Merged Let's Talk about Insurance Fraud!

JonnyFive said:
That bamboo is strong stuff, truly.

But what did it have to do with insurance fraud, 9/11, asbestos, the Trade Center towers, or anything in this thread?
Click to expand...

I was trying to figure out what the Bamboo had to do with anything as well. But then again I am often flummoxed by troother arguments so I kind of just moved past it.


FWIW I lived in Singapore a few years back and they did use bamboo scaffolding there as well, and on some pretty tall buildings. Kind of odd to see them up there on bamboo but friends of mine in that business at the time (early 90's) told me that it was as safe as steel,, much cooler to touch in the Singapore sun and easier/cheaper to set up.

J
 
Alareth said:
Good news!

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.
Click to expand...

JimBenArm said:
Am I less of a caveman for using GEICO?
Click to expand...

thum_111034678bf50d8a46.jpg
 
Let me add to this that this is what happens when real fraud happens:

http://www.the10b-5daily.com/archives/cat_worldcom.html

And that's really only the tip of the iceberg. The struggles between Silverstein Properties and his 20-plus insurers and reinsurers dragged on for years and not once--let me repeat--not once did the insurance corporations bring controlled demolitions into the court cases. They called Silverstein almost every name in the book (demonstrated in the trade papers and the links here) but didn't even breathe about CD.

You have to wonder why that is if there were the remotest chance to prove it. Why wouldn't the insurance companies bring in Fetzer and Jones?

Simple: They know that there was no controlled demolition.

Frankly, given that I work for a corporation involved in several class-action suits, I would be overjoyed if I found they were all based on the "evidence" of Jones, Fetzer, et al.
 
Wizentub said:
Once the 9-11 event happened all insurance companies changed rules slightly.
Example in my business as a private contractor requiring liability insurance suddenly all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism from the destruction of my equipment and damage to property to being beaten upon the job of which there is a good chance being a cleaning contract in a casino hotel.

Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.

cheers.
Click to expand...

ob986s said:
I was trying to figure out what the Bamboo had to do with anything as well. But then again I am often flummoxed by troother arguments so I kind of just moved past it.


FWIW I lived in Singapore a few years back and they did use bamboo scaffolding there as well, and on some pretty tall buildings. Kind of odd to see them up there on bamboo but friends of mine in that business at the time (early 90's) told me that it was as safe as steel,, much cooler to touch in the Singapore sun and easier/cheaper to set up.

J
Click to expand...


lets backtrack
  1. wizentub makes the assertion that scaffolding the WTC towers would be too costly and be more that what the towers were worth
  2. I counter that not only can you not legaly assemble pipe scaffold according to OSHA more than 125 feet freestanding, But that it wouldnt be required because outrgger or window cleaning type staging would suffice for abatement. Which I might add is used in NYC for restoration work all the time.
  3. wizentub quotes me and makes the point that the sprint system was assembled to 300 feet in the uk
  4. wizentub then wrongly asserts that the Petronas towers were fininshed off using bamboo scaffolding to their full height.
Why of course it had to do with Silverstein not being able to afford the cost of a quarter mile high bamboo scaffold. Because as we all know. The cost of all that bamboo would far outstrip the worth of both buildings!! :jaw-dropp Am I making sence here?
 
A W Smith said:
Why of course it had to do with Silverstein not being able to afford the cost of a quarter mile high bamboo scaffold. Because as we all know. The cost of all that bamboo would far outstrip the worth of both buildings!! :jaw-dropp Am I making sence here?
Click to expand...

About as much sense as can be made using wizentub's often bizarre statements. :)
 
there is nothing controversial about what happened to WTC7

it was part of the largest insurance fraud crime ever.



DhG3T.gif
 
Last edited:
Yes......because fires burning for five hours with no water being put on them is also something that should not be forgotten.
 
"There is nothing controversial about what happened to WTC7"

Absolutely correct - but try telling that to idiot twoofers....
 
So you started a thread about 9/11 outside of the 9/11 sub-forum.

Good on you.
 
That does it:We have got to have a emergency program to improve the quality of Trolling at JREF. The trolls ain't even trying nowdays....
 
If only someone could figure out how this alleged insurance fraud made any money, as opposed to the billions it has cost.
 
dvictr said:
it was part of the largest insurance fraud crime ever.
...
Click to expand...
Only in a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists' minds. This claim, your claim, 911 truth's delusional claim has to be the largest moronic fraud.

Have you wondered where the people come from who commit insurance fraud, and how they could be that stupid? No, I bet you never did.
 
Last edited:
dvictr said:
it was part of the largest insurance fraud crime ever.



[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/DhG3T.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Two things.

1-Why in your .gif, is the first part of the collapse missing?

2- Are you going to be contacting the insurance company to assist them in recovering their money? I am sure they would be quite appreciative.
 
triforcharity said:
Two things.

1-Why in your .gif, is the first part of the collapse missing?

2- Are you going to be contacting the insurance company to assist them in recovering their money? I am sure they would be quite appreciative.
Click to expand...

1- Because it shows things that refute his claim

2- No. Because he knows he's gong to have some serious jail time if he makes such a claim..
 
I was wondering why this merged with the Insurance Fraud thread. I now see that he went back and edited the bit about insurance fraud into the post. Before it was just the gif and a title.

Oh and maybe dvictr can finally tell us just how much money was made on the fraud and who made it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom