Need help from BOTH camps determining Larry Silversteins role in 911

Originally posted by mmiichael
You should not that the article you linked to is from 2002. The STRUCTURE magazine article is dated November 2007. Not only were the people writing the article independent, but they had the benefit of 5 years, far more data than had been initially available, and further forensic analysis, accounts, and photographs from which to form conclusions.

The really important part that you should note from my link in 2002 is the fact that the forensic evidence was gone before these people even looked at it. So how can 5 more years of looking at no new evidence help? Except of course to come up with more conjecture since they f*ed up the first time around.

"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.

www.house.gov...

BTW. That's not one of those "damn fool conspiracy websites". Or is it?

Other articles were noted at the end of the piece, and the information is not only consistent with the evidence but also stacks up with the findings of others.

Would that be the same evidence that the government claims was "carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine"?

Originally posted by Nutter
The really important part that you should note from my link in 2002 is the fact that the forensic evidence was gone before these people even looked at it. So how can 5 more years of looking at no new evidence help? Except of course to come up with more conjecture since they f*ed up the first time around.

Without wanting to sound like I'm trying to explain away anything, you must note the context of events of 9/11. Planes were hijacked, buildings hit. The two towers hit collapsed along with an adjacent smaller building that had extensive damage from debris.

The concern of the investigation was to determine cause and effect. Not to prove to doubters that the buildings fell due to the effects of the impact, fires, related physical trauma - as opposed to some conspiracy to make it appear so.

When someone is shot in the head and dies it's not procedural to test for curare poisoning, transmitted microwaves, etc. The cause is self-evident.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is consistent with the reports on what made the buildings collapse. There seems no logical reason any perpetrators would take enormous risks of discovery bombing already destroyed buildings just for extra dramatic effect.

The Bush administration is guilty of all sorts of misdemeanors and crimes. But bombing buildings that had just experienced attacks equivalent to gigantic 90 ton bombs is not among them.

No government agency can be expected to do detailed reports on every piece of destroyed building material because there are people who have doubts about why the buildings collapsed.

The overwhelming majority of professional worldwide who have looked at the reports on the causes of the building collapses, find the conclusions satisfactory.

The sub-culture with self-declared experts claiming something else happened can produce an alternative scenario and provide evidence. When they do many people will be listening.



[edit on 12-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Can always tell a truther - will post some picture of NORTH face and then
start jabbering

"See there are no fires...."


South face of WTC 7 was slashed open - most of the fires were started on
that side


Look at this video from Steve Spak - only one which shows South face

www.911myths.com...

Can see smoke from multiple fires pushing out from building

Also Spak films North face - watch the fires extending out the windows
and spreading up the building.....

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Can always tell a truther - will post some picture of NORTH face and then
start jabbering

"See there are no fires...."


South face of WTC 7 was slashed open - most of the fires were started on
that side


Look at this video from Steve Spak - only one which shows South face

www.911myths.com...

Can see smoke from multiple fires pushing out from building

Also Spak films North face - watch the fires extending out the windows
and spreading up the building.....

Can always tell a debunker...

They show you flames shooting out of 8 windows and tell you the entire building was ripped open and engulfed in fire.

Debunkers are people getting rid of bunk.

Around here you need an battalion of forklifts.

The "Pull it" Prize.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Debunkers are people getting rid of bunk.

Around here you need an battalion of forklifts.

The "Pull it" Prize.

What bunk? You mean bunk like claiming the southside of the building is slashed open and engulfed in flames when there is fire coming from a whole 8 windows? That is what I would call bunk. I notice you had no defense for that. Just some remark about forklifts. Typical.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Can always tell a truther - will post some picture of NORTH face and then
start jabbering

"See there are no fires...."

You can always tell a debunker. They always lie. I posted photos of both the NORTH and SOUTH faces. But there was only ONE small fire from both sides.

Originally posted by thedman
South face of WTC 7 was slashed open - most of the fires were started on
that side

Where was it was "slashed open?" That's false. Show me the fires.

Originally posted by thedman
Look at this video from Steve Spak - only one which shows South face

www.911myths.com...

Can see smoke from multiple fires pushing out from building

I see smoke, but only a small fire coming out of ONE window. What I mostly see is a lot of blackened window areas where several fires burned themselves out.

Originally posted by thedman
Also Spak films North face - watch the fires extending out the windows
and spreading up the building.....

Please show me ONE PHOTO or ONE VIDEO of WTC 7 where's there's a signfiicant amount of fire "spreading up the building" or out windows. You can't because it doesn't exist.

Steel-framed buildings specially constructed to serve as emergency command-and-control centers do not neatly collapse at free-fall speeds due to smoke inhalation. You have shown nothing that would account for a globalized, synchronized collapse. Not even close.

Gentlemen, THIS is a fire:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2578d659fda1.jpg[/atsimg]
Even after burning for days, it didn't neatly and perfectly collapse like an old Vegas casino. It didn't collapse at all.

A big problem for Truthers is a few thousand people watched the building swaying, shuddering and even moaning for an hour before it finally collapsed.

There are people who have examined the collapse from all data. There was a clear sequence of internal loss of structural integrity. Selecting a few photos or comparing to other buildings under completely different circumstances does not supply answers.

Even the attempts to make it look like it fell in just a few seconds only fools Truth Serum drinkers.

wtc.nist.gov/comments08/josephNobleswtc7comments.pdf

A section of this footage is in wide circulation on the Internet, and is used by alternate theorists to pretend that the collapse of WTC 7 took only 7 seconds. However, they only show the last 7 seconds where the exterior followed the rest of the interior columns.

This video is so iconic among alternate theorists that the wider availability of the full collapse video from CBS would help demonstrate their fantasies perhaps even to themselves. The sight of the east penthouse collapsing into the building, the building’s shudder, the breaking windows as the debris falls inside, and the clear east-west collapse of the screen wail and west penthouse is a clear visual antidote to the poison created in the truncated footage out there.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by mmiichael]

his role is up to his eye balls, and Liesure suit larry -- well, I betcha we can do a good cop - bad cop routine on him and he would crack. I can see the guilt he harbors. but he only knows the NY - NYC part of this thing. and as long as he gets what he wants MONEY everything will be just fine. but you got to wonder what GOD is going to to do to these Satan's sheep.

With regards to the insurance issue, the following analysis breaks it down pretty well:

www.drbilllong.com...

It appears the argument hinged on how the term "occurrence" would be defined within the policy. Since there were multiple insurers and multiple policies involved (over twenty), each policy had to be individually reviewed to determine how the term "occurrence" applies. Then a decision of either one or two occurrences would be made for each policy.

Several carriers were able to argue their cases successfully and the court agreed to define both alleged terrorist air strikes as just one occurrence. These carriers payed just for the one occurrence.

However in the case of one of the larger players on 9/11, Travelers Insurance Co., the court ruled the WTC attacks consisted of two occurrences, as per the Travelers policy. Therefore, Travelers lost the case and had to pay for two occurrences, which is quite inexplicable when it comes to first party property insurance law. This is where Lucky Larry cashed in his chips and made off like a bandit.

Now, what is very interesting is the following information from the article:

"In this case the Travelers policy was issued on September 14, 2001 but binders were issued before 9/11."

Quite odd how the finalized insurance policy in question is formally delivered three days after the occurrence. Three days is plenty of time to change some wording around in the policy to make sure what transpired on 9/11 is covered within the policy, or in Traveler's case, double covered.

Then, there is this little nugget of information about Larry Pull It and his financiers:

"Silverstein began a 99-year lease from the Port Authorities of NY and NJ, who owned the WTC, beginning in June 2001. He was required by his lenders to get $3.5 billion of insurance on the properties, even though previous lessees only had to be insured for a little over 1/3 that amount."

Tripling your coverage and making a claim for policy limits within three months is enough to set off at least one red flag at the insurance fraud division. Think about it, insurance carriers are on the hook for billions and they:

1) do not move to deny coverage
2) do not analyze salvage to determine if fraud is involved
3) do not professionally investigate occurrence

Why were the carriers so willing to part with their money on 9/11 when they had plenty of evidence to investigate and litigate a denial of coverage? And in the case of Travelers, why did they decide to go double down? Surely, insurance companies do not make their billions by exhibiting such stupidity.

Upon further review, it appears the carriers received some serious payback in the form of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. Basically, this Act puts the taxpayers on the hook for 90% of the losses during another large scale terrorism attack:

www.counterpunch.org...

Of course, there is one other and more important reason why the insurance companies did not want to litigate the coverage issue in regards to 9/11. A trial prep investigation and ensuing legal case would have put the question of 9/11 being an intentional act in a court of law. As we have seen, there has been a concerted effort to keep all cases pertaining to 9/11 out of the court system.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

there is this little nugget of information about Larry Pull It and his financiers:

"Silverstein began a 99-year lease from the Port Authorities of NY and NJ, who owned the WTC, beginning in June 2001. He was required by his lenders to get $3.5 billion of insurance on the properties, even though previous lessees only had to be insured for a little over 1/3 that amount."

Tripling your coverage and making a claim for policy limits within three months is enough to set off at least one red flag at the insurance fraud division.

Thanks for your detailed input.

It was pointed out in print sometime around 2002 that Silverstein and associates were told by bankers and other lending sources that he was required to obtain significantly greater insurance on the property than the previous holders in light of the fact that there had been a partially successful terrorist attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993.

The impression given by the reporter was that in fact the base level insurance and terms was stipulated by financial guarantors.

Factor in as well the unusual circumstances of the 9/11 attacks and so many innocent people dying put insurers in an uncomfortable position of not wanting to appear to be acting in bad faith by refusing to pay out, even for valid technical reasons. Such a thing would be disastrous for their credibility.

As the scale and profile of the 9/11 attacks and destruction was so unprecedented, insurance companies and the legal system was forced to 'wing it' in terms of how they dealt with this unique situation.

One imagines whole new considerations and terms were written to accomodate the now real possibility of major terrorist attacks and billions in property damage.






[edit on 12-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
It was pointed out in print sometime around 2002

I'm not ragging on you.

Did you mean 2002? Or 2001?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by mmiichael
It was pointed out in print sometime around 2002

I'm not ragging on you.

Did you mean 2002? Or 2001?

Rag on. I read it when it came out. Also discussed with friends in the insurance racket. Don't recall the exact time period. Good chance it's online in some article or in a political forum somewhere as it got extensive coverage.


M

"As the scale and profile of the 9/11 attacks and destruction was so unprecedented, insurance companies and the legal system was forced to 'wing it' in terms of how they dealt with this unique situation."

Thank you for your response. I cannot see how some of the biggest insurance carriers in the world would "wing it" when you're dealing with a claim of this magnitude. You see, whether a claim is worth one dollar or one trillion dollars, the claims handling philosophy is the same:

#1 Coverage
#2 Liability
#3 Damages

In other words, without coverage you cannot have damages. Basically, the carriers ignored the serious coverage issues, confirmed coverage and went straight to the damages proceedings.

Why would the WTC insurers refuse to enforce their rights pursuant to the policy when there was more than ample evidence to put into motion proceedings for a denial of claim? For example, Intentional Acts by the assured are a standard exclusion of coverage in any policy.

Here is some more information about the Insurance money trail:

911research.wtc7.net...

Check out this beauty:

"In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million."

This award came through just a mere five months after the attacks. Are you kidding me? You have all this documented evidence and suspicions surrounding the proximate cause of the collapse of Building 7 and the carrier does not question coverage and allows Larry to practically write his own check with a 125% profit???

It seems to me the word the insurers and Larry should have been arguing about was "terrorism" and how it applied to the coverage, and not the word "occurrence". Because if you do not have a genuine act of terrorism as defined by the policy, you have an occurrence which is excluded from coverage.

The handling of the WTC Insurance claims have set a very dangerous precedent, especially with taxpayers being on the hook for 90% of any potential big damages due to the passage of the Terrorist Risk Insurance Act of 2002. This sets up a scenario where an extremely catastrophic scenario will be put square onto the soldiers of taxpayers, insulating the private sector from taking the big financial hits.

Not good...

reply to post by mmiichael


Actually I read that wrong. I thought you ment that it was pointed out to Silverstein in print in 2002. Not that the newspaper printed that this was pointed out to Silverstein at an earlier time.