations should not include armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations.�
We can reliably assume that what the CIA can do in other countries, it can also do in our own country. There are many circumstances surrounding 9/11 than what the media and the government have revealed regarding the ownership and control of the buildings.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue � asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings � after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn�t demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option.
According to court records from New Jersey, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey attempted to have their insurers pay for the removal of the asbestos in several of their buildings including three of the buildings at the World Trade Center. The court case was initiated in 1991 after the Authority had scrapped extremely expensive asbestos removal in 1989. The case finally ended on 1 May 2001 with a judgment against the Port Authority. The Court decided that the insurance companies were not liable for the very costly removal of asbestos in the buildings in question.
After the 2000 presidential election and after the court judgment against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, another opportunity presented itself. In a previous article, �Bush�s War of Terror,� I stated:
�The New York and New Jersey Port Authority decided to award the lease of the twin towers and other buildings in the World Trade Center Complex, including Buildings 4 and 5 and two 9-story office buildings, to Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, Inc. Peter S. Lowy is the Chief Executive Officer of Westfield America, Inc. They were actually the low bidders but were awarded the lease because the competing bidder, Vornado Realty Trust was not able to reach a final agreement.�
�Larry Silverstein already had control of WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building. As a result of the Port Authority�s decision, a document was drafted on 24 July 2001.�
�Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers, completed in 1972 at a cost of $370 million, and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion � the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history.� The cost of this lease was for a fraction of their real value. The twin towers were originally part of an urban renewal project spearheaded by the Rockefeller family.�
�This lease was for 99 years and the negotiations by Lewis M. Eisenberg, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had begun in April 2001.�
�Eisenberg has served as Chairman of the Republican National Finance Committee in Washington, D.C. since January 2002, raising crucial dollars for Republican candidates across the country. During the last year (2004), Eisenberg helped raise $135.3 million for the Republican Party.� He is also known as a Republican Super Power Ranger. A Super Power Ranger is someone who was willing to individually contribute $300,000 to the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign. Eisenberg personally gave $307,000 and has been an influence in the Bush administration. He is also a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition.�
�Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist �charity� organization, to which media magnate Rupert Murdoch and Lowy generously contribute. Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel.�
�In February 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. His original investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. He constructed this building in 1987 on land leased from the Port Authority. On 6 December 2004, after a six-week trial and ten days of deliberations Larry Silverstein won the court battle against nine of twenty-four different insurers. The court agreed with his claim that the destruction of each tower should be considered a separate occurrence. If this verdict is upheld Silverstein would get up to $2.2 billion from the nine insurers. He has indicated that this money would be devoted to construction at Ground Zero. Silverstein could ultimately win $4.6 billion from the one insurer. Silverstein has already started reconstruction of the steel frame building #7, and another building, the 1776-foot Freedom Tower. Cost estimates for rebuilding the WTC site ranged from $10 to $12 billion. Given these estimates, one has to wonder how much asbestos removal and renovation would have cost for the towers.�
We must not forget about the 1993 WTC bombing in the North Tower which obviously did not meet the goals of total collapse: �On February 26, 1993 at 12:17 PM, a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds (682 kg) of explosives was planted by terrorists and detonated in the underground garage of the North Tower, opening a 100 foot (30 m) hole through 4 sublevels of concrete. Six people were killed and over a thousand injured.�
�Six Islamic extremist conspirators were convicted of the crime in 1997 and 1998 and given prison sentences of 240 years each. According to a presiding judge, the conspirators' chief aim at the time of the attack was to de-stabilize the north tower and send it crashing into the south tower, toppling both landmarks.� Were they patsies or not?
Regarding the decade long New Jersey court case, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey against their insurance companies, Douglas Mcleod wrote in the trade magazine �Business Insurance� dated 14 May 2001. This information did not appear to be significant to the �brainwashington� media crowd or other complicit parties: �NEWARK-Asbestos abatement costs are not covered by an all-risks property policy unless an actual asbestos release or an imminent release leaves a property useless or uninhabitable, a federal judge has ruled.�
�U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell in early February threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.�
�Granting summary judgment for the insurers in his May 1 ruling, Judge Bissell found among other things that the costs of removing asbestos do not constitute �physical loss or damage� triggering coverage under the Port Authority's all-risk policies.�
�A Port Authority spokesman said the agency is reviewing the ruling and has not decided whether to appeal.�
�The ruling ends the trial phase of a decade-long court battle that began when the Port Authority sued its property insurers in 1991 in a New Jersey state court.
