WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO ? Hagmann and Hagmann Report Wed, February 27, 2013
February 27, 2013 in Science
Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D and Pete Santilli discuss the physical evidence analyzed at “Ground Zero” in New York City on and after September 11, 2001
Hagmann and Hagmann Report Wed, February 27, 2013
Investigators understand the value of physical evidence that exists at any crime scene. It has been written that “if you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.”
Those instructions were constantly drilled into me during my 30 years as an career investigator, and Joe, my son and co-host, for nearly ten years. Forget conspiracy theories, wild speculation, and even your own biases and look at the evidence, for the evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.
Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D and Pete Santilli discuss the physical evidence analyzed at “Ground Zero” in New York City on and after September 11, 2001. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11. The results of her extensive investigation are painstakingly detailed in her book Where did the Towers Go? For any serious researcher or anyone wanting just the facts, her book is required reading.
the physical evidence analyzed at “Ground Zero” with Dr. Judy Wood and Mr. Peter Santilli.
Note from Doug Hagmann: I’ve been searching for an honest and reliable forensic study of the physical evidence found at the WTC site. Having walked the site shortly after the incident, I saw some things that bothered me, but I could not put my finger on exactly what “it” was. After reading Dr. Wood’s book – 500 pages of analysis of the physical evidence, I now understand what was troublesome to me. Through her research and publication of Where did the Towers Go, Dr. Wood identified what the “it” was that eluded me. It’s about the evidence. It was always about the evidence.
I would strongly urge anyone interested in the facts related to the most critical event in our lifetime to buy and read Dr. Judy Wood’s book, Where did the Towers Go? via this link. It is also available here.
Important internet links for the broadcast
Silverstein says calling 9/11 ‘act of war’ is a ‘shameful display of duplicity’
Larry Silverstein is well known in 9/11 research circles.
The real estate tycoon made strange and revealing remarks in a PBS documentary detailing the events of September 11, 2001.
In a seeming blunder he revealed that there was an understanding, a plan, to ’pull’ the WTC 7 building (assumedly with explosive demolition) to stave off ’further loss of life’.
This, however, goes directly against the official theory and official investigation reports, which conclude the buildings fell of their own accord due to fires.
Silverstein is now back in the spotlight, reports NYDailyNews. He accuses AmericanAirlines of avoiding liability (and payouts) for the attacks. He wishes to disqualify the airline from using the “act of war” defense to dodge property liability.
Silverstein’s infamous lines that officials made a decision that day to ’pull it’ – to demolish purposefully the WTC7:
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ’We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
We know that the term ’pull it’ means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, “…we’re getting ready to pull the building six.” The term is industry jargon for planned demolition. Source
A prized asset, The World Trade Center was sold to Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion six months before 9/11. The Center was promptly and carefully insured, and when the events of Sept. 11 ended with the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsing, Silverstein profited hugely.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year’s worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.
The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.
Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday. [MontereyHerald 11/22/2003]
Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which ’fortuitously’ covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein’s view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
One would think that making billions of insurance dollars off the backs of the events of 9/11 would be “shameful”, but Silverstein’s laywers reportedly take issue with AmericanAirlines withholding even more payouts and refusing to take responsibility for the attacks.
Developer Larry Silverstein accused American Airlines Wednesday of a “shameful display of duplicity” for asserting the World Trade Center terror attack was an “act of war” that should shield it from liability.
In court papers, Silverstein said the airline and its parent company repeatedly promised not to invoke such a defense to avoid paying property damage claims arising from the 9/11 attack.
“Now, having obtained many billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded benefits from a massive federal bailout, which benefits continue to accrue, they have reversed course, asserting with breathtaking cynicism a supposed distinction — but one without a difference — between an act of war exclusion and an act of war defense,” Silverstein attorney Richard Williamson said in court papers.
Silverstein Properties sued American Airlines and United Airlines in 2008, contending their negligence caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.
In September, Manhattan Federal Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the lawsuit could go to trial and that Silverstein could seek $2.8 billion in damages.
In 2007 Silverstein’s company reached a $4 billion settlement with insurers.
Silverstein suggesting AmericanAirlines is engaging in a ’shameful display of duplicity’ regarding 9/11 is an outrageous claim, and a enormous distraction from his own fabrications.