| From: Karl W B Schwarz, 2/7/06 If you missed the radio broadcast yesterday on RBNLive.com, it is archived and available at this link for February 6, 2006: http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt06.html We reported in the past via articles and radio shows that in 1989 architects, engineers and contractors were doing a project to erect structural scaffolding, take down WTC I and II one floor at a time, and re-build them. The goal was to remove asbestos and correct galvanic corrosion problems caused by the nature of the structural steel alloy versus the aluminum alloy exterior. Price tag $5.6 billion and the project was shelved, all documents seized from the architects and engineers. Suspecting that such was just the tip of the iceberg, we kept digging. New Information coming in from NY and NJ by people who remembered the cases and articles in local papers: In 1991 the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey commenced litigation against insurers in an attempt to get money to abate the asbestos problems in WTC I and II and possibly WTC 7. They were seeking $500 million to $1 billion which seems very high for WTC I, II, others and the three airports. US District Judge ruled against the PANY&NJ and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers MAY 14, 2001. Port Authority of New York v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., Iss. 27, 5/15/2001, p4H; Iss. 32, 6/26/2001, p16 Business Insurance; 5/14/2001; Mcleod, Douglas http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:74798464/Port+loses+claim+for+asbestos+removal%7eR%7e(Port+Authority+of+New+York+and+New+Jersey).html?refid=SEO 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 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. Granting summary judgment for the defendants... The PANY&NJ appealed the decision and it went to 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals. That is the court Alito sat on during the time in question. The question is DID HE SIT ON THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL? Not according to 3rd District records but the judges do meet regularly on case planning within all of our U.S. courts. However, he has argued many cases as Assistant Solicitor for US and might have been involved with Ted Olson in 2000 in getting Bush into office. That should be checked into with detail. 3rd Circuit, US Court of Appeals upheld Bissell’s decision in 2002: [] [] • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Affiliated FM et. al., 311 F.3d 226 (3rd Cir. 2002) (applying New Jersey law); Correcting Asbestos Not Within Scope of First Party Policy Unless Structural Integrity Of Building In Question [] Affirming the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that under New Jersey law, unless asbestos in a building is of such quantity and condition as to make the structure unusable, the expense of correcting the situation is not within the scope of a first party insurance policy covering “physical loss or damage.” Port Authority of New York & N.J. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., decided 11/14/02. The case involved the Port Authority's buildings in New York and New Jersey that incorporated asbestos in construction. It sought recovery for expenses incurred in abating asbestos-containing materials, including the since-destroyed World Trade Center. The argument was that physical damage occurred simply because of the presence of, the threat of release, and the actual release of asbestos. The Third Circuit reasoned that when the presence of large quantities of asbestos in the air of a building makes it uninhabitable and unusable, then there has been a distinct loss to its owner. However, if asbestos is present in components of a structure, but is not in such form or quantity as to make the building unusable, the owner has not suffered a loss -- the building continues to function and has not lost its utility. In the Third Circuit's view, “‘physical loss or damage’ occurs only if an actual release of asbestos fibers from asbestos-containing materials has resulted in contamination of the property such that its function is nearly eliminated or destroyed, or the structure is made useless or uninhabitable, or if there exists an imminent threat of the release of a quantity of asbestos fibers that would cause such loss of utility. The mere presence of asbestos, or the general threat of future damage from that presence, lacks the distinct and demonstrable character necessary for first-party insurance coverage.” MY NOTE: They did not make an issue of the galvanic corrosion which would probably not have been covered under these insurance policies because there is a different test under the law for patent and latent defects. That would be considered a latent defect rather than patent defect; i.e. concealed versus obvious and would have fallen back on the architects, engineers, contractors and subcontractors, much like the Kansas City lawsuit in the early 1980s involving Hyatt Regency Crown Center and the failure of that overhead walkway that killed many people at The following was emailed to me by a researcher in the NY NJ area: “this may be the name of the case, but I cannot confirm it by accessing the case right now [this appears to be a federal leg of the same case; if so, wasn't Alito on the 3rd Circuit??????] On November 18, 2002, it was reported that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that "the mere presence of asbestos or the general threat of its future release is not enough to trigger coverage under a first party insurance policy covering physical loss or damage" (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.). The Port Authority was seeking $500 million to $1 billion for the costs of asbestos abatement of the World Trade Center and Newark International Airport. The litigation began in 1991. law.com 11/18/02 Alito, Samuel A. Jr. Born 1950 in Trenton, NJ Federal Judicial Service: U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons; Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990. Service terminated on , due to appointment to another judicial position. Supreme Court of the United States Nominated by George W. Bush on November 10, 2005, to a seat vacated by Sandra Day O`Connor; Confirmed by the Senate on January 31, 2006, and received commission on January 31, 2006. Education: Princeton University, A.B., 1972 Yale Law School, J.D., 1975 Professional Career: Law clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977 Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981 Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1981-1985 Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1985-1987 U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990 Race or Ethnicity: White Gender: Male Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Nominee as Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court · Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was born in April, 1950, in Trenton, New Jersey. · Alito received his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and attended Yale Law School, where he served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. · Alito clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit, who is now his colleague on that court. · From 1977-1980, Alito served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the appellate division, where he argued cases before the circuit court to which he was later appointed. · From 1981-1985, Alito served as Assistant to the Solicitor General. He has argued 12 cases on behalf of the federal government in the U.S. Supreme Court and he has argued numerous others before the federal courts of appeals. · From 1985-1987, Alito served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General where he provided constitutional advice for the Executive Branch. · From 1987-1989, Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey where he is best know for prosecuting white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights. · Alito was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. · In 1990, President George H. Bush nominated Judge Alito to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. · Alito was unanimously confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. · Judge Alito has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. · Judge Alito has argued 12 Supreme Court cases and argued at least two dozen court of appeals cases and handled at least 50 others. · Alito has participated in various professional associations including the New Jersey Federal Bar Association (member of advisory board); the New Jersey State Bar Association; the American Bar Association; and the Federalist Society. (My note NEOCON GROUP) · In 1985, Alito married Martha-Ann Bomgardner, with whom he has two children. From a web page below; http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/01/sept2.html The Port Authority, the buildings' owner, engaged in prolonged litigation with asbestos manufacturers and its own insurers seeking to shift to them $600 million in costs of asbestos abatement. (British Asbestos Newsletter, Spring 1996, item #2; Mound, Cotton, Wollan & Greenglass, "What's New", "Cases"). Reader Maximo Blake writes to say: "To the best of my knowledge a majority of the asbestos coating the beams and elsewhere was removed in the 1980s. My information comes from a Port Authority employee who supervised the removal." Just to add a bit more complication, a web search reveals a relatively recent Sept. 12, 2000 entry from the Port Authority's Construction Advertisements Archive in which the authority solicits sealed bids for ongoing "Removal and Disposal of Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles and Other Incidental Asbestos-Containing Building Materials" at the WTC, with bids due October 17, 2000. Chief Judge John W. Bissell To Join Connell Foley - Judge Bissell to Chair Firm’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Department - Roseland, NJ, August 15, 2005 Connell Foley LLP today announced that John W. Bissell, Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of New Jersey, will join the firm on December 1, 2005. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the District Court in 1982, Judge Bissell is retiring on September 1st after serving 27 years on both state and federal courts in New Jersey. For the last four years, he has been the Chief Judge of the District Court. Page 372 of Neoconned Again: “The legality of so removing individuals from the criminal or military justice systems was challenged by attorneys on behalf of Salim Hamdan, November 2004 (See pp. 480-2). The government appealed and pressed ahead, an insider blaming Cheney for its intransigence (New York Times, March 27, 2005: “Cheney is still driving a lot of this”). Meanwhile, some of the commission’s defense lawyers and even military prosecutors complained of its “marginal” cases and “half-assed effort“ (AFL, August 1, 2005), from retired JAGs, generals, and admirals; a Constitutional historian at the Library of Congress; and numerous international-=, national-security-, and military-law academics and lawyers the government won a reversal from a D.C. Appeals Court three-judge panel; it argued that the “Geneva Convention cannot be judicially enforced.” “One of the three judges met with the President for an interview the day before, and on July 20 he was nominated to the Supreme Court. It might be coincidental that John Roberts was tapped for the Court five days after he joined the decision that the President’s “construction and application of treaty provisions is entitled to great weight.” In my November 22, 2005 email update: However, this story is just another example of hiding the truth in our national capital and shady conduct to keep the truth from ever seeing the light of day. A case was filed on behalf of Defendant Salim Hamdan [a detainee at Guantanamo]<?color><?param 0000,0000,8080> <?/color>and went before the D.C. District Court challenging the right of the U.S. government completely to deny Mr. Hamdan of legal counsel and a fair public trial based in the evidence and facts surrounding his case. It was heard by DC District Judge James Robertson, a judge with a notable record on the bench, in that he is considered to be an excellent judge. The government lost the case when Robertson ruled that the military tribunal commissions must cease, the government must provide legal counsel for the detainees and could no longer act in secret. The gist of the ruling was that the government cannot suspend human rights or judicial function at its whim. Of course, the government appealed the decision for in secrecy this government knows it can continue with its abuses and evade discovery by all Americans as to how low-life our current leaders really are as men, women, and even as humans. The appeal filed by the government went before a three judge panel in the DC appellate court shortly after the ruling Judge Robertson handed down in November 2004. Seventeen amicus curiae briefs were filed on behalf of the defendant Hamdan with the appellate panel, by retired JAGs, generals, and admirals; a Constitutional historian at the Library of Congress, and numerous international-, national-security-, and military-law academics and lawyers. On July 15, 2005, the government won a reversal of Judge Robertson’s decision. The day before on July 14, 2005 one of the judges sitting on the three judge appellate panel hearing the governments appeal had a meeting with President George W. Bush<?color><?param 0000,0000,8080>. <?/color>Mr. Bush has made it clear to me that he is afraid of the truth rather than governed by it. What I share with you now, by identifying this judge Bush met with, should be a clear example that the government leading this nation has no honor, no moral high ground, no character, and no integrity. When I heard it, it struck me that our leaders have less character than many of the purported enemies whom they single out, arrest and hold without right to counsel or trial. The judge that met with President Bush the day before the Appellate Court reversed Judge Robertson is John Roberts, now Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court.<?color><?param 0000,0000,8080> <?/color>To summarize, on July 14th, Bush and Roberts met; on July 15th the appellate panel that Roberts sat on rules in favor of the U.S. government and the Bush administration; and on July 20th, Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. If that does not make you suspicious, it should.<?color><?param 0000,0000,8080> <?/color>The gravity of the situation is simply this they have circled the wagons and this nation has sunk to a new low. What Bush and Roberts did in July dishonors this nation and all of us. What they did shames our Republic, yet they hold themselves up as Great Americans. If you dig deep enough, it is not so hard to find out that John Roberts is a Neocon. Is it any wonder that the world's contempt for this nation grows with each passing day? We have become the laughing stock of the civilized world because of such sleazy behavior: most of the world sees us as hypocrites and frauds on account of our government's behavior. While the appeal was before the US Courts, any meetings between Roberts and the government is improper and falls under the category of ex parte meetings since Bush stood to gain from the decision. Both Roberts and Alito were in position to help keep the lid on 9-11 investigations at DC District Court of Appeals and 3rd Circuit US Court of Appeals.. Bissell was appointed by Reagan; Alito and Roberts were appointed by George H W Bush. Roberts was first appointed to DC District Court of Appeals (where all GITMO appeals, Cheney Energy Task Force, etc) have been shut down in favor of US government and GWB appointed him to Chief Justice US Supreme Court after the US won its appeal at DC District Court of Appeals in July 2005.. One way to suppress investigations into 9-11 is stack the U.S. Supreme Court with people who had already aided and abetted in the cover up. The information above makes it clear that asbestos abatement in WTC was an issue and known about during the 1980s. Information that was provided to us made it clear that in 1989 the problem was known and attempts to address it were being evaluated. Additionally, WTC authorities coming out with litigation in 1991 and then 2000 bids to address the matter makes it even more clear that the problem was known and had to be addressed. It is notable that after the 1989 project was shelved, WTC files suit in 1991 to collect from insurers. Additionally, one year before 9-11 WTC bids were out to mitigate the asbestos. Note the date in 2001 when the court ruled against Port Authority claims Silverstein would have been at the table finalizing his deal to take WTC over. Chronology has caught many criminals so consider: 1989 the architects and engineers were working on a plan to erect scaffolding and take the buildings down one floor at a time to remedy asbestos and structural defects due to galvanic corrosion. 1991 the PANY&NJ commences litigation seeking $500 million to $1 billion for asbestos removal. 1993, February 26 World Trade Center bombing by Islamic terrorists. Many have written that it appears that the FBI let this bombing happen. This attack could have been to seek insurance company funds, which is what the Port Authority was after any way in the lawsuit during this exact period in time. 2000, September 12 the Port Authority issues bids for removal of asbestos. 2000, October 17 WTC bids due to remove asbestos May 14, 2001 the 3rd Circuit US Court of Appeals rules in favor of the insurers that they are not liable. July 24, 2001 Larry Silverstein signs the 99 year lease on WTC. Larry Silverstein, 72, signed the 99-year lease for the complex six weeks before the attacks. He also signed a policy form, or "binder", with his insurance broker Willis Group Holdings which said that any attack on the World Trade Center would be considered as one event with a maximum payout of $3.55 billion. September 11, 2001 both WTC towers lay in rubble, the demolition accomplished. Mission Accomplished. November 14, 2002 3rd Circuit upholds Judge Bissell’s decision that the insurers are not liable for asbestos claims. Note from above “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.” February 5, 2004 - Jury Set For World Trade Center Insurance Case - Feb 05, 2004; A Manhattan federal judge yesterday named five women and seven men to a jury in the $7 billion legal fight between developer Larry Silverstein and his Twin Towers insurance companies. (New York Post) December 6, 2004 Silverstein wins jury award for $2.2 billion in insurance payments. The insurance syndicate policy was for $3.55 billion and the decision was appealed. Between the two insurance syndicates, Silverstein stood to collect $4.65 billion under the court orders. The insurance claims settlements are still being contested in some quarters. An interesting question is raised in taking over WTC would Larry Silverstein become responsible for the asbestos? The courts ruled twice that absent any immediate threat of release of asbestos, the insurers were not liable. With these lawsuits pending an outcome, why would Swiss Re and Travelers insurance run the risk that could open up liability on the asbestos matter? Eventually, Silverstein won most of the $7.2 billion sought under his “two occurrence” theory by binding one group to the WillProp policy language and the other group of insurers to the Travelers policy language. There have been many lawsuits regarding 9-11 and various affected parties: The focus of the disputes: the September 11 World Trade Center attack. Was it, for example, one "occurrence" or two "occurrences" as defined by the policy, given that two buildings were attacked by two planes as part of one grand conspiratorial scheme? At stake in that particular case: whether an insurer must pay $3.5 billion or $7 billion. See World Trade Center Properties, L.L.C. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 154 (2nd Cir. 2003); see also Zurich American Ins. Co. v. ABM Industries, Inc., 397 F.3d 158 (2nd Cir. 2005) (dismissing claim for coverage against insurer brought by company that provided janitorial services to the WTC); Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Converium Ruckversicherung, 335 F.3d 52 (2nd. Cir. 2003) (dispute between a German insurer and Canadian insurer over September 11 claims); United Airlines, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 2005 WL 756883 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 2005) (dismissing United Airlines' claim against insurer for business interruption coverage arising out of September 11 losses); Lava Trading Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 365 F.Supp.2d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (coverage dispute between company whose offices were destroyed on September 11 and insurer). In our research we came across another claim being pursued by Deutsche Bank for 130 Liberty See the “DB Powerpoint” that is down the page and presents some interesting findings regarding the release of asbestos into the air due to the destruction of the WTC towers, and WTC 7 too. It is obvious that the buildings were planned for demolition and re-building them absent the asbestos and galvanic corrosion defects. What we have focused on is this: Who attacked the buildings and why? Who made sure there were 3,000 lives at stake when the demolition was put into action so 3,000 would be murdered in the shock and awe? That investigation and that trial have yet to commence. Best regards, Karl 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
WTC7 seems to be a classic controlled demolition. WTC 1 &2 destruction appears to have been enhanced by thermate (a variation of thermite) in addition. Pentagon was not struck by a passenger aircraft. It was a drone or missle.
No comments:
Post a Comment