DJMala
There was absolutely no reason to demolish the building if your theory is true. From just looking at it, I cannot see any structural damage on the building. It just doesn't make sense. why pull that one only? There were other WTC buildings and non WTC buildings that had damage and were not destroyed.
I think the answer is too look back at the 800 million in insurance that Silverstein received and the fact that government agencies had offices up there.
"Mr. Silverstein might be able to do this, according to Moody's, because he is pursuing an "actual cash value" insurance claim for the property as well as a claim for rebuilding the property. Under the cash-value claim, he would be paid off in a lump payment."
http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/...10-bricks.html
I'm not sure how his insurance workes exactly. However, the way I understand that article is that he chose to get cash instead of letting the insurance company finance the new building.