Conspiracy Theory Around The 9/11 Attack

Larry A. Silverstein, an American businessman who is the developer of the reconstructed World Trade Centre. There are many speculations around Silverstein and the role he played on 9/11. Another one of the most known theories behind the tragic day that could potentially support the claim that there was prior knowledge of the attack is the insurance scam. The twin towers were publicly owned until approximately two months before 9/11 where a 3.2billion dollar a 100-year lease was purchased by Larry Silverstein on the World Trade Centre 1 and 2. Silverstein changed the standard policy on the buildings and took out an insurance plan that ‘fortuitously’ covered terrorism this was done only two months before 9/11. To add to the suspicion, Silverstein should have been in the tower when the plane had hit as well as his two children. However, Silverstein claims he had a doctor’s appointment but by his own admission he never left his house. His children also managed to avoid the attacks due to running late. In the aftermath of 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, putting in a claim that he should be paid double on the basis that there were 2 separate attacks. In the end the court did grant Silverstein a pay-out of a third more than the maximum permissible for a single “occurrence”- $4.55 billion. However, he only got the lease on the building due to the original bidder pulling out last minute, meaning that any of the 30+ plus bidders who were trying to obtain the building had just a good a chance. As well as this it is important to remember that Larry is already a billionaire so why would he risk so much just for a couple more billion in insurance money. This therefore suggests that on face value, the public’s eye this can seem very suspicious and may suggest to them that there was foreknowledge of the attack.

Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that World Trade Center 7 was planned ahead of time. To add to the argument WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, which led conspiracy theorists to believe that the building was demolished to suppress proof of the involvement of the U.S. government in the attacks. An interview with Larry a Silverstein released in 2002 of him saying “we decided to pull building”. The word “pull” in demolition terminology means to set off the bombs that are placed in the building. If this is actually the case how the building is already fitted with explosives in an operation that takes time. The report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concludes that thermal expansion of key structural members brought down the building. NIST lead investigator told journalists. 'WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fuelled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.' Similar to the twin towers, building 7 was also a tube-framed construction, which means that most of its support beams were on the perimeter to allow for more open floor space. An internal failure caused the building’s internal structure to collapse vertically, and then from east to west, which then left the hollowed-out exoskeleton to cave in under its own weight.

The building 7 theory is often considered one of the most promising theories behind the attacks of 9/11; this is mostly due to the evidence that comes with it. Silverstein himself used the term “pull” when describing what was instructed to the builders. To the general public this term would be understood as demolishing the building however not by everyone. This margin of misunderstanding suggests that there may be miscommunication and that Silverstein didn’t use the word “pull” as a demolition term. However due to the meaning being based on interpretation the theories can be quite conflicting. The interview spiked the questions put forward to the general public. When asked again what he meant by using the word “pull” - Silverstein claimed he didn’t mean it in the term that it was interpreted, suggesting that there was simply a miscommunication. For the general public, Silverstein’s words may be taken on face value meaning that his clear up that took place after the interview may be seen as simply a cover up giving it no value.