Insurance companies for American and United Airlines notified about controlled demolition evidence

9/11 Blogger
Mark Graham

(Sacramento, CA)  9/11 Truth activist Mark Graham sent a letter to the 12 insurance companies for the airline defendants sued by Larry Silverstein informing them about evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 and offering to put them in touch with building experts who could provide expert testimony.

In 2004 Larry Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had signed a 99 year lease on the Twin Towers just six weeks before 9/11, sued United and American Airlines ¹ and companies providing security at the airports (the "airline defendants").  Silverstein claimed that the airline defendants ² had been negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack the planes and fly them into the Twin Towers.  He claimed that the plane crashes and fires "proximately caused the total destruction" of the Twin Towers, Building 7 and the other buildings in the World Trade Center.  (Complaint in Case 1:08-cv-03722-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/17/08, page 2)  ³

No mention has been made of the fact that it would have been impossible for those plane crashes and fires to have destroyed the buildings or the abundant evidence of controlled demolition.  The defense attorneys could make an affirmative defense of this argument and exculpatory evidence.

Graham sent his letter via certified mail to the heads of 12 insurance companies who insured the airline defendants including Lloyd’s of America, Travelers Cos, Swiss Re, Zurich American, Global Aerospace and U.S. Aircraft Insurance Group and to their attorneys.
As Graham’s letter pointed out, Silverstein’s theory that the plane crashes and fires destroyed these buildings, which also happens to be the U.S. government’s theory, has not been tested in court via expert testimony, scientific facts and evidence.  Nor has Silverstein’s theory been proven in the official building reports.  It has been proven to be fraudulent by 9/11 Truth activists yet it has been assumed true by the parties and the Court. ^{5 6}

Silverstein has already recovered $4 billion from his own insurance companies.  He is seeking $8.4 billion from the airline defendants for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings and lost business income.

On September 5 Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that there will be a trial in these lawsuits.
On November 21 Judge Hellerstein ruled that United Airlines, whose flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, was not responsible for the destruction of Building 7.  That opinion followed a simple principle:  a defendant should not be held legally and financially liable for damage that he did not cause.  (“Judge Rules United Not Liable for 9/11 Collapse”, by Reuters, published in the New York Times)  Similarly, the airline defendants should not beheld legally and financially liable for damage that they did not cause.
Graham’s letter framed the issue like this:

There is exculpatory scientific evidence, including expert testimony, proving two separate claims.  Potential settlements ⁴ should take these claims and supporting evidence into account.  The defense attorneys should make an affirmative defense based on these claims and this evidence.  The claims are:

#1)  That it was impossible for the impact of the hijacked airplanes and the resulting fires to destroy the Twin Towers and / or Building 7 of the World Trade Center.  This would have been against the laws of physics.  It could not have occurred and did not occur.

#2)  That the cause of the building collapses was the detonation of explosive demolition charges in a timed sequence placed in the buildings that destroyed the steel columns supporting the buildings.  This is known as “controlled demolition” and it is an organized, systematic process for deliberately for taking down steel framed skyscrapers.

It follows that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the airline defendants were negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack Flight 11 and Flight 175 and fly them into the Twin Towers starting fires in the Twin Towers those plane impacts and fires did not cause or even contribute to the total destruction of the Twin Towers.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence that would absolve of liability, exonerate, or clear of blame, as in a defendant in a lawsuit. 
Those of us in the 9/11 Truth movement are familiar with the evidence that controlled demolition using explosives caused the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7.  The letter named some of this evidence and referred to the NIST final report on Building 7 and the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

Assuming that American Airlines Flight 11 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 93 through 110, or 18 floors of the North Tower and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 92, American Airlines should be held liable for no more than 18 / 110 or about 16.4 per cent of the value of the property damage to the North Tower.

Assuming that United Airlines Flight 175 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 77 through 110, or 34 floors of the South Tower, and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 76, United Airlines should be held liable for no more than 34 / 110 or about 31 per cent of the value of the property damage to the South Tower. 
As Graham wrote, “Legal and financial liability for the damage to the floors below should be properly assigned to those who planned and carried out the controlled demolitions.  I do not know who those individuals are.  They are as yet publicly unidentified terrorists.”
If the airline defendants make the affirmative defense that they were not responsible for the total destruction of these buildings because controlled demolition took them down it would surely surprise a lot of people and call into question the official conspiracy theory of the government and mass media that blames Arab hijackers for all of the damage.

                                                            ###

9/11: Who Really Benefited? Fact and Not Fiction...

Global Research
Captain America

Forget so-called conspiracy theories. Instead look at reality. Dare ask yourself who actually seems to have benefited from the 9-11 calamity. In light of the debt ceiling debates and the continuous corrupt politics as usual of Washington D.C., it is time for the American people, and individual states of this federation, to look at a troubling set of facts. It seems there were “several” beneficiaries of 9-11 that don’t exactly fit the story line we were constantly fed by the propaganda machine and mainstream media as to how to connect the dots (which we were rhetorically asked to do).

Here is a list of peoples that benefited. Most of this list is factual. Some are more opinion but with strong support in reality-based argument:

1) The New York Port Authority was having difficulty renting out space in the Twin Towers. More importantly there was a huge asbestos liability. Surprisingly these Towers were sold to a new owner Larry Silverstein just three months prior—who managed to get an insurance contract for a big payout if any of the Tower buildings got hit by an airplane. This is a fact.

2) Our first international move was to bomb Afghanistan under the assumption that people there were involved. So the heroin industry of Afghanistan came back to life in a big way—that is international and local drug cartels rediscovered a gold mine of money supply. Bin Laden and the Taliban, because of their religious fanaticism, pretty much closed down the trade to a trickle. But after the bombing shake-up, people connected with the heroin trade in Central Asia reaped billion dollars rewards—including money-laundering groups of financiers—such as banksters, etc. (And this is pretty much all the U.S. military/ intelligence has really accomplished—despite all the rhetoric and high-sounding goals about exporting democracy.) This is fact and not fiction.

3) Investors of profitable corporations connected to the military industrial complex made a killing (pun intended). Obviously war has been profitable for some industries for eons as we are told by most war historians profits are an inevitable consequence of war for merchants of death yet they say profit is “not” the driving force behind war. Think again. For our American culture, since at least the Vietnam War, it seems to have become the driving force. (What else does America still manufacture?) Prior to 9/11 there was little in the way of war material inventories being depleted. But soon after 9/11 this all changed. In fact some corporate stocks immediately went up in value—as did some military contracts. Note as well that after the cold war both the Pentagon and the Intelligence apparatus should have cut their budgets in half. (But then no one would have been promoted and the Pentagon would have lost some of its clout.) That did not happen. Rather the budgets doubled in size. How is that for financial austerity? This is fact and not fiction.

4) Some powerful industry leaders and think tank politicos believed it was necessary for certain “companies” to “control” various strategic resources such as oil and gas. And not surprisingly the very countries in which we declared a war against terrorists are surprisingly the same countries that contain such resources—especially in the Middle East.

Gas and oil reserves are coveted by every industrial civilization and every military as a necessity. For example, there was a plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ship out from the Indian ocean—requiring stable societies that don’t sabotage pipelines. Nevertheless despite things not going as planned oil companies for whatever reason reaped huge profits. Fact and not fiction.

5) Advocates, such as Paul Bremer, for extreme laissez faire economic policies, attempted to rewrite an Iraqi constitution to promote a free market system of neo-liberal economic principles to make it especially easy for foreign nations to own Iraq’s resources. And if you do your research you will come to learn that the U.S. did not have any gripes with Saddam Hussein until he kicked oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted to take the lion’s share of the profits. He nationalized oil. This is fact and not fiction.

6) Israel benefited by having one of their neighboring enemies, namely Saddam Hussein and his standing army, weakened and preoccupied. It is not a coincidence that advocates and newspaper pundits most defensive about our invasion happen to be strong advocates of Israel’s right-wing will. Evidence clearly shows that some Israeli supporters were part of the culture of deception to take us to war with Iraq—as they are now working to take us to war with Iran with a similar pattern of phony intelligence. Equally it is a fact that whatever Middle East group harbors hostility toward Israel is now considered terrorist in nature to Americans. It is a fact that the Israeli lobby pushed hard for war with Iraq.

7) Right-wing politicos, especially Christian and Judaic, who like to promote prejudice against anything Muslim and Arab benefited. Since 9-11 there has been a constant propaganda war against Muslims throughout Western countries. (This is not to argue that Americans should not be wary of foreign motives.) But the fact is that those who do not wish Muslims to have influence in this culture have clearly wages a major propaganda campaign for Westerners to fear and distrust a huge segment of the world’s population—as a “cultural clash” or clash of civilizations like the medieval era of The Crusades. This is to say that Israel’s enemies have become our enemies as “neocon” propaganda campaign harps on “Islamo-fascism,” “Islamo-extremism,” and “Islamo-fanaticism”. Meanwhile this event is used to further persuade Americans Israel is America’s “natural” ally and partner against the forces of evil. (Yet rightwing Israelis too are not willing to separate Church and State and so they discriminate against those not Jewish. Therefore they too do not share our democratic values of equality for “all” people—like many of the theocratic countries in the Middle East.) This is opinion but it still reflects reality.

8) Politically motivated people with the desire to use “fear,” namely terrorism, as an excuse to curtail and destroy civil liberties and freedoms normally honored in democratic countries. We have become more a fascist state with Homeland Security surveillance. This curtailment is similar to those who continue to try to censor free speech—and make it more difficult to have the right to “associate” via technologies such as the Internet. Such mentality has allowed spying on citizens by “privatized” corporations not accountable to the tax paying public who pay organizations to secretly spy and keep records on its own citizenry. Obama and his team have done nothing to make real, substantive changes, and in fact have reinforced this tyranny. The curtailment of our freedoms is fact and not fiction.

9) Some international political operatives willing to take American bribe money in exchange to playing and saying our tune have benefited, such as some political factions in the Middle East who equally play they game with our tax dollars—including journalists who will write and say whatever Uncle Sam wants as long as there is a brick of one hundred dollar bills as “disappeared” just like military contracts that did not get performed—but were still played. This could also include those creating phony websites to spew messages or take credit for events done by others.

10) People with a desire to destroy the political strength and good will of the American people and government. Our country is no longer looked upon as a “positive” force for democracy. Further our economy has been severely damaged by corrupt forces willing to sacrifice real national security to greedy and self-interested ends. We are seen as the rogue state by too many. It doesn’t seem to bother some profiting that America goes broke invading foreign countries—irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks—and what could be a long term disaster—if not a World War 3. (It almost seems like a deliberate foil to destroy military preparedness and to weaken our security.) Furthermore, those who believe in a two class system benefited because the wealth investor class, including most of the Congress and Senate, are “not” sending their kids to die—rather they rely on a volunteer military of lower and middle class kids that can’t find jobs or have few prospects to go to school.

11) Along with this financial bust is a drive to destroy liberal notions of any kind of welfare for the less fortunate—save welfare for corrupt corporations. While it is true that there is no free lunch (unless you live in the beltway) there is also way too much scorn for people who are not super-rich as deserving some kind of humanity.

Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th Represented by the Center for 9/11 Justice

Herold Online

Center for 9/11 Justice

NEW YORK, March 23, 2011 --

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine "Welt der Wunder," revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11.

The issue is heating up in America as well, and will soon be heard in court.

Top Secret Military Specialist April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, she was ordered by her supervisor to go directly to work at the Pentagon, before dropping off her ten-week-old son Elisha at day care.

Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival.

The instant Gallop turned on her computer an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious.

Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft – no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains. Her watch (and other clocks nearby) had stopped at 9:30-9:31 a.m., seven minutes before the Pentagon was allegedly struck at 9:38 a.m.

The 9/11 Commission reported that "by no later than 9:18 a.m., FAA centers in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Washington were aware that Flight 77 was missing and that two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center."

Why then were there no anti-aircraft defenses, Gallop asks, or alarm warnings inside the Pentagon?

Gallop was briefed by officials not to tell her story in public; she also received an email from a Fox News reporter who had been told by the Pentagon not to interview her.

Gallop now believes that officials within the Bush Administration conspired to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 – the third building brought down at 5:20 p.m. that day – with pre-placed explosives detonated after the planes hit.

On April 5th, 2011, at 11 a.m., at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut, the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Gallop's case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis – that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts – is scientifically untenable.

In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim.

German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that:

"No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks."

Also, that "it is not acceptable for a constitutional state...to declare war, bomb a foreign country, and place it under military occupation," without first identifying suspects.

Dieseroth also said the U.S. "was under burden of proof" that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, yet the FBI admits it has no evidence presentable in court to back this up.

The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world's understanding of history, not to mention American citizens' relationship with their government.

Media contact: William Veale centerfor911justice@gmail.com, 292929@msn.com, 510-845-5675, 925-212-3678

SOURCE Center for 9/11 Justice

Guns and Butter - "Demolition Access To the World Trade Center Towers" with Kevin Ryan

First, Project Censored censored over 9/11 Truth:

Letters and Politics - January 12, 2011 at 10:00am

Click to listen (or download)

The link for Kevin Ryan is here:

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/66755

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy

Herald Sun

VICTORIAN Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken remains unrepentant after his controversial comments about the 9/11 attacks made news around the world.

Mr Bracken sparked outrage yesterday when he told Jon Faine's ABC talk-back program the attacks were not the result of terrorist activity.

He said the story was a conspiracy that "didn't stand up" to scientific scrutiny.

This morning Mr Bracken phoned into Faine's program again for a right of reply.

He said he wasn't phoning as the president of the Trades Hall council or as secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia.

Mr Bracken stood by his comments and said he had the support of 50 per cent of the community.

He also attacked Faine, claiming he was ridiculed on yesterday's program.

"Unfortunately cowards like yourself have set the political agenda in this country for too long," said Kevin Bracken.

"I won't be cowered down to bullies like yourself."

Yesterday, Julia Gillard has dismissed as "stupid and wrong" Mr Bracken's belief.

The Federal Opposition seized on the comments in Parliament, with Victorian MP Josh Frydenberg asking Ms Gillard what action she would take against Mr Bracken “to send a message that such remarks are unacceptable”, The Australian reported.

“Obviously I don’t agree with the remarks, obviously they are stupid and wrong,” Ms Gillard said.

“The Labor Party is a large organisation, people join it as individuals – we don’t dictate what people think.”

After being accused by Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne of not answering the question on discipline, Ms Gillard said: “If it is the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to expel every member who says something stupid, I’ll start sending him a weekly list.”

In Victoria, Shadow Attorney General Robert Clarke said Mr Bracken's comments were a direct insult to Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

"It strikes at the very heart of the West's struggle against terrorism and it is a disgrace that while Australian soldiers are serving and dying in Afghanistan that Mr Bracken make these wild claims that undermine the very reason for their presence in Afghanistan," he said.

Mr Clarke called on Premier John Brumby to condemn these comments in the strongest possible terms and for the outspoken union leader to be disciplined.

"The Trades Hall Council needs to consider Mr Bracken's future as its president and the MUA needs to consider his future as their secretary,'' he said.

"These comments can't stand they need to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.''

Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd said Mr Bracken did not speak on behalf of the organisation.

"The official Trades Hall position is not to entertain that theory," Mr Boyd said.

"We had almost 3000 working people killed in that terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack, and we condemn it."

Mr Boyd said Mr Bracken's views had caused many debates behind the walls of Trade Hall.

"He is welcome to his views and we've discussed his theories," he said.

"But I totally disagree."

Mr Boyd said he stood by his colleague despite his extremist views.

"99 per cent of the time Kevin's a very good president," he said.

MUA national secretary Paddy Crumlin distanced the union from the comment, releasing a statement saying its position on the attack was "unambiguous".

"The 9/11 tragedy was a result of a terrorist attack by international terrorists who claimed responsibility," he said.

"It is the MUA's position - one that I passionately support as national secretary - that this attack is one of the greatest affronts and abuses of human and civil rights in contemporary history."

This is not the first time Mr Bracken has voiced his controversial opinions on the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

In 2006 he told The Australian he believed the attacks only worked because the US Government was in some way involved.

"If they want to stop terrorism they've got to look at who was really behind September 11," Mr Bracken said at the time.

"It couldn't have happened unless there was participation from key elements of the American military and government and security services. I am not saying the whole lot were involved. But I believe the official story for September 11 doesn't stack up."

Mr Bracken said in 2006 his views on the terror laws and September 11 were his own, and he was not speaking on behalf of the union.

Cause to Celebrate: A&E Petition Hits 10,000 This 4th of July

911truth.com

Lehigh Valley, PA - On Saturday, July 3, 2010, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, which demands Congress start a new and independent investigation into 9/11, hit the 10,000 signers mark.

Such an historic milestone for liberty could not have occured at a more fitting time than the 4th of July, a time when Americans take pause to celebrate their liberty and reflect on the form of government that guarantees such freedom.

A perfect time to raise an eyebrow at the 9/11 investigation that continually tells us, even to this day, that we must fight more wars and give up more personal liberties.

And, Lehigh Valley locals are, indeed, beginning to speak out about it.

Meet petition signer Lori McFerran, who says she lives "in a small town in eastern Pennsylvania with [her] husband." Mrs. McFerran writes of herself in her personal description statement, "I am an editor at a daily newspaper in Allentown, Pa., and have almost 30 years' experience as a journalist and writer."

Mrs. McFerran isn't so sure the 9/11 Commission got it right, stating in her petition, "After hearing the evidence presented by Richard Gage (I listened to the youtube video and heard him speak on Coast to Coast on Tuesday, June 10), I am sufficiently suspicious of the account that was presented by the media about what happened at the World Trade Center in 2001. I fully support a complete and UNBIASED investigation into the events and a thorough scientific evaluation of the evidence at the site."

The emphasis by Mrs. McFerran that the new 9/11 investigation needs to be unbiased was shared by another local, a Mr. Larry A. Hill of Northampton.

Mr. Hill stated in his petition:

"I have a Bachelor of Arts in History from Penn State University, graduated with highest distinction (top 2%) with a GPA of 3.88. I am a self-taught database programmer by profession. In my studies of History, I reject most, if not all popular conspiracy theories.

I accepted the government explanation of the WTC towers for years. When I saw the AE911Truth video, I was convinced that we were NOT told anywhere near the entire truth about this event.

A truly complete and INDEPENDENT investigation must be done. No one with direct ties to the US government should be involved. Until this happens, trust in our government and the ability of representative democracy to protect us is eroded and undermined."

One avenue of investigation not pursued by the 9/11 Commission was the possible use of explosives in bringing down any or all of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01. Bethlehem resident Robert D. Grim writes in his petition statement that evidence of controlled demolitions is opening his eyes, stating:

"Though not an architect or engineer, I am a physics buff. I have a solid understanding of the laws that govern the physical universe, and am also well versed in construction methods.

I was a senior in high school when the towers collapsed. I didn't question anything at first, but I did see the resemblance between the WTC and controlled demolitions. I began questioning the event when a friend who had seen the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" told me about the theory of controlled demolition. Since then, nearly every piece of evidence that I've seen has supported that theory. I want truth!!!!"

On this 4th of July, with now 10,000 signatures officially on the A&E petition, there is truly hope that such a new and impartial investigation might be acheived, the need of which having been attested to locally on the A&E petition by Lehigh Valley petition signers such as McFerran, Hill, and Grim.

The 10,000 figure was reached by adding together the official figures given on the A&E website on Saturday, July 3rd. An official figure of 1218 was given for "architects and engineers," and an official figure of 8,787 for "other supporters" on the same day. Thus, as of July 3rd, there were 10,005 total signers, according to figures posted at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's official website.

Lehigh Valley residents are reminded that the A&E petition "is open to everyone," according to the A&E official website. Therefore, a person need not be either an architect or an engineer in order to sign the petition. And, indeed, everyone is encouraged to sign.

For more information about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, readers are referred to the official website, cms.ae911truth.org.

Richard Gage's Gnosis Interview in Tucson

Straight from the airport, Richard Gage, AIA, stops by KJLL 1330AM the JOLT to interview with "The Baron", Chuck Aubrey on his Gnosis Radio program - June 26th, 2010.