Quote:
Originally Posted by Omen
I say the buildings were planned to be demolished. You disagree.
I say Silverstein claimed double. You disagree.
There we are.
Do we both either of us really know? Of course not, we go by what we read.
But here's another source anyway:
Insurance Payouts
Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html |
I've neither said I agree or disagree with your points. I;m interested in why your so passionately sure you are right. Quoting form a website with the heading "9-11 Research
An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001 " .... doesn't instill confidence. Don't you get that?
Here's my question... for the third and final time. EVEN if those are facts, what inference do YOU make from them? These companies that run the old WTC are in the business of profit. If there lawyers see an opportunity to LAWFULLY claim money from insures then that isn't in the least shocking. I'm presuming your facts are spot on... so now what do you think it REALLY means hehe. What conclusion have YOU made.
