Merged Silverstein on phone with insurance company about controlled demolition

[Sam.I.Am]

Truthers are well known for taking "Bold, though stupid" stances all of the time with no evidence to back it up. Why would this be any different?

I can take a stance and say that after he had talked to whomever in the FDNY about the "Pulling" of the firefighting teams because of the imminent collapse of the building, he might have called his insurance company about cleanup and rebuilding and what they would cover and how much.

That's something a responsible businessman might do. Take care of his business, his employees and his stockholders, all of which took a big hit that day. That was his frikkin job.

How many homeowners have called their insurance providers on the same day as a fire destroyed their house? How many car drivers have called their insurance providers to report an accident on the same day of the accident? Of those, how many have called within hours of the event?

I was a witness to a pretty bad car accident a few years back that had one of the drivers calling his insurance agent before the police even got there. Does that mean that he caused the accident on purpose? Of course not. From what I witnessed he wasn't at all at fault. He was trying to get his life back in order as quickly as possible. He was also setting a point where (I think, based upon what he was saying) that he was also no longer responsible for the car payments and that the car insurance company was.

My point here is that a supposed phone call to an insurance provider on the day of the loss isn't evidence of anything other than someone trying to be responsible for their obligations and reminding others of what their obligations are. Any other supposed ramifications are pure speculation (AKA the baseline of the "Truth" movement types).

 

[Dave Rogers]

You'd also want to know how much of the original investment was LS's own money and how much was collected from business interests.

That would only be relevant if there were some reason to believe that those business interests weren't then paid their share of the insurance claim, in which case there would be some rather large lawsuits flying around by now.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

That would only be relevant if there were some reason to believe that those business interests weren't then paid their share of the insurance claim, in which case there would be some rather large lawsuits flying around by now.

Dave

It's relevant when debunkers claim that LS lost significant amounts of his own money, when he didn't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's relevant when debunkers claim that LS lost significant amounts of his own money, when he didn't.

Firstly, it's irrelevant to the claim by conspiracy theorists that WTC7 was demolished to profit from the insurance claim. Secondly, I'd like to see your figures on how much money Silverstein lost on the deal; since you're making the claim that he didn't lose significant amounts of money when his buildings collapsed and the insurance didn't cover all the losses, I'd like to see the evidence for your claim. No doubt you'll pretend that you haven't actually made a claim and that therefore you don't need to produce evidence, but I think everybody can read your post and see that that's not the case.

Dave

 

[Travis]

It's relevant when debunkers claim that LS lost significant amounts of his own money, when he didn't.

Do you really think it's better when he loses hundreds of millions of bank money?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you really think it's better when he loses hundreds of millions of bank money?

Maybe Silverstein was a Freeman On The Land, so he thought he wouldn't have to pay any of it back.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Do you really think it's better when he loses hundreds of millions of bank money?

Show me where LS invested hundreds of millions of his own money.

 

[Travis]

Show me where LS invested hundreds of millions of his own money.

I have no idea where he got the money. I'm assuming he got a huge loan but that really doesn't change anything.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Show me where LS invested hundreds of millions of his own money.

Show me where, when the insurance payments weren't enough for him to repay his backers the hundreds of millions they'd lost, they let him off the debt.

Dave

 

[CORed]

That is hilarious. You are a debunker, right?

If by "debunker", you mean someone who doesn't buy into the moronic delusions of the 9/11 "truth" movement, then yes.

 

[RedIbis]

I have no idea where he got the money. I'm assuming he got a huge loan but that really doesn't change anything.

The figures for the amount that he personally invested are easy to find.

 

[DGM]

The figures for the amount that he personally invested are easy to find.

Then why did you ask for them to be shown?

 

[RedIbis]

Then why did you ask for them to be shown?

Because no one here has located the correct amount that LS personally invested, and instead, have made claims that he's suffering some huge loss after the insurance payouts.

You guys are the super debunkers. This info should be easy to find so you'll stop making these false claims about LS's enormous suffering.

 

[DGM]

Because no one here has located the correct amount that LS personally invested, and instead, have made claims that he's suffering some huge loss after the insurance payouts.

You guys are the super debunkers. This info should be easy to find so you'll stop making these false claims about LS's enormous suffering.

Why don't you just post the information to prove these "super-debunkers" wrong?

Disclaimer: I don't believe I've ever made claims to his actual financial loss or claim to be a "super debunker" (or much of a debunker at all).

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because no one here has located the correct amount that LS personally invested, and instead, have made claims that he's suffering some huge loss after the insurance payouts.

You guys are the super debunkers. This info should be easy to find so you'll stop making these false claims about LS's enormous suffering.

Yes, because it makes an insurance job so much more plausible if he only did it in order to lose a small amount of money.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

The figures for the amount that he personally invested are easy to find.

Post them. ... are you covering up something? Source them, do something other than extremely poor support of 911 truth.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, because it makes an insurance job so much more plausible if he only did it in order to lose a small amount of money.

Dave

Is your google broke or are you (in your favorite word) a liar?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is your google broke or are you (in your favorite word) a liar?

Yes, my Google is broke.

So why don't you step up to the plate RED?

 

[Oystein]

Is your google broke or are you (in your favorite word) a liar?

I see you doing the talking but not doing the walking.
It's your argument. You support it. If you can support it, you will deserve respect.
If you don't, you have no argument.

 

[Travis]

It doesn't matter if the money was willed to him or if it was procured by a loan. If there was money lost through the destruction of WTC 7 then money was lost and it has been established that money was lost.

Does anyone think it's more likely for Silverstein to have been a part of some conspiracy to destroy a building whose reconstruction costs exceeded insurance payouts if the money to construct the original building was from a bank or group of banks?


ETA: the new building is still 30% vacant too.