Larry Silversteins insurance

[Docker]

A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?

He really is exploiting the tragedy. There is no way it can be called 2 events.

[gumboot]

A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?


Probably because the amount he insured it for is nowhere near enough to rebuild. He doesn't want to lose money. Neither would I.

-Gumboot

[Bell]

7th thread, Docker. How long until you are gonna abandon this one?

[Anti-sophist]

http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Next.

[Arus808]

when are you going to address the questions in the other 5 threads now you've abandoned?
Stop making new threds until you satisfactorally answered the questions asked of you, provide evidnce of your claims or retract and apologize for statements that were wrong and admit to that you were wrong.

[Docker]

Probably because the amount he insured it for is nowhere near enough to rebuild.


Source?

[gumboot]

Source?


Antisophist has already provided it.

Follow the white rabbit. (http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html)

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

already posted here in the other hundred or so threads. there is a search function. you might want to learn how to use it.

[twinstead]

Source?

Anti-sophist took care of this above, but here it is again.

The insurance angle to 'pulling' the WTC7 is bunk. That's of course if you actually take the time to investigate it.

http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html

[Piscivore]

A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?

He really is exploiting the tragedy. There is no way it can be called 2 events.

They do that so he has to pay two deductibles.

[Skibum]

There is no way it can be called 2 events.

The courts disagree.

[Docker]

Anti-sophist took care of this above, but here it is again.

The insurance angle to 'pulling' the WTC7 is bunk. That's of course if you actually take the time to investigate it.

http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html

I didn't mention pulling building 7. I am making the point that he is taking the piss claiming it was 2 events

[realitybites]

"Hi. My name is Larry Silverstein. I'm in the business of insurance fraud. I openly admit to demolishing my own buildings so I can collect the millions of dollars in replacement costs from acts of terrorism. I'm a 'tard though, because instead of taking the money and running off to the Cayman's, I decided to rebuild one!"

[Docker]

If two men come into your house and steal your property, do you claim double insurance because 2 men did it not 1?

[gumboot]

"Hi. My name is Larry Silverstein. I'm in the business of insurance fraud. I openly admit to demolishing my own buildings so I can collect the millions of dollars in replacement costs from acts of terrorism. I'm a 'tard though, because instead of taking the money and running off to the Cayman's, I decided to rebuild one!"


Not to mention, a few weeks before I carried out my crime I tried to get a 1.5 billion dollar insurance policy. I could of course purchased a 5 billion dollar policy pretty easily, but fortunately my backers allowed me to stop at 3.5 billion.

-Gumboot

[VespaGuy]

A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?

He really is exploiting the tragedy. There is no way it can be called 2 events.

Are we still playing "just asking questions"? Can I play, too?

If Larry Silverstein is involved in a conspiracy plot that's so obvious that even children on the internet can see that WTC7 fell "at free fall speed", why is the insurance company paying him at all? Why isn't he arrested for insurance fraud?

This is fun!!

[WildCat]

A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?

He really is exploiting the tragedy. There is no way it can be called 2 events.
1. Insure buildings for far less than the rebuilding cost.
2. Blow up buildings.
3.???
4. Profit!

Can you shed some light on step 3 Docker? Do you even realize he has to pay the lease amount on WTC 1 and 2 every month despite the buildings no longer existing? Do you realize that 0 tenents in non-existent buildings = zero rent?

[Skibum]

If two men come into your house and steal your property, do you claim double insurance because 2 men did it not 1?No, but if 1 man breaks in and steals my TV, then another breaks in and steals my computer it would be 2 events.

[Docker]

Are we still playing "just asking questions"? Can I play, too?

If Larry Silverstein is involved in a conspiracy plot that's so obvious that even children on the internet can see that WTC7 fell "at free fall speed", why is the insurance company paying him at all? Why isn't he arrested for insurance fraud?

This is fun!!

I never mentioned conspiracy

[Bell]

If two men come into your house and steal your property, do you claim double insurance because 2 men did it not 1?

How does this compare to two hijacked airplaned crashing into two different buildings?

[LashL]

Here's a summary for you, Docker:

It's only 14 posts long so it might even fit within your attention span.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65615&highlight=insurers

It would behoove you to do some research once in a while before making ridiculous claims which you cannot support.

[Bell]

I never mentioned conspiracy

No, God forbid you make any claim.

[Gravy]

Are we still playing "just asking questions"? Can I play, too?

If Larry Silverstein is involved in a conspiracy plot that's so obvious that even children on the internet can see that WTC7 fell "at free fall speed", why is the insurance company paying him at all? Why isn't he arrested for insurance fraud?

This is fun!!I don't suppose there's any chance you'll read my paper on WTC 7, which you said you would do? You'd save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

By the way, the reason that some of the insurers have to pay double is that's what their policies say. The courts agreed.

[WildCat]

Are we still playing "just asking questions"? Can I play, too?
That's all you've ever played. You have no interest in the answers though, do you?
If Larry Silverstein is involved in a conspiracy plot
He's not.
that's so obvious that even children on the internet can see that WTC7 fell "at free fall speed",
It didn't.
why is the insurance company paying him at all?
He paid the premiums.
Why isn't he arrested for insurance fraud?
There was no fraud.

This is fun!!
Accusing a man of the deaths of nearly 3,000 people w/o any evidence is fun for you? How utterly despicable.

[VespaGuy]

I never mentioned conspiracy

I never said you did. I'm "just asking questions", too.

[dirtywick]

Wildcat, Gravy, similar avatars, different people.

[Docker]

I'm just saying if Larry wasn't being accused by 9/11 CTs then i'm sure you would agree he was a slimebag claiming twice what the policy is worse. I don't think Larry blew the building up ok?

[Bell]

Wildcat, Gravy, similar avatars, different people.

LOL, I almost made the same mistake. Damn that Alex Jones!

[WildCat]

Wildcat, Gravy, similar avatars, different people.
D'oh!

Does this mean I have to pull his finger? :eek:

[dirtywick]

LOL, I almost made the same mistake. Damn that Alex Jones!

I did too :D In fact, I even almost said "That's all you've ever played. You have no interest in the answers though, do you?" exactly.

[Skibum]

D'oh!

Does this mean I have to pull his finger? :eek:


Not only that, you have to stick around to enjoy the results.

[LashL]

I'm just saying if Larry wasn't being accused by 9/11 CTs then i'm sure you would agree he was a slimebag claiming twice what the policy is worse.

No. There were 23-24 policies involved. Those that were written in a certain way were interpreted one way; those that were written differently were interpreted another way. All in accordance with the law and in accordance with their terms.

Sheesh. I already pointed you to a concise summary - you could at least try to understand the facts before you go off half cocked, yet again.

[WildCat]

Not only that, you have to stick around to enjoy the results.
!!!!!!!!

[Josh Redstone]

LOL, I almost made the same mistake.

Me too! :eek:

Anyways, Silverstein is not only strapped for cash to rebuild the complex, but he is also risking putting a lot of money into a project that might not work out as profitable - that area has been economically devastated ever since 9/11, and many businesses there are suffering - an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t! covered this story nicely. Other businesses that might have been interested in the area have gone and set themselves up in other places that aren't waiting to be rebuilt.

[LashL]

double post, oops.

[Gravy]

Wildcat, Gravy, similar avatars, different people.Punk'd!

[VespaGuy]

That's all you've ever played. You have no interest in the answers though, do you?

He's not.

It didn't.

He paid the premiums.

There was no fraud.


Accusing a man of the deaths of nearly 3,000 people w/o any evidence is fun for you? How utterly despicable.

Wildcat - I think you misunderstand me. I was mocking Docker. Sorry if it was in bad taste, but i wasn't accusing Silverstein of anything. I am not a CT.

[Docker]

Me too! :eek:

Anyways, Silverstein is not only strapped for cash to rebuild the complex, but he is also risking putting a lot of money into a project that might not work out as profitable - that area has been economically devastated ever since 9/11, and many businesses there are suffering - an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t! covered this story nicely. Other businesses that might have been interested in the area have gone and set themselves up in other places that aren't waiting to be rebuilt.


I heard thw wtc was losing to begin with. Less and less office space was being rented. Larry is definitely pushing his luck with this 2 event scenario. It's a scam.

[VespaGuy]

Sorry for all the confusion, folks. Before I get myself into trouble, I think I'll change my avatar.

[LashL]

I don't suppose there's any chance you'll read my paper on WTC 7, which you said you would do? You'd save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

By the way, the reason that some of the insurers have to pay double is that's what their policies say. The courts agreed.

You're probably right, Gravy, the Docker won't read your excellent paper on WTC7. Too many facts and too much evidence, which are anathema to CTers, apparently. It's much easier for them to maintain their delusions when they are not confronted with reality.

[gumboot]

Wildcat - I think you misunderstand me. I was mocking Docker. Sorry if it was in bad taste, but i wasn't accusing Silverstein of anything. I am not a CT.


I think WildCat confused you with Docker because of your Avatar.

-Gumboot

[LashL]

I heard thw wtc was losing to begin with. Less and less office space was being rented. Larry is definitely pushing his luck with this 2 event scenario. It's a scam.

You "heard" this from CT sites, which are dead wrong. As usual.

Try doing some actual research for a change. So far, you've done nothing but spout nonsense for 600+ posts in less than 3 days.

You seem to think this is a game.

Here's a hint: it is not.

And, as I said above, there is a summary of the insurance policies and the court decisions here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...light=insurers

It's only 14 posts long - even you should be able to manage it.

[Josh Redstone]

I heard thw wtc was losing to begin with. Less and less office space was being rented. Larry is definitely pushing his luck with this 2 event scenario. It's a scam.

If it were a scam he wouldn't waste his money on a venture which wouldn't be profitable, that doesn't make any sense.

[Skibum]

Anyone want to start a pool about which topic Docker will start a thread about when he runs from this one?

[Docker]

Anyone want to start a pool about which topic Docker will start a thread about when he runs from this one?

Can i bet?

[Skibum]

That would be like Pete Rose betting on games he's playing in, sorry no.

[Bell]

Silverstein sure made a whopping profit by rebuilding WTC7...

http://www.silversteinproperties.com/leasing_content.aspx?building_id=1

[Docker]

Silverstein sure made a whopping profit by rebuilding WTC7...

http://www.silversteinproperties.com/leasing_content.aspx?building_id=1


I don't think I would want to work in that building now.

[Bell]

I don't think I would want to work in that building now.

That's the point. How many people would want to work in WTC 7? Or in the future WTC for that matter? What is Silverstein gaining from all of this?

[Crungy]

If two men come into your house and steal your property, do you claim double insurance because 2 men did it not 1?

If two airplanes hit one tower, yes.

The proper analogy would be. A landlord owns two buildings adjacent to each other. His house is ransacked, then later his next door property is ransacked by another evil doer.

[Skeptic4Sure]

http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Next.


Really?

Maybe you should read a little more about the deal:

The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1030343783307


How much did that ole insurance company give him again? Wasn't there something about liberty bonds and the Port Authority taking over one of the towers also?

[dirtywick]

If two airplanes hit one tower, yes.

The proper analogy would be. A landlord owns two buildings adjacent to each other. His house is ransacked, then later his next door property is ransacked by another evil doer.

Perhaps even better would be one house you own starts on fire, and the house you own immediately nextdoor catches fire from the first house.

[Bell]

Really?

Maybe you should read a little more about the deal:

The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1030343783307


How much did that ole insurance company give him again? Wasn't there something about liberty bonds and the Port Authority taking over one of the towers also?

Dude! Where have you been? Hiding from the gummit?

[LashL]

Dude! Where have you been? Hiding from the gummit?

Must be too quiet over on that "other" forum :P

[realitybites]

I don't think I would want to work in that building now.
I would. I've been in it. One of, if not the, safest building in the world.

[Docker]

That's the point. How many people would want to work in WTC 7? Or in the future WTC for that matter? What is Silverstein gaining from all of this?

You wouldn't dare smoke in case global collapse ensued

[twinstead]

I wonder why, if it is such a slam-dunk fact that the WTCs were brought down by CD, why aren't the insurance companies looking into it?

I would imagine that even a hint of a problem, with all that money at stake, would get any insurance company's attention.

