• 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.

andreasz

Scholar
A
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
100
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?
 
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...

Ehm.. yes.. there had been a terrorist attack on WTC already(you know, the bomb...) of course he was going to insure against it since it is obviously a target.
 
It is true and it was a smart choice being that the towers had been attacked by terrorists years before.

ETA: Tobias beat me to it.
 
Yep. The 1993 bombing + statements from the perpetrators indicating that they would keep on trying to bring it down.
 
Insurance policies are in effect for a specific period of time. When that time expires, one has to purchase a new policy. If during that time inflation has increased the cost to replace the insured property, it's wise to increase the amount of coverage by a commensurate amount.

I "extend" my homeowners coverage in those ways every year.

Can you show that the World Trade Center was not insured against terrorist acts prior to Spring 2001? I doubt it, because it was certainly insured against terrorist acts in 1993, when insurers had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to cover the costs of the damage from the truck bombing.

I strongly suspect that your source is deceptively using vague terms like "extend coverage" to imply that the Spring 2001 insurance policies were new coverage that the buildings hadn't had before, when actually the actions taken in Spring 2001 with regard to insurance were more like what most people would call "renewal" of existing policies. Were you fooled by this deception?

There were some disputes about the amounts the various insurance companies were liable for, given the specific circumstances of the attack (especially, the question of whether the two plane crashes constituted one attack or two). Silverstein won some cases and lost others. Some of the cost of rebuilding ended up being paid by insurers, but not all of it.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
andreasz said:
(snip)

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...

Silverstein was only awarded a bit over half of what he originally sought in damages: http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=203&aid=57821 (he sought over 7 billion and was awarded just under five billion - the maximum amount allowable for a single incident).

I seriously doubt this will cover the entire cost of rebuilding the full complex. Currently estimates for the Freedom Tower alone are running at almost 3 billion, and that could easily increase. Not only that, but it doesn't account for loss of revenue due to not having the WTC up and generating rent.

Having coverage for terrorist action, given the '93 bombing, made sense. Clearly, the building was something of a landmark and potential target.
 
Myriad said:
(snip)

I strongly suspect that your source is deceptively using vague terms like "extend coverage" to imply that the Spring 2001 insurance policies were new coverage that the buildings hadn't had before, when actually the actions taken in Spring 2001 with regard to insurance were more like what most people would call "renewal" of existing policies. Were you fooled by this deception?

(snip)
Click to expand...

I work for an insurance company, and we use the term "extend coverage" to refer to renewing policies that do not automatically renew every year (some group coverage, for example, will keep renewing automatically as long as you pay unless the insurance company decides to adjust something, you stop paying, or you choose to cancel coverage).

I agree that this is very likely a case of deceptive language use. Unless, of course, the proprietor of that site has proof that Silverstein cancelled the policy rider for terrorist attacks and then reinstated it just prior to 9/11.

(One might wonder, if that were true, why he didn't do it something like one month before the attacks, to avoid paying the extra premium, which was likely a substantial sum of money.)
 
andreasz said:
. 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.
Click to expand...


There's something else you need to remember - property insurance can only cover the amount of your damages. The most you can ever recover is the money that you lost due to the incident.

If you have a $200,000.00 house with $50,000.00 worth of furnishings and you take out a homeowner's policy for $4 million, the most you can ever recover is $250,000.00 (plus a little for staying in a hotel and some other sundries).

If you have the same home and you take out two $250,000.00 policies from two different carriers, you will only be able to collect $250,000.00 (either all from the first carrier or they'll split it $125,000.00 each).

You cannot make money from property insurance.

So, whatever insurance Silverstein did or did not take out, it never, ever, ever, ever would have put more money in his pocket than he would have made as the landlord of the towers.
 
Last edited:
In addition, Silverstein originally wanted to insure for a much lower amount and was pushed into raising the coverage by the companies lending him the money for the venture:

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
Click to expand...

And the insurance hadn't been finalized at the time of the attacks:

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30B10F73D550C708EDDA90994D9404482
Click to expand...

(thanks to Mike W for digging this stuff up and collecting it on his Web site): http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

These facts aren't consistent with someone who has foreknowledge of the imminent destruction of his buildings and is plotting to make a profit from it. They're far more consistent with someone who knows he has to buy insurance but would prefer to save as much money as possible on the premiums and figures he's got plenty of time to get all the details nailed down and signed on the dotted line- IOW, plain ol' business as usual.
 
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.

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.

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

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.

Anybody here who knows something about that?

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 ;)

But seriously... Does anybody know what the status BEFORE this policy modification was?
 
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...
I think you should also know that insurance adjusters, claims agents and so on spend an awful lot of time investigating fraud. The insurance companies would have loved nothing more than to prove that Silverstein had demolished the tower on purpose, thus absolving them of responsibility for payment. Given that, why do no insurance companies support 9/11 conspiracy theories?
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 lost money in the WTC deal no matter how you slice it. The towers were prime real estate whose potentials for earning money were guaranteed for decades. There is no conceivable way Silverstein could have made any money from an insurance scam.
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...
This is demonstrably false. Please do your own research and fact checking. A certain type of asbestos fiber is known to cause lung diseases such as mesothelioma, and the people who die from asbestos exposure were normally people involved in installing or removing it.
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...
Indeed, knowing that the WTC towers were covered against terrorist attacks would provide important context for the information presented. I wonder why the maker of the video failed so horribly to do that.
Anybody here who knows something about that?

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...
So, wait, Silverstein decides to blow up his billion dollar building, destroy his profit assets for a period of 10-15 years, so that he can get reimbursed for the depreciated value of the building and save himself millions of dollars in asbestos removal costs?

Let me ask you an honest question: Would you smash your 2005 Taurus SE against a brick wall so that the insurance would pay you for the depreciated value of your car (which would not be enough to buy a new car or an equivalent car)? And would you do all this so that you wouldn't have to put new tires on the car?
But seriously... Does anybody know what the status BEFORE this policy modification was?
Click to expand...
I'd like to suggest that you follow the insurance line of reasoning in both directions. Follow it all the way back to the Bush administration and all the way forward to the insurance adjusters and ask why any of the thousands of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy would even bother to help Larry Silverstein.
 
Andreas have you ever watched a demolition live?
I think you didn't because otherwise you would remember the loud blasts of the demolition charges. Nothing like that on any 9/11 video, todo nada.
 
gambling_cruiser said:
Andreas have you ever watched a demolition live?
I think you didn't because otherwise you would remember the loud blasts of the demolition charges. Nothing like that on any 9/11 video, todo nada.
Click to expand...

Not really true... First of all, I have watched a demolition, yes... And it is pretty loud during the entire procedure... It takes several seconds for the sound to fade... I doubt that I would be able to tell wether it were floors clashing upon each other or explosions that cut the columns and destroy the structure.

Anyway... I asked for information on that, specifically... If anybody KNEW stuff... Why is every second reaction to that all bitchy? I found some of these things suspicious and reasonable, though I think, many of them are just put into the right perspective.

Anyway... Mr. Alt-F4 has it all figured out, everything but the official story is a big lie, disinformation, blablabla and he was there, live, at any place, witnessed it all and I anything I say will result in calling him a liar, so I want say anything more ;) <-- (SMILY. Don't ignore. Thanks.)

About the asbestos situation:

In germany, buildings have to be fixed within a certain period of time, otherwise the owner gets into big trouble. Concerning public health, germans are really nitpickers. But I don't think, that's a bad thing. 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?
 
andreasz said:
Anyway... Mr. Alt-F4 has it all figured out, everything but the official story is a big lie, disinformation, blablabla and he was there, live, at any place, witnessed it all and I anything I say will result in calling him a liar, so I want say anything more ;) <-- (SMILY. Don't ignore. Thanks.)
Click to expand...

Actually, it's Ms. Alt+F4. I've never called anyone on this forum a liar, ever. Misinformed, confused....yeah. As for someone calling me a liar, it has no effect on me, I'm too old to play those games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom