WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[PhantomWolf]

I said that's what they were concerned with and happy when it was finally settled.

Of course they were concerned about it, Sliverstein was paying a massive rental on a property that didn't exist. If you were having hundreds of thousands of dollars a month drain out of your pocket for 6 years, wouldn't you be concerned about it, and happy when it finally got settled 6 years later?

Do you think it would have been easier, less expensive, or timelier in another scenario? Be my guest I’m all ears.

How about one where the Insurance company paid up within a year? If Silverstein had done what his investors wanted him to and insured the buildings against total loss, then he wouldn't have had to try and get the insurance to pay for two events instead of one to get enough to rebuild, and then the insurance company wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to avoid paying out as much. That would have been a far easier, less expensive and timelier senario.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

But fault had no bearing on the payout for the towers. They wanted to settle with two separate claims (more $) and the insurance co. wanted one blanket claim. That's what the hold up (besides the year of cleanup and recovery) was.

And why did fault have no bearing on the insurance genius? What have I been saying? And again is getting insurance the only problem I pointed to? How about legal fees? How about time? How about things that don’t concern insurance you seem to be avoiding?

As above with the exception of 7 where he (Silverstein) owned the building (not leased) and no one was killed, so cleanup and reconstruction could start immediately.

There were other concerns that I laid out. Also The WTC7 story is tied into the towers and the planes. It's not a total separate entity. It has to all tie together as a story.

As far as code problems the fuel tank installation had to be approved or Silverstein would not be able to insure the building. This was not a secret installation.

This doesn't address the article I posted. Also use your imagination as to what can happen with a fuel tank in a fire that's still burning out of control. Who's is liable for that if the worse should occur? How does that look politically for someone looking to run for President in the future? Who's idea was that bunker location? He's still denying it.

Civil cases would be covered by the liability insurance. As I said in "93" the buildings were not specifically insured for acts of terror.

So there was no problem in 93? No concern? That's an excuse backed by nothing but a bare assertion.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Good luck, gentlemen; this has all the hallmarks of becoming a Chistophera thread.

Though it won't help don't wish them luck wish them facts.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Of course they were concerned about it, Sliverstein was paying a massive rental on a property that didn't exist. If you were having hundreds of thousands of dollars a month drain out of your pocket for 6 years, wouldn't you be concerned about it, and happy when it finally got settled 6 years later?

Thank's for agreeing. Now what if you had to go to the insurance companies with your hand out and a different story?

How about one where the Insurance company paid up within a year?

Does some mean full Phantom? Again you agree.

If Silverstein had done what his investors wanted him to and insured the buildings against total loss, then he wouldn't have had to try and get the insurance to pay for two events instead of one to get enough to rebuild, and then the insurance company wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to avoid paying out as much. That would have been a far easier, less expensive and timelier senario.

So what kind of senario was there Phantom?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

[qimg]http://lolthulhu.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/arwedda-ur_sanity.png[/qimg]​

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Way to come with the facts. You can always be counted on.

 

[The Almond]

I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.

Do you have a reference for a study wherein a computer model was created in order to analytically replicate the mechanics of a collapse as shown on a video?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thank's for agreeing. Now what if you had to go to the insurance companies with your hand out and a different story?

How does Silverstein being concerned at losing money for 6 years, and still losing money, and being relieved to finally get the case sorted help your claim that WTC was demo'ed?

Does some mean full Phantom? Again you agree.

Agree with what? You were asking for a better senario to court cases and legal costs for 6 years, I was giving one, a senario when the Insurance was paid out in a year without all the legal costs.

So what kind of senario was there Phantom?

You mean other than the one I gave where he listened to his investors instead of being money tight and refusing to pay out the premiums for total lose of the Towers and 7?

How about one where he points out to the Government that since they blew up his buildings, they have to pay to help rebuild them and tell the insurance company to play ball so that they could start building the minute the area was clear and get paying tenants back into the spaces he was paying a fortune for.

How does the fact that he had to battle the insurance company to get enough to not even break even on the rebuild and lost rental make any sort of sense to your claims that they destroyed the building on purpose, especially for insurance purposes? Surely if they had done so, they would have made sure that they were going to get paid enough to rebuild and get that fast, not get less than they needed to rebuilt and have to fight for that through the courts for 6 years.

 

[SDC]

It isn't easy

Many of the most informative and complex threads in this conspiracy area concern engineering and science; the hard tech side of the 9/11 affair. This thread, on the other hand, is moving in the direction of insurance and real estate questions.

Now my higher education was in the humanities and history, and the depth of my ignorance about insurance and real estate is not to be plumbed. (All I know is that I pay my bills when I am told to.) But from reading the emails of the debunkers, I have come to appreciate that insurance, and the business fo real estate, are very complex areas; I never appreciated that before. So my humanities-based hat is off to those who work in these areas. I hope I don't sound patronizing or condescending; I just want to say, you guys are serious.

Does Z.Smack or S.Dangler appreciate the complexity of these fields? Or do they think that it is all, somehow, easy and intuitive to the meanest intelligence?

Heck, I'm just asking questions.

 

[DGM]

And why did fault have no bearing on the insurance genius? What have I been saying? And again is getting insurance the only problem I pointed to? How about legal fees? How about time? How about things that don’t concern insurance you seem to be avoiding?

Watch the snide remarks, I have been polite with you and I expect the same.

Legal fees are only if you are disputing the claim, there will always be disputes it's expected if you are not a person that would get pushed around by these people. The only way to speed these things up would be to have none of it happen at all (no 9/11).

There were other concerns that I laid out. Also The WTC7 story is tied into the towers and the planes. It's not a total separate entity. It has to all ties together as a story.

So what? The only scenario that makes this all easy is for none of it to happen. As long as it's part of the act of terror the other concerns are all tied together. their's always problems and Silverstein would expect it.

This doesn't address the article I posted. Also use your imagination as to what can happen with a fuel tank in a fire that's still burning out of control. Who's is liable for that if the worse should occur? How does that look politically for someone looking to run for President in the future? Who's idea was that bunker location? He's still denying it.

He denying the fact that it was not to code. The fact that the insurance company paid out would mean there was not much of an issue. Who is liable? the insurance company that insures the building. Your thinking too much here, No one blames him for the terror attacks, he did not start the fires so who would blame him.

So there was no problem in 93? No concern? That's an excuse backed by nothing but a bare assertion.

Who said that? Not me, your making this up. There was lots of problems after "93" that's probably why he insured for acts of terror huh?

 

[Sabrina]

Way to come with the facts. You can always be counted on.

*yawns* Let me know when you come up with a coherent, plausible theory, Zen; until then, I think I'll just make my sarcastic comments as I see fit.

 

[DGM]

Zen:
I had 3 friends working on the clean-up and they have said there was paper all over that site. Watch the videos from that day the whole area was littered with papers.Spilling the contents of a building in the street is not the best way to destroy files. Why not post agents around the building and tell everyone that there classified stuff in there and no one can go in. Hell give them guns and make it obvious, It's the CIA no one would question that.

 

[Arus808]

by the respones in this thread, it seems that zens has never had to deal with settling with insurance companies for expenses or loss or damage to property.

If they did, they'd have an inkling at how insurance companies will go through each claim with a magnifiying glass, even hiring their own experts to refute any claims, and deny any claims when they can.

If you think they paid Silverstein without so much at sniffing the evidence, you are a in a dream world


When my father was hit by a car, while riding my moped, he suffered a heart attack and his right knee was shattered. the Woman who hit him was a person on welfare, and the car she drove cost LESS than my moped did . My dad's bills were over $120,000 because of the heart attack,they ahd to go in and do a bypass. And he's had 6 operations concerning his knee, and he still can't walk or stand for long periods of time. You know how long it took to settle with the womans' insurance company? nearly 8 years. Because of piling up medical bills due ot the accident.

And I still didn't get paid, to this day, for the damage to my moped.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

by the respones in this thread, it seems that zens has never had to deal with settling with insurance companies for expenses or loss or damage to property.

If they did, they'd have an inkling at how insurance companies will go through each claim with a magnifiying glass, even hiring their own experts to refute any claims, and deny any claims when they can.

If you think they paid Silverstein without so much at sniffing the evidence, you are a in a dream world

Where the hell did I claim this wasn't the case? I'm the one who posted the article of how long it took them to pay. Your point is exactly what I am saying. Even though the official version is that WTC7 fell because of collateral damage from the towers, a no fault claim it still took almost 6 years for the insurance to pay up. Complicate that no fault story with absolutely any other possibilities like explosive devices or brought down some other way on purpose or possibly that the damage to WTC7 was caused by something else like a fire hazard and you're looking at an insurance nightmare. Possibly more then 10 years waiting for a payout if it comes at all.

Get it?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen:
I had 3 friends working on the clean-up and they have said there was paper all over that site. Watch the videos from that day the whole area was littered with papers.Spilling the contents of a building in the street is not the best way to destroy files. Why not post agents around the building and tell everyone that there classified stuff in there and no one can go in. Hell give them guns and make it obvious, It's the CIA no one would question that.

They didn't just spill the building into the street. It was incinerated. Heat corroded steel in the rubble. Would 10 stories of broken windows and documents flying out and blowing in the wind like someone here describe " to all corners of the earth" from a now unsecure building be a better option? And once again this was not the only problem.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

*yawns* Let me know when you come up with a coherent, plausible theory, Zen; until then, I think I'll just make my sarcastic comments as I see fit.

No you just keep sleeping. You're much better at that then discussing anything factual or relevant.

 

[DGM]

Where the hell did I claim this wasn't the case? I'm the one who posted the article of how long it took them to pay. Your point is exactly what I am saying. Even though the official version is that WTC7 fell because of collateral damage from the towers, a no fault claim it still took almost 6 years for the insurance to pay up. Complicate that no fault story with absolutely any other possibilities like explosive devices or brought down some other way on purpose or possibly that the damage to WTC7 was caused by something else like a fire hazard and you're looking at an insurance nightmare. Possibly more then 10 years waiting for a payout if it comes at all.

Get it?

I certainly get it now. It would be stupid to have CD this building for the reasons you just gave. Thanks for clearing that up. I though all a long you supported the CD theory. Sorry about that.

 

[DGM]

They didn't just spill the building into the street. It was incinerated. Heat corroded steel in the rubble. Would 10 stories of broken windows and documents flying out and blowing in the wind like someone here describe " to all corners of the earth" from a now unsecure building be a better option? And once again this was not the only problem.

You were there? I know people that will argue differently.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Watch the snide remarks, I have been polite with you and I expect the same.

Legal fees are only if you are disputing the claim, there will always be disputes it's expected if you are not a person that would get pushed around by these people. The only way to speed these things up would be to have none of it happen at all (no 9/11).

What do you want me to tell you? Facts are facts. The official line is that terrorist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings something no one could have protected against and it still took 5 years for the insurance to pay up and what Sliversteins lawyers claim hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees. I also pointed to where the Port Authority of NY/NJ was found more liable in civil suits in the 93 bombing then the terrorist who committed the bombing.

Now are you going to sit there and tell me none of this was of any concern?

So what? The only scenario that makes this all easy is for none of it to happen. As long as it's part of the act of terror the other concerns are all tied together. their's always problems and Silverstein would expect it.

Yes there were problems even with the simplest no fault story. How long did it take overall with that simple story? Do you think anyone felt the need to complicate that story if they didn't have to?

He denying the fact that it was not to code. The fact that the insurance company paid out would mean there was not much of an issue. Who is liable? The insurance company that insures the building. Your thinking too much here, No one blames him for the terror attacks, he did not start the fires so who would blame him.

So why is Giuliani still denying it and fighting with Jerome Haurer about whose idea it all was to locate the bunker if it's of no consequence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/politics/10giuliani.html

"In Campaign Year, Invoking 9/11 Raises New Debates
Published: September 10, 2007

A video by a group opposing Mr. Giuliani was recently posted online featuring Jerome M. Hauer, the director of the Office of Emergency Management under Mr. Giuliani, criticizing the decision to house the city’s emergency bunker at the World Trade Center, which had already been the site of an attack"

Who said that? Not me, your making this up. There was lots of problems after "93" that's probably why he insured for acts of terror huh?

Making what up? This is what you said when I stated it wasn't just a case of Silverstein liability and stated multiple times it wasn't necessarily an inside job...

I did read it. If it was not an inside job like you said, The insurance would cover the liability. The whole site was covered for acts of terror unlike in "93" when it was not and the liability was an issue.

Good so you agree that it would be best from a litigation standpoint if the towers were attacked in a way the Port Authority had no way to defend against especially since they were held more liable for the 93 attacks then the terrorists them self in a jury decision on a civil suit brought against them.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I certainly get it now. It would be stupid to have CD this building for the reasons you just gave. Thanks for clearing that up. I though all a long you supported the CD theory. Sorry about that.

It would be stupid to admit to anything other then collateral damage. Thanks for agreeing.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

You were there? I know people that will argue differently.

The heat corroded steel was documented by FEMA the 10 story gash was documented in the preliminary NIST report on WTC7 and the building being engulfed in raging fires and on the verge of collapse is well you know that story... it’s what you believe.

So what part is it your little friends would disagree with?