Is there any evidence of insurance companies questioning the official story?

[realitybites]

You wouldn't dare smoke in case global collapse ensued
You're a complete ----ing douche.

[LashL]

So, are you backing off of the claims made in your opening post, Docker, now that you've been given the facts?

Just want to be clear here.

[Bell]

You wouldn't dare smoke in case global collapse ensued

Yeah, funny... not.

What I was refering to, is the fear of another terrorist attack involving the new WTC buildings.

[realitybites]

I wonder why, if it is such a slam-dunk fact that the WTCs were brought down by CD, why aren't the insurance companies looking into it?

I would imagine that even a hint of a problem, with all that money at stake, would get any insurance company's attention.

Is there any evidence of insurance companies questioning the official story?
Of course not Twin. The insurance companies are in on it too, haven't you heard?

[Skeptic4Sure]

Dude! Where have you been? Hiding from the gummit?

Dudette! Where have you been? Practicing your english?

[Docker]

So, are you backing off the initial claim in your opening post, Docker, now that you've been given the facts?

Just want to be clear here.

No. He is scamming.

[realitybites]

So, are you backing off the initial claim in your opening post, Docker, now that you've been given the facts?

Just want to be clear here.
Docker doesn't back off claims because Docker doesn't make claims.

He starts new threads instead.

[Arus808]

how can he be scamming if the courts ruled that he was right? it was three seperate buildings. HE did insure them seperately. So where is the scam?

[LashL]

No. He is scamming.

How so?

Did you bother to read the court judgments and the evidence about the two dozen policies at issue?

[Bell]

Must be too quiet over on that "other" forum :P

Either that, or BSer101 accidentaly used his other profile.

[Docker]

how can he be scamming if the courts ruled that he was right?


How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?

[Bell]

Dudette! Where have you been? Practicing your english?

What about my English? (note the capital E)

[realitybites]

No. He is scamming.
Well you best take all your evidence to the courts and insurance companies. You'll be they're hero! Get a key to the city. Maybe even a ticker-tape parade.

I'll be there. Waving. From the grassy knoll.

[dissonance]

Man, I get into a fender bender and the insurance company spends months 'investigating' before I see diddly squat. You'd think if it was so obvious that Silverstein is scamming that a bunch of dudes living in their parent's basements can figure it out just by use Google, the insurance companies would have no problem at all proving it was a conspiracy so they wouldn't have to pay up.

[realitybites]

How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?
Are you suggesting that even after a trial, one can still be guilty? Doesn't that negate your "Osama's not guilty 'cause he hasn't had a trial" argument over in thread #41522781.145?

[Arus808]

How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?

easy. the jury couldn't weigh in on circumstantial evidence and produce a guilty verdict.

Just because a criminal gets off scott free, doesn't mean he isn't a criminal.

Just that the justice system didn't do a good enough job to prove their case.

[Gravy]

I heard thw wtc was losing to begin with. Less and less office space was being rented. Larry is definitely pushing his luck with this 2 event scenario. It's a scam.What you "heard" is wrong, and you decided to base a lie on it.

Docker, why do you constantly lie? Is it that you cannot, or will not, stop?

[LashL]

how can he be scamming if the courts ruled that he was right? it was three seperate buildings. HE did insure them seperately. So where is the scam?

It was actually 5 separate buildings, but 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7.

But the global policy referred to 1, 2, 4, and 5 as those were buildings that Mr. Silverstein was the leaseholder of, and building 7 was seperate as it was built later and Mr. Silverstein developed, built, and owned that property separately.

However, you're quite right that there was no "scam" involved. Apparently, the Docker child can't be bothered to read a short summary of the policies and the rationale behind court decisions, even though it has been provided to him.

[Gravy]

How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?The court didn't "rule him innocent." The jury found him "not guilty." See the difference?

[Metullus]

No. He is scamming.What, precisely, is the "scam"?

[LashL]

How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?

Are you really this clueless?

Do you not understand the difference between criminal courts and the applicable burden of proof therein vs. the interpretation of insurance policies in civil courts?

Reeaallly?!?

(Insert Kyle photo here)

[Loss Leader]

A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?

He really is exploiting the tragedy. There is no way it can be called 2 events.

So, what do you think lawyers do all day?

Basically, we argue about differing interpretations of the law based on disputed or undisputed facts. And we don't just meet in a parking lot to do it. Other lawyers who have no vested interest in the outcome must be convinced by our arguments. They're called judges. Then a whole panel of impartial lawyers has to agree that the first one got it right. And then a panel of the most respected and accomplished lawyers in the state or even the country has to agree that the first panel was right.

You really think you're qualified to determine that "there is no way it can be called 2 events"? I would disagree. Dozens of judges have presided over the issue of insurance of the WTC buildings at nearly every level the judiciary has - state and federal. They have presided over motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and entire jury trials.

This, to me, says that the issue of insurance is, at the very least, extremely complicated and in no way obvious on its face.

Of course, they're just legal experts. Why would you trust experts in the field of law when you don't trust experts in the fields of engineering or law enforcement?

But, then, you're just asking questions.

[Gravy]

However, you're quite right that there was no "scam" involved. Apparently, the Docker child can't be bothered to read a short summary of the policies and the rationale behind court decisions, even though it has been provided to him.
Hey, you try posting 231 times a day, and posting at other forums. Dude, he barely has time to brush his teeth, much less read stuff.

[LashL]

Hey, you try posting 231 times a day, and posting at other forums. Dude, he barely has time to brush his teeth, much less read stuff.

I've seen no evidence that he brushes his teeth. :D

I have, however, seen lots of evidence that he doesn't read much.

[Docker]

So, what do you think lawyers do all day?

Basically, we argue about differing interpretations of the law based on disputed or undisputed facts. And we don't just meet in a parking lot to do it. Other lawyers who have no vested interest in the outcome must be convinced by our arguments. They're called judges. Then a whole panel of impartial lawyers has to agree that the first one got it right. And then a panel of the most respected and accomplished lawyers in the state or even the country has to agree that the first panel was right.

You really think you're qualified to determine that "there is no way it can be called 2 events"? I would disagree. Dozens of judges have presided over the issue of insurance of the WTC buildings at nearly every level the judiciary has - state and federal. They have presided over motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and entire jury trials.

This, to me, says that the issue of insurance is, at the very least, extremely complicated and in no way obvious on its face.

Of course, they're just legal experts. Why would you trust experts in the field of law when you don't trust experts in the fields of engineering or law enforcement?

But, then, you're just asking questions.

Stop pretending to be a lawyer.

[Housefly]

I never mentioned conspiracyThen why post a topic in the Conspiracy Theories forum? Is the whole topic just to say that although Silverstein wasn't involved in the events of 9/11 you think it's a bit slimy of him to try and squeeze a bit more money out of his insurance claim?

[Docker]

By the way lawyers certainly do not use the word basically.

[realitybites]

Stop pretending to be a lawyer.
Docker, what is your background in the US Justice system?

[gumboot]

By the way lawyers certainly do not use the word basically.


Seriously dude... do you want to make yourself look like a retard?

-Gumboot

[Josh Redstone]

Stop pretending to be a lawyer.

:boggled:

Docker, if you don't trust people who know what they're talking about, how do expect to ever find the truth?

[Skibum]

By the way lawyers certainly do not use the word basically.

Really?

Johnny Cochran uses it twice here...
http://www.nuvo.net/hammer/int/cochran.html

[LashL]

By the way lawyers certainly do not use the word basically.

Au contraire. We most certainly do. (Especially when we're trying to explain simple concepts to simpletons like you who blindly refuse to see).

And rather than trying to dodge yet another of your own stupid threads that you've started without any basis in reality, when are you going to read the facts and evidence about the insurance policies and the court decisions related to them? The summary has been provided to you repeatedly above.

[Brainster]

A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?

He really is exploiting the tragedy. There is no way it can be called 2 events.

This is actually a common sense argument, but there is a specific issue here with regard to property insurance that you may not be aware of.

First, commercial property owners have a strong incentive to get as little insurance on their properties as possible, because any money saved goes directly to the bottom line (i.e., profit). IIRC Silverstein tried to get $1.5 billion in coverage, but his lenders insisted on $2.3 billion (just talking about the leasehold properties here, not WTC 7).

It is actually common for commercial lenders to require the full amount of their loan in coverage on the property. However, they may be convinced to reduce that requirement based on specific facts related to the property. For example, many lenders will allow a borrower to insure a multi-building property for less than the full amount of the loan per occurence on the common sense notion that even if one building catches fire, that does not mean that the others will, at least not as part of the same occurence.

That seems to me to be the deal Silverstein and his lenders came to; that the buildings could be insured for substantially less than it would cost to rebuild them, on the basis that even if one buiding were heavily damaged it was unlikely that the other would in the same occurence. Whether the insurers underwrote the risk that way, is, of course, another matter.

Now do you see why Silverstein has at least an arguable claim that the terrorist attacks were two separate occurences? I tend to agree that it's a bit tenuous, but it's not as unreasonable as it might sound at first.

[Docker]

:boggled:

Docker, if you don't trust people who know what they're talking about, how do expect to ever find the truth?

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.

[realitybites]

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.
So what's your purpose here?

[Skibum]

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.

So you admit to being a troll then.

[Docker]

This is actually a common sense argument, but there is a specific issue here with regard to property insurance that you may not be aware of.

First, commercial property owners have a strong incentive to get as little insurance on their properties as possible, because any money saved goes directly to the bottom line (i.e., profit). IIRC Silverstein tried to get $1.5 billion in coverage, but his lenders insisted on $2.3 billion (just talking about the leasehold properties here, not WTC 7).

It is actually common for commercial lenders to require the full amount of their loan in coverage on the property. However, they may be convinced to reduce that requirement based on specific facts related to the property. For example, many lenders will allow a borrower to insure a multi-building property for less than the full amount of the loan per occurence on the common sense notion that even if one building catches fire, that does not mean that the others will, at least not as part of the same occurence.

That seems to me to be the deal Silverstein and his lenders came to; that the buildings could be insured for substantially less than it would cost to rebuild them, on the basis that even if one buiding were heavily damaged it was unlikely that the other would in the same occurence. Whether the insurers underwrote the risk that way, is, of course, another matter.

Now do you see why Silverstein has at least an arguable claim that the terrorist attacks were two separate occurences? I tend to agree that it's a bit tenuous, but it's not as unreasonable as it might sound at first.

Ok I see your point. I got the impression he was doubling the whole claim on his entire property. If my wife died in the towers though, i'd think he was seriously taking the piss, more than any CT.

[Docker]

So you admit to being a troll then.

No I said I don't expect to find the truth in here.

So you separate members into truth-seekers and trolls?

[Gravy]

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.
Have you come to enlighten us, then?

What a pathetic troll.

[LashL]

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.

Translation: Docker: "I've been proven wrong yet again, I haven't any clue what I'm talking about, and I'm sure not going to actually read anything that includes facts or evidence or science or, heck, even law for that matter. I'll just stick to writing more nonsensical posts, as it appears that posting in excess of 200 unsubstantiated posts lacking any facts or evidence or even rational thought per day isn't enough."

[Gravy]

Ok I see your point. I got the impression he was doubling the whole claim on his entire property. If my wife died in the towers though, i'd think he was seriously taking the piss, more than any CT.If you had read the information people provided for you, these 95 posts correcting your foolish accusation wouldn't have been necessary.

Is any of this sinking in?

[stateofgrace]

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.

Can I call you names now or will you report me?

Having read this thread Dicker, I feel for you, the pain of being so stupid and having to constantly back peddle from your claims as you are smacked down time and time again by facts must be unbearable. It borders on the point of embarrassing to read your replies.

Do carry on, I'll eat some more popcorn.

[gumboot]

If you had read the information people provided for you, these 95 posts correcting your foolish accusation wouldn't have been necessary.

Is any of this sinking in?


Quoted because Docker put Gravy on ignore.

-Gumboot

[Josh Redstone]

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.

So what are you here for?

Honestly, there are lots of people here who have researched this stuff extensively. This isn't the type of forum where teenagers Google around and play connect the dots.People here know what they're talking about. If you had any concern for the truth at all, you'd listen to them, instead of labelling them shills.

[yodaluver28]

If two men come into your house and steal your property, do you claim double insurance because 2 men did it not 1?

But that's not what happened. A more apt analogy would be if two men, working together, broke into two houses that you own that happen to be next store to each other and they robbed both. Since two houses were robbed, regardless of their common ownership and regardless of the relationship between the criminals, two separate houses were still robbed. Thus, the owner could claim two robberies.

[Docker]

But that's not what happened. A more apt analogy would be if two men, working together, broke into two houses that you own that happen to be next store to each other and they robbed both. Since two houses were robbed, regardless of their common ownership and regardless of the relationship between the criminals, two separate houses were still robbed. Thus, the owner could claim two robberies.

But he couldnt claim double the value of all combined property.

[realitybites]

Docker. Your purpose here.

.... What is it?

[WildCat]

But he couldnt claim double the value of all combined property.
First of all, there were something like 23 insurance companies involved. Some of the policies were written so that the 9/11 attacks counted as 1 event, some so that it was 2. So some had to pay for 2 events, others only for 1. It has all been hashed out in the courts already, and upheld on appeal.

You really don't know anything about this, do you?

[Josh Redstone]

But he couldnt claim double the value of all combined property.

He hasn't!

In case you missed this one already.... (http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html)

[CurtC]

I think WildCat confused you with Docker because of your Avatar.
Were y'all not aware that you can read these forums with avatars and signatures turned off? I can't imagine someone being aware of that and choosing to see the clutter of all that.

[LashL]

First of all, there were something like 23 insurance companies involved. Some of the policies were written so that the 9/11 attacks counted as 1 event, some so that it was 2. So some had to pay for 2 events, others only for 1. It has all been hashed out in the courts already, and upheld on appeal.

You really don't know anything about this, do you?

No, he clearly doesn't know anything about it, and he is clearly incapable of engaging his brain long enough to get a clue. The short answer was presented to him quite some time ago in this very thread but, not surprisingly, he is not interested in the truth, he is not interested in facts, and he is not interested in evidence.

This is all a game to "Docker", his predecessors, and his cohorts. Pretty sad, really.

[Loss Leader]

Stop pretending to be a lawyer.

That's your entire argument? An insult? Not a single word disputing a single fact that I laid out? Not even a hint that judges could be bought or that the entire legal fight was just for show? Not even an insult about lawyers in general? Just that I am not credible because I'm pretending to be a lawyer, your proof being that I used the word "basically." It must be very sad in your head.

By the way, you can never insure property for more than its replacement value. You can get five home insurance policies, if it burns down you're only going to recover the money to build a new one. One occurrance or two, it really doesn't matter - Silverstein cannot as a matter of law walk away with more than his loss.

But then again, you would know that if you did any research before posting your questions.

[Anti-sophist]

This guy is all over the map. He denies he believes in any theories, actually believes them all, says the opposite of what he implies, and continiously stirs up nonsense. He never has a point of view. He never provides evidence.

He is a troll in every sense of the word.

PS, here are 250 instances where supreme court justices used the word "basically"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?cirestriction=basically&court=us

[kookbreaker]

He's not very good at this, is he?

[LashL]

He's not very good at this, is he?

The evidence to date suggests that the only things he's good at are: starting BS threads; spouting complete and utter nonsense without any basis in fact; ignoring the facts and evidence that are provided to him; trying to change the subject to some other random tinhat theory every time he gets caught with his pants down on a previous one; and running away like a child.

[Loss Leader]

PS, here are 250 instances where supreme court justices used the word "basically"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?cirestriction=basically&court=us

123 instances of New York courts in the 2nd Department using the word "basically": Here (http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/lawReporting/Search)

Including:

The parties previously entered into a stipulation of settlement on June 6, 2005 which basically obligated respondent to construct a canopy. 102 Elmont Realty Corp. v. Berikal, Inc., 2006 NY Slip Op. 50498

And this case from just last week:

Basically, the accounting entries for expensing pension obligation are: debit "Pension Expense" and credit "Pension Liability." People v. Grasso, et al., 2006 NY Slip Op. 52019

[Regnad Kcin]

Wildcat - I think you misunderstand me. I was mocking Docker...A Docker mocker? Shocker!

[qarnos]

That's your entire argument? An insult? Not a single word disputing a single fact that I laid out? Not even a hint that judges could be bought or that the entire legal fight was just for show? Not even an insult about lawyers in general? Just that I am not credible because I'm pretending to be a lawyer, your proof being that I used the word "basically." It must be very sad in your head.

Why don't you post a picture of yourself with one of those wigs on - that would be enough proof for most CTists.

[CptColumbo]

Why don't you post a picture of yourself with one of those wigs on - that would be enough proof for most CTists.
Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.

[Redtail]

Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.

Unless they rebuilt the Old York.:rolleyes:

Edit: You know what? I take that back because I just heard a guy on a sport radio show complain about all of the Overseas NFL games that will be in Mexico and Canada next year. Ignorance is just sad at times. :(

[Skibum]

Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.

I think they should though, perhaps LL could start wearing one in court.
I think its a trend that might catch on.

[Loss Leader]

Why don't you post a picture of yourself with one of those wigs on - that would be enough proof for most CTists.

Don't think I don't want to - powdered wig and a big, black coat, gripping the lapels and strutting around like John Cleese in a Monty Python sketch where the witness has to knock on the coffin to prove he's dead.

[LashL]

Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.

Thankfully, the wigs were abandoned in Canada long ago. :)

We still wear the robes and waistcoats, though, when appearing in certain levels of court (not in certain levels of courts of first instance, but everything from Superior Court on up, basically)

[qarnos]

We still wear the robes and waistcoats, though, when appearing in certain levels of court (not in certain levels of courts of first instance, but everything from Superior Court on up, basically)

Well, I can see you're not a lawyer!

[LashL]

arggh.

Double post. (yes, lawyers do sometimes screw up and double post, basically, but see below for my actual post - this one doesn't count)

There's something wonky about my internet service tonight, apparently.

[LashL]

Well, I can see you're not a lawyer!

:p

Lawyers never, ever use "tongue sticking out smilies" on the internet either.....


er, basically.

[Lurker]

I feel sorry for all the lawyers who posted to this thread. Clearly once the ABA finds out they used the word "basically" they will lose their license to practice law.

Lurker

[Belz...]

I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.

Shilltown. I guess the US government has agents everywhere around the world just... er.... posting on internet forums... yeah!

[LashL]

That's your entire argument? An insult? Not a single word disputing a single fact that I laid out? Not even a hint that judges could be bought or that the entire legal fight was just for show? Not even an insult about lawyers in general? Just that I am not credible because I'm pretending to be a lawyer, your proof being that I used the word "basically." It must be very sad in your head.

By the way, you can never insure property for more than its replacement value. You can get five home insurance policies, if it burns down you're only going to recover the money to build a new one. One occurrance or two, it really doesn't matter - Silverstein cannot as a matter of law walk away with more than his loss.

But then again, you would know that if you did any research before posting your questions.

This bears repeating, since most people do not realize that even though the courts have now ruled upon the issue of which policies are subject to the "two occurrence" language and which are not, all that the courts have done is establish the maximum payouts that Mr. Silverstein may/could ultimately obtain.

Most of the parties (I think Swiss Re is the exception) have agreed to a process by which they will now assess the actual losses. Mr. Silverstein still has to prove his actual losses, and he cannot collect more than his provable losses, which may or may not be less than the maximum payouts that have been established. My guess is that his provable losses will end up being significantly more than the maximum payouts, but he will only be able to collect up to the maximum payouts that have been established by the courts as a result of the litigation as set out in the other thread linked earlier.

As Loss Leader says, Silverstein cannot as a matter of law walk away with more than his loss.

[stilicho]

I didn't want to start a new thread about this but wanted to make sure I was right about a couple of contentions I have about the Silverstein Properties insurance claims:

The source is this: http://www.swissre.com/pws/media%20centre/news/news%20releases%202006/swiss%20re%20issues%20statement%20on%20wtc%20litig ation%20appeal%20confirmation.html. I have directed people elsewhere to it before, and it describes how the largest reinsurer in the "two occurrence" WTC case, Swiss Re, finally won its appeals. So here are my questions:

#1] Has the Loose Change series been revised to exclude its false claims about Silverstein Properties?

#2] Have any of the popular conspiracy sites either revised, dropped, or apologised for their false claims in this regard? I know that "Jones Report" carried the story but didn't issue it as a retraction of any original claims.

#3] Although no dollar figures are explicit in the news release, my arithmetic says this decision cost Silverstein Properties a loss of $875,000,000. Does anyone here know how the corporation (or Westfield America) booked its losses--originally and after the 2006 rulings?

[parky76]

Docker- would you think this was a scam if his name was Smith and not Silverstein?

The money has made from insurance is less then the rebuilding costs. Therefore it is not scam.

The WTC was doing just fine before 9-11. It is no surprise that he got terrorism insurance.

Case closed. Go back to the JFK conspiracy.

[stilicho]

Hey parky, I was actually the one who revived this thread because I didn't want to start a new one.

[ktesibios]

Docker- would you think this was a scam if his name was Smith and not Silverstein?

The money has made from insurance is less then the rebuilding costs. Therefore it is not scam.

The WTC was doing just fine before 9-11. It is no surprise that he got terrorism insurance.

Case closed. Go back to the JFK conspiracy.

Umm... Parky... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67121

[LashL]

I didn't want to start a new thread about this but wanted to make sure I was right about a couple of contentions I have about the Silverstein Properties insurance claims:

The source is this: http://www.swissre.com/pws/media%20centre/news/news%20releases%202006/swiss%20re%20issues%20statement%20on%20wtc%20litig ation%20appeal%20confirmation.html. I have directed people elsewhere to it before, and it describes how the largest reinsurer in the "two occurrence" WTC case, Swiss Re, finally won its appeals.

Just to be precise, the jury verdict in 2004 was in Swiss Re's favour (holding that the Swiss Re policy was subject to the WilProp language, thus that the events of 9/11 were "one occurrence" for purposes of that particular policy), and it was Silverstein who appealed. Silverstein lost his appeal.

So here are my questions:

#1] Has the Loose Change series been revised to exclude its false claims about Silverstein Properties?

"Loose Change, v. 4: The Final Insult" is not finished yet, so it's too soon to tell.

#2] Have any of the popular conspiracy sites either revised, dropped, or apologised for their false claims in this regard? I know that "Jones Report" carried the story but didn't issue it as a retraction of any original claims.

A quick Google search does not indicate any revisions or apologies for their false allegations of insurance fraud, etc. I'm not sure if you have other, specific claims in mind.

#3] Although no dollar figures are explicit in the news release, my arithmetic says this decision cost Silverstein Properties a loss of $875,000,000. Does anyone here know how the corporation (or Westfield America) booked its losses--originally and after the 2006 rulings?

If memory serves, Swiss Re's exposure was $877 million (potentially doubled), so it looks like your mad math skillz are intact. :)

You may want to take a look at these two threads for details and discussion about the insurance companies and policies involved, the trials and the outcomes:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70904

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65615

[stilicho]

You may want to take a look at these two threads for details and discussion about the insurance companies and policies involved, the trials and the outcomes:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70904

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65615
Thanks, and those threads are pretty helpful too.

The only quarrel I might have is with the origins of the money that changed hands. There is the suggestion that the "losers" were European corporations. Swiss Re, for example, is based in Zurich, was founded as a Swiss corporation, and has the word "Swiss" in its name.

But, by its own accounts, its largest investors are actually Franklin-Templeton and The Capital Group. These are not foreign companies, to Americans. If their loss exposure was roughly ten per cent (given their investment stakes) then these American companies' losses would have amounted to nearly 90 million dollars.

My point here is that, as Jonnyfive might agree, the NWO was stealing from itself and suing itself in the aftermath of 9/11--based on the insurance litigation alone. I mean, if the conspiracists' claims are to have any validity whatsoever.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I don't want to start a new thread, so I'll just use this... Did any of Silversteins policies explicitly mention terrorism? (I've had a truther claiming that he insured the towers against "terrorism" just prior to 911)

[Brainster]

I don't want to start a new thread, so I'll just use this... Did any of Silversteins policies explicitly mention terrorism? (I've had a truther claiming that he insured the towers against "terrorism" just prior to 911)

Yes, terrorism insurance was a special requirement of his lenders. Although the "just prior to 9-11" part sounds suspicious, remember that Silverstein had just purchased the leasehold interest in the WTC buildings (except for #7, which he already owned) seven weeks prior to 9-11. In fact, this is why the insurance was still not completely settled. Remember that the WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack in 1993; it was no news to anybody that the towers were at risk still.

[MikeW]

(I've had a truther claiming that he insured the towers against "terrorism" just prior to 911)
Ask them for their evidence that the towers weren't insured for terrorism prior to that.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Yes, terrorism insurance was a special requirement of his lenders. Although the "just prior to 9-11" part sounds suspicious, remember that Silverstein had just purchased the leasehold interest in the WTC buildings (except for #7, which he already owned) seven weeks prior to 9-11. In fact, this is why the insurance was still not completely settled. Remember that the WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack in 1993; it was no news to anybody that the towers were at risk still.

Yes, and as I understand it, the process had taken somewhere close to two years to comlete (right?). Anyone knows where to read about the requirements that the lenders put up?


Ask them for their evidence that the towers weren't insured for terrorism prior to that.


If I can keep him on topic... he keeps jumping from topic to topic... However, were they?

/P

[MikeW]

If I can keep him on topic... he keeps jumping from topic to topic... However, were they?
I'd be surprised if not - they were covered for the 1993 attack, after all - but I don't know for sure. It's the hidden assumption in what he's saying, anyway, that this is suspicious because terrorism was only covered from shortly before the attacks. So ask him to prove that. If he can't show some significant change in the insurance policy then he's got nothing.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I'd be surprised if not - they were covered for the 1993 attack, after all - but I don't know for sure. It's the hidden assumption in what he's saying, anyway, that this is suspicious because terrorism was only covered from shortly before the attacks. So ask him to prove that. If he can't show some significant change in the insurance policy then he's got nothing.

Oh, this truther isn't actually proving anything, not to mention providing sources for his claims. He's more or less just claiming stuff. Im targeting the fence sitters, and I haven't looked that deep into this particual fork of the CT-world, so I thought I'd give it a go.

[gumboot]

I thought you guys might be interested to know that we can chalk Danny Jowenko up as another person who thinks Larry Silverstein committed insurance fraud by blowing his building up (and incidentally that the FDNY are complicit in this scam and were bribed by Silverstein to stay silent about it). According to Jowenko, "this is how America is tied together".

[Panoply_Prefect]

I thought you guys might be interested to know that we can chalk Danny Jowenko up as another person who thinks Larry Silverstein committed insurance fraud by blowing his building up (and incidentally that the FDNY are complicit in this scam and were bribed by Silverstein to stay silent about it). According to Jowenko, "this is how America is tied together".

I never quite understood Jowenko. AFAIK he's the only demoman with remotely the right credentials to speak with authority about controlled demolition, that has even hinted about 911 being CD. However, had I been the head of a successfull company involved in CD, anywhere in the world, and being asked about things concerning my particular area of expertize, not to mention professional occupancy, I would make every effort to give an answer based on knowledge and facts. This dude however had no problems whatsoever giving very definitive answers based solely on what he saw in a video clip. This imho says something about him.

Sorry for going OT, but I just had to get that out of my chest. Back to the insurances - has Jowenko made more statements then? And now venturing into law and the world of insurances?

[gumboot]

Sorry for going OT, but I just had to get that out of my chest. Back to the insurances - has Jowenko made more statements then? And now venturing into law and the world of insurances?


The statements were made in the original interview in which he was shown video of the WTC7 collapse and then talked about how it could have happened.

INTERVIEWER: What I sometimes think, has it maybe to do with insurance?

DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, that can also be. Look if that man [NYFD Commander on site at WTC7] is bribed by Silverstone because he wants his payment... and here you also have a nice percentage then he writes that simply down. This is how America is tied together. That makes September 11th very hard.

Source (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/)

It's worth noting in the interview that Jowenko is not given proper details of the FDNY accounts of damage to the building - the implication is that there were small localised fires and the damage to the building from the collapses was minor.

(The interviewer also incorrectly claims that WTC3 was damaged but still standing after the collapse of both towers).

I also don't believe Jowenko was made aware of the unique lower structure nature of WTC7 due to the con-ed station - the plans he was shown were for beam layout from the 8th floor upwards.

Finally, Jowenko contradicts himself in the interview somewhat. He looks at the plans and identifies key columns that could be cut in order to induce a collapse, but when asked if the building would spontaneously collapse if these columns were damaged in the same way he denies it could happen.

Put simply, the Jowenko interviews do not stand up to scrutiny, and he has offered no further evidence to give his opinion more credibility.

[fezzic]

By keeping that particular issue in the realm of his opinion instead of an official pronouncement (and no, I don't think that he's made it an "official" pronouncement, whatever he believes), Mr. Jowenko can basically say whatever he likes, speculate whatever he likes, and can still fall back on "Hmmm, I guess I was mistaken" if anyone should try to use his opinion against him professionally or officially. Should he put out a paper or deliver a lecture or presentation on this, he will be committing himself to the accuracy of what is presented -- now in his best considered judgement. Makes a difference when one's professional reputation is at stake.

[Panoply_Prefect]

By keeping that particular issue in the realm of his opinion instead of an official pronouncement (and no, I don't think that he's made it an "official" pronouncement, whatever he believes), Mr. Jowenko can basically say whatever he likes, speculate whatever he likes, and can still fall back on "Hmmm, I guess I was mistaken" if anyone should try to use his opinion against him professionally or officially. Should he put out a paper or deliver a lecture or presentation on this, he will be committing himself to the accuracy of what is presented -- now in his best considered judgement. Makes a difference when one's professional reputation is at stake.

Still, I'm amazed that he had no qualms whatsoever making sweeping accusations on TV, based on nothing more than what he's shown on a screen (a laptop if Im not mistaken). Not to mention the accusation against named FDNY personell (Its been sometime since I watch that clip, I missed him doing that completely).

As I understand it he didn't make those statements as a private person, but as a professional expert on controlled demolition. Thats a huge difference.

