Asbestos and the twin towers

> A LENGTHY, PRE-9/11 LEGAL BATTLE OVER THE WTC'S ASBESTOS PROBLEMS

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.

milwaukee.indymedia.org...

Originally posted by Black_Fox
> A LENGTHY, PRE-9/11 LEGAL BATTLE OVER THE WTC'S ASBESTOS PROBLEMS

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.

milwaukee.indymedia.org...

I think the important quote here is "Note that this suit was filed TWO YEARS BEFORE the first so-called "terrorist attack" I never knew there was a conspiracy to the 1993 bombing? so called attack??? IT was an attack.

I have done some quick searches on this and have found nothing.. This does not mean it is or isnt accurate. If i get anything else i will post it.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Black_Fox
> A LENGTHY, PRE-9/11 LEGAL BATTLE OVER THE WTC'S ASBESTOS PROBLEMS

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.

milwaukee.indymedia.org...

I think the important quote here is "Note that this suit was filed TWO YEARS BEFORE the first so-called "terrorist attack" I never knew there was a conspiracy to the 1993 bombing? so called attack??? IT was an attack.

I have done some quick searches on this and have found nothing.. This does not mean it is or isnt accurate. If i get anything else i will post it.

Let me please add that Mr. Karl Schwarz was the only "writer" that i could find although it states "others". ( it is possible that there are more)
Mr. Schwarz was caught in a couple lies in the past though concerning his 911 conspiracy theories....

www.apfn.net...




[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]

(RenewAmerica.us)-Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.," www.renewamerica.us...

"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."
www.renewamerica.us...

"U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month 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."
www.renewamerica.us...

"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."
www.renewamerica.us...

"A Port Authority spokesman said the agency is reviewing the ruling and has not decided whether to appeal."
www.renewamerica.us...

"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.
www.renewamerica.us...

"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."
www.renewamerica.us...

"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."
www.renewamerica.us...

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Black_Fox]

The articles have been read. Your quoting from the same source. Deanna Spingola lists several sources...but leaves out many. This draws red flags to me. Are there any sources that show that there was a law suit? This appears to be pure specualtion.

Although i could be wrong.

Is there a site that shows this law suit actually existed?

I actually read some more of her "Deanna Spingola" article. IT is FILLED with lies.... ie:

"Helped the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to relinquish their money-losing property."

(on 911 the WTC was experiencing a 98% occupancy level in their offices)


"Financially benefited Larry Silverstein."
(Larry Silverstein LOST millions)

"Established a dictatorship in America."
Um ..well...the democrats control the house and Senate...how can that be?

This woman is not 100% honest, so i would be hesitant on using her as a source.







[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]

I have been working in the construction business for some years. I have taken an asbestos course and know pretty much everything about that. I have even worked with removing asbestos at several occasions. The clue is that asbestos is forbidden to use NOW and has been for many years. HOWEVER asbestos is not a danger in itself as long as it stays in it's place, and is not fragmented into smaller pieces creating dust particles dangerous to inhale. They are so fine and have small hooks that keeps it from escaping your lungs. Exposed over time to this and cancer will surely be a big threath to you.

So quite possible that they didn't have to remove it. Though if a big fix up of the building were to be done. They probably would have to come in contact with the asbestos and therefore had to remove it.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Im curios as to WHY Silverstein would purchase the buildings and not know he would have to remove the asbestos. Why wasnt the port authority required to remove it prior to Silversteins purchase?

Silverstein had to have known about the asbestos. When I bought my house, I had asbestos on the heating ducts. I had to write a notorized letter indicating that I knew about the asbestos and I would not hold my mortgage company at fault for anything related to the asbestos.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I never knew there was a conspiracy to the 1993 bombing? so called attack??? IT was an attack.

I suggest looking into it more then.

Allegations of FBI foreknowledge
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad A. Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. [4] He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers; reported by Ralph Blumenthal in the New York Times, Oct. 28, 1993, secton A,Page 1.

In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.[citation needed] The 1993 WTC sting operation was depicted as a false flag operation and was a plot device for the 1996 movie The Long Kiss Goodnight with Geena Davis.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by CameronFox
"Financially benefited Larry Silverstein."
(Larry Silverstein LOST millions)

I still haven't recieved proof of this from you yet? But I have seen you post this many times since you've been here? How could he lose millions when his settlement was in the billions? Is the rent on the site a billion? Because he has over 7 billion after 9/11. That's 1.4 billion per year since. Is that what he's paying for the land to just sit there?

This woman is not 100% honest, so i would be hesitant on using her as a source.

I'm not defending this woman but I could say the same about you. Show me proof that Silverstein lost millions and I'll retract my statement.







[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
"Financially benefited Larry Silverstein."
(Larry Silverstein LOST millions)

I still haven't recieved proof of this from you yet? But I have seen you post this many times since you've been here? How could he lose millions when his settlement was in the billions? Is the rent on the site a billion? Because he has over 7 billion after 9/11. That's 1.4 billion per year since. Is that what he's paying for the land to just sit there?

This woman is not 100% honest, so i would be hesitant on using her as a source.

I'm not defending this woman but I could say the same about you. Show me proof that Silverstein lost millions and I'll retract my statement.

Sorry Griff... been busy at work at pretty much only reading stuff on here...I'm not looking for you to retract any statements. NOR do i ask anyone to take what i say as Gospel. God knows I'm messed up a couple posts in here posting my opinion. But I do try to gather as much info as I can prior to posting...but here are some sources to where I got my information:

Sources:
“Even as Construction Begins, a New Trade Center Tower Faces Obstacles” New York Times, January 16, 2003.
“7 World Trade Center Gets a Major Tenant”

Thanks for the post CameronFox.

I'm trying to piece together what Silverstein made (7.4 billion?) as oppossed to what he has had to pay out.

Thanks for the info but I'm still not convinced that he has lost millions. Maybe because I'm horrible with financial stuff? You know, interest and all that. Why can't accounting use calculus? I'd do a lot better if that were the case.

Oh, BTW, I don't believe Silverstein ment he "pulled" the WTC7 in that interview. Nor am I an Alex Jones fan. I just sometimes like to play devil's advocate.

That being said, I do think something else happened in those towers (all 3) other than planes and fire to bring them down. What that something is, is still up in the air for me.

Edit: Just saw from one of your links that it's 4.6 billion. Thanks again.

[edit on 12/5/2006 by Griff]

911blogger.com...
Destroyed Records of Pre-911 WTC Estimated Asbestos Removal and Demolition Plans

"FBI" 'take-over' at the WTC!
"Each of you were called here to sign an affidavit of non-disclosure. None of the information from our project can find it's way into the public-eye. Absolutely nothing that we have learned from this project can be revealed to the public because it is potentially damaging to our client."
This guy's speech sounded like a military operation. Everyone in attendance could tell he had no connection to the Port Authority, or the WTC Security Staff, yet no one in the group recognized that I didn't technically work for their firm, and I had no business being there!

"It's $2.6 Billion just to erect the two scaffolds to surround both buildings, and that's only the beginning. They literally have to re-build them, then un-build them, twice! -Now it's obvious, bottom-line is that the developer will have to sell soon, or take a serious bath; ...Total?- You tell me, $4.5 Billion, or so!" (I forgot his figures.)

why worry about only asbestos.

the towers also had PBCs used in wireing and transformers as a fire resistante agent.

when you burn PBCs at 500 to 900 degrees you get PCDD dioxin.

PCDD dioxin is just as toxic as TCDD dioxin found in agent orange and ground zero of the towers had the highest reading for PCDD ever recorded in the US,
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.tandfonline.com...