View Single Post
Old 12-30-2012, 09:24 AM   #201
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 953
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramtin325i View Post
If im not mistaken, the owner of the twin building went over and up-ed his insurance for the towers a week before the incident.

You tell me?
Unless you can cite a reliable source, I'll tell you that you are mistaken.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wrighterjw10 View Post
actually, thats not correct. the towers were privately held at the time of the attacks. Held privately for the first time ever in May of 2001. Also keep in mind that pre-9/11 terrorism coverage was VERY rare for ANYONE to take or even offer. But, when the private firm that held the towers bought the building, they took out a handsome amt in terrorism coverage.

i'm not trying to convince anyone of a conspiracy either, just offering some facts.
Please offer correct facts, then.

Silverstein leased them, but Port Authority still owned them.

It was late July, not May: http://web.archive.org/web/200109041...ase.php3?id=80

And it would seem the policies were still being sorted out at the time of the attacks: http://www.economist.com/node/2656873

Quote:
The dispute over the World Trade Centre arose because Mr Silverstein-who leased it in the summer of 2001-was still finalising his insurance policy when the buildings were destroyed.
There's a difference between "still finalizing" and "inexplicably increased at the last minute".

In addition, did he actually have "terrorism insurance" or was it disaster insurance that pretty much every commercial building has?

Lastly, after Feb 93, it would be pretty foolish NOT to have insurance that covered damage from terrorism.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
What was the best thing before sliced bread?
----------------------------------------------

Last edited by Xcelratr; 12-30-2012 at 09:27 AM.
Xcelratr is online now   Reply With Quote