• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another thing about demolition.

What I don't know, is how americans handle buildings in which asbestos was used for isolation. Are the owners being forced to fix it?
Click to expand...

Typically we don't mess with it until it's time to do some work to the building, then you need to have a special company come in and remove it. There's not a lot of danger in the solid asbestos that's found in floor tiles or siding or other rigid insulation, the harmful stuff is the airborne particulates of the material that are around when something that contains asbestos is broken / demo'ed. So a company comes in and wets the stuff down (helps keep asbestos dust to a minimum) and breaks it up and removes it.
 
andreasz said:
I already supposed something like that about that insurance thing. I am myself in germany working in that business. Part of my job is kind of an equivalent to a financial planner in the united states. But I don't know what insurance policies look like and I don't know any big insurance company which doesn't regularly correct coverage and price due to inflation.
Click to expand...

That would entirely depend on the terms of the policy, the risk involved, the value of the risk being insured, and the insurance company's specific underwriting guidelines.

I don't think coverage "correction" would be automatic. I'm not very familiar with general liability P&C lines, but with personal lines the coverage is set by the policy. If you wanted more coverage, you would have to go back to the company and request additional coverage, and would likely be subjected to additional underwriting to determine the proper adjusted rate.

But that's exactly why I am skeptic about the modification. The movie makes another point, which sounds reasonable to me (I watched it in full by now). The reason it points out that Silverstein got a few billlion out of the case, is that the WTC buildings had asbestos inside the structure, which had to be removed sooner or later. Which is actually why so many of the search dogs died due to poisoning.
Click to expand...

Silverstein "got" a few billion that he immediately turned back around and reinvested to rebuild the towers.

The amount of asbestos in the towers wasn't actually that extensive. Another poster here discovered it was mostly below a certain point in the towers, IIRC. In any case, I dug up an article in "Business Insurance" that put the cost of asbestos abatement for the entire WTC complex at $200 million.

So, anyway... Insurance policies are modified regularly, most of the times by the insurance company.
Click to expand...

In my experience, that is actually quite untrue. Increases in policy coverage would require new underwriting, which is a costly and time-consuming process. For a very large case like the WTC complex, there were many different insurers and reinsurers involved. I sincerely doubt that they were going through the hassle of updating the coverage amount every year to match inflation.

Coverage modification is generally at the behest of the policyholder, as may ultimately impact their rate and it tends to annoy policyholders when their premium suddenly jumps up because you tacked on some additional coverage.

Also, the insurers aren't really in the business of giving away money. It may sound a little callous, but they don't really give a flying flip if your original policy is getting devalued due to inflation. Well, guess what, your premium payment is proportionally less too now. You want more coverage? Talk to your agent/broker and they'll give the underwriters a call. ;)

I guess you all see where I am getting at. It would have cost millions to get rid of all the asbestos. Even more than millions, because you can't have the office space rented for the period of renewal.
Click to expand...

Potentially, except that a lot of the asbestos was fireproofing that could probably have been coated rather than removed. I haven't seen estimates on the cost due to lost revenue while the complex was rennovated, but I'd be willing to be bet it's less than the lost revenue from not having any complex with office space to rent.

But seriously... Does anybody know what the status BEFORE this policy modification was?
Click to expand...

Do you have some kind of source for this claimed sudden modification of coverage?
 
Which, in case of the WTC, would have cost a fortune?

Anyway... This whole controlled demolition theory sounds so reasonable because there are too many possibilities to make money and achieving goals with it than losing it.

- On the 12th of September 2001 I spend 2.000 Marks (1.4 Marks for a dollar) in american funds, because the american stock market was brought to its knees. I made a lot of money with those funds, because I sold them before 2003 (lucky shot).

- patriot act was passed

- a 'right'/'reason' to go to war was there.

- a reason to make people believe they have to be afraid of ruthless terrorists was presented

Now, from a government perspective... Where's the downside? A 'few' civilian losses?

All of you asking WHY people even consider this being a setup, here's your explanation.
 
JohnnyFive: I can only speak for germany. Here, policies adept to the market and inflation all the time. In some cases every year. As I said, I don't know about the american ones. The german ones, which also exist in the US, adjust coverage and price automatically.

Doesn't need 'new underwriting', but you have the right to cancel the contract although it is far from expiration. Translated literally, this right is called "extraordinary right to cancel a contract due to coverage adjustment".

If this is now the case in the US, I see the point in changing insurance policies by yourself all the time.
 
andreasz said:
- On the 12th of September 2001 I spend 2.000 Marks (1.4 Marks for a dollar) in american funds, because the american stock market was brought to its knees. I made a lot of money with those funds, because I sold them before 2003 (lucky shot).

- patriot act was passed

- a 'right'/'reason' to go to war was there.

- a reason to make people believe they have to be afraid of ruthless terrorists was presented
Click to expand...



And how would you expect people/governments to react if the attacks were carried out by actual terrorists? How do any of these results point more to a false-flag attack than just a plain old attack?

Heck, you even state clearly that you spent "2.000 Marks (1.4 Marks for a dollar) in american funds, because the american stock market was brought to its knees". Did you have foreknowledge of the attacks? If you didn't, how were you able to so quickly exploit them for your own advantage?

If there is a new investigation, we'll be looking at you very closely.
 
That's the point why I said it... THere are so many ways of cutting some profit out of that. Even without foreknowledge.

And about the government reaction: Germany for example didn't support the idea to invade iraq under false pretences. At that time, we were convinced that the US had been attacked. Still, we did NOT support the idea of going to war because suddenly, everybody seemed to know where the responsible people are located, that everything is connected to Saddam Hussein, and so on...

Are you really supporting these politics? Most americans I know don't support the war in iraq at all... They would rather have health insurance than having their tayes spent on wars...

At first, I thought Bush wanted to finish what his father started... Then I thought, it was about the oil... And now... Well... Take a close look what we are supposed to think of this. in and outside US.
 
Pssssst...andreasz....look at the post above mine. Yeah...up there. The one from Pardalis.
 
andreasz said:
But that's exactly why I am skeptic about the modification. The movie makes another point, which sounds reasonable to me (I watched it in full by now). The reason it points out that Silverstein got a few billlion out of the case, is that the WTC buildings had asbestos inside the structure, which had to be removed sooner or later. Which is actually why so many of the search dogs died due to poisoning.
Click to expand...

There was no "modification" of the insurance policy. Silverstein had purchased a leasehold estate in the property only two months before 9-11 and thus had to obtain new insurance. There was certainly negotiation ongoing as to the coverage amount.

Asbestos is known to cause cancer and is highly poisonous if you get into direct contact. That we know for a fact.
Click to expand...

Asbestos is certainly a cancer risk.

So, anyway... Insurance policies are modified regularly, most of the times by the insurance company. It might be interesting to know what was the status before Spring 2001, because that part of the story seems to have been part of the trial.
Click to expand...

In the Spring of 2001 Silverstein did not own the leasehold estate to the property. The buildings were insured by the Port Authority in the Spring of 2001.

I guess you all see where I am getting at. It would have cost millions to get rid of all the asbestos. Even more than millions, because you can't have the office space rented for the period of renewal. And then there's this jewish name Silverstein... Sounds all too suspicious to me ;)
Click to expand...

At least in the United States, it is no longer common to remove asbestos. It is considered safe as long as it is not "friable" (crumbling). If it is friable, it is common to "encapsulate" it in place using a spray-on coating. Almost any building constructed before about 1978 will include ACMs (asbestos-containing materials) and suspected ACMs. Their presence is considered routine. The idea that the asbestos had to be removed from the World Trade Center at a great expense is quite simply wrong.
 
There are about 50 links on that page and you want me to figure out which one is the one you are trying to point me at? :) At least tell me which one you're referring to. I already know many of those sites.
 
Actually asbestos is cancerous if you inhale the asbestos fibers. They get trapped in your lungs, and will not leave when exhaling. Build them up over years, and any foreign substance stuck in your lungs can do some harm... When that substance is also cancerous... Well, then your days are numbered.

However, if it's just sitting there, formed, and not in a powder flying around in the air, it is certainly NOT poisonous.
 
andreasz said:
JohnnyFive: I can only speak for germany. Here, policies adept to the market and inflation all the time. In some cases every year. As I said, I don't know about the american ones. The german ones, which also exist in the US, adjust coverage and price automatically.

Doesn't need 'new underwriting', but you have the right to cancel the contract although it is far from expiration. Translated literally, this right is called "extraordinary right to cancel a contract due to coverage adjustment".

If this is now the case in the US, I see the point in changing insurance policies by yourself all the time.
Click to expand...

In that case, I think the situation in Germany is quite different from that over here.

Also, perhaps different, is that insurance contracts in the US can generally be cancelled at any time by the policyholder. It might piss off the agent or the broker, but there's nothing the carrier can do to stop it. We've had somewhat large blocks of business yanked out from under our feet because the policyholder figured they could get a better rate somewhere else.

As I said, the situation with the WTC towers was a massive reinsurance issue. There were a lot of moving parts involved - but none of them seemed to involve adjusting the coverage for inflation.
 
andreasz:

i suspect the ratio of bitchy to non-bitchy replies is due to your posting content and perspective on the issues which seems to be skating the line between woo and not woo...

TAM:)
 
Even before 9/11 New Yorkers were well aware of the problems involved with asbestos abatement.

On August 6, 1993, Mayor David Dinkins and the New York City Board of Education announced Operation Clean House, an emergency program to reinspect all 1,069 of the city’s schools for asbestos before the start of school on September 9. No school, they pledged, would open until it was certified “safe.” Thus was launched an effort that consumed tens of millions of dollars and terrified hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, all to avert a health risk that has not been shown to exist. The entire school system would remain shut down for asbestos abatement until September 20. Three months after Operation Clean House was announced, the initiative ran out of money, having already poured $119 million into emergency abatement.
Click to expand...

Linky: http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1412
 
andreasz said:
Though I find the entire video very interesting, I'd just like to point out a two minute part of it.
I haven't seen this brought up here yet, that's why I post the new thread.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 -- fast forward to 54:00 or watch the entire thing, I don't care :)

For those sick of videos. Bottom line. Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC, extended his insurance policy for the twin towers to cover any damage due to terrorist action. He did that in Spring 2001 and won the process against the insurance company to cover all of the costs to rebuild the twin towers.

On google, I found a few articles on that, seems like this is true. Any clues on that?
Click to expand...


9/11 Myths dealt with this topic here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html
 
andreasz said:
Which, in case of the WTC, would have cost a fortune?

Anyway... This whole controlled demolition theory sounds so reasonable because there are too many possibilities to make money and achieving goals with it than losing it.

- On the 12th of September 2001 I spend 2.000 Marks (1.4 Marks for a dollar) in american funds, because the american stock market was brought to its knees. I made a lot of money with those funds, because I sold them before 2003 (lucky shot).

- patriot act was passed

- a 'right'/'reason' to go to war was there.

- a reason to make people believe they have to be afraid of ruthless terrorists was presented

Now, from a government perspective... Where's the downside? A 'few' civilian losses?

All of you asking WHY people even consider this being a setup, here's your explanation.
Click to expand...

Andreas, let me ask you, if 9/11 was an inside job, isn't the risk of discovery a downside to the operation? And if this risky, overly-complicated plan, involving planting controlled demolition charges in probably the busiest office complex in the U.S., had been discovered, would that not lead to impeachment, prosecution, and possibly the death penalty?

Sounds like a pretty big downside to me....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom