Building demolished from the top down.

[Java Man]

(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.)

I'm sure there wasn't, but isn't in the insurance companies best interest and as part of it due diligence to suspect fraud anyway. Thus the question of who shipped the evidence of to China. It seems it was done under the city's authority. Which is wrong. The companies are paying for it it's their steel. Why should someone else take it away in such a haste?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Right Silverstein was paid twice for what appears as the same incident. Through a loophole he was awarded twice the amount.

Silverstein tried to buy more insurance for the WTC before the attacks. His investors wouldn't allow it.

So, he did the next best thing. He tried to recover as much money as he could from the existing policy by making a separate claim for each building.

Was this ethical? It depends on your point of view. However, it's the type of thing that goes on in big business all the time. You always try to get the best deal you can.

I don't think you'd be that lucky to claim twice the insured amount.

Are you saying the insurance companies were in on it? Or that they gave Silverstein special consideration? Or that the government forced them to pay?

I suspect you are just trying to inject a note of vague suspicion.

On a skeptics' forum.

Really.



PS: Why are we even talking about insurance? The thread topic is building demolition.

 

[A W Smith]

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?

China New jersey you mean? Do they speak mandarin in jersey city?

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05030.pdf

I'm sure there wasn't, but isn't in the insurance companies best interest and as part of it due diligence to suspect fraud anyway. Thus the question of who shipped the evidence of to China. It seems it was done under the city's authority. Which is wrong. The companies are paying for it it's their steel. Why should someone else take it away in such a haste?

perhaps if there is motive or evidence of fraud. Of which there is absolutely none

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm sure there wasn't, but isn't in the insurance companies best interest and as part of it due diligence to suspect fraud anyway.

This is exactly my argument. If there was ANY REASON AT ALL to suspect fraud, the insurance companies would have been all over it, with far greater investigative resources than the truthiness movement could ever bring to bear in a million years. At the very LEAST, they would have kept the process mired in court for decades if there was the slightest hint of impropriety.

Thus the question of who shipped the evidence of to China. It seems it was done under the city's authority. Which is wrong.

According to...?

The companies are paying for it it's their steel. Why should someone else take it away in such a haste?

What do YOU think should have been done with the steel, after all the pieces relevant to the attack had been identified by investigators and removed? Why should they hang onto ALL of it when it was pretty obvious to everyone concerned what had happened?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Silverstein tried to buy more insurance for the WTC before the attacks. His investors wouldn't allow it.

Actually, he wanted to insure the buildings for less than what they were eventually insured for:

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

Trade Center Financing On Shaky Ground

 

[Java Man]

What do YOU think should have been done with the steel, after all the pieces relevant to the attack had been identified by investigators and removed? Why should they hang onto ALL of it when it was pretty obvious to everyone concerned what had happened?

Hold on to it to use as a very extensive set of evidence in a very lengthly court case to stall the payment?

Who got the money from selling all that steel?

 

[A W Smith]

Hold on to it to use as a very extensive set of evidence in a very lengthly court case to stall the payment?

Who got the money from selling all that steel?

You do know of course that the salvage value typically goes to the demolition contractor to offset some of the cost of clean up? And that the insurance companies have to pay the demolition contractors for that clean up?

 

[alienentity]

Hold on to it to use as a very extensive set of evidence in a very lengthly court case to stall the payment?

Who got the money from selling all that steel?

RU deliberately misinterpreting every action on the part of the insurance co's, the Freshkills examiners and the salvage operators?

Do you have any idea how these things actually work? It doesn't sound at all like you do. You seem to know very little about the subject, yet are deeply suspicious, due to an extreme bias or borderline paranoia.

Do you even know how many hundreds of thousands of tons of material were collected and what that means in terms of disposal? I doubt you do.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

The entire idea of any explosives being used is completely without merit as there is no evidence that there were any present in the structure. The fact that a small unseen amount could mimic the initial collapse is then irrellevent BECAUSE aircraft impact damage and widespread office fire heat damage, both of which are KNOWN to have been present can also produce the same result.

As I said before , promoting the senario of explosive use as being equally vaild as impact/fire damage simply because it is physically possible is a logical fallacy born of an appeal to ignorance.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

IIRC Silverstein claimed ONCE for each WTC tower claiming their destruction was the result of two separate incidents. The insurance co. tried to argue that it was a single incident to essentially a single property. The courts agreed with Silverstein.
Had the insurance co. had any inkling whatsoever that any damage was the result of a fraud they would have had LS in court asap and would have refused payment of any coverage at all. Given that 9/11 conspiracy proponents are often telling us how very "obvious" it was that this was a set up demolition it seems rather odd, to say the least, that the insurance companies could not mount an arguement that would save them billions.

IF I owned two houses on adjacent lots and a bus slammed into one causing it to catch fire, the as that one is burning a second bus slammed into the other house I would claim for each house, and I would be awarded for each house even if they were both covered by one policy that insured each house for its replacement value.

 

[WildCat]

Where was the jolt? It's missing!!1!!!!!!!!!111!!1!

 

[triforcharity]

If explosives were needed to cause the collapse, that proves a conspiracy. If explosives weren't needed to cause the collapse, that too proves a conspiracy. Perfect truther 'logic'.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

 

[triforcharity]

Sure, from May prior to the attack:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372/

Silverstein and his partners signed over a $100 million letter of credit, the first installment of a $616 million down payment.


Insurance payment:

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-12-06/...verstein-single-occurrence-insurers?_s=PM:LAW

The insurers are collectively responsible for a maximum of $1.1 billion insurance per occurrence. The issue before the court was whether the insurers were obligated to pay for one occurrence or two.

So just as is he doubled the down payment. After winning the case it went up to $2.2 billion

Adding the other buildings:

The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein)

What about 3,6, and of course 7?

 

[Travis]

Java Man check out this webcam currently showing the WTC rebuilding. Note that on the bottom is where Silverstein is building his new buildings and that two of them are still just holes in the ground. That means that ten years and $1 billion in lease payments later he still has holes in the ground because the Port Authority took forever building the $1 billion basement excavation. So that's $2 billion lost right there just to get some holes in the ground dug. With what money was left Silverstein has elected to build one building and is trying to get loans to build the other two.

So that's what he got out it. One smaller building and a huge hole in the ground. Yeah that insurance payment was so worth it.

 

[LightningTeg]

Im sure its already been said here, but Silverstein must have told them to pull it

Seriously though, that is bad ass how much power those machines have.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

I really don't think you understand the first thing about insurance, do you? Insurance companies pay out to compensate for actual loss incurred. You're claiming that it's possible to prove, from publically available sources, that Silverstein Properties has received more in insurance payments than it lost as a result of 9/11. If you're right, then all the insurance companies need to do is read your sources and reduce the payouts accordingly. No need to look into how or why the buildings collapsed; the simple fact that the payout is too big will be enough. If you have any confidence in your analysis, all you have to do is make the call and collect the reward.

But, of course, as others have pointed out, these are insurance companies, with experience in carrying out fraud investigations. If they think they've been defrauded out of billions, they'll be happy to spend tens of millions on a new investigation, and it'll be the truly independent investigation truthers want. Again, if you have the slightest confidence in the argument you've been making, you have no reason not to make the call.

You might want to mail John-Paul Leonard and see what the response was to his request.

I don't need to. You see, my position here is that Leonard's claim was without merit. You, however, are the one who might want to mail him, because you're the one saying he was right.

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.

You really, really don't understand the most basic facts about this case, do you? Silverstein's losses exceeded the maximum payout specified in his insurance policies for a single incident. In order to receive compensation for a greater proportion of his losses, he argued that the WTC attacks were two separate incidents, so the maximum payout should be doubled. That's nothing to do with getting paid for twice the financial loss he suffered; the insurance companies will only ever pay him up to the amount he lost, whatever value the courts may set on the maximum amount payable.

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

Sorry, but didn't you just say they wouldn't get far without an independent investigation? Oh, yes, you did, just up there. So now you think they'd actually investigate it all themselves? Well, then, make that call, and get them started. After all...

I'm sure there wasn't, but isn't in the insurance companies best interest and as part of it due diligence to suspect fraud anyway.

So, pick up the phone, be the hero, and if you're right then the insurance companies will be very grateful, for values of "grateful" running to at least seven digits. And the worst thing that will happen is that they'll tell you you're wrong; since some of them have 800 numbers, you won't even be down by the price of a phone call. It's perfectly clear that there's absolutely no reason for you not to make those calls, except for one: you don't actually believe anything you've been saying here.

It's that simple. Call the insurance companies, or admit you haven't got an argument.

Dave

 

[Quad4_72]

I like how the topic of this thread was showing how a building can indeed be brought down from the top, and here we are discussing insurance payouts with nutter java for the past 3 pages. I am guilty too though.

To get back on topic, Java would you like to discuss how the video does indeed demonstrate how a building can be demolished from the top down?

 

[triforcharity]

Did you deliberately ignore the part where I mention you getting the semi at half the cost? Sure insurance policies don't pay full value, but they don't pay 50% either. And then if you get paid twice for your semi. Well that's like say twice the 90% of full value thats 180% of the value of something you only paid 50% for.

Your analogy is flawed. It wasn't one semi, it was 2. He also didn't get it at half price.

You also forgot that he had to pay the lease on the semi, but was unable to have it generate any money from it.

Income=$0.00

 

[triforcharity]

Hold on to it to use as a very extensive set of evidence in a very lengthly court case to stall the payment?

Who got the money from selling all that steel?

IIRC, I was NYC Sanitation department, as they are the ones who actually cleaned it up.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Actually, he wanted to insure the buildings for less than what they were eventually insured for:

You're right; I had it backwards.