Silverstein is the not the cause of 9/11 but he is an Insider profiteer...
9/11, the date itself is a pys op ( emergency ! panic ! call 911 ! )
"For a Ground Zero Developer Seeking Subsidies, More Is Never Enough"
Journalist Michael Powell seems to have snuck one by the criminal elite/globalist owned, Times editors, by writing that Silverstein “has internalized a developer’s rule of thumb in New York: Only a rube puts much of his own money at risk. Billions of dollars in Liberty bonds, insurance money, developer fees: Year after year, Mr. Silverstein has shaken the public tree and benefits have fallen to the ground.” This alludes to the fact that on 9/11, Silverstein shook the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, and a multi-billion-dollar windfall “fell to the ground” – at free-fall speed.
I.e. 9/11 was an a staged event, a 'false flag', an inside job and Mr. Silverstein was one of the insiders...
The 9/11 demolitions-without-a-permit allowed Silverstein to collect double indemnity on his terror insurance policy by claiming that his “losses” were the result of two completely separate and unrelated terror attacks that is $7 billion with a 'b', ($7,000,000,000.00). You don’t have to be an genius of a claims adjuster to know that there’s something fishy about a guy who buys a white elephant, doubles the insurance, takes a “total loss” two months later, and sues for double indemnity based on a bizarre twist in the policy.
The Times article points out that Silverstein’s new WTC, like the old asbestos-ridden one, is largely vacant. So Silverstein “wants to shake the tree again” – to the tune of $1.2 billion more in public funds, on top of the countless subsidies and insurance-fraud payouts he has already extorted. Will Silverstein shake the Unfreedom Tower so billions more will “fall to the ground” at free-fall acceleration? Somebody had better keep a close eye on this guy’s insurance policies…and make sure he isn’t hiring any more Israeli and/or Bush-owned “security” firms. “Now Mr. Silverstein wants to shake the tree again. In March, as Charles V. Bagli reported in The New York Times, he asked the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to guarantee up to $1.2 billion of his construction loans. The authority’s board could vote on the proposal this month.
It’s way past time for the Times to pick up where it left off on November 29th, 2001 – when it questioned the “baffling” collapse of WTC-7 and marveled at the “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures” – and come right out and tell the truth about 9/11 directly, rather than between-the-lines.