Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shankz
Yeah, I saw that video for the first time today. As someone who hasn't decided what to believe happened, I have to wonder what the "other side" has to say about those statements. Was he just wrong? Or was he talking about pulling the firemen out? Though, if the latter he sure made a hell of a foul-up with his wording.
|
or he's just in?
The lease of WTC1 and WTC2 was purchased by Larry Silverstein, an extremely savvy NYC real estate mogul, three months before the attack for a cost of 3.2 billion to be paid to the NYC Port Authority over 99 years. Silverstein was the original owner of WTC7, and is the current owner of the soon to be completed Building 7.
LEASING THE WTC COMPLEX SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FINANCIAL DISASTER:
Larry Silverstein leased this property even though it was well known within the industry that the WTC1 and WTC2 had been constructed with asbestos fire retardant coating on the internal steel structure. Asbestos coated all columns up to the 64th floors, only switching to a less effective and non-toxic product in 1971 when New York City banned the use of asbestos as a building material. Asbestos is now known to be an extremely toxic carcinogen, and would eventually have to have been remediated at a cost that would surely have exceeded the buildings resale value.
HOWEVER, LEASING THE WTC COMPLEX BECAME A FINANCIAL WINDFALL:
After signing the lease, Larry Silverstein promptly increased the insurance on these buildings to $7.2 billion; double their purchase price prior to the attack. After their destruction, the potential white elephant complex became an instant double-your-money windfall to the tune of a 3.5 billion in pure profit to Silverstein.
A wise sage once said, always follow the money trail.