Conspiracy theory
- Thread starter Nalt
- Start date
- Jul 16, 2018
- 7,755
- 20,369
Is this kind of patent bull$hit that cheapens the lives lost and the heroes who fought to save them.
- Dec 31, 2018
- 14,993
- 28,394
Perhaps that second look should have been a more critical one. In doing the most cursory of research, I learned that by mid 2001, per the Wall Street Journal, the WTC complex was actually at 95% occupancy. Additionally, it turns out, per Mesothelioma.com, Asbestos was only used on the lower levels of the North Tower and not at all in the building of the South Tower. The only references I could find to the WTC being "Well-known as Asbestos Bombshell" were all in articles written after 9/11 and even then only on conspiracy type websites. I could find no references prior to 9/11 that the NY Port Authority sought to demolish the WTC - not saying it's not true; just that I couldn't find any references.
In the late 1990's, per the NY Daily News, the NYPA obtained approval to privatize the WTC and sought to lease it (not sell it) in early 2001. It's true Silverstein's group, a joint venture between Silverstein Properties and The Westfield Group, were not the high bidders. The high bidders were a group called the Vornado Trust who bid $3.25B for a 99 year lease. (Silverstein's group - there were only two major competitors - was initially $660M lower, though they ultimately raised it to $3.22B.) After winning the contract, the Vornado Trust tried to get the terms of the lease changed, to include lower the term from 99 years to 39 years, which the NYPA considered non-negotiable. (Source: NY Times) Vornado then pulled out leaving the Silverstein group as the only one standing; nothing very mysterious about that. Our commercial real estate experts can weigh in on whether a $3.5B insurance policy on something you invested $3.22B is reasonable, but it doesn't seem far fetched to me. And given the 1993 bombing of the WTC, insuring your investment against a terrorist attack also seem reasonable. Bringing in one's own security people is also understandable as would have bringing in one's own custodial staff, etc. Oh and it's true Marvin Bush was on Securacom's board - not the owner or even CEO - but his service ended in 2000. (Per the Washington Examiner)
Others can feel free to rip through the rest of your posts on this, but I think I've proved the point. I'd ask in the future you do a little more research before posting this kind of conspiracy BS. 9/11 is a sensitive subject for many of us here and several of us got to deal with various aspects of it up close and personal. I don't think anybody minds posts about it as long as they're factual in nature.
