World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

duese, any insurance contract for "buildings" cover will normally cover not just the initial payment, but usually the cost of not just rebuilding at current costs (which will be substantially higher in 200x than 198x*), but also quite often the cost of clearing the grounds and making the site usable again.

For example you buy a house in 1970 for 12k, that wouldn't cover the cost of rebuilding any house now;), so your insurance cover today would probably be for up to something like 500k to cover the cost of (in worst case) pulling down any remains after a major fire, clearing the site, then going through the planning process and getting it rebuild to current standards.

Without knowing how much construction costs have risen in the US (both materials and labour) it's very likely the sum paid out in the case of the WTC would only realistically cover rebuilding.

It's also worth noting that with some insurance policies for industrial/commercial cover they not only cover the physical costs, but also loss of earnings etc due to the cause of the claim (so in the case of something like WTC where you've got a large office/commercial building with rent from companies using it, the insurance may cover the loss of rental income).



*Although probably not in real terms (remembering inflation)
 
Werewolf said:
duese, any insurance contract for "buildings" cover will normally cover not just the initial payment, but usually the cost of not just rebuilding at current costs (which will be substantially higher in 200x than 198x*), but also quite often the cost of clearing the grounds and making the site usable again.

For example you buy a house in 1970 for 12k, that wouldn't cover the cost of rebuilding any house now;), so your insurance cover today would probably be for up to something like 500k to cover the cost of (in worst case) pulling down any remains after a major fire, clearing the site, then going through the planning process and getting it rebuild to current standards.

Without knowing how much construction costs have risen in the US (both materials and labour) it's very likely the sum paid out in the case of the WTC would only realistically cover rebuilding.

It's also worth noting that with some insurance policies for industrial/commercial cover they not only cover the physical costs, but also loss of earnings etc due to the cause of the claim (so in the case of something like WTC where you've got a large office/commercial building with rent from companies using it, the insurance may cover the loss of rental income).



*Although probably not in real terms (remembering inflation)
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

This may help with what I am trying to say.

Edit=Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount of that coverage (~$7.1 billion)
ecause, he contended, the two separate airplane strikes constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies
 
Last edited:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

So he tried to get as much out of the insurance companies as he could. Big deal!.

It is estimated in this article that rebuilding would cost approx 7 billion dollars. Now this figure may not be accurate but, assuming it is even a reasonable ballpark figure, it seems likely he would have at best broke even. In reality, he is potentially worse off.

Edit: Also, any theory suggesting possible premeditated foul play is on shaky ground when you consider he initially tried to insure it for much less.
 
Last edited:
Spyderpig said:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

So he tried to get as much out of the insurance companies as he could. Big deal!.

It is estimated in this article that rebuilding would cost approx 7 billion dollars. Now this figure may not be accurate but, assuming it is even a reasonable ballpark figure, it seems likely he would have at best broke even. In reality, he is potentially worse off.

Edit: Also, any theory suggesting possible premeditated foul play is on shaky ground when you consider he initially tried to insure it for much less.
Click to expand...

That is dated 09.11.03, 11:00 AM ET the 2004-2006 Port agreements are the ones to look at.
 
deuse said:
Stop trolling please :)
Click to expand...

it's not trolling it's a reasonable question. how is insurance that is written into the contract since it was built. evidence supporting a conspiracy?

Oh and can you point me to the evidence of the time line. Showing he said pull it after the evacuation and immediately before it fell.
 
Last edited:
deuse said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

This may help with what I am trying to say.

Edit=Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount of that coverage (~$7.1 billion)
ecause, he contended, the two separate airplane strikes constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies
Click to expand...

So he loses two hugely valuable buildings and wants to get as much money back as possible...

oh the conspiracy :rolleyes:

I would be trying my most to get every bleeding penny!
 
I think they blew it up because they knew there was a credit crunch coming and they wanted not only to raise extra funds from the insurance/put options/ post 911 tourist operations and merchandising but also create extra employment over a long period of time by rebuilding.

Very very cunning people these terrorists/governments/bankers/stock brokers. Never can tell where the next conspiracy is going to come from. You never know, they might figure out how to but animal products into jelly!!!! OH NOES!!!
 
AcidHell2 said:
it's not trolling it's a reasonable question. how is insurance that is written into the contract since it was built. evidence supporting a conspiracy?

Oh and can you point me to the evidence of the time line. Showing he said pull it after the evacuation and immediately before it fell.
Click to expand...


I was talking to Evangelion ..
 
deuse said:
READ THE THREAD... :)
Click to expand...

It's already a long thread, which I've read most of and I've just about had my fill of hairbrained conspiracy theories. If you have some actual evidence, could you please just post a link, even if it's a repost? I'm rather reluctant to go out of my way to find evidence to support your case.

I'm fully aware that there is probably some stuff the official explainations do not sufficiently cover. That said, I have not seen anything so far that cannot most likely be explained by lack of evidence (one way or the other), human incompetence, greed (profiteering from the tragedy), etc.

So maybe the guy did try to claim as much as possible on the insurance. Maybe he did argue with the port authority for a better deal, extra funding or some such. So what? Unless it provides some evidence of premeditation, I really don't see the relevance.
 
Spyderpig said:
It's already a long thread, which I've read most of and I've just about had my fill of hairbrained conspiracy theories. If you have some actual evidence, could you please just post a link, even if it's a repost? I'm rather reluctant to go out of my way to find evidence to support your case.

I'm fully aware that there is probably some stuff the official explainations do not sufficiently cover. That said, I have not seen anything so far that cannot most likely be explained by lack of evidence (one way or the other), human incompetence, greed (profiteering from the tragedy), etc.

So maybe the guy did try to claim as much as possible on the insurance. Maybe he did argue with the port authority for a better deal, extra funding or some such. So what? Unless it provides some evidence of premeditation, I really don't see the relevance.
Click to expand...


As I say this is just one theard about this,there are more and I would(like most have)
read them and click on the links, study,cross reff it all.
 
Lightnix said:
Ah, in that case it was entirely justified. I'd hate for us to run out of woolly socks. :(

I have a different conspiracy theory: Conspiracy theorists blew up the twin towers so that they would have something to talk about.
Click to expand...

and they DO have loads to talk about now.

Proof enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom