Remembering Building 7

[Res Ipsa]

Don't ignore my comment

Why would it? It wasn't on fire but it was destroyed a few seconds before the entire 47 story structure was demolished. Just what are you trying to get at?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hdyn7PsKmSI

Nice work, DT. BND hasn’t even heard of the evidence that shows the building collapse was not a controlled demolition.

[BeNotDeceived]

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.

Nice research.
Fact: Silverstein took out a big insurance policy against terrorism in the spring of 2001.
Fact: The NY Port Authority tried on multiple occasions to obtain permits to disassemble or demolish the twin towers because of the asbestos problem, abatement cost and since they had become financial liabilities but were denied each time.
Fact: The planes were the cover for the demolitions in which highly sophisticated nano-thermate was identified under electron microscopes as the culprit.
Fact: Silverstein made a lot of insurance money on the destruction of his property. Look what he built in place of the twin towers... a brand new, glitzy WTC tower attracting plenty of attention and tourism which are helping him make a helluva lot more money than with 2 aging albatrosses full of asbestos!

$2 billion, $4.5 billion, $6 billion, does it really matter? The facts and evidence prove controlled demolition and so you can try and spin data to your advantage until the cows come home but it will never change the concrete facts and evidence proving demolition. What, were you a cheerleader for Bush, Cheney and the neocons in office back then? A republican shill? Use your God given brain man and don't believe the feds and media, trust your own judgment and eyes!

[BeNotDeceived]

Why would it? It wasn't on fire but it was destroyed a few seconds before the entire 47 story structure was demolished. Just what are you trying to get at?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hdyn7PsKmSI

Nice work, DT. BND hasn’t even heard of the evidence that shows the building collapse was not a controlled demolition.

[Res Ipsa]

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



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.



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



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:



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.

Nice research.
Fact: Silverstein took out a big insurance policy against terrorism in the spring of 2001.
Fact: The NY Port Authority tried on multiple occasions to obtain permits to disassemble or demolish the twin towers because of the asbestos problem, abatement cost and since they had become financial liabilities but were denied each time.
Fact: The planes were the cover for the demolitions in which highly sophisticated nano-thermate was identified under electron microscopes as the culprit.
Fact: Silverstein made a lot of insurance money on the destruction of his property. Look what he built in place of the twin towers... a brand new, glitzy WTC tower attracting plenty of attention and tourism which are helping him make a helluva lot more money than with 2 aging albatrosses full of asbestos!

$2 billion, $4.5 billion, $6 billion, does it really matter? The facts and evidence prove controlled demolition and so you can try and spin data to your advantage until the cows come home but it will never change the concrete facts and evidence proving demolition. What, were you a cheerleader for Bush, Cheney and the neocons in office back then? A republican shill? Use your God given brain man and don't believe the feds and media, trust your own judgment and eyes!

LOL!!!!

Fact 1: False. He bought property insurance that insured the property for 50% of its value per occurrence. He did not buy terrorism insurance.

Fact 2: Irrelevant. Silverstein had a 99 year lease on the buildings. The Port Authority has no right to tear them down.

Fact 3: False. Nano therm[ i ]te was never found by anyone, including Jones in his paper published in a pay to play predatory journal published in Saudi Arabia. The editor in Chief of the publication was never informed that the paper being published and resigned on the spot after learning it had. Even so, the paper does not say nano thermite was found.

Fact 4: False. Silverstein does not own the new 1 World Trade Center Building. He doesn’t hold a lease on it either.

0-4

[Moksha]

[BeNotDeceived]

Nice research.
Fact: Silverstein took out a big insurance policy against terrorism in the spring of 2001.
Fact: The NY Port Authority tried on multiple occasions to obtain permits to disassemble or demolish the twin towers because of the asbestos problem, abatement cost and since they had become financial liabilities but were denied each time.
Fact: The planes were the cover for the demolitions in which highly sophisticated nano-thermate was identified under electron microscopes as the culprit.
Fact: Silverstein made a lot of insurance money on the destruction of his property. Look what he built in place of the twin towers... a brand new, glitzy WTC tower attracting plenty of attention and tourism which are helping him make a helluva lot more money than with 2 aging albatrosses full of asbestos!

$2 billion, $4.5 billion, $6 billion, does it really matter? The facts and evidence prove controlled demolition and so you can try and spin data to your advantage until the cows come home but it will never change the concrete facts and evidence proving demolition. What, were you a cheerleader for Bush, Cheney and the neocons in office back then? A republican shill? Use your God given brain man and don't believe the feds and media, trust your own judgment and eyes!

LOL!!!!

Fact 1: False. He bought property insurance that insured the property for 50% of its value per occurrence. He did not buy terrorism insurance.

His policy included a clause for protection against acts of terrorism and was heavily insured.

Fact 2: Irrelevant. Silverstein had a 99 year lease on the buildings. The Port Authority has no right to tear them down.

LOL, Silverstein acquired the lease in the spring of 2001 FROM the NY Port Authority.

Fact 3: False. Nano therm[ i ]te was never found by anyone, including Jones in his paper published in a pay to play predatory journal published in Saudi Arabia. The editor in Chief of the publication was never informed that the paper being published and resigned on the spot after learning it had. Even so, the paper does not say nano thermite was found.

LMBO! Dr. Jones was the one who discovered it and then it was corroborated by other scientists who looked at the evidence (I've already provided a short video of Dr. Niels Harritt from the Univ. of Copenhagen in Denmark talking all about it).

Fact 4: False. Silverstein does not own the new 1 World Trade Center Building. He doesn’t hold a lease on it either.

Hey, turns out you're half right - he does not own the new One World Trade Center, however, he is a lease holder and the developer of the complex and has control over the surrounding buildings. By the way, his original investment for the 99 year lease was $14 million but he walked away with $4.5 billion in insurance money since he fought his insurers in court claiming two separate incidents due to two planes. Subsequently, there was an agreement to split payments between Silverstein and the NY Port Authority... nothing to see there.

[doubtingthomas]

Here

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?

Still waiting for your explanation.

[Marcus]

LOL!!!!

Fact 1: False. He bought property insurance that insured the property for 50% of its value per occurrence. He did not buy terrorism insurance.

[color=# FF0000]His policy included a clause for protection against acts of terrorism and was heavily insured.[/color]

Fact 2: Irrelevant. Silverstein had a 99 year lease on the buildings. The Port Authority has no right to tear them down.

[color=# FF0000]LOL, Silverstein acquired the lease in the spring of 2001 FROM the NY Port Authority. [/color]

Fact 3: False. Nano therm[ i ]te was never found by anyone, including Jones in his paper published in a pay to play predatory journal published in Saudi Arabia. The editor in Chief of the publication was never informed that the paper being published and resigned on the spot after learning it had. Even so, the paper does not say nano thermite was found.

[color=# FF0000]LMBO! Dr. Jones was the one who discovered it and then it was corroborated by other scientists who looked at the evidence (I've already provided a short video of Dr. Niels Harritt from the Univ. of Copenhagen in Denmark talking all about it). [/color]

Fact 4: False. Silverstein does not own the new 1 World Trade Center Building. He doesn’t hold a lease on it either.

[color=# FF0000]Hey, turns out you're half right - he does not own the new One World Trade Center, however, he is a lease holder and the developer of the complex and has control over the surrounding buildings. By the way, his original investment for the 99 year lease was $14 million but he walked away with $4.5 billion in insurance money since he fought his insurers in court claiming two separate incidents due to two planes. Subsequently, there was an agreement to split payments between Silverstein and the NY Port Authority... nothing to see there.[/color]

Give it up, BND/Cultellus? or whatever sock you are using. None of your answers counter the information given, and in fact, none of your comments in this thread reflect 7 years of research OR your claim of a 2 hour documentary that somehow turned into a rough draft removed by YouTube.

If you really want to participate, respond to Doc's list of the 20 or so outstanding questions.

Also, you know you can't use red font color. Come on, dude. Grow up.

[Res Ipsa]

BND,

1. If you know the policy had a “terrorism cause,” you must have read the policy language somewhere. Please supply a link to where you read it. Also, the property was worth 7 billion but the limits were only 3.5 billion. That’s only half of the building’s value. If this was all a scheme, why not get limits equal to the value of the buildings? You can always insure property for what it’s worth. For such a meticulously planned conspiracy, under insuring the property is a pretty moronic mistake. Finally, how do you know where the money actually went? The Port Authority owned the buildings. Did they get any of the proceeds? Lenders? Any party with a financial interest in the property is usually protected under a property policy.

2. Yes, the Port Authority sold Silverstein a 99 year lease. Whatever alternatives it has explored before became moot when it opted to lease the buildings:

3. You never read Jones’ paper did you? It specifically said they could not identify the chips as nano thermite. The paper said more study would be needed. Crickets.

4. Exactly right. There it’s nothing to see there. The owner of the buildings and the leaseholder split $4.5 billion dollars in payment for a 7 billion dollar loss! If you think that’s a windfall, you might want to consult a financial advisor.

[Gadianton]

1. If you know the policy had a “terrorism cause,” you must have read the policy language somewhere.

And even if it did have a terrorism clause, that hardly amounts to specifically pursuing the insurance for terrorism. I mean, even specifically pursuing terrorism coverage as additional coverage wouldn't be that big of a deal for an iconic building, but the reality is far beneath anything that could be considered fortuitous or even vaguely suspicious.