PDA

View Full Version : [Merged] Let's Talk about Insurance Fraud!


JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 08:59 AM
One of the many ridiculous things I've heard from the 9/11 "Truth" movement is that the attacks on 9/11 were somehow a huge case of insurance fraud on the part of Larry Silverstein, or the Illuminati, or someone.

I'd like to talk about that for a second.

The very idea shows that the people espousing this theory have a profound misunderstanding of the insurance business in general, and insurance fraud specifically. Let me explain:

Insurance is essentially a risk-balancing utility. Insurance companies take on the risks associated with their line of coverage in exchange for premium payments. The companies are able to make money because they spread the risk among many different kinds of insurance. Thus, money made through lower level risks takes some of the pressure off higher level risks. It is the job of actuaries to come up with acceptable mathematical formulas and calculations to deal with the distributed risks, and the job of underwriters to apply those formulas to specific cases, along with their personal experience and judgment. It is then the job of claims adjusters to negotiate payment of claims, and claims examiners and investigators to look for fraudulent or suspcious claims behavior and ensure that the company doesn't lose money on it.

Insurance business is intended to be renumerative, not profitable for the person receiving benefits. Commercial risks are insured for their actual values, and the insurance companies will become very suspicious if someone tries to take out more insurance than a property is worth. This is one area where insurance fraud enters the picture.

There are three main ways to commit insurance fraud, all of which piss the insurance companies off a great deal:

Insure something, then make a false claim when the thing is not actually damaged, injured, lost, etc.
Insure something for far more than its worth, then make a claim.
In disability-type insurance, you can continue a claim beyond the end of the actual disability the insurance was supposed to cover.The insurance business employs a great number of people whose jobs are to assess risk, evaluate claims, adjust payment, and investigate fraud. If a company did nothing to protect itself against fraud, it would very quickly become financially insolvent and go out of business.

Insurance on commercial risks is designed to help ease the financial burden of a loss. Insurance will not always cover the full cost of replacing an expensive commercial risk, and it will never make a profit for the person with the insurance, unless they do not intend to rebuild the original risk but instead pay off any loans (banks don't like being defrauded either, you know), pocket the difference, and leave.

In the insurance industry, we are always looking out for suspicious risks. If you try to take out five times what your risk is worth in insurance, the company will simply not issue you coverage. They aren't legally required to, and underwriters are paid to ensure that such risks don't get past the front door.

So, my dear conspiracy theorists, how exactly did the massive insurance fraud of the twin towers work?

The replacement tower will cost far more to build than the policy on the twin towers was worth. Not only that, but the owner had to pay off the existing mortgage on the towers. This leaves a pretty big dent which is not filled by any insurance. If Silverstein was simply paying the mortgage and pocketing the difference that might be suspicious.

However, as a quick review of the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_site) on the site shows, even Silverstein's best case scenario (which he didn't get, and which the insurance companies fought him viciously over) would only get him 6.8 billion in insurance dollars. Subtract the remaining mortgage on the towers, as well as the 10 to 12 billion in rebuilding costs, and you're looking at a big chunk of change still lost. He would be at least 4 billion dollars in debt. That's more than the site originally cost.

Not only that, but the twin towers were quite profitable, and had fairly high occupancy rates.

So, Silverstein wanted the money-making towers destroyed so he could collect a net loss from insurance funds, not to mention the loss of rental income in the time (which will probably be a decade at least) it will take to build the Freedom Tower. That makes sense only in fantasy land.

If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever. I include those morons you see on the Maury show who are supposed to be on disability but can somehow lift a washing machine in that statement.

Yeah, you can quote me on that.

So, have at it. Any CTists here want to play the insurance game?

Kiwiwriter
20th December 2006, 09:04 AM
I nominated it.

About time we had some expertise on what really goes on with insurance to derail these conspiracy theorists.

I get tired of argumentum incredulum and argumentum ignorantium. (My apologies if I got the words wrong)

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 09:06 AM
I get tired of argumentum incredulum and argumentum ignorantium. (My apologies if I got the words wrong)

It gets old, doesn't it?

I guess they live in a magical world where insurance companies don't give a hoot about making a dollar, as long as the NWO somehow profits some kind of way from it.

Too bad the rest of us live in the real world.

Back to Star Wars beams and invisible planes, fellows, the financial industry is no place for you.

defaultdotxbe
20th December 2006, 09:22 AM
once i asked why the insurance comapnies arent pursuing fraud charges, i twas told because all the insurance companies are owned by the same guy and they are all in on it too

naturally the followup was "then arent the NWO just defrauding themselves?"

i was expecting a claim of money laundering for the 2.3 trillion "stolen" from the pentagon, but i guess the CTers arent thinking that far ahead, he just changed the subject

Horatius
20th December 2006, 09:38 AM
naturally the followup was "then arent the NWO just defrauding themselves?"


Thus, money made through lower level risks takes some of the pressure off higher level risks.

Don't you see, man? They're taking the money from Aunt Millie's fire insurance, and using it to pay off the WTC insurance!


Just ignore the fact that they already have the money from Aunt Millie, and are obligated to pay out if she has a fire, okay? Otherwise you're being left-brained! And then my argument won't work! [/28th Kingdom]

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 09:43 AM
once i asked why the insurance comapnies arent pursuing fraud charges, i twas told because all the insurance companies are owned by the same guy and they are all in on it too

So, I must be wasting my time trying to develop competitive rates on the cases I underwrite, since all the premium money's going to the same place anyway.

Maybe I should ask the Illuminati for a substantial pay raise.

boloboffin
20th December 2006, 09:49 AM
I would like to play! I don't believe any of this of course, but in my dealing with CTers, I've gotten some really laughable responses to my poor rendition of your excellent post above. I'll share my favorite one with you.

To wit, the anthrax attacks. My CT guy says that the insurers, rather than do an extensive examination of the Silverstein claim, realized that further anthrax attacks could completely devastate their industry, so in a fit of patriotic fervor they let Silverstein have their money and said, "Government, go get those bad guys!"

My first response was to laugh for a while. My second response was to express that laughter in a post and then say that if the CTer actually thought insurance companies just paid out without sniffing all around for fraud and the like, the CTer wasn't operating in the real world. I was then accused of minimizing the importance of the anthrax attacks.

I never really nailed this person down as to who they thought was pulling off the anthrax attacks, and my two suggestions as to anthrax "protection" money was rejected. So the objection seemed to be just as I stated above - the insurance companies felt the risk of terrorists attacking their insured buildings with anthrax to be so great that they didn't interfere with Silverstein's claim.

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 10:00 AM
To wit, the anthrax attacks. My CT guy says that the insurers, rather than do an extensive examination of the Silverstein claim, realized that further anthrax attacks could completely devastate their industry, so in a fit of patriotic fervor they let Silverstein have their money and said, "Government, go get those bad guys!"

My first response was to laugh for a while. My second response was to express that laughter in a post and then say that if the CTer actually thought insurance companies just paid out without sniffing all around for fraud and the like, the CTer wasn't operating in the real world. I was then accused of minimizing the importance of the anthrax attacks.

Yes, they do seem to believe that the world works like that. If the companies really believed that Silverstein was somehow using the anthrax attacks to bully them into paying, they would have their lawyers on him faster than you can say "star wars beam weapon".

Also, that would imply that the anthrax would cause significant life or disability claims (3 billion dollars isn't chump change), and that the insurance companies were the same ones that insured the towers (oh wait, they're all owned by the same people... silly me), and that nothing could be done to stop the anthrax, despite this theory being predicated upon Larry Silverstein being behind the anthrax.

