Larry Silversteins insurance

LashL said:
We still wear the robes and waistcoats, though, when appearing in certain levels of court (not in certain levels of courts of first instance, but everything from Superior Court on up, basically)
Click to expand...

Well, I can see you're not a lawyer!
 
arggh.

Double post. (yes, lawyers do sometimes screw up and double post, basically, but see below for my actual post - this one doesn't count)

There's something wonky about my internet service tonight, apparently.
 
Last edited:
I feel sorry for all the lawyers who posted to this thread. Clearly once the ABA finds out they used the word "basically" they will lose their license to practice law.

Lurker
 
Loss Leader said:
That's your entire argument? An insult? Not a single word disputing a single fact that I laid out? Not even a hint that judges could be bought or that the entire legal fight was just for show? Not even an insult about lawyers in general? Just that I am not credible because I'm pretending to be a lawyer, your proof being that I used the word "basically." It must be very sad in your head.

By the way, you can never insure property for more than its replacement value. You can get five home insurance policies, if it burns down you're only going to recover the money to build a new one. One occurrance or two, it really doesn't matter - Silverstein cannot as a matter of law walk away with more than his loss.

But then again, you would know that if you did any research before posting your questions.
Click to expand...

This bears repeating, since most people do not realize that even though the courts have now ruled upon the issue of which policies are subject to the "two occurrence" language and which are not, all that the courts have done is establish the maximum payouts that Mr. Silverstein may/could ultimately obtain.

Most of the parties (I think Swiss Re is the exception) have agreed to a process by which they will now assess the actual losses. Mr. Silverstein still has to prove his actual losses, and he cannot collect more than his provable losses, which may or may not be less than the maximum payouts that have been established. My guess is that his provable losses will end up being significantly more than the maximum payouts, but he will only be able to collect up to the maximum payouts that have been established by the courts as a result of the litigation as set out in the other thread linked earlier.

As Loss Leader says, Silverstein cannot as a matter of law walk away with more than his loss.
 
I didn't want to start a new thread about this but wanted to make sure I was right about a couple of contentions I have about the Silverstein Properties insurance claims:

The source is this: http://www.swissre.com/pws/media%20centre/news/news%20releases%202006/swiss%20re%20issues%20statement%20on%20wtc%20litigation%20appeal%20confirmation.html. I have directed people elsewhere to it before, and it describes how the largest reinsurer in the "two occurrence" WTC case, Swiss Re, finally won its appeals. So here are my questions:

#1] Has the Loose Change series been revised to exclude its false claims about Silverstein Properties?

#2] Have any of the popular conspiracy sites either revised, dropped, or apologised for their false claims in this regard? I know that "Jones Report" carried the story but didn't issue it as a retraction of any original claims.

#3] Although no dollar figures are explicit in the news release, my arithmetic says this decision cost Silverstein Properties a loss of $875,000,000. Does anyone here know how the corporation (or Westfield America) booked its losses--originally and after the 2006 rulings?
 
Docker- would you think this was a scam if his name was Smith and not Silverstein?

The money has made from insurance is less then the rebuilding costs. Therefore it is not scam.

The WTC was doing just fine before 9-11. It is no surprise that he got terrorism insurance.

Case closed. Go back to the JFK conspiracy.
 
Hey parky, I was actually the one who revived this thread because I didn't want to start a new one.
 
stilicho said:
I didn't want to start a new thread about this but wanted to make sure I was right about a couple of contentions I have about the Silverstein Properties insurance claims:

The source is this: http://www.swissre.com/pws/media%20centre/news/news%20releases%202006/swiss%20re%20issues%20statement%20on%20wtc%20litigation%20appeal%20confirmation.html. I have directed people elsewhere to it before, and it describes how the largest reinsurer in the "two occurrence" WTC case, Swiss Re, finally won its appeals.
Click to expand...

Just to be precise, the jury verdict in 2004 was in Swiss Re's favour (holding that the Swiss Re policy was subject to the WilProp language, thus that the events of 9/11 were "one occurrence" for purposes of that particular policy), and it was Silverstein who appealed. Silverstein lost his appeal.

stilicho said:
So here are my questions:

#1] Has the Loose Change series been revised to exclude its false claims about Silverstein Properties?
Click to expand...

"Loose Change, v. 4: The Final Insult" is not finished yet, so it's too soon to tell.

stilicho said:
#2] Have any of the popular conspiracy sites either revised, dropped, or apologised for their false claims in this regard? I know that "Jones Report" carried the story but didn't issue it as a retraction of any original claims.
Click to expand...

A quick Google search does not indicate any revisions or apologies for their false allegations of insurance fraud, etc. I'm not sure if you have other, specific claims in mind.

stilicho said:
#3] Although no dollar figures are explicit in the news release, my arithmetic says this decision cost Silverstein Properties a loss of $875,000,000. Does anyone here know how the corporation (or Westfield America) booked its losses--originally and after the 2006 rulings?
Click to expand...

If memory serves, Swiss Re's exposure was $877 million (potentially doubled), so it looks like your mad math skillz are intact. :)

You may want to take a look at these two threads for details and discussion about the insurance companies and policies involved, the trials and the outcomes:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70904

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65615
 
LashL said:
You may want to take a look at these two threads for details and discussion about the insurance companies and policies involved, the trials and the outcomes:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70904

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65615
Click to expand...
Thanks, and those threads are pretty helpful too.

The only quarrel I might have is with the origins of the money that changed hands. There is the suggestion that the "losers" were European corporations. Swiss Re, for example, is based in Zurich, was founded as a Swiss corporation, and has the word "Swiss" in its name.

But, by its own accounts, its largest investors are actually Franklin-Templeton and The Capital Group. These are not foreign companies, to Americans. If their loss exposure was roughly ten per cent (given their investment stakes) then these American companies' losses would have amounted to nearly 90 million dollars.

My point here is that, as Jonnyfive might agree, the NWO was stealing from itself and suing itself in the aftermath of 9/11--based on the insurance litigation alone. I mean, if the conspiracists' claims are to have any validity whatsoever.
 
I don't want to start a new thread, so I'll just use this... Did any of Silversteins policies explicitly mention terrorism? (I've had a truther claiming that he insured the towers against "terrorism" just prior to 911)
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
I don't want to start a new thread, so I'll just use this... Did any of Silversteins policies explicitly mention terrorism? (I've had a truther claiming that he insured the towers against "terrorism" just prior to 911)
Click to expand...

Yes, terrorism insurance was a special requirement of his lenders. Although the "just prior to 9-11" part sounds suspicious, remember that Silverstein had just purchased the leasehold interest in the WTC buildings (except for #7, which he already owned) seven weeks prior to 9-11. In fact, this is why the insurance was still not completely settled. Remember that the WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack in 1993; it was no news to anybody that the towers were at risk still.
 
Brainster said:
Yes, terrorism insurance was a special requirement of his lenders. Although the "just prior to 9-11" part sounds suspicious, remember that Silverstein had just purchased the leasehold interest in the WTC buildings (except for #7, which he already owned) seven weeks prior to 9-11. In fact, this is why the insurance was still not completely settled. Remember that the WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack in 1993; it was no news to anybody that the towers were at risk still.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as I understand it, the process had taken somewhere close to two years to comlete (right?). Anyone knows where to read about the requirements that the lenders put up?

MikeW said:
Ask them for their evidence that the towers weren't insured for terrorism prior to that.
Click to expand...

If I can keep him on topic... he keeps jumping from topic to topic... However, were they?

/P
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
If I can keep him on topic... he keeps jumping from topic to topic... However, were they?
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if not - they were covered for the 1993 attack, after all - but I don't know for sure. It's the hidden assumption in what he's saying, anyway, that this is suspicious because terrorism was only covered from shortly before the attacks. So ask him to prove that. If he can't show some significant change in the insurance policy then he's got nothing.
 
MikeW said:
I'd be surprised if not - they were covered for the 1993 attack, after all - but I don't know for sure. It's the hidden assumption in what he's saying, anyway, that this is suspicious because terrorism was only covered from shortly before the attacks. So ask him to prove that. If he can't show some significant change in the insurance policy then he's got nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh, this truther isn't actually proving anything, not to mention providing sources for his claims. He's more or less just claiming stuff. Im targeting the fence sitters, and I haven't looked that deep into this particual fork of the CT-world, so I thought I'd give it a go.
 
I thought you guys might be interested to know that we can chalk Danny Jowenko up as another person who thinks Larry Silverstein committed insurance fraud by blowing his building up (and incidentally that the FDNY are complicit in this scam and were bribed by Silverstein to stay silent about it). According to Jowenko, "this is how America is tied together".
 
gumboot said:
I thought you guys might be interested to know that we can chalk Danny Jowenko up as another person who thinks Larry Silverstein committed insurance fraud by blowing his building up (and incidentally that the FDNY are complicit in this scam and were bribed by Silverstein to stay silent about it). According to Jowenko, "this is how America is tied together".
Click to expand...

I never quite understood Jowenko. AFAIK he's the only demoman with remotely the right credentials to speak with authority about controlled demolition, that has even hinted about 911 being CD. However, had I been the head of a successfull company involved in CD, anywhere in the world, and being asked about things concerning my particular area of expertize, not to mention professional occupancy, I would make every effort to give an answer based on knowledge and facts. This dude however had no problems whatsoever giving very definitive answers based solely on what he saw in a video clip. This imho says something about him.

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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom