Asbestos vs. World Trade Center

Gravy said:
Goes to show you how uninformed even risk assessors were of what could happen in an aircraft impact.
Click to expand...

The CT's would say that it goes to prove them right, that the planes should have hit the outside and bounced off.
 
Gravy (or anyone else who may know), do you know if the double indemnity clauses existed in whatever insurance contracts there were after the 1993 bombing?
 
RKOwens4 said:
Gravy (or anyone else who may know), do you know if the double indemnity clauses existed in whatever insurance contracts there were after the 1993 bombing?
Click to expand...
Yes, we're referring to 2001 policies. Remember, Silverstein's lease for WTC 1, 2, 4, and 5 only took effect in July, 2001. One of the difficulties in resolving the insurance issues was that some of the policies still had clauses and riders that were unfinished when the attacks happened.
 
I mean policies that existed immediately after the 1993 bombing, before Silverstein signed his insurance contract. I assume the Port Authority were the ones who had an insurance policy before July 2001 (I may be wrong). Were there any "double indemnity clauses" in the old policy as well?
 
Does anyone happen to know who has to pay back the 3.4 billion dollars in Liberty Bonds given to Silverstein to cover the rest of the costs for the new WTC site? Conspiracy theorists often include this as some kind of profit Silverstein received, but if he has to pay the 3.4 billion back (with interest) that's hardly a profit. But is it Silverstein who has to pay this back, the Port Authority, or who?
 
RKOwens4 said:
Gravy (or anyone else who may know), do you know if the double indemnity clauses existed in whatever insurance contracts there were after the 1993 bombing?
Click to expand...

You should not use the term "double indemnity" with regard to the property insurance policies relating to the WTC in your future videos. There were no "double indemnity" clauses in any of the WTC property insurance policies.

"Double indemnity" is a phrase associated with life insurance policies, not property insurance policies. E.g. Person X takes out a term life insurance policy that provides for a payout of $500K upon X's death but it includes a "double indemnity" provision that stipulates that if X dies as a result of causes (a), (b), or (c) (perhaps in circumstances (x), (y) or (z)), the insurer will pay double the $500K face value of the policy.

There is no such thing as "double indemnity" in property insurance. No insurer would ever write a property insurance policy that says, in effect, we will pay you double the amount of your insured losses in circumstances (a), (b) or (c).

The issue in the WTC insurance litigation was not about "double indemnity" at all. It was about whether the specific language used in the various policies and whether or not the attacks on WTC1 and WTC2 amounted to two separate incidents within the language of the various insurance policies. Slightly more than half of the policies incorporated language that limited the multiple attacks to one insurable event for purposes of the insurance policies, and slightly less than half of them did not.

The WTC insurance litigation was all about interpretation of the language used in the various policies, and nothing else. They weren't in any way, shape or form about "double indemnity" provisions.

Erroneously introducing language such as "double indemnity" into the picture is just wrong and will only serve to muddy the waters unnecessarily, and to the benefit of lunatic tinhatters, frankly, who thrive on cherry picking and misinterpretation of reality.

Bottom line, it would be wrong to use the term "double indemnity" in your videos (which I love, btw), for the reasons set out above, but it would be great to see your most recent debunking video absent the "double indemnity" language, so go ahead, carry on, etc. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom