1 month ago
21
If you take a step back and really analyze 9/11 beyond the official narrative, the financial motivations alone start to paint a disturbing picture. Most people focus on geopolitical reasons—wars, oil, government overreach—but what if there was a more immediate, tangible reason to bring down the Twin Towers?
Let’s talk about the asbestos problem. The World Trade Center buildings, particularly the North Tower, were constructed in the late ’60s and early ’70s when asbestos was still widely used in construction. By the time the 2000s rolled around, asbestos was known to be a massive health hazard, and removing it from a structure as large as the Twin Towers would have cost billions. Yes, billions, because the buildings would have had to be completely gutted floor by floor.
So what’s the easiest way to get rid of a building riddled with asbestos, without paying a cent for the removal? Bring them down in a controlled demolition and let the debris cleanup take care of it. Insurance covers the damages, the problem is swept under the rug, and the toxic waste is conveniently someone else’s problem.
Now, let’s look at the insurance angle. Just months before the attacks, developer Larry Silverstein secured a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center. What’s one of the first things he did? Took out a massive insurance policy against terrorism. And when the towers fell, he fought in court to claim double the payout—arguing that the two plane strikes were two separate attacks, not one. His final payout? A cool $4.55 billion.
If this were just about terrorism, why were there so many financial incentives conveniently lining up behind the scenes? Why did WTC 7 collapse—a building that wasn’t even hit by a plane—containing years of SEC and Enron investigation records?
The deeper you dig, the more the official story falls apart. 9/11 wasn’t just about war—it was about money, power, and eliminating problems that would have cost the elite too much if they played by the rules.
[link] [comments]
English (US)