Die Anschläge vom 11.9.2001 und 20 Jahre danach!

[Gottfried]

Ein recht gutes ebook zum WTC7 ist dieses: "WTC7 Lies" (Widerlegung von Lügen bezüglich der VTs zum WTC 7).
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

Überzeugt mich alles nicht so wirklich. Der hat ja z. B. auch über 7 Milliarden Dollar von Versicherungen bekommen. Ein paar Monate vor dem Anschlag, hatte er noch einen Pachtvertrag für 99 Jahre abgeschlossen