Remembering Building 7

[Marcus]

I spent 7 years researching the events of 9/11 after it was rather obvious that both WTC's and building 7 were brought down via controlled demolition and it culminated into a 2 hour documentary film I put together.

Is your documentary online somewhere? If so, will you please post a link to it?

The rough draft was on You-Tube for a while but they took it down recently as they seem to be purging videos they don't want to be viewed or which might bring the wrath of the fed gov down upon it. Facebook is doing the same thing as is Twitter. Free speech in this nation is slowly being eroded.

Just show us your research then, or the script for your two hour documentary, or clips from it. Your ad hoc statements here are riddled with substantive errors or are completely derivative. Let's see the fruits of your seven years!

[doubtingthomas]

Why would it?

It makes perfect sense if you watch the computer models for the collapse of wtc 7. But it makes no sense under your controlled demolition theory.

Why would it? It wasn't on fire but it was destroyed a few seconds before the entire 47 story structure was demolished.

Exactly it wasn't on fire. In videos you don't see or hear an explosion when the penthouse was falling. So what destroyed the penthouse seconds before the exterior of wtc 7 collapsed? Did god do it?

[BeNotDeceived]

Just wow, Christ's name in vain while exhibiting the education of a high school dropout, good grief!

Says the guy who gets his physics education from Youtube.

Me? You guys are the dotes defending one of the greatest fairy tales ever told.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You started this conversation referring to your 7 years of research and a documentary. Later, you defined it as a rough draft no longer available, but surely you have a script? Or something written based on your research? Please post what you have, because your explanations so far are derivative and contentless.

Well, so far we have:

1) A lie about having read the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A).

2) A lie about having a documentary.

And not answered:

3) Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

4) Which unconstitutional legislation and new government departments in the last 21 years have restricted your freedom of speech? Note: The Patriot Act was literally not unconstitutional.

5) Which parts of those statutes contain new restrictions on freedom of speech?

6) What education, training and or experience gives you the expertise to understand and evaluate scientific evidence, investigate and evaluate the entire set of available facts, evaluate the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and determined whether the consensus explanation for what happened to the buildings violates the laws of physics?

7) How much effort have you spent understanding and considering the rebuttals to evidence you cite and the conclusions you draw from it?

8) Describe, as accurately as you can without reference to any materials, what the consensus view is and the relevant evidence that the consensus view relies on and the conclusions it draws from that evidence? (Can you do it in an accurate and non-pejorative manner?)

9) Why wouldn't we expect this from a 100 ton projectile, traveling at 460mph, filled with tens of thousands of liters of combustible liquid? <- The answer provided was a dodge.

10) Is this the paper you're referring to?

11) How much weight was each floor rated to carry?

12) If I provide the basic floor load for the WTCs, would that move the needle ref the towers collapsing?

13) Can you explain how 'unburnable' 3/4 kerosene traveled 1000 feet and then turned into molten steel?

I’m starting to feel like we’re not having a good-faith exchange with BND.

- Doc

We can add:

14) Can you quote me the relevant statement or testimony of the eyewitness who claims to have seen molten steel from Towers 1 or 2 in the basement of those structures?

15) If so, can you quote it complete with context?

16) I might add a question or two about the insupportable conclusions from BYU Prof. Jones 2005 paper-specifically, the red and grey dust, sent to him by a civilian living in Manhattan, that he stated was thermite and still highly explosive (?).

17) it would be interesting to hear how he thinks a private plan to avoid asbestos abatement got tangled up with a public cover up of pretty much every financial fraud from the 90s, all accomplished on 9/11/01 (?).

18) How do you get from "pulled" to "controlled demolition? Then you should be able to readily link to examples of its use by people who are actually in the industry.

19) So, BND. Did Marcus’ article move the needle for you?

20) Which is more probable? Silverstein referred to the firefighters as a group, which would be perfectly grammatical and fit the context of the discussion or that, saying nothing about the fire fighters had been talking about, Silverstein, who is not in the demolition industry used a word that is actually not a common term in the demolition industry to refer to a controlled demolition to tell another guy who is not in the building industry that he short initiate a controlled demolition?

21) A repeated cfr: Just show us your research then, or the script for your two hour documentary, or clips from it.

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

"Pull down" means to destroy: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull-down However, "pull out" might be what Silverstein meant at the time? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pullout That's what he said after, to clarify the misunderstanding of simply saying pull it. Additionally, people aren't always so precise with their words, especially when being interviewed. When having your deposition taken in a legal proceeding, the witness is given a chance to make corrections where necessary, although that can raise questions as to why the changes are being made, if they are made.

What did the various emergency personnel think was going on? Did they think the building was about to collapse due to the fire? If that were the case, then the fire chief and other leaders would make the call and it would make more sense that Silverstein meant pull people out. Also, I don't think that would have been his decision to make. Even though he is the property owner, if it is about to collapse, it wouldn't be his decision to pull people out or leave them in.

[Gadianton]

So, the NY port Authority ended up selling the WTC complex lease to billionaire tycoon Larry Silverstein in the spring of 2001 who immediately took out a massive insurance policy against terrorism and so when the planes hit the buildings (acting as the cover for the demolitions) and were completely destroyed, he went to court to collect double the payout saying two planes constituted two acts of terrorism and he won, walking away with $4.5 billion in insurance money while the billion it was going to cost in asbestos abatement disappeared. Quite the trick ay?

The way the conspiracy nuts make it sound, it's a simple as a guy buying fire insurance a month before running two jeeps into his property to say it was two fires and walking away with 2x payout.

Here's the insurance play-by-play from back in 2002 as the litigation was unfolding:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1030343783307

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which finished building the complex in 1972, carried only $1.5 billion (per occurrence) in coverage on all of its buildings, which, in addition to the Trade Center, included the three New York City area airports. Silverstein's lenders insisted on more coverage, first demanding $2.3 billion, then $3.2 billion, and then, right before the lease deal closed, $3.55 billion

That's right, conspiracy nuts, whether it's for a car or a skyscraper, if you're getting financed, your lenders are going to make you insure the damned thing because it's their money on the line, not yours. That number creeping up is the lenders coming to terms with the minimum coverage they can live with. It's not Silverstein walking in and getting the biggest policy on the market, it's the lenders forcing him to get enough to cover their investment adequately. And it wasn't "a massive insurance policy against terrorism". It was a a general insurance policy that anyone buying a skyscraper on credit would have to get, one that didn't exclude terrorism.

Remember those terrorist who shot up a bunch of cars on an LA freeway years ago? It would be like saying, suppose one of drivers who got shot up had just bought her car a month prior and got insurance for it, and the insurance company covered the bullet holes. "How could she have known!"

The 2 x occurrences 2x payout is even more evidence against any conspiracy interpretation.

No, Silverstein didn't get double. His coverage was for 3.5 billion, and double would have been 7 billion. Out of the 20+ insurers, most payed on a single event interpretation, and 9 payed on the 2-event interpretation; but the 2-event plausibility was by a happy accident.

he had in hand only temporary contracts from his insurers. Most of those had been executed on the basis of a sample form that Willis had circulated, a form that included a broad definition of what constituted an occurrence for insurance purposes. (The encompassing definition was designed by Willis to favor policyholders; the more damage that could be lumped into one occurrence, the fewer deductibles policyholders would have to pay.)

The original design goes against two-event interpretation in order to save on deductibles. However:

One key carrier, however, had refused to base negotiations on the Willis form. Travelers Indemnity Co. insisted on using its own form, which did not specifically define "occurrence," as the foundation of discussions about a final policy. Willis needed Travelers to stay in the deal, so Willis brokers spent August 2001 deep in negotiations with Travelers underwriters about changes proposed to the Travelers form.

Because of disputes over this form by one insurer, which didn't overtly have anything to do with the "occurrences" language - "(These negotiations, interestingly, did not include discussion of the definition of "occurrence.")" - there was no one-event bias and so after the fact:

Silverstein and Willis now say that all of the insurance companies should be held to the terms of the Travelers policy, which, in their lawyers' interpretation of New York state insurance law, leads to the conclusion that the Trade Center collapse constituted two occurrences. The insurers -- no surprise here -- say that the Willis form prevails.

So had Travelers gone along with the crowd, the whole deal would have been hampered by the "one-occurrence" bias. This is anything but design before the fact to cash in on a double payout, knowing that 2 planes are in the plan.

But it's worse, because when the attacks happened, this complicated policy issued by 20+ sub insurers wasn't even inked. Nobody planning to burn their house down to collect a fire insurance policy they just bought would do so without having the terms laid out in black-and-white exactly to their liking before striking that match. He didn't "walk away" with 2x, he prevailed with 1.28x after 6 years of litigation.

The insurance drama could hardly be anything in the same galaxy as premeditated fraud for anyone who isn't stupid, and who has spent more than 5 minutes researching. 7 years? Good help us.

[Res Ipsa]

The purchase of terrorism is also understandable, as there has been an attack some years before.

But the author is dead right — the amount and type of insurance was driven by lenders.

Also, the buildings are insured for their value. The value is the value, regardless of whether it’s one or two occurrences. As you said, the issue didn’t affect the amount the policies covered — only the number of deductible. The two occurrence ruling meant the insurers paid less, not more.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The purchase of terrorism is also understandable, as there has been an attack some years before.

Don’t bother telling BND this. Nothing will click.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Worl ... er_bombing

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

The purchase of terrorism is also understandable, as there has been an attack some years before.

But the author is dead right — the amount and type of insurance was driven by lenders.

Also, the buildings are insured for their value. The value is the value, regardless of whether it’s one or two occurrences. As you said, the issue didn’t affect the amount the policies covered — only the number of deductible. The two occurrence ruling meant the insurers paid less, not more.

ETA: I dug around and found a critical fact: at the time Silverstein leased the towers, they were worth 7 billion. They purchased limits of $3.5 per occurrence, apparently assuming that both towers would not be destroyed in a single event. This makes the notion that payment of two limits was some kind of windfall completely absurd. So, the question of the number of occurrence did affect the payout, but only because the project was underinsured — for half its actual value.

As an aside, I’ve done reviews of proposed insurance programs for some big construction projects. They involve multiple layers of policies, often with multiple insurers involved in each layer. The owner/developer hires a broker who puts together a proposal. The owner gets a description of what will be covered and the limits and sublimity. The owner agrees to the proposal and the insure issues a binder to show that insurance is in force. But the binder is also just a summary. Often, neither the purchaser nor the broker has actually reviewed the actual language of policy before it was bound. When I reviewed proposals, I always had to ask the broker to get the forms from the company that would be in the policy. And a couple of times there were major problems in the program that could only be spotted by reading the manager in each form for each insurer.

That was the situation with the WTC policies. Once part of the program involves negotiating over language. But most of the language had never been seen on 9/11. Only one of the 22 insurers had issued a policy. The rest issues only binders.

I wonder who the person was that came up with the bright idea of buying insurance enough for one tower of a two tower project. And what landfill they’re body is in. Did any ask “Hey, what happens if both towers were destroyed at the same time.” Was there a brief pause and then uproarious laughter?

Insurance—the major purchase where you buy without ever seeing the product first.

[Res Ipsa]

The purchase of terrorism is also understandable, as there has been an attack some years before.

Don’t bother telling BND this. Nothing will click.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Worl ... er_bombing

- Doc

Here’s what’s even funnier. Most buildings are insured under “all risk” forms. All accidental direct physical loss or damage is covered, unless an exclusion applies. Before 9/11, there were standard exclusions for war, riot and civil commotion. But, I don’t believe terrorism exclusions were standard. According to what I’ve read, coverage for 9/11 was under a standard form and would not require a separate purchase.

After 9/11, terrorism exclusions became standard and policies include a big warning that terrorism isn’t covered. Because of 9/11, terrorism coverage is a purchase separate from the basic policy.