Building demolished from the top down.

[A W Smith]

Ok take the text you just showed us, get your numbers and propose a counter model. Don't just rant. Do the math and show it to us.

Burden of proof is on you, Why don't you also add the cost of the twoof movements alleged controlled demolition and cleanup costs to your little spread sheet? Since you are now alleging an insurance fraud motive on the part of Silverstein?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I believe that yes and I'm not delusional. That's the point of an insurance isn't it? Pay a bit of the risk value and get paid the full if the event happens. I'm sure your car insurance doesn't cost more than your car right? It costs a fraction of it. Now if you loose your car in a car crash then you get paid the full value it was insured for. Now if you bought the car from a cash stripped friend at half the value you made some money out of it.

Now imagine you buy a semi at less than half value because the owner is in real need for money. Then down the road you're involved in an accident and two cars hit you. One in the cabin and one on the trailer. Your semi is wrecked, but you claim twice the insurance because there were two cars involved. You're making some serious money, more than four times what you paid for the semi.

ROTFLOL.....I suggest you try that. Its called fraud. What actually happens is that the two insurance companies get together and you only get the value of the truck minus of course wear and tear and if you get close to its actual value you are lucky. even if you get lucky with the original purpose you would better off simply reselling the truck!
Buildings and truck insurance is not like Life insurance.......

 

[alienentity]

This clip has a building being demolished by collapsing a section of the building quite high up, I thought it was fascinating.

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this looks a lot like the WTC collapse and no explosives were needed.

I have a few others as well as this one on m¥ youtube channel. None of them use explosives.

cheers

AE

http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienEntity1

 

[Java Man]

Burden of proof is on you, Why don't you also add the cost of the twoof movements alleged controlled demolition and cleanup costs to your little spread sheet? Since you are now alleging an insurance fraud motive on the part of Silverstein?

That's why I have brought forth the information I posted here. Because the burden of proof is on me. Now you can't just brush that off by using the same point that brought me to bring the information in the first place. That is, the burden of proof can not be used to brush away information that was brought because the burden of proof is on me.

If you want to counter the numbers I've laid out here that show that there is a profit to be made, please do so with your own numbers not with a sleigh of hand as you've become so accustomed to.

 

[Java Man]

you only get the value of the truck

How is that value set? It's set at the point in time the policy is written up and signed right? And how does the company set that value? Arbitrarily? By asking me? Or by market value of the truck?

What if the truck was given to me as a gift. It didn't cost me anything, but it still has a value. What if I won it in a lottery? That means I can't insure it?

Think about it.

 

[DGM]

If the insurance company already paid him all the money he might even have 5B+ generating him 500 million a year and only 105 million to port authorities. On and on like that year after year is lots of money.

How did you come up with this? Insurance companies pay on completion of aspects of their oblations. Do you have information that this is not the case?

 

[GlennB]

I was tempted once to burn down our house for the £250,000 insurance value and go to live on an island paradise somewhere.

Then someone mentioned that the insurance company doesn't actually just hand over a fat cheque, and I realised that rebuilding would be around £300,000.

So I just carried on living there. Seemed the sensible option.

 

[A W Smith]

That's why I have brought forth the information I posted here. Because the burden of proof is on me. Now you can't just brush that off by using the same point that brought me to bring the information in the first place. That is, the burden of proof can not be used to brush away information that was brought because the burden of proof is on me.

If you want to counter the numbers I've laid out here that show that there is a profit to be made, please do so with your own numbers not with a sleigh of hand as you've become so accustomed to.

What information? All you brought was a column of your own numbers, You haven't shown that he received payment or invested your alleged insurance amount. Its not a hand wave. its a reply to your idle speculation. I have documented that they didn't even receive enough to rebuild.

Listen, its really very simple, You need to document that Silverstein both received the monetary insurance amounts you allege, and invested same in interest bearing investments. So far, you haven't.

 

[DGM]

Listen, its really very simple, You need to document that Silverstein both received the monetary insurance amounts you allege, and invested same in interest bearing investments. So far, you haven't.

Have I read what Java said right? Does he believe the insurance paid out before he completed his obligation to replace the insured asset. If he did that's just plain retarded.

 

[jaydeehess]

Forgive me one and all for referring to the original topic...........

Excuse me, when did I mention explosives in the CD shown on the video? Clearly I'm addressing the differences in missing elements like outer and inner walls. By adding more differences to those already existing he demerits the applicability of the video against truthers. Nothing to do with explosive. Please refrain yourself from running the standard response procedure on me, read, think, reread and rethink what is being posted before applying a copy paste response of your typical statements.

When did I mention explosives in the CD video?
I was referring to YOUR statement

Actually it helps truthers greatly. It simplifies things considerably. No need for nanothermite or any of those crazy ideas. Actually it proves that a very small set of explosives is actually needed to collapse the structure.

Your contention that it shows only a small amount of explosives would be required is moot since you cannot show that ANY explosives were present in the WTC structures.
If one contrasts that contention against the contention that aircraft impact/fire damage caused the initial collapse (and what this video does show is that it IS possible to globally collapse a lower portion of a structure by failure part way up its height) you run into the weight of evidence that fire certainly can cause heat induced loss of strength to the point of failure, in steel structural members.

Instead of addressing THAT lack of support for the explosives contention you focus on the fact that the CD video shows that walls were taken out. I do not believe that anyone is disputing that. OTOH you have attempted to minimize the aircraft impact damage done to the towers claiming, IIRC, that only one wall was taken out and therefore implying that NIST was entirely incorrect in its assessment of core column damage, or simply ignoring that issue.

 

[jaydeehess]

I was tempted once to burn down our house for the £250,000 insurance value and go to live on an island paradise somewhere.

Then someone mentioned that the insurance company doesn't actually just hand over a fat cheque, and I realised that rebuilding would be around £300,000.

So I just carried on living there. Seemed the sensible option.

You need to update your policy.

We get the insurance co. to evaluate the cost of rebuilding every 5-10 years and make sure that our coverage will indeed 'cover' it as well as contents replacement. Its fine to rebuild a house but if you do not have enough left to buy a bed, couch, TV, fridge, stove etc. then its going to be a pretty sparse existance for quite a while.

,,,,, and,,,,, it is spelled out quite well in the policy that funds will be handed out as rebuilding takes place. The first amounts will ONLY be the value of house and contents as it stood before it was destroyed. Further payments will occur once you prove that you are rebuilding and only so much as to cover those further costs. If I never rebuild on the same property I get no more money. If I choose to sell the property and build elsewhere other restrictions apply.

Also, if my house burned down and I decieded to rebuild AND add an attached garage, the insurance co. would not cover the price of the addition.

IOW its particularily designed NOT to make you richer but to instead restore your situtaion to as close to what it was beforehand as possible.

Nothing so far indicates that this did not apply to Silverstein Properties or Larry Silverstein himself.

 

[Java Man]

Your contention that it shows only a small amount of explosives would be required is moot since you cannot show that ANY explosives were present in the WTC structures.

Wrong, see here your mixing reality with hypothesis. My contention that only a small amount of explosives would be required is valid. Had I claimed that a small amount of explosives was required, then yes you'd be correct.

As it stands and based on the report by NIST charges set to release just a few floors could bring down the whole structure. It seems not necessary to cut through pillars and structural elements. Just taking the small support struts that hold the floors in place should be enough to initiate a pancake collapse that then brings the outer walls and inner core collapsing on itself.

The small charges on my hypothesis would replace those long chains seen in the video. Obviously there were no such chains in the WTC

 

[Java Man]

Nothing so far indicates that this did not apply to Silverstein Properties or Larry Silverstein himself.

Right Silverstein was paid twice for what appears as the same incident. Through a loophole he was awarded twice the amount. I don't think you'd be that lucky to claim twice the insured amount.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm sure they've read it in the newspaper by right now. Without an independent investigation I'm sure they won't be getting far. Will they?

Wait, what? Are you suggesting that insurance companies aren't willing to conduct their own, or finance anothers', investigation into whether or not they've been defrauded for potentially billions of dollars?

Perhaps the 9/11 Truth Movement should offer their investigative services.

 

[Java Man]

Wait, what? Are you suggesting that insurance companies aren't willing to conduct their own, or finance anothers', investigation into whether or not they've been defrauded for potentially billions of dollars?

Good question. Who in your opinion shipped the metal from the WTC to China?

Wooo, cool my 911 post!!!

 

[A W Smith]

http://911realtruth.net/docs/silverstein/windfall.htm

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Who in your opinion shipped the metal from the WTC to China?

Are you suggesting that an examination of the steel is needed in order to determine if the insurance companies have been defrauded? Why? You, yourself, seem to have done it with very little knowledge and skill, and without requiring an examination of the steel.

 

[Java Man]

Are you suggesting that an examination of the steel is needed in order to determine if the insurance companies have been defrauded? Why? You, yourself, seem to have done it with very little knowledge and skill, and without requiring an examination of the steel.

Oh I know, but see insurance companies are not "in their parents basement" truthers. I'm sure they'd dig deeper. Now, please answer the question, who sent the material to China?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Oh I know, but see insurance companies are not "in their parents basement" truthers. I'm sure they'd dig deeper.

Why would they need to dig any deeper to confirm what you, with apparent confidence, believe you have confirmed "from your parent's basement"?

Now, please answer the question, who sent the material to China?

I see no relevance to this particular thread of discussion, so I will not.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm sure they've read it in the newspaper by right now. Without an independent investigation I'm sure they won't be getting far. Will they?

An independent investigation? You mean, like the one insurance companies routinely do before paying out a large claim?

It's SOP for insurance companies to stall on making payments while they investigate the claim. Remember, it is in their best interests to do to avoid paying the settlement. Even if all they do is stall for time, they can save themselves potentionally millions of dollars in interest by hanging onto the money for a little longer. If they're really lucky, they'll find evidence of fraud and won't have to pay a dime.

The more money is at stake, the more resources they will put towards investigating the claim.

(Also, as I have already mentioned, this is all irrelevant because there is absolutely no reason to think that insurance fraud had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks or how the buildings collapsed.)