Anywhoo, how exactly did the terrorism-clause, or policy, look? It it possible to find a summary of it somewhere?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Bloody hell, I've been searching the net like crazy to find some sort of info on the terrorism-policy, and the history of it, but I get swamped by truther links that proclaims insurance-fraud.

Help me!

[LashL]

Bloody hell, I've been searching the net like crazy to find some sort of info on the terrorism-policy, and the history of it, but I get swamped by truther links that proclaims insurance-fraud.

Help me!


It may not have been a matter of having explicit "terrorism insurance" pre-2001 so much as it was a matter of standard interpretation of insurance policies - i.e., unless an insurance policy specifically excluded acts of terrorism as insurable losses in "all risks" coverage, the policies were interpreted to include acts of terrorism as insurable losses. Prior to 9/11, most property and casualty insurers covered acts of terrorism within their general coverage provisions, without specifically referring to acts of terrorism.

So, perhaps you could just point out to the twoofer you're arguing with that if he or she owned a house or a business or had any insurance policies himself in North America* prior to September 11, 2001, the twoofer himself or herself also had "terrorism insurance".

That is the reason for the losses from the 1993 terrorist bombings being covered. In "all risks" insurance policies, any type of event that is not specifically excluded by the terms of the policy are, by default, insured. Including acts of terrorism. So, unless acts of terrorism were specifically excluded as an insurable loss in any given insurance policy, acts of terrorism were just another of the many types of losses that were covered by "all risks" policies. That seems to have remained the norm until after the events of 9/11, when the insurance industry underwent enormous changes as a direct result of the massive losses of that day.

That said, given that the WTC buildings were arguably at greater risk than other buildings as a target of terrorism following the 1993 bombing, it is possible that the insurers sought/required/demanded a premium for a rider for coverage for "acts of terrorism" specifically - it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, although I haven't seen the actual policies - but the insurers (23-24 of them) certainly did not make any issue of any such thing in any of the protracted lawsuits that arose after the events of 9/11, so I tend to think, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it was simply not an issue.



*Due to their greater experience with acts of terrorism, U.K. insurers adopted exclusions for acts of terrorism long before any such exclusions were adopted in North America.

[Panoply_Prefect]

It may not have been a matter of having explicit "terrorism insurance" pre-2001 so much as it was a matter of standard interpretation of insurance policies - i.e., unless an insurance policy specifically excluded acts of terrorism as insurable losses in "all risks" coverage, the policies were interpreted to include acts of terrorism as insurable losses. Prior to 9/11, most property and casualty insurers covered acts of terrorism within their general coverage provisions, without specifically referring to acts of terrorism.

So, perhaps you could just point out to the twoofer you're arguing with that if he or she owned a house or a business or had any insurance policies himself in North America* prior to September 11, 2001, the twoofer himself or herself also had "terrorism insurance".

That is the reason for the losses from the 1993 terrorist bombings being covered. In "all risks" insurance policies, any type of event that is not specifically excluded by the terms of the policy are, by default, insured. Including acts of terrorism. So, unless acts of terrorism were specifically excluded as an insurable loss in any given insurance policy, acts of terrorism were just another of the many types of losses that were covered by "all risks" policies. That seems to have remained the norm until after the events of 9/11, when the insurance industry underwent enormous changes as a direct result of the massive losses of that day.

That said, given that the WTC buildings were arguably at greater risk than other buildings as a target of terrorism following the 1993 bombing, it is possible that the insurers sought/required/demanded a premium for a rider for coverage for "acts of terrorism" specifically - it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, although I haven't seen the actual policies - but the insurers (23-24 of them) certainly did not make any issue of any such thing in any of the protracted lawsuits that arose after the events of 9/11, so I tend to think, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it was simply not an issue.



*Due to their greater experience with acts of terrorism, U.K. insurers adopted exclusions for acts of terrorism long before any such exclusions were adopted in North America.

I've come to realize this. I found a pdf that pretty much clarified the issue here (http://www.cpda.com/TeamPublish/uploads/terrorisminsurance.pdf). AFAIK there was a clause regarding "acts of war", which as I understand it, the insurance companies opted not to invoke.

Cheers,
PP

[fezzic]

Still, I'm amazed that he had no qualms whatsoever making sweeping accusations on TV, based on nothing more than what he's shown on a screen (a laptop if Im not mistaken). Not to mention the accusation against named FDNY personell (Its been sometime since I watch that clip, I missed him doing that completely).

As I understand it he didn't make those statements as a private person, but as a professional expert on controlled demolition. Thats a huge difference.



But he still is in a position, if his stance were to come back on him, to say, "Oops, I might have been mistaken". As far as I understand, he's basically said that 7 WTC was a CD though I don't think he's tried to explain what was done, how, and why -- though I do recollect he attributes the CD to government interests/reasons.

Like supposed, and varied "experts" who opine on TV, he is not irretrievably bound to that position. He has rendered an opinion, maybe potentially better informed than most, but opinions are dime a dozen -- everybody tends to have one on any given subject.

IMO Laying it formally on the line is a much more serious business.

[applecorped]

But he still is in a position, if his stance were to come back on him, to say, "Oops, I might have been mistaken". As far as I understand, he's basically said that 7 WTC was a CD though I don't think he's tried to explain what was done, how, and why -- though I do recollect he attributes the CD to government interests/reasons.

Like supposed, and varied "experts" who opine on TV, he is not irretrievably bound to that position. He has rendered an opinion, maybe potentially better informed than most, but opinions are dime a dozen -- everybody tends to have one on any given subject.

IMO Laying it formally on the line is a much more serious business.

Source?

[fezzic]

Source?

I have no link. I may search the threads for the reference to what he thinks was the reason. That's about all I recall.

He thought 7 WTC was a CD. He thought 1 and 2 WTC were not CDs. He apparently thought that 7 WTC was destroyed to protect government related stuff.

[applecorped]

I have no link. I may search the threads for the reference to what he thinks was the reason. That's about all I recall.

He thought 7 WTC was a CD. He thought 1 and 2 WTC were not CDs. He apparently thought that 7 WTC was destroyed to protect government related stuff.

You are way to smart to believe this, aren't you?