WTC Building 7

..... September 11th - July 24th = 48 days, maybe I rounded down a bit. My mistake! Meaning that, when he renewed his insurance/lease on July 24th, the new documentation included 'the scenario of an aircraft hitting one of the WTC towers as one of the 'maximum foreseeable losses'. I'm pretty sure this little word called intuition would include that of a plane crashing into a building on purpose as a terrorist attack, if I'm wrong on my definitions, feel free to correct me. I do understand the point you're going for. I do understand that, hey, this guy is probably just some greedy asshole and it's 100% commonplace for a business man like himself to be insuring his investments. That's completely understandable. My point is, this guy is a very intelligent man. Right? I mean, who could take a 14 million dollar investment and turn it into 17 billion dollars? That's obviously a great investment. I mean lets not forget, had 9/11 never occured that would've probably the worst investment of all time; However, he was lucky enough for 9/11 to happen and make the biggest cash swaps, probably ever. I mean the building was full of asbestos, (which was the reason they couldn't demolish the buildings to begin with). The buildings were not up to date, had vacancy problems for years and lacked most of the modern communication devices at the time.

(Before July 24, 2001): Risk Assessment Identifies Aircraft Striking WTC as One of the ‘Maximum Foreseeable Losses’ Quote: A property risk assessment report is prepared for Silverstein Properties before it acquires the lease for the World Trade Center (see July 24, 2001). It identifies the scenario of an aircraft hitting one of the WTC towers as one of the “maximum foreseeable losses.” The report says, “This scenario is within the realm of the possible, but highly unlikely.” Further details of the assessment, such as who prepared it, are unreported. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/MediaUpdate...port051303.pdf

This doesn't say that "aircraft strike" was added to the insurance policy or anything along those lines. A property risk assessment is done any time you acquire a property which you intend to insure. If you were to buy a house on the side of a mountain, you likely wouldn't need flood coverage on your insurance, or at least your flood coverage would be incredibly cheap/free because of the low risk. Tall objects are susceptible to being hit by aircraft, obviously. I suspect most buildings/communications towers/wind turbines/etc have the same or similar coverage, and the WTC likely had that sort of coverage prior to the PRA.

In regards to your statement that "the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11", DUH. He (read: his business and another, separate business) ACQUIRED the property and insured it, shortly before 9/11. Are you suggesting that they should have done it sooner, or not at all?