and for the investment of 12 million dollars one year prior, collected an insurance settlement in the amount of 7BILLION dollars. (WOW!)
2006-10-02 10:18:12 · 14 answers · asked by DAN REVERE 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Once again:
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
Pssst, terrorists exist, pass it on.
2006-10-02 10:22:10 · answer #1 · answered by jasonzbtzl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was the owner of the buildings. However, it was after a very long, drawn-out, and EXTREMELY public struggle to obtain it. There was nothing unusual about it. The WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack. A couple years after that was when the owner of the building started trying to obtain insurance for the buildings that would cover a terrorist attack.
2006-10-02 10:21:43 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
by potential of the time Bush took workplace it became into too previous because of keep away from the assaults. in fact between the 1st issues that Bush did became into discard the Clinton era counter-terror regulations as ineffective and pointless. He ordered that a clean coverage be created that had all branches of government working collectively. BTW: in case you prefer blame Bush for 9/11, are you going to prepare an identical point of blame to Clinton for each terrorist attack on us he tolerated?
2016-10-15 10:58:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Insurance policies are renewed at least annually. This could be a case of renewal and the "conspiracy nutjobs" are using this bit of twisted information as some sort of "proof" of their theory.
Since there had already been a terrorist attack on the complex, it is reasonable to assume the owners would apply for this type of rider on their policy.
2006-10-02 10:22:54 · answer #4 · answered by ©2009 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Larry Silverstien. The amazing part is that he admits to pulling building 7. How did a demolition team demolish the building with so little prep time. It's funny ppl still think the building fell because of fire. Talk about brainwashed.
2006-10-02 17:39:57 · answer #5 · answered by Luke F 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And he is responsible for paying rent (100 million dollars a year) and he has not generated 1/10 for that in the last 5 years. Plus the insurance pays for rebuilding the buildings, its not a windfall.
He took out specific terror insurance because he was advised to by his security director, and ex-FBI terror expert.
2006-10-02 10:22:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That 7 billion like all insurance settlements should be used to pay of the mortgage or lease and to rebuild not just to profit from .
2006-10-02 10:20:59 · answer #7 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Larry Silverstein
2006-10-02 10:26:09 · answer #8 · answered by Fran 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well where did you learn this "fact"? without any evidence of it people wont believe you. and if it did happen that persons name would have to be on record and im pretty sure the owner would be the one to buy any kind of insurence? right?
2006-10-02 10:22:18 · answer #9 · answered by one glove 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think his name is Silverstien. I also heard he bought the Sears tower in Chicago. Hope that's no indication of what is to come.
2006-10-02 10:24:05 · answer #10 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard Al Qaida bought oil futures on September 10th. That makes sense since they're the only ones who knew what was going down.
2006-10-02 10:20:47 · answer #11 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