�The suit sought recovery of the Port Authority's huge expenses of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade Center complex-which represented more than $200 million of the abatement costs-to bridge and tunnel toll booths.�
�Later moved to the U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark, the suit named all of the agency's property insurers from 1969 until 1991. Among them were Affiliated FM Insurance Co., Allianz Insurance Co., units of American International Group Inc., Federal Insurance Co., Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. and dozens of Lloyd's of London syndicates and London market insurers.�
�Judge Bissell last year granted summary judgment to insurers on policies issued prior to 1978, finding that the Port Authority breached policy provisions requiring timely notice of its claims.�
�The ruling removed pre-1978 policies from the case and left only policies in force from 1978 to 1991. In his ruling earlier this month, Judge Bissell found that the agency also has no coverage for its asbestos costs under the second group of policies.�
�After reviewing submissions by both sides, however, Judge Bissell found no evidence that asbestos had posed a health risk to anyone at the Port Authority's properties.�
�Thousands of air samples taken at the Newark Airport buildings, for example, never revealed any instances of asbestos fibers exceeding safety limits, the judge noted, adding that the Port Authority had completed abatement projects at only a third of the airport locations for which it had claimed losses.�
�The agency also repeatedly vouched for the safety of its properties, according to the opinion. At one point, the director of the Port Authority's asbestos control program wrote in a memo to employees that �air monitoring tests are conducted to ensure the air quality in specific areas containing asbestos is within the required federal standards.� All air monitoring tests taken so far at the (facility) indicate air quality well within federal standards.�
�Even the February 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center did not create an asbestos problem: Air sampling that began within hours of the explosion showed some higher-than-normal asbestos readings but none that exceeded levels considered safe under federal guidelines, the ruling notes.�
�In addition, Judge Bissell concluded that some Port Authority abatement work at the World Trade Center was motivated less by health concerns than by the desire to avert rent revenue losses linked to the presence of asbestos in office space.�
�The express purpose of (a Port Authority abatement project) was to stem lost revenue resulting from a loss of new tenants who wished to �rebuild office space to their desired specifications but who would not do so unless (asbestos-containing materials) were abated,� Judge Bissell found.�
�To be sure, there are circumstances in which the actual release of asbestos from building materials can constitute physical damage or loss. When this has been the case, however, the courts have described the level of asbestos release...in terms requiring the magnitude...to be relatively substantial,� the judge said.
�To constitute physical loss or damage, the judge ruled that the Port Authority's claims must involve �an actual release of asbestos fibers�...that results in contamination of the property such that its function is nearly eliminated or destroyed, or is rendered useless or uninhabitable'' or an imminent threat of an asbestos release of the same magnitude.�
�None of the agency's claims met this standard, Judge Bissell concluded.�
�Its proofs falling short, plaintiff is left with nothing more than speculative and non conclusive allegations, Judge Bissell wrote. �The Port Authority's argument that its abatement program is necessary for protection of human health misses the point.� The issue here is first-party property coverage under the policy that plaintiff has purchased, coverage which plaintiff has failed to establish.�
They appealed this case in the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The original judgment stood. At that time Samuel Alito was a 3rd Circuit judge but did not sit on this case although he was most likely aware of it. His appointment to the Supreme Court was probably not about Roe versus Wade despite the so-called conservative support and media focus. You may download the entire 14 page PDF court file which, ironically, was not given until after 9/11.
Many researchers give substantial, credible evidence that the buildings were professionally demolished � something that could only be facilitated by those in control of the buildings. The unimpeded planes crashing into the towers were actually horrendous �shock and awe� distractions away from well orchestrated and environmentally disastrous demolitions. The resulting unprecedented collapses would be deceptively attributed to the exploding planes and some permanently unavailable Arab highjackers.
Conveniently and most unfortunately, the events of 9/11 did the following:
Gives New Details of 2002 Qaeda Plot to Attack Los Angeles
� 2006 Deanna Spingola
- All Rights Reserved
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center. She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution.
web site: www.spingola.com
At that time Samuel Alito was a 3rd Circuit judge but did not sit on this case although he was most likely aware of it. His appointment to the Supreme Court was probably not about Roe versus Wade despite the so-called conservative support and media focus.