Larry Silversteins insurance

twinstead said:
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?
Click to expand...
Of course not Twin. The insurance companies are in on it too, haven't you heard?
 
LashL said:
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.
Click to expand...
Docker doesn't back off claims because Docker doesn't make claims.

He starts new threads instead.
 
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?
 
Docker said:
No. He is scamming.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Docker said:
How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Docker said:
How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Docker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Arus808 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Docker said:
How can OJ be guilty if a court ruled him innocent?
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
Docker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LashL said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom