Res wrote: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.
And not just an iconic building -- one that had been attacked by terrorists before.
When I worked on suspected arson cases, I had to learn that even people in financial distress have accidental fires that burn their houses down. There's a difference between "looks suspicious" and "intentionally burned the house down." This insurance purchase doesn't even look suspicious. Frankly, it was dumb luck that more than $3.5 million was recovered. The policyholder had never seen most of the insurance policy language before the loss.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
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.
The WTC complex is only worth $2.3 billion today, back in 2001, it was worth about $990 million. Where on earth are you getting the $11.5 billion for a $7 billion loss??. Yep, never read Dr. Jones' paper where nano-thermate is identified as the incendiary for the destruction of the towers. Please stop commenting in this thread, you are clearly clueless.
This is a lesser point, but still one that comes to mind.
If the terrorist attack was coopted by American conspirators, then why add the complexity of setting off charges in addition to the plane attacks? They can't set off the charges unless the planes strike, and so aren't they redundant? Supposing the planes didn't bring the entire buildings down, wouldn't they still have been considered a total loss? Why not take the money but let thousands of your fellow citizens live?
If the attack was coordinated by American conspirators, why did they need planes hitting buildings in addition to planting charges? According to conspiracy theorists, the Oklahoma bombing was planned by Hilary Clinton and McVeigh was just a pawn. She got away with it Scott free. why not use the proven model?
Why add to the bombs planes that left a whole lot of variables that could go wrong while the charges were ready to go? In the 18 minutes between the first and second plane, the second plane could have got tipped off like flight 93. There could have been people aboard capable of thwarting the plan, or the terrorists could simply have slipped up in at least one of the cases, whereas both buildings were guaranteed with the explosives.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
This is a lesser point, but still one that comes to mind.
If the terrorist attack was coopted by American conspirators, then why add the complexity of setting off charges in addition to the plane attacks? They can't set off the charges unless the planes strike, and so aren't they redundant? Supposing the planes didn't bring the entire buildings down, wouldn't they still have been considered a total loss? Why not take the money but let thousands of your fellow citizens live?
If the attack was coordinated by American conspirators, why did they need planes hitting buildings in addition to planting charges? According to conspiracy theorists, the Oklahoma bombing was planned by Hilary Clinton and McVeigh was just a pawn. She got away with it Scott free. why not use the proven model?
Why add to the bombs planes that left a whole lot of variables that could go wrong while the charges were ready to go? In the 18 minutes between the first and second plane, the second plane could have got tipped off like flight 93. There could have been people aboard capable of thwarting the plan, or the terrorists could simply have slipped up in at least one of the cases, whereas both buildings were guaranteed with the explosives.
Could the twin towers have been demolished without the cover of something happening that would seem plausible in the minds of most Americans?
Non-scientific aside personal musings from someone who hasn’t been inside a chem lab in two decades (I suffered through digging through this stuff and reliving chem memories, so I am naturally going to make others suffer through me posting about it... because I demand justice):
I was scanning over the Jones’ et.al. paper, and looking at the XEDS Spectra figures for the “red layers” taken from the dust samples. Seems to match up to some red oxide primers (or at least the ingredients of Krylon’s, and Taubman’s based on their material safety data sheets).
What led me down the rabbit hole was the presence of Silicon. For that to line up with a possible type of thermite, there’d need to be Sulphur (for it to ignite readily), which was only found in a small amount of one of the samples. That’d also negate the use of the type of thermite which would account for the Iron in the "chips."
To account for all compounds and the color of the "chips," you’d either need to go with a bizarre and unnecessary mixture several types of thermite (one of which would have produced a pretty potent fart smell). Or red oxide primer.
Someone's youtube isn't proof. You claimed molten steel in the basement. How did youtube person determine that the material was steel? How did they determine the source of whatever it was?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Most of you denying the evidence that it was an inside job would have been good lawyers for OJ Simpson... if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
What evidence? You just keep saying stuff that misrepresents the actual facts. You claim Jones found thermite when said that he didn't in the very paper you keep talking about. You can do that 1000X and it's still not evidence.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
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.
The WTC complex is only worth $2.3 billion today, back in 2001, it was worth about $990 million. Where on earth are you getting the $11.5 billion for a $7 billion loss??. Yep, never read Dr. Jones' paper where nano-thermate is identified as the incendiary for the destruction of the towers. Please stop commenting in this thread, you are clearly clueless.
Yep, never read Dr. Jones' paper where nano-thermate is identified as the incendiary for the destruction of the towers. 
