Silverstein did not suddenly “buy a worthless building.” After a lengthy public bidding process, his group signed a 99-year lease to operate the World Trade Center for approximately $3.2 billion. The Port Authority announced the selection months before 9/11. It described the complex as highly successful commercial property, not a condemned structure awaiting demolition. Port Authority announcement The buildings did contain asbestos, mainly from their original construction, but that does not mean they legally had to be demolished. Asbestos can remain safely contained or be removed during renovation, as happens in countless older buildings. Demolishing occupied skyscrapers containing asbestos would itself require extremely expensive controlled abatement. Insuring a $3.2 billion lease for billions was not suspicious it was required by the lease and by the lenders financing it. The complex had already been attacked by terrorists in 1993, so excluding terrorism coverage would have been irresponsible. Silverstein eventually received about $4.55 billion after years of lawsuits, not an effortless personal jackpot. The proceeds were tied to lenders, the Port Authority and rebuilding obligations, while lease payments and enormous reconstruction costs continued. Silverstein has said his wife insisted that he keep a dermatologist appointment that morning rather than attend his usual breakfast meetings at Windows on the World. That was unquestionably fortunate, but thousands of people missed work, arrived late, changed appointments or survived through similar chance events that morning. Being lucky is not evidence of planning mass murder. Silverstein and Netanyahu knowing one another even speaking regularly also proves nothing. Wealthy property developers commonly know political leaders. To turn that association into evidence, you would need communications showing advance knowledge, financial transfers, operational instructions or testimony from a participant. None has been produced. Most importantly, why repeatedly call him “a Jew” rather than a property developer? His religion has no evidentiary value. If the case against him consists of “he was Jewish, knew an Israeli politician, bought insurance and survived an appointment,” that is ethnic suspicion not proof of involvement in 9/11.