Oh wait, I'm working in "real world" again, not crazy Illuminati moon man world. Silly me.

Besides, they didn't even pay his full claim. Silverstein wanted 6.8 billion, and he ended up getting a total award of about half that.

Oh well, I guess if you can convince yourself the one world government blew up the towers, you can convince yourself of anything.

TriangleMan
20th December 2006, 10:07 AM
My CT guy says that the insurers, rather than do an extensive examination of the Silverstein claim, realized that further anthrax attacks could completely devastate their industry, so in a fit of patriotic fervor they let Silverstein have their money and said, "Government, go get those bad guys!"
As you suspect this is wrong on many levels:

1) Anthrax attacks might devastate life insurance companies. These companies are in most cases, not the same ones that insure buildings for damage. Anthrax would not damage the building.

2) Much, I'll daresay more than 50% (but I can't back it up), of the insurance money was provided by non-US companies. In the end Lloyds, and reinsurers based in the EU and Bermuda, paid a substantial chunk of the claim. 'patriotic fervor' doesn't really add up.

3) after 9/11 many insurance companies stopped selling terrorism coverage, or specifially excluded it from their policies. Further attacks would have little impact on their capital base and would certainly not cause massive disruptions in the industry. In response a number of speciality lines reinsurers were incorporated to take advantage of the lack of coverage being sold because they could charge big premium for the coverage. But most of those were separate companies not owned by the original older companies so even if there were more attacks it would only impact these new specialty reinsurers.

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 10:22 AM
As you suspect this is wrong on many levels:

1) Anthrax attacks might devastate life insurance companies. These companies are in most cases, not the same ones that insure buildings for damage. Anthrax would not damage the building.

2) Much, I'll daresay more than 50% (but I can't back it up), of the insurance money was provided by non-US companies. In the end Lloyds, and reinsurers based in the EU and Bermuda, paid a substantial chunk of the claim. 'patriotic fervor' doesn't really add up.

3) after 9/11 many insurance companies stopped selling terrorism coverage, or specifially excluded it from their policies. Further attacks would have little impact on their capital base and would certainly not cause massive disruptions in the industry. In response a number of speciality lines reinsurers were incorporated to take advantage of the lack of coverage being sold because they could charge big premium for the coverage. But most of those were separate companies not owned by the original older companies so even if there were more attacks it would only impact these new specialty reinsurers.

#2 is a good point for the US-centric CTists. With high risks, or very large risks, you often find multiple companies jointly insuring the risk in order to spread it out. That's exactly what happened with the WTC towers. I believe there were something like four or six different insurers, not all based in the US.

I'd have to look up numbers for specialty coverage (I don't work with those lines of coverage, so I don't have firsthand knowledge of numbers), but I would think there might be some reluctance to insure certain higher risk segments of that specialty market. That kind of coverage, IIRC, is often sold to people working in areas where it presents a real risk. Depending on where they are and what they do, it might be considered a very high risk (for example, if you're a contractor in one of the worse parts of Iraq, the coverage might be denied or issued only at a ridiculous rate).

Many disability insurance and other such policies, as well as some life insurance policies, will not cover injury (or death) resulting from terrorist acts. The company can always decide to stop issuing new coverage that covers terrorism-related injury/death if their analysts feel that the risk is too great.

And, lo and behold, there have not been masses of anthrax-related deaths and Larry Silverstein didn't get 6.8 billion dollars. Weird how that fits in better with the "not insurance fraud" explanation than with the "was insurance fraud" explanation.

defaultdotxbe
20th December 2006, 10:35 AM
3) after 9/11 many insurance companies stopped selling terrorism coverage, or specifially excluded it from their policies. Further attacks would have little impact on their capital base and would certainly not cause massive disruptions in the industry. In response a number of speciality lines reinsurers were incorporated to take advantage of the lack of coverage being sold because they could charge big premium for the coverage. But most of those were separate companies not owned by the original older companies so even if there were more attacks it would only impact these new specialty reinsurers.

ive been tryign to find out the specifics of silverteins "terrorism" coverage but im not finding much outside of CT site, maybe you could help

was it a specific terrorism policy, or was it just explicitly stated in the standard policy?

from what i understand terrorist acts were an implied coverage in a standard policy, but after 1993 its udnerstandable they would want it explicitly covered at the WTC

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 10:45 AM
ive been tryign to find out the specifics of silverteins "terrorism" coverage but im not finding much outside of CT site, maybe you could help

was it a specific terrorism policy, or was it just explicitly stated in the standard policy?

from what i understand terrorist acts were an implied coverage in a standard policy, but after 1993 its udnerstandable they would want it explicitly covered at the WTC

Insurance policies issued for property generally list what they won't cover rather than what they specifically will cover (for example, many home insurance policies specifically exclude flood damage, hence the need for specialty flood insurance). In the case of the WTC towers, one of the big issues was that "acts of war" are excluded from coverage (as they are with most insurance policies). The insurance companies apparently did not try to use this to avoid paying, so this has been a non-issue.

So, it seems from the information available that the policy probably didn't specifically mention terrorism, but obviously didn't include a terrorism exclusion (or else the companies wouldn't have been liable for anything).

Given the infrequency of terrorist acts in the US, I don't see why Silverstein would have required specific terrorist acts coverage. I would think that would be highly unusual outside of areas where it is a major enough risk to warrant specialty coverage.

defaultdotxbe
20th December 2006, 10:51 AM
im pretty much just looking for the kernel of truth that may or may not be at the heart of the CT claims

Given the infrequency of terrorist acts in the US, I don't see why Silverstein would have required specific terrorist acts coverage. I would think that would be highly unusual outside of areas where it is a major enough risk to warrant specialty coverage.

like i said, given that the towers had been a target in 1993 it wouldnt surprise me if someone had wanted the policy to explicitly state terrorism was not excluded

although i guess short of getting a copy of the actual policy and reading it we'll never know

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 10:58 AM
like i said, given that the towers had been a target in 1993 it wouldnt surprise me if someone had wanted the policy to explicitly state terrorism was not excluded

although i guess short of getting a copy of the actual policy and reading it we'll never know

I had thought of that as well, but I'm not sure that it would make much difference from an actuarial point of view.

You're right, of course. If the policy didn't contain an exclusion and the event was within the parameters of coverage, then it can be assumed to be covered. If the insurers were concerned about another terrorist attack, they would have either excluded those acts from coverage (which they didn't, because they are willing to pay the claims), or charge higher premiums (which I don't know).

Even if we did have a copy of the policy, I'm sure the CT response would be something about it being fake, altered, or whatever. It actually contained a clause about faking terrorist attacks in order to steal the billions in gold from under the towers!

TriangleMan
20th December 2006, 11:04 AM
ive been tryign to find out the specifics of silverteins "terrorism" coverage but im not finding much outside of CT site, maybe you could help

There was an old thread a while back where someone asked that question and while I had some knowledge of it a poster named LashL searched and found the details. The thread is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65615).

pgwenthold
20th December 2006, 11:05 AM
All I know is that when my jeep was "totalled," the check we got from the insurance company was for an equivalent replacement, not for a new jeep. The idea that the insurance company will buy you a new car if you wreck the old one is laughable. You get more than standard trade-in value, but that's about it.

TriangleMan
20th December 2006, 11:09 AM
I had thought of that as well, but I'm not sure that it would make much difference from an actuarial point of view.

You're right, of course. If the policy didn't contain an exclusion and the event was within the parameters of coverage, then it can be assumed to be covered. If the insurers were concerned about another terrorist attack, they would have either excluded those acts from coverage (which they didn't, because they are willing to pay the claims), or charge higher premiums (which I don't know).

I'm pretty sure (sadly that's the best I can do right now) after 1993 the policies were not reworded to exclude terrorism. I don't think the insurance & reinsurance companies seriously considered the destruction of the towers to be a realistic scenario so had no problem covering it. They lost a lot of money, despite one group of insurers winning the court case and paying half what Silverstein wanted. I know that for its 3Q2001 SEC filing ACE Reinsurance (a Bermudian reinsurer) upped its loss reserves by US$560m due to 9/11. Other reinsurers lost even more. No way the premium paid covered that.

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 11:09 AM
All I know is that when my jeep was "totalled," the check we got from the insurance company was for an equivalent replacement, not for a new jeep. The idea that the insurance company will buy you a new car if you wreck the old one is laughable. You get more than standard trade-in value, but that's about it.

Yep, they'll depreciate the policy to the current value of the vehicle. As the vehicle gets older and is worth less, the policy premium should also decrease.

It cost me a lot less to insure my old '93 Cadillac than my '06 Hyundai, for example.

TriangleMan
20th December 2006, 11:12 AM
All I know is that when my jeep was "totalled," the check we got from the insurance company was for an equivalent replacement, not for a new jeep. The idea that the insurance company will buy you a new car if you wreck the old one is laughable. You get more than standard trade-in value, but that's about it.
For big property insurance the policies almost always state the maximum amount payable rather than 'replacement value' or other ambigous terms. The major court case with one group of reinsurers was that the policy stated something like $3.5b per occurence, and the argument was whether two planes hitting two towers was one occurence ($3.5b payout) or two ($7b payout). Courts ruled that due to the wording of the contract it was a $3.5b payout.

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 11:15 AM
I'm pretty sure (sadly that's the best I can do right now) after 1993 the policies were not reworded to exclude terrorism. I don't think the insurance & reinsurance companies seriously considered the destruction of the towers to be a realistic scenario so had no problem covering it. They lost a lot of money, despite one group of insurers winning the court case and paying half what Silverstein wanted. I know that for its 3Q2001 SEC filing ACE Reinsurance (a Bermudian reinsurer) upped its loss reserves by US$560m due to 9/11. Other reinsurers lost even more. No way the premium paid covered that.

Again, unless we can find the policy we'll never be 100% sure, but I agree with you based on the actions of the companies, as well as from a risk-analysis standpoint.

I wouldn't have considered the destruction of the towers to be a likely risk either. If the companies thought there was a high probability of it happening, they surely would have included an exclusion clause in the policy.

With massive claims like this, the companies always lose money. It's distributed by other policies where the loss isn't as much (or doesn't exist), and by investments made with the premium money.

TriangleMan
20th December 2006, 11:17 AM
Again, unless we can find the policy we'll never be 100% sure.

This may help, but it's not a word-by-word content of the policies: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/03cv0332_opinion_060806.pdf

Minadin
20th December 2006, 11:33 AM
If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever.


I loved that line so I stole it for my sig (I get a sig now, woowoo!). "History of ever" made me laugh out loud.

JonnyFive
20th December 2006, 12:01 PM
This may help, but it's not a word-by-word content of the policies: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/03cv0332_opinion_060806.pdf (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/03cv0332_opinion_060806.pdf[/quote)

Thanks, that's very helpful.

It looks like the big issue was whether or not the main policy would cover defense costs. Sounds like it was an umbrella general liability policy, and as they didn't contest the claims (only the number of occurrences), I would assume that there was no rider excluding coverage for terrorist acts.

The excess coverage layers are typical of such a large risk. It looks like they had at least 17 different carriers providing the total coverage on the property. Then again, in CT world they are all the same carrier.


I loved that line so I stole it for my sig (I get a sig now, woowoo!). "History of ever" made me laugh out loud.

Thanks, I'm honored.

JamesB
20th December 2006, 05:04 PM
Given that these are some of the same people who are claiming they stole $1 trillion in gold from the WTC, the Illuminati made billions shorting stock, the dollar is going to soon be replaced by the "Amero", and Leo Wanta is the trustee for a $70 trillion fund, I don't place much faith in their finance knowledge.

Big Les
20th December 2006, 05:10 PM
Wot, no CTs?

*nothing but the drip, drip, drip of drool upon soiled keyboard*

Gravy
20th December 2006, 05:28 PM
For big property insurance the policies almost always state the maximum amount payable rather than 'replacement value' or other ambigous terms. The major court case with one group of reinsurers was that the policy stated something like $3.5b per occurence, and the argument was whether two planes hitting two towers was one occurence ($3.5b payout) or two ($7b payout). Courts ruled that due to the wording of the contract it was a $3.5b payout.The Silverstein WTC insurance policies and claims were very complicated, involving about 23 insurance companies and many policies. Some of the wording in those policies had not even been finalized at the time of the attacks, which made the court decisions more difficult. The courts decided that some of the insurance clauses DID allow for a double payout under the circumstances. Therefore, although Silverstein's insured amount was about $3.5 billion, he was finally awarded about 4.6 billion.

The $861 million claim on building 7, which was owned, not leased, by Silverstein properties, was promptly paid by Industrial Risk Insurers. What? Hadn't they heard that Silverstein ordered the building to be blown up? Barton Keyes would have sniffed that out in a second!

Brainster
20th December 2006, 06:45 PM
Good stuff, Jonny! I did a post a number of months back on the "two occurences" bit that a lot of the Deniers find so baffling. I can't locate it right now but I thought I'd throw the points into this thread.

Commercial property owners have a strong incentive to keep their insurance coverage as low as possible, since any money saved flows directly to the bottom line, and in fact usually commercial property coverage is mandated by the lender and not by the property owner. The Lender typically wants their loan amount in coverage, but they will often let borrowers insure for less than that based on aspects of the property. For example, on garden apartment loans, it is not uncommon for a lender to allow the borrower to purchase insurance that covers (effectively) just one building per occurence, on the rationale that only one building is likely to burn down in a fire. Of course they will look hard at other factors--how far apart the buildings are, whether they have clay tile or cedar shake roofs, etc. Note however, that this does cover the lender in the event of two separate fires in two separate buildings on the same day because those are different occurences. Hence Silverstein's claim that the terrorist attacks constituted two separate occurences is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Of course, he was hosed by the language in one of the binders for insurance coverage (IIRC called the Wilprop policy) which specified a maximum payout.

This is of course, a layman's version and a lender's version; the actual issues involved in the WTC coverage were quite a bit more complex.

ETA: My 911th post! It must be part of the conspiracy!

ConspiRaider
20th December 2006, 06:50 PM
The $861 million claim on building 7, which was owned, not leased, by Silverstein properties, was promptly paid by Industrial Risk Insurers. What? Hadn't they heard that Silverstein ordered the building to be blown up? Barton Keyes would have sniffed that out in a second!
Oh but Gravy -

Lookit how they connect up to Nwoo Woorld Oorder:

Industrial
Risk
Insurers

Illuminati
Rothschilds
Freemasons

Okay, 2 out of 3, but STILL...

Gravy
20th December 2006, 06:54 PM
Oh but Gravy -

Okay, 2 out of 3, but STILL...In CT land, 2 out of 3 is more than enough. In fact, zero out of three is more than enough. You win!

LashL
20th December 2006, 07:05 PM
The Silverstein WTC insurance policies and claims were very complicated, involving about 23 insurance companies and many policies. Some of the wording in those policies had not even been finalized at the time of the attacks, which made the court decisions more difficult. The courts decided that some of the insurance clauses DID allow for a double payout under the circumstances. Therefore, although Silverstein's insured amount was about $3.5 billion, he was finally awarded about 4.6 billion.

The $861 million claim on building 7, which was owned, not leased, by Silverstein properties, was promptly paid by Industrial Risk Insurers. What? Hadn't they heard that Silverstein ordered the building to be blown up? Barton Keyes would have sniffed that out in a second!


Yes, that's all correct, Gravy. As set out here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1983689&postcount=8

The $3.5 billion coverage was for all four of the buildings under the July 2001 lease (buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5).

The coverage was procured through 23-24 insurance companies.

Two companies - ACE Bermuda and XL Insurance, Ltd. - settled in Feb. 2002, paying a total of $365 million ($298 million by ACE and $67 by XL)

Three companies - Hartford, Royal Indemnity, and St. Paul Fire - brought motions for summary judgment seeking a declaration that they were subject to the "WilProp" language (which would mean that the terrorist attacks were one occurrence and not two) rather than the Travelers language. They were successful and the decision was upheld on appeal by the Circuit Court in September 2003. These three were subject, therefore, to a maximum liability of $112 million.

The remaining insurers were split into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether they were subject to the "one occurrence" or "two occurrence" language.

The first trial resulted in a verdict that 10 of those insurers whose liability totalled $1.9 billion, were subject to the WilProp language and thus their total liability was limited to $1.9 billion (three of the 13 insurers in this group were found to be liable to the "two occurrence" language so were added to the second trial group).

The second trial resulted in a verdict that the remaining insurers were indeed subject to the double occurrence language, so their $1.1 billion in coverage resulted in these insurers being liable for a maximum of $2.2 billion

Total potential payout, therefore, is capped at $4,577,000,000 for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

See also here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1985777&postcount=13


First jury trial
Verdict April 29, 2004 (no decision re Swiss Reinsurance)
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1082923373947
http://www.realestatejournal.com/reg...-starkman.html

Swiss Re verdict May 3, 2004:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...c&refer=europe

Second jury trial – December 6, 2004 - these insurers subject to double payment re 2 occurrences
http://insuranceletter.com/archives/...sg00007.html#1

In October, TriangleMan posted a link showing the results of Silverstein's appeal of the SwissRe verdict here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2015836&postcount=14

(Silverstein lost on appeal, thus the total potential payout remains as set out above at $4.577 billion.)

EDIT TO ADD: that does not mean that he has actually been paid the total as yet. He has not been. The parties are currently going through a process to assess his actual losses, as he cannot, of course, collect more than his actual losses. (In this case, however, I am certain that he will ultimately collect the total as it is next to inconceivable that his damages on buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 could be less than his maximum payout)

Brainster
20th December 2006, 07:48 PM
Anybody have any idea on the duration of the loss of rents coverage? I can't imagine it going for five years out. I remember that once it became obvious to the insurance companies that Silverstein was going to claim two occurences, the insurerers held out on paying the rent loss policy, because they knew they'd just be funding his lawsuit.

LashL
20th December 2006, 08:25 PM
Anybody have any idea on the duration of the loss of rents coverage? I can't imagine it going for five years out. I remember that once it became obvious to the insurance companies that Silverstein was going to claim two occurences, the insurerers held out on paying the rent loss policy, because they knew they'd just be funding his lawsuit.

I don't recall anything specific about business interruption insurance (which would typically include loss of rent) on the WTC buildings, and I don't recall anything specific about them having such coverage, but it would make sense. The length of business interruption coverage would depend upon the specific language in the policies. Given that nobody would have predicted or anticipated the total collapse of the buildings, though, I would doubt that a prescribed period would be more than a year or two at most, subject to contingencies such as debris removal, access being denied due to safety issues or civil authorities, etc. (And I vaguely recall some issue about a prescribed time period in some of the policies relating to the WTC buildings but, again, I don't recall the details). However, if the language was such that it includes business interruption losses until the premises can be repaired or replaced, for instance, who knows how long it could go on? Obviously, the policyholder and the insurer will have differing views on this.

Another research project, it seems, for someone willing and able to take it on.

JonnyFive? This seems to be up your alley. What do you say? :)


(As an aside, there were probably thousands of business interruption claims by tenants in all of the WTC buildings as well - surely billions of dollars involved there, as well, for the tenants. When all is said and done, the WTC terrorist attacks probably rank among the top 10 incidents of all time for impact upon the insurance industry - and probably the largest insured loss of all time - but insurance professionals can correct me on this, of course, if I'm wrong.)

Bell
20th December 2006, 09:35 PM
Anybody have any idea on the duration of the loss of rents coverage? I can't imagine it going for five years out. I remember that once it became obvious to the insurance companies that Silverstein was going to claim two occurences, the insurerers held out on paying the rent loss policy, because they knew they'd just be funding his lawsuit.

Sorry for the slight derail. Yesterday I saw an item on CNN International about the first beams being placed for the Freedom Tower. The new WTC7 is still about half empty. I wonder who'll Siverstein get to occupy the Freedom Tower. I can't imagine him ever getting full rent.

TriangleMan
20th December 2006, 09:52 PM
I don't recall anything specific about business interruption insurance (which would typically include loss of rent) on the WTC buildings, and I don't recall anything specific about them having such coverage, but it would make sense.
Good to see that you joined the thread LashL, you have a better knack for digging up the specifics than I do.

I agree on the Business Interruption (BI) insurance, given the shutdown of the buildings after the 1993 attacks most if not all of the tenants, as well as Silverstein, should have purchased BI cover after that. I don't know much about BI and the limits to the time of interruption but JonnyFive is an underwriter, maybe he has some idea?

Wizentub
20th December 2006, 10:32 PM
Once the 9-11 event happened all insurance companies changed rules slightly.
Example in my business as a private contractor requiring liability insurance suddenly all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism from the destruction of my equipment and damage to property to being beaten upon the job of which there is a good chance being a cleaning contract in a casino hotel.

Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.

cheers.

Brainster
20th December 2006, 10:37 PM
Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.

Yes, and I hear they had to say "clunkety clunk" every time they removed a brick. Fortunately, this did not take them long.

LashL
20th December 2006, 10:50 PM
Once the 9-11 event happened all insurance companies changed rules slightly.


First, welcome, Wizentub.

Second, your post appears to be nonsensical on its face, with perhaps the exception of the first sentence - but even that sentence lacks any specificity, so you'll have to elaborate on that one as well.

Third, in this forum, if you are going to make such claims, you're going to have to bring some evidence to support your assertions.

Example in my business as a private contractor requiring liability insurance suddenly all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism from the destruction of my equipment and damage to property to being beaten upon the job of which there is a good chance being a cleaning contract in a casino hotel.


Please provide evidence that "all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism". I find this assertion preposterous.

Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.


I find these assertions equally preposterous.

Frankly, I find all of the assertions you've made in your post outlandish and extraordinary.

And, as I'm sure you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please get started.

LashL
20th December 2006, 10:56 PM
I don't know much about BI and the limits to the time of interruption but JonnyFive is an underwriter, maybe he has some idea?

Yes, that's what I was thinking too, that JonnyFive might have some very good insight on the topic given his underwriting experience. It will be excellent to have his input, perspective, and knowledge to add to the great resources here.

Gravy
20th December 2006, 11:41 PM
Hi Wizentub!

Hi!

(Your post was a joke, wasn't it?)

uk_dave
20th December 2006, 11:48 PM
Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.

cheers.

Definately satire...and did make I laugh ('specially to 110 storey scaffold :D)

ConspiRaider
21st December 2006, 12:41 AM
Once the 9-11 event happened all insurance companies changed rules slightly.

Example in my business as a private contractor requiring liability insurance suddenly all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism from the destruction of my equipment and damage to property to being beaten upon the job of which there is a good chance being a cleaning contract in a casino hotel.
See when I go to Vegas I try to spread that around a bit. The people I beat up after losing the next 3 mortgage payments at the tables. But sure, cleaning contractors can be considered big slow-moving targets for acts of Craps Rage that we all are subject to, I'll admit that. It's the stuff on those carts you guys have, you know? I mean, when I lose at craps, and then I see all those rolls of toilet paper on the cleaning cart - something just busts loose inside me.

But I digress.

These insurance dudes now want to consider me a terrorist? I'm just letting off steam! Sheez! Hell, I never even make a video after my Craps Rage, claiming responsibility! I really resent that. It's Bush, man. Thinks everybody's a "terrist". I'm just a normal guy trying to even the score!

geggy
21st December 2006, 12:48 AM
One of the towers were insulated with asbestos from bottom to top while the other one was from bottom to 64th floor. Some interesting info...

The World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in therough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this? The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an ageing dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due to the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to dissemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishingthe buildings. The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion! In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures.

ConspiRaider
21st December 2006, 12:53 AM
One of the towers were insulated with asbestos from bottom to top while the other one was from bottom to 64th floor. Some interesting info...
Hi Geggy -

You really have to go here and read up on this stuff, good info:
http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

TriangleMan
21st December 2006, 04:42 AM
One of the towers were insulated with asbestos from bottom to top while the other one was from bottom to 64th floor. Some interesting info...
. . . . which appears to have nothing to do with what is being discussed in this thread. :confused:

JonnyFive
21st December 2006, 06:41 AM
All right, I did a little research on business interruption coverage and loss of rental income.

Business interruption and 9/11 (http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/2001/10/08/features/18485.htm)

It mentions that there were a number of BI claims stemming from companies leasing at the WTC, which makes sense. Nothing on whether or not Silverstein had any BIC.

There is also this (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2001/10/26/12546.htm), which gives more information about Silverstein's coverage. It mentions that the payout is $25 million a month, or $300 million a year. There isn't any mention of what kind of policy this is covered under, but it might be a rider on the general liability, or it might be a separate policy. It doesn't really matter, as the end result is the same. No mention of any time limits on the coverage either, but I would imagine there is some kind of time or dollar value cap.

Business interruption coverage, from what I've been able to find, is issued with a dollar cap of around $25 - 50 million without any reinsurance. That's not nearly enough to cover the loss of rental income that Silverstein is facing, so he must have a different line of coverage (or policy rider) that specifically mentions loss of rental income over the duration of rebuilding.

And, for the conspiracy people playing along at home, keep in mind that this is income that Silverstein is losing by not having rentable office space, not some gracious gift from the insurance companies.

Another thing to keep in mind is that insurance for this kind of loss is sometimes at a percentage of the actual value, or calculated in some way as to not fully cover the lost rent.

There is also a NY government report (http://www.senate.state.ny.us/Docs/sfc0102.pdf) on the financial impact of 9/11 worth looking at, for perspective. Of course, it was created for the government (the New York senate finance committee, that is), so I'm sure the CTist can dismiss it as lies, lies, and more lies.

I also see that Silverstein is still paying over $100 million a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein) in rent for the site.

JonnyFive
21st December 2006, 06:49 AM
One of the towers were insulated with asbestos from bottom to top while the other one was from bottom to 64th floor. Some interesting info...

Could you please cite the sources for all of this?

The WTC towers enjoyed high occupany with an excellent rental base, and were extremely modern constructions. They were built in the late '60s, and it is extremely common in NYC to find buildings built pre-WWII in excellent condition. Refurbishing buildings isn't some new thing.

So, if you're going to suggest that the 9/11 attacks were done as an excuse to destroy the towers and collect some money to rebuild them because they were "ageing [sic] dinosaurs", I'd love to see some citation.

LashL
21st December 2006, 06:53 AM
Definately satire...and did make I laugh ('specially to 110 storey scaffold :D)

You're right, of course. Apparently, my humour meter was malfunctioning last night. I blame the troofers. ;)

LashL
21st December 2006, 06:54 AM
..

JonnyFive
21st December 2006, 08:15 AM
I blame the troofers. ;)

Are you sure it isn't the government hypnosis?

Brainster
21st December 2006, 10:04 AM
Definately satire...and did make I laugh ('specially to 110 storey scaffold :D)

Laugh away, but this whole discussion (http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm) has definitely been brought up by the CT crowd:

Fetzer: My impression has been that there were a couple of problems with the towers and it may have been that they were chronic problems. One of course was that it was laden with asbestos and that any proposal to remove that asbestos which was used as a coating on the steel as I understand it would have been a gargantuan task at incredible expense. Can anyone imagine for example of constructing scaffolding around a 110 story building? And second of all that there were difficulties with occupancy that Larry Silverstein wasn’t getting a full return on his investment from the ordinary use of the buildings, because a tremendous large numbers of offices were unoccupied. Whole floors and sections of the buildings.

JonnyFive
21st December 2006, 10:14 AM
The thing I love most about the CT crowd is that there is always someone to entertain literally every crazy theory. Nothing is too much.

Beam weapons? Sure.

Holographic planes? No problem.

C4-coated concrete building core? Yep.

All insurance fraud? You betcha.

160 billion in gold? Of course.

It's a like a circus composed entirely of clowns and trained bears, and the bears eat the clowns and I really don't know where I'm going with this.

Mashuna
21st December 2006, 11:28 AM
Well, with my troofer mad maths skillz, I can extrapolate away.

My house is two stories high, and currently being partly re-roofed. The scaffolding is costing £100 for three days.

If I multiply by 55, to get to the 110 stories of the WTC, then convert to dollars, I get. . .

(counts on fingers)

wait, I'm nearly there,

(takes off socks to count on toes)

Three hundred billion dollars! And that's just for the scaffold!

Thus, I have conclusively proved that the towers were demolished for insurance fraud. Or that I am a mutant with far too many toes.

JonnyFive
21st December 2006, 11:32 AM
Three hundred billion dollars! And that's just for the scaffold!

Thus, I have conclusively proved that the towers were demolished for insurance fraud. Or that I am a mutant with far too many toes.

I think you might want to consider seeing a doctor now.

Mashuna
21st December 2006, 11:35 AM
I think you might want to consider seeing a doctor now.

I try, but for some reason I'm having terrible trouble walking :p

JonnyFive
21st December 2006, 11:37 AM
I try, but for some reason I'm having terrible trouble walking :p

Well, then I suppose you might as well stay inside and come up with conspiracy theories then.

I heard the Banker Jooz had something to do with it, or possibly the Masons. You know, the W.B. Mason office supply company.

A W Smith
21st December 2006, 09:49 PM
The theory that the buildings were white elephants and too expensive to dismantle is preposterous,

If there was asbestos it certainly wasn't on the steel From what I understand when the buildings were constructed the first tower was sprayed to the Th floor with asbestos fireproofing.from then on it was mineral fiber spray, The existing asbestos from the Th floor down was abated, Whether that means encapsulated or removed I do not know. Do you have any idea how many old office buildings contain friable asbestos and lead coatings in Manhattan alone?

The part about the scaffolding cracks me up. you can not assemble a pipe scaffold higher than 125 feet according to OSHA. And Ive never even seen one that high. and you don't even need scaffolding to maintain or disassemble the curtain wall of a modern skyscraper.

As far as dismantling the steel. Climbing sections for tower cranes can be stacked in an elevator shaft or adjacent to the exterior.

Not to mention all the construction material when could have easily been sorted for recycling as the building was dismantled. steel, Concrete for aggregate, aluminum extrusions, stainless, copper wire, mineral fiber, gypsum, They even recycle ceiling tile now.

JonnyFive
22nd December 2006, 06:44 AM
The theory that the buildings were white elephants and too expensive to dismantle is preposterous,

Well said.

It pretty much sums up the ridculousness of the whole idea. The buildings were cash cows for Silverstein and essentially fully occupied (which is almost unheard of in Manhattan real estate). So he conspired to destroy them to lose billions of dollars.

The only way they can even make it work in CT think world is to make up stuff about billions in gold.

Woo woo!

A W Smith
22nd December 2006, 10:11 AM
Too late to edit now so this is the correction. Apparently I had my numlock off and the "37TH" floor didn't come through in my post above last night.


well I see now that I had no problem typing 125 feet so it must have been the Black Ops in their Black Helicopters who took some of my nunbers overnight. Or maybe SILVERSTEIN PULLED THEM! "we have had such a terrible loss of numerals here today. so they just decided to pull them"

defaultdotxbe
22nd December 2006, 11:15 AM
The World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in therough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
not only silverstein but Vornado Realty Trust, The Trump Organization, Boston Properties, Tishman Speyer and Gale & Wentworth all put in bids for the WTC lease, were they all ignorant of its problems too? or were they all in the on conspiracy too?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.
source?

For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an ageing dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due to the known asbestos problem.
source?

Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to dissemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishingthe buildings. The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion! In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures.

again, source?

JonnyFive
22nd December 2006, 11:27 AM
not only silverstein but Vornado Realty Trust, The Trump Organization, Boston Properties, Tishman Speyer and Gale & Wentworth all put in bids for the WTC lease, were they all ignorant of its problems too? or were they all in the on conspiracy too?

Not only that, but Vornado won the bidding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein), only to withdraw their bid. So Silverstein got lucky on it. Or, I suppose, unlucky given what actually happened.

again, source?

Does his mind count as a source?

defaultdotxbe
22nd December 2006, 11:54 AM
Not only that, but Vornado won the bidding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein), only to withdraw their bid. So Silverstein got lucky on it. Or, I suppose, unlucky given what actually happened.
i have a feeling that if CTers ever did enough research to find this out it would become part of the conspiracy

JonnyFive
22nd December 2006, 11:57 AM
i have a feeling that if CTers ever did enough research to find this out it would become part of the conspiracy

Probably.

Wizentub
15th June 2007, 11:13 PM
I am glad I could make so many laugh.
I am the one laughing though.
Petronas towers, heard of that building?, was completed using bamboo scaffolding, makes your laugh at scaffolding on the WTC look a litte silly now eh.

I am writing to all who responded to my post.
You silly sausages, on the net bragging and boasting over your language skills, most of the world does not recognise American as English language.
As for evidence on the changes to insurance, OK.
Contact GIO or any insurance agent and see what changes were made after sept 11, I do happen to have the letter I received from the insurance regarding my public liablilty, I am not going to give it you people though,

Mobyseven
15th June 2007, 11:21 PM
Thankyou for resurrecting this immortal thread.

I will always remember this thread as being quite possibly the only thing so far that has made insurance actually interesting for me, as well as a thread where I learnt a hell of a lot.

May this thread be forever remembered for this immortal line:

If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever.

Wizentub
15th June 2007, 11:25 PM
I would like to start a thread,
Johhny Five, you appear to be a plant.
Insurance underwriter, police studies and enough time to post more than 2000 times on this forum in less than a year.
You always say quote source,
If you are an uinderwriter you would know of the changes to public liability after 9/11

Wizentub
15th June 2007, 11:37 PM
Could you please cite the sources for all of this?

The WTC towers enjoyed high occupany with an excellent rental base, and were extremely modern constructions. They were built in the late '60s, and it is extremely common in NYC to find buildings built pre-WWII in excellent condition. Refurbishing buildings isn't some new thing.

So, if you're going to suggest that the 9/11 attacks were done as an excuse to destroy the towers and collect some money to rebuild them because they were "ageing [sic] dinosaurs", I'd love to see some citation.
please give is your sources

Wizentub
15th June 2007, 11:42 PM
The theory that the buildings were white elephants and too expensive to dismantle is preposterous,

If there was asbestos it certainly wasn't on the steel From what I understand when the buildings were constructed the first tower was sprayed to the Th floor with asbestos fireproofing.from then on it was mineral fiber spray, The existing asbestos from the Th floor down was abated, Whether that means encapsulated or removed I do not know. Do you have any idea how many old office buildings contain friable asbestos and lead coatings in Manhattan alone?

The part about the scaffolding cracks me up. you can not assemble a pipe scaffold higher than 125 feet according to OSHA. And Ive never even seen one that high. and you don't even need scaffolding to maintain or disassemble the curtain wall of a modern skyscraper.

As far as dismantling the steel. Climbing sections for tower cranes can be stacked in an elevator shaft or adjacent to the exterior.

Not to mention all the construction material when could have easily been sorted for recycling as the building was dismantled. steel, Concrete for aggregate, aluminum extrusions, stainless, copper wire, mineral fiber, gypsum, They even recycle ceiling tile now.
To date, the tallest scaffold erected in Hong Kong with the Sprint system is approximately 300 feet high,
Harscoes SGB quote from arrive.net

Wizentub
15th June 2007, 11:48 PM
Could you please cite the sources for all of this?

The WTC towers enjoyed high occupany with an excellent rental base, and were extremely modern constructions. They were built in the late '60s, and it is extremely common in NYC to find buildings built pre-WWII in excellent condition. Refurbishing buildings isn't some new thing.

So, if you're going to suggest that the 9/11 attacks were done as an excuse to destroy the towers and collect some money to rebuild them because they were "ageing [sic] dinosaurs", I'd love to see some citation.
You as an assesor will know better than I do that pre ww2 buildings were different, solid constructions such as that other new york monster.
Sitting on the verge of our local freeway to our capital are many hundreds of school rooms, all built in the time frame you mention. All of these are health hazards, badly built and full of toxic substances such as asbestos. It has cost our govt many millions if not billions to rid ourselves of the disaster of the 50's-60's and 70's when asbestos was in everything. How did it happen? People retuiring from WW2 needed jobs, asbestos mines, no worries mate.
cheers

Gravy
15th June 2007, 11:59 PM
I am glad I could make so many laugh.
I am the one laughing though.
Petronas towers, heard of that building?, was completed using bamboo scaffoldingOf course they were. Those poor but cagey Malaysians used INVISIBOOtm. Some day they'll learn about cranes and elevators and stuff.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904673890f1055f.jpg


It's a little-known fact the the World Financial Center, across the street from the World Trade Center and like Petronas, designed by Cesar Pelli, was constructed by monkeys swinging from vines.

You silly sausages, on the net bragging and boasting over your language skills, most of the world does not recognise American as English language.Hast thou considered trepanning?

Gravy
16th June 2007, 12:13 AM
I would like to start a thread,Fascinating!

Johhny Five, you appear to be a plant.A ficus, to be exact. I'm a bromeliad.

Wolverine
16th June 2007, 12:20 AM
Contact GIO or any insurance agent and see what changes were made after sept 11, I do happen to have the letter I received from the insurance regarding my public liablilty, I am not going to give it you people though,

Your Fraudian slip is showing.

gumboot
16th June 2007, 12:31 AM
Fascinating!

A ficus, to be exact. I'm a bromeliad.


I've always felt like nandina myself.

-Gumboot

JonnyFive
18th June 2007, 07:08 AM
Thankyou for resurrecting this immortal thread.

I will always remember this thread as being quite possibly the only thing so far that has made insurance actually interesting for me, as well as a thread where I learnt a hell of a lot.

I'm glad my thread was helpful. Also, holy thread ressurrection, Batman!

I would like to start a thread,
Johhny Five, you appear to be a plant.

Sweet, you're awesome. You know that calling someone a "plant" here is like us getting "made man" status with the mob. That one's going right in the old signature.

But if you'd really like to claim I'm a "plant," please provide evidence of such.

Insurance underwriter, police studies and enough time to post more than 2000 times on this forum in less than a year.

I'm good at multi-tasking and we're done with renewals at work for the time being, so I have a few minutes.

By the way, police studies was what I studied for my first undergrad degree, not something I currently work with or study actively (beyond a basic interest in law enforcement news)... the one I completed over two years ago. You left out that I am currently studying for a mathematics B.S. and enjoy reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft and like popular film. I must surely be a plant for being able to do things, yessiree.

You always say quote source,
If you are an uinderwriter you would know of the changes to public liability after 9/11

Actually, that's more a policy service thing. Besides, I expressly state that I work in the field of group disability. I don't know about the specific policy changes to "public liability" (do you mean "general liability?") coverage, but I'd be glad to address them if you could present specifics.

I would imagine there might be more awareness of terrorism, yes. Probably not a big factor on the actuarial models, given the improbability of it happening, though.

please give is your sources

Sure thing:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EEDA1438F932A05756C0A96E9582 60

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=61

And if you're really asking me to cite a source for the WTC towers be post-WWII, then just check the Wiki sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_trade_center

The citation for the asbestos costs was from an issue of "Business Insurance," - McLeod, D. "Port Loses Claim for Asbestos Removal," Business Insurance, May 14th 2001.

Stated amount was $200m for asbestos removal from the entire WTC complex. If you don't believe me, I can forward you the article if you really want, it requires a paid subscription to view.

You as an assesor

I'm not an "assessor," I'm an underwriter. Underwriters in insurance evaluate the potential risk of a potential insured and assign a monetary value in the form of a premium payment/rate. Also, I rate group disability, so I don't claim to be an expert in general liability risks.

Interestingly, my argument wasn't built on that. It was built on a general argument about insurance risk rating.

will know better than I do that pre ww2 buildings were different, solid constructions such as that other new york monster.

What exactly does this mean? Pre-war buildings tended to be brick/stone constructions, but they weren't all composed of brick and stone. They also tended to have asbestos in greater quantities (because it was legal when they were built), and don't take advantage of advances in design or construction (because the advances weren't made yet).

Sitting on the verge of our local freeway to our capital are many hundreds of school rooms, all built in the time frame you mention. All of these are health hazards, badly built and full of toxic substances such as asbestos.

So what? What does this have to do with my argument? Many municipalities have paid many millions of dollars to remove or seal asbestos to comply with health regulations. I fail to see how this bolsters your claim.

It has cost our govt many millions if not billions to rid ourselves of the disaster of the 50's-60's and 70's when asbestos was in everything. How did it happen? People retuiring from WW2 needed jobs, asbestos mines, no worries mate.
cheers

(Actually, it often cost the private companies required to comply with federal and state regulations millions, but that's a minor point, I suppose)

Not sure how this helps your argument either, or even relates to it.

Asbestos has been regulated since the early 70's in construction. So what of all this? You've come in and vaguely questioned my original premise with... well, with nothing. This whole insurance fraud thing only looks stupider as more information comes out.

By the way, given that cleanup costs at the WTC complex alone is costing more than the asbestos removal would cost, and that Silverstein was recently ruled against in the whole two-incident/one-incident thing for insurance purposes, and given that building the new complex is going to cost far more than the insurance paid out...

...what, precisely, is your point?

Mobyseven
18th June 2007, 04:09 PM
I'm glad my thread was helpful. Also, holy thread ressurrection, Batman!

Watch out, Robin, or it'll catch you in it's confuse ray!

I like that you've become the sidekick in your own thread by the way... :p

By the way, police studies was what I studied for my first undergrad degree, not something I currently work with or study actively (beyond a basic interest in law enforcement news)... the one I completed over two years ago. You left out that I am currently studying for a mathematics B.S. and enjoy reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft and like popular film. I must surely be a plant for being able to do things, yessiree.

Lucky. I'm studying for my high school equivalent maths...I never did it at school.

JonnyFive
19th June 2007, 05:44 AM
I like that you've become the sidekick in your own thread by the way... :p

The irony of that doesn't escape me. :)

I wonder if Wizentub plans to return to substantiate his claims I'm a "plant." Guess not. I want to be a cactus, though, if I get to choose what kind of plant. I've always liked cacti.

Lucky. I'm studying for my high school equivalent maths...I never did it at school.

Well, good luck to you.

maccy
19th June 2007, 07:15 AM
I'm wondering if Wizentub is planning to take his or her insights to the various entities that have paid out over 9/11. I'm sure they'd be very interested in compelling evidence of insurance fraud.

JonnyFive
19th June 2007, 09:06 AM
I'm wondering if Wizentub is planning to take his or her insights to the various entities that have paid out over 9/11. I'm sure they'd be very interested in compelling evidence of insurance fraud.

My guess would be "no."

Did he even claim to have such? His posting so far seems to be mostly disjointed rambling about asbestos, buildings, calling me a plant, and something about unspecified "changes" to general liability policies.

tacodaemon
19th June 2007, 12:00 PM
Of course they were. Those poor but cagey Malaysians used INVISIBOOtm. Some day they'll learn about cranes and elevators and stuff.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904673890f1055f.jpg



Hmm, there could be bamboo scaffolding in that pic. It is widely used in Hong Kong even for pretty big projects -- see this pic (http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=855182) for a building that's got cloth-draped bamboo scaffolding all the way up, and here's another (http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1112829) impressive pic of bamboo scaffolding in use in HK. Obviously that's not all they were using at the Petronas though, if they were using it at all.

JonnyFive
19th June 2007, 12:36 PM
That bamboo is strong stuff, truly.

But what did it have to do with insurance fraud, 9/11, asbestos, the Trade Center towers, or anything in this thread?

tacodaemon
19th June 2007, 01:30 PM
That bamboo is strong stuff, truly.

But what did it have to do with insurance fraud, 9/11, asbestos, the Trade Center towers, or anything in this thread?


Hey, it wasn't me what brought it up.

ob986s
19th June 2007, 05:22 PM
That bamboo is strong stuff, truly.

But what did it have to do with insurance fraud, 9/11, asbestos, the Trade Center towers, or anything in this thread?

I was trying to figure out what the Bamboo had to do with anything as well. But then again I am often flummoxed by troother arguments so I kind of just moved past it.


FWIW I lived in Singapore a few years back and they did use bamboo scaffolding there as well, and on some pretty tall buildings. Kind of odd to see them up there on bamboo but friends of mine in that business at the time (early 90's) told me that it was as safe as steel,, much cooler to touch in the Singapore sun and easier/cheaper to set up.

J

Alareth
19th June 2007, 06:04 PM
Good news!

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.

JimBenArm
19th June 2007, 06:07 PM
Am I less of a caveman for using GEICO?

LashL
19th June 2007, 10:47 PM
Good news!

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.

Am I less of a caveman for using GEICO?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_111034678bf50d8a46.jpg

JonnyFive
20th June 2007, 05:57 AM
Hey, it wasn't me what brought it up.

No, I know, I wasn't directing that at your specifically. I was just curious as to why wizentub came out of nowhere after five months to say something about bamboo scaffolding.

stilicho
21st June 2007, 12:06 AM
Let me add to this that this is what happens when real fraud happens:

http://www.the10b-5daily.com/archives/cat_worldcom.html

And that's really only the tip of the iceberg. The struggles between Silverstein Properties and his 20-plus insurers and reinsurers dragged on for years and not once--let me repeat--not once did the insurance corporations bring controlled demolitions into the court cases. They called Silverstein almost every name in the book (demonstrated in the trade papers and the links here) but didn't even breathe about CD.

You have to wonder why that is if there were the remotest chance to prove it. Why wouldn't the insurance companies bring in Fetzer and Jones?

Simple: They know that there was no controlled demolition.

Frankly, given that I work for a corporation involved in several class-action suits, I would be overjoyed if I found they were all based on the "evidence" of Jones, Fetzer, et al.

A W Smith
25th June 2007, 10:35 AM
Once the 9-11 event happened all insurance companies changed rules slightly.
Example in my business as a private contractor requiring liability insurance suddenly all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism from the destruction of my equipment and damage to property to being beaten upon the job of which there is a good chance being a cleaning contract in a casino hotel.

Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.

cheers.

I was trying to figure out what the Bamboo had to do with anything as well. But then again I am often flummoxed by troother arguments so I kind of just moved past it.


FWIW I lived in Singapore a few years back and they did use bamboo scaffolding there as well, and on some pretty tall buildings. Kind of odd to see them up there on bamboo but friends of mine in that business at the time (early 90's) told me that it was as safe as steel,, much cooler to touch in the Singapore sun and easier/cheaper to set up.

J


lets backtrack

wizentub makes the assertion that scaffolding the WTC towers would be too costly and be more that what the towers were worth
I counter that not only can you not legaly assemble pipe scaffold according to OSHA more than 125 feet freestanding, But that it wouldnt be required because outrgger or window cleaning type staging would suffice for abatement. Which I might add is used in NYC for restoration work all the time.
wizentub quotes me and makes the point that the sprint system was assembled to 300 feet in the uk
wizentub then wrongly asserts that the Petronas towers were fininshed off using bamboo scaffolding to their full height.Why of course it had to do with Silverstein not being able to afford the cost of a quarter mile high bamboo scaffold. Because as we all know. The cost of all that bamboo would far outstrip the worth of both buildings!! :jaw-dropp Am I making sence here?

JonnyFive
25th June 2007, 12:11 PM
Why of course it had to do with Silverstein not being able to afford the cost of a quarter mile high bamboo scaffold. Because as we all know. The cost of all that bamboo would far outstrip the worth of both buildings!! :jaw-dropp Am I making sence here?

About as much sense as can be made using wizentub's often bizarre statements. :)

dvictr
4th February 2011, 03:42 PM
it was part of the largest insurance fraud crime ever.



http://i.imgur.com/DhG3T.gif

Travis
4th February 2011, 03:51 PM
Yes......because fires burning for five hours with no water being put on them is also something that should not be forgotten.

Obviousman
4th February 2011, 03:51 PM
"There is nothing controversial about what happened to WTC7"

Absolutely correct - but try telling that to idiot twoofers....

Bell
4th February 2011, 03:55 PM
http://i.imgur.com/DhG3T.gif

WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by planes. So nothing strange about their collapse.

The Platypus
4th February 2011, 04:17 PM
it was part of the largest insurance fraud crime ever.



http://i.imgur.com/DhG3T.gif

So says who, you?

:dl:

Ladewig
4th February 2011, 04:31 PM
So you started a thread about 9/11 outside of the 9/11 sub-forum.

Good on you.

dudalb
4th February 2011, 04:35 PM
That does it:We have got to have a emergency program to improve the quality of Trolling at JREF. The trolls ain't even trying nowdays....

WildCat
4th February 2011, 05:01 PM
If only someone could figure out how this alleged insurance fraud made any money, as opposed to the billions it has cost.

beachnut
4th February 2011, 05:26 PM
it was part of the largest insurance fraud crime ever.
... Only in a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists' minds. This claim, your claim, 911 truth's delusional claim has to be the largest moronic fraud.

Have you wondered where the people come from who commit insurance fraud, and how they could be that stupid? No, I bet you never did.

triforcharity
5th February 2011, 07:00 AM
it was part of the largest insurance fraud crime ever.



http://i.imgur.com/DhG3T.gif

Two things.

1-Why in your .gif, is the first part of the collapse missing?

2- Are you going to be contacting the insurance company to assist them in recovering their money? I am sure they would be quite appreciative.

George152
5th February 2011, 01:27 PM
Two things.

1-Why in your .gif, is the first part of the collapse missing?

2- Are you going to be contacting the insurance company to assist them in recovering their money? I am sure they would be quite appreciative.

1- Because it shows things that refute his claim

2- No. Because he knows he's gong to have some serious jail time if he makes such a claim..

Travis
5th February 2011, 03:29 PM
I was wondering why this merged with the Insurance Fraud thread. I now see that he went back and edited the bit about insurance fraud into the post. Before it was just the gif and a title.

Oh and maybe dvictr can finally tell us just how much money was made on the fraud and who made it?

GlennB
5th February 2011, 04:16 PM
If only someone could figure out how this alleged insurance fraud made any money, as opposed to the billions it has cost.

Fool! They were insured against insurance losses. The NWO order has a special reinsurance division to handle these things. Oooops wait ... how do I delete this message?

ProBonoShill
5th February 2011, 06:25 PM
I was wondering why this merged with the Insurance Fraud thread. I now see that he went back and edited the bit about insurance fraud into the post. Before it was just the gif and a title.

Oh and maybe dvictr can finally tell us just how much money was made on the fraud and who made it?

Haven't you heard? Apparently Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit. :eek:

Redibis will be along any minute to explain the whole thing.

Brainster
6th February 2011, 09:32 AM
If only someone could figure out how this alleged insurance fraud made any money, as opposed to the billions it has cost.

Box Boy Richard Gage came up with a way, in a speech at Sonoma State (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365&q=Richard+Gage&total=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#) University in 2007:

"Now the insurance companies did quite well, and you say, well what about them? They've raised their premiums 2000 percent on buildings and this payout is peanuts compared to those premiums."
(starts about 29:30 into the video).

It's almost needless to say, but insurance premiums didn't increase 2000 percent. According to a report by the NYC comptroller's office, insurance premiums increased by 73% on trophy (http://web.archive.org/web/20030224063424/http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/press/2002_releases/02-11-062.shtm) (high-profile) properties in New York City and by lower amounts on less-significant properties.

Horatius
6th February 2011, 09:38 AM
If only someone could figure out how this alleged insurance fraud made any money, as opposed to the billions it has cost.



Easy - He made it up on volume! (http://hubpages.com/hub/Well-Make-it-up-on-Volume)

Newtons Bit
6th February 2011, 11:59 AM
Box Boy Richard Gage came up with a way, in a speech at Sonoma State (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365&q=Richard+Gage&total=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#) University in 2007:


(starts about 29:30 into the video).

It's almost needless to say, but insurance premiums didn't increase 2000 percent. According to a report by the NYC comptroller's office, insurance premiums increased by 73% on trophy (http://web.archive.org/web/20030224063424/http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/press/2002_releases/02-11-062.shtm) (high-profile) properties in New York City and by lower amounts on less-significant properties.

Richard Gage isn't exactly known for telling the truth...

Travis
6th February 2011, 04:00 PM
So they lost billions so they could then charge more on premiums to everyone else pricing themselves right out of many people's market?