Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm
"Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein
Loose Change video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en
Debate between Loose Change and Popular Mechanics
http://www.democracynow.org/streampage.pl?issue=20060911
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
- Charles Baudelaire
2006-09-11 09:12:20 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Charles also said " carefully selected garbage"
2006-09-11 09:14:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you read these articles? Per wikipedia "Silverstein is known for being the developer and leaseholder of the World Trade Center towers". So my question to you is why should the man not be able to claim damages. Not to lesson the disaster, but a ton of income went into the ground that day. I'm sure he paid through the nose for his insurance premiums, so why not? Loose change is for losers. Use the brain God gave you and put it to better use than this tripe.
2006-09-11 16:19:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obviously you know nothing about business or property insurance.You just have a knee jerk reaction to media hype.
A quick enlightenment.
Even if one , some or all of the building(s) had NOT collapsed he could still have received settlement from the insurance companies to receive and repair the buildings, since there would have most likely been a greater cost ,or a high improbability of rebuilding them the insurance companies would be required to give him the contracted settlement that he PAID for to demolish and rebuild or depending on the policy lump sum settlement.
In duh language he paid for insurance to cover his property in case of fire, theft, vandalism,etc now days there are clauses EXCLUDING terrorist attacks unless you want to pay a substantially greater premium.( that means more money both ways)
2006-09-11 16:25:16 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Made? The guy had major losses because of the building falling. That's what insurance is for. He didn't make anything. One day, he had a building worth 5 billion and then it was destroyed and he got 5 billion. That's a net result of zero.
2006-09-11 16:18:33 · answer #4 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I fail to see how being reimbursed by an insurance company for defined, proven property losses equals "making" $5 billion. Insurance companies don't just hand out money without proof.
2006-09-11 16:16:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that losing the WTC can be considered 'making' money, despite your warped delusional perceptions.
Honestly, your foolish conspiracy idiocies have been debunked for years. Grow up and get in touch with reality. You might like it.
http://www.911myths.com
2006-09-11 16:21:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not odd, that is how insurance works. If people in KATRINA areas had flood insurance well they could collect on a policy as well.
2006-09-11 16:16:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's capitalism
2006-09-11 16:22:23 · answer #8 · answered by nbr660 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