My only point is that there are entirely "pragmatic" reasons why the leasor of the WTC acted the way he did. No ~sinister~ assumption of "foreknowledge" is needed to explain his behavior. Silverstein does not seem to me to be evidence for any "conspiracy theory" (except, of course, The Big Conspiracy: AKA "The Invisible Hand).
\brad mccormick Christoph Reuss wrote: > > Brad McCormick wrote: > > I've been listening to different news. I've heard he had > > let the insurance lapse or something like that, but > > that he got the insurance company to pay anyway. > > He didn't let it "lapse", it's just that the insurance was so new that > it was not yet valid (the details had not been completely negotiated). > Btw, this is not hearsay, but from the official court document on the > lawsuit: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/swissrecmpt102201.pdf > You can also find the story in the insurance press. > > > And, as for 2 attacks, his insurance presumably has > > a per incident max payout, so 2 incidents may > > mean double bucks. > > Exactly, the double payout is the reason why Silverstein insists that > 9/11 counts as _two_ incidents. The lawsuit about this is still pending. > > Chris > > P.S.: I'll be out of town Saturday. -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
