Quote:
Originally Posted by thymebalm
These buildings remained uninsured for ~30 years when suddenly, in 2001, the Port Authority sought to lease the buildings to a private entity. Larry Silverstein wound up winning that bid, and went on to insure all of the buildings. For the first time in the history of the buildings, 29 years after they were constructed, and less than 2 months before they fell, they became insured. Silverstein would go on to win billions of dollars in insurances claims, managing to claim "double occurance" on some of the insurance providers. Larry's bid of 3.2 billion which he used to purchase the buildings was covered to the tune of 4.2 billion by said insurance companies.
One has to ask themselves if they can believe the coincidences required for this to have been a fluke. Had the Government not leased this building, they would have lost billions of dollars in the attacks. Instead, not only did they receive the money from the lease, which requires Silverstein to rebuild, but they receive 10 million dollars a month from Silverstein as base rent on the empty site.
|
I just want to be clear on what you're suggesting here: that the federal government warned the NY Port Authority that the buildings were going to be hit by an attack and that they should sell the buildings, and then advised Sliverstein that he should buy the buildings and insure them for more than he paid, so he could make a quick buck?
Wouldn't it have been simpler for the Federal government to simply lease the trade center and insure it themselves, thus turning more of a profit? Or if they wanted to avoid suspicion, why even sell it at all? The 3.2 billion lost was peanuts compared to the amounts that the various affected government departments earned and spent. And why wouldn't the port authority make sure that their key personnel were not in the building, if they knew the attacks were imminent?
Or do you think that they didn't know? In which case, why would they have put the building up for lease in the first place?
And why would Silverstein agree to a plan that sees him make about a billion dollars short term on the insurance scam, but pay 10 million in rent a month, thus burning through that billion in a scant eight years, with no building to show for it?
Or do you think that Silverstein didn't know? In which case, why did he take out the insurance?
In response to your 'powerful quote', I'll offer you another: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Bin Laden, despite what you say, had a lot to gain from the events. Certainly far more than Silverstein, who is not really any further ahead right now than he was before 9/11, and certainly more than the port authority, who lost their offices, thousands of their employees, and have spent much of the last ten years working to rebuild their organization.