Larry Silversteins insurance

[gumboot]

Sorry for going OT, but I just had to get that out of my chest. Back to the insurances - has Jowenko made more statements then? And now venturing into law and the world of insurances?

The statements were made in the original interview in which he was shown video of the WTC7 collapse and then talked about how it could have happened.

INTERVIEWER: What I sometimes think, has it maybe to do with insurance?

DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, that can also be. Look if that man [NYFD Commander on site at WTC7] is bribed by Silverstone because he wants his payment... and here you also have a nice percentage then he writes that simply down. This is how America is tied together. That makes September 11th very hard.

Source

It's worth noting in the interview that Jowenko is not given proper details of the FDNY accounts of damage to the building - the implication is that there were small localised fires and the damage to the building from the collapses was minor.

(The interviewer also incorrectly claims that WTC3 was damaged but still standing after the collapse of both towers).

I also don't believe Jowenko was made aware of the unique lower structure nature of WTC7 due to the con-ed station - the plans he was shown were for beam layout from the 8th floor upwards.

Finally, Jowenko contradicts himself in the interview somewhat. He looks at the plans and identifies key columns that could be cut in order to induce a collapse, but when asked if the building would spontaneously collapse if these columns were damaged in the same way he denies it could happen.

Put simply, the Jowenko interviews do not stand up to scrutiny, and he has offered no further evidence to give his opinion more credibility.

 

[fezzic]

By keeping that particular issue in the realm of his opinion instead of an official pronouncement (and no, I don't think that he's made it an "official" pronouncement, whatever he believes), Mr. Jowenko can basically say whatever he likes, speculate whatever he likes, and can still fall back on "Hmmm, I guess I was mistaken" if anyone should try to use his opinion against him professionally or officially. Should he put out a paper or deliver a lecture or presentation on this, he will be committing himself to the accuracy of what is presented -- now in his best considered judgement. Makes a difference when one's professional reputation is at stake.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

By keeping that particular issue in the realm of his opinion instead of an official pronouncement (and no, I don't think that he's made it an "official" pronouncement, whatever he believes), Mr. Jowenko can basically say whatever he likes, speculate whatever he likes, and can still fall back on "Hmmm, I guess I was mistaken" if anyone should try to use his opinion against him professionally or officially. Should he put out a paper or deliver a lecture or presentation on this, he will be committing himself to the accuracy of what is presented -- now in his best considered judgement. Makes a difference when one's professional reputation is at stake.

Still, I'm amazed that he had no qualms whatsoever making sweeping accusations on TV, based on nothing more than what he's shown on a screen (a laptop if Im not mistaken). Not to mention the accusation against named FDNY personell (Its been sometime since I watch that clip, I missed him doing that completely).

As I understand it he didn't make those statements as a private person, but as a professional expert on controlled demolition. Thats a huge difference.

Anywhoo, how exactly did the terrorism-clause, or policy, look? It it possible to find a summary of it somewhere?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Bloody hell, I've been searching the net like crazy to find some sort of info on the terrorism-policy, and the history of it, but I get swamped by truther links that proclaims insurance-fraud.

Help me!

 

[LashL]

Bloody hell, I've been searching the net like crazy to find some sort of info on the terrorism-policy, and the history of it, but I get swamped by truther links that proclaims insurance-fraud.

Help me!

It may not have been a matter of having explicit "terrorism insurance" pre-2001 so much as it was a matter of standard interpretation of insurance policies - i.e., unless an insurance policy specifically excluded acts of terrorism as insurable losses in "all risks" coverage, the policies were interpreted to include acts of terrorism as insurable losses. Prior to 9/11, most property and casualty insurers covered acts of terrorism within their general coverage provisions, without specifically referring to acts of terrorism.

So, perhaps you could just point out to the twoofer you're arguing with that if he or she owned a house or a business or had any insurance policies himself in North America* prior to September 11, 2001, the twoofer himself or herself also had "terrorism insurance".

That is the reason for the losses from the 1993 terrorist bombings being covered. In "all risks" insurance policies, any type of event that is not specifically excluded by the terms of the policy are, by default, insured. Including acts of terrorism. So, unless acts of terrorism were specifically excluded as an insurable loss in any given insurance policy, acts of terrorism were just another of the many types of losses that were covered by "all risks" policies. That seems to have remained the norm until after the events of 9/11, when the insurance industry underwent enormous changes as a direct result of the massive losses of that day.

That said, given that the WTC buildings were arguably at greater risk than other buildings as a target of terrorism following the 1993 bombing, it is possible that the insurers sought/required/demanded a premium for a rider for coverage for "acts of terrorism" specifically - it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, although I haven't seen the actual policies - but the insurers (23-24 of them) certainly did not make any issue of any such thing in any of the protracted lawsuits that arose after the events of 9/11, so I tend to think, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it was simply not an issue.



*Due to their greater experience with acts of terrorism, U.K. insurers adopted exclusions for acts of terrorism long before any such exclusions were adopted in North America.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

It may not have been a matter of having explicit "terrorism insurance" pre-2001 so much as it was a matter of standard interpretation of insurance policies - i.e., unless an insurance policy specifically excluded acts of terrorism as insurable losses in "all risks" coverage, the policies were interpreted to include acts of terrorism as insurable losses. Prior to 9/11, most property and casualty insurers covered acts of terrorism within their general coverage provisions, without specifically referring to acts of terrorism.

So, perhaps you could just point out to the twoofer you're arguing with that if he or she owned a house or a business or had any insurance policies himself in North America* prior to September 11, 2001, the twoofer himself or herself also had "terrorism insurance".

That is the reason for the losses from the 1993 terrorist bombings being covered. In "all risks" insurance policies, any type of event that is not specifically excluded by the terms of the policy are, by default, insured. Including acts of terrorism. So, unless acts of terrorism were specifically excluded as an insurable loss in any given insurance policy, acts of terrorism were just another of the many types of losses that were covered by "all risks" policies. That seems to have remained the norm until after the events of 9/11, when the insurance industry underwent enormous changes as a direct result of the massive losses of that day.

That said, given that the WTC buildings were arguably at greater risk than other buildings as a target of terrorism following the 1993 bombing, it is possible that the insurers sought/required/demanded a premium for a rider for coverage for "acts of terrorism" specifically - it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, although I haven't seen the actual policies - but the insurers (23-24 of them) certainly did not make any issue of any such thing in any of the protracted lawsuits that arose after the events of 9/11, so I tend to think, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it was simply not an issue.



*Due to their greater experience with acts of terrorism, U.K. insurers adopted exclusions for acts of terrorism long before any such exclusions were adopted in North America.

I've come to realize this. I found a pdf that pretty much clarified the issue here. AFAIK there was a clause regarding "acts of war", which as I understand it, the insurance companies opted not to invoke.

Cheers,
PP

 

[fezzic]

Still, I'm amazed that he had no qualms whatsoever making sweeping accusations on TV, based on nothing more than what he's shown on a screen (a laptop if Im not mistaken). Not to mention the accusation against named FDNY personell (Its been sometime since I watch that clip, I missed him doing that completely).

As I understand it he didn't make those statements as a private person, but as a professional expert on controlled demolition. Thats a huge difference.

But he still is in a position, if his stance were to come back on him, to say, "Oops, I might have been mistaken". As far as I understand, he's basically said that 7 WTC was a CD though I don't think he's tried to explain what was done, how, and why -- though I do recollect he attributes the CD to government interests/reasons.

Like supposed, and varied "experts" who opine on TV, he is not irretrievably bound to that position. He has rendered an opinion, maybe potentially better informed than most, but opinions are dime a dozen -- everybody tends to have one on any given subject.

IMO Laying it formally on the line is a much more serious business.

 

[applecorped]

But he still is in a position, if his stance were to come back on him, to say, "Oops, I might have been mistaken". As far as I understand, he's basically said that 7 WTC was a CD though I don't think he's tried to explain what was done, how, and why -- though I do recollect he attributes the CD to government interests/reasons.

Like supposed, and varied "experts" who opine on TV, he is not irretrievably bound to that position. He has rendered an opinion, maybe potentially better informed than most, but opinions are dime a dozen -- everybody tends to have one on any given subject.

IMO Laying it formally on the line is a much more serious business.

Source?

 

[fezzic]

Source?

I have no link. I may search the threads for the reference to what he thinks was the reason. That's about all I recall.

He thought 7 WTC was a CD. He thought 1 and 2 WTC were not CDs. He apparently thought that 7 WTC was destroyed to protect government related stuff.

 

[applecorped]

I have no link. I may search the threads for the reference to what he thinks was the reason. That's about all I recall.

He thought 7 WTC was a CD. He thought 1 and 2 WTC were not CDs. He apparently thought that 7 WTC was destroyed to protect government related stuff.

You are way to smart to believe this, aren't you?