The 9-11 “Truth” Movement insists the fact that the owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, took out insurance on building 7 shortly before 9-11 is proof of a conspiracy. However, if you go here, you’ll see the problem. The first problem is rather obvious- after the World Trade Center was the target of terrorism in 1993, only a complete idiot wouldn’t insure it against terrorism. Furthermore, the towers were insured against terrorism BEFORE the 1993 bombing, as the insurance company had to shell out over five million dollars after that bombing occurred.
As for the claim that Silverstein properties made substantial profit as a result of the 9-11 collapse, that is a total lie and the evidence is here. The insurance payout won’t reach anywhere near $7.1 billion. Furthermore, at the moment the payments are only going to be 4.6 billion dollars and that money is going to rebuild the WTC complex, which will cost about 6.3 billion. In addition, Silverstein still has to pay the rent, which is $120 million per year to keep the right to rebuild. Hmm, let’s see, so the cost of rebuilding is MORE than the insurance payout? Seems to me that’s a loss, not a profit. Members of the 9-11 “Truth” Movement may want to brush up on their math.
The previous source also mentions that Silverstein originally wanted to only buy 1.5 billion dollars in coverage, and eventually went with 3.5 billion dollars, which was still far less than the lenders suggested- in short, Silverstein was trying to purchase the bare minimum coverage. Logic dictates that if Silverstein had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, as conspiracy theorists claim, he would have purchased the maximum coverage.
As for the dispute between Silverstein and the insurance companies, here are the facts, as seen from the following quote, found here: “The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.
Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.” In a situation like that, this is not an uncommon dispute between insurance companies and their clients.
There is yet another problem as well, as evidenced by the previous source- the insurance policy had not yet been issued when the attacks occurred and was still under negotiation on 9-11-01. Common sense (something that the 9-11 “Truth” Movement clearly lacks) tells us that if Silverstein had indeed had foreknowledge of the attacks, he would have made a much greater effort to complete the policy negotiations beforehand.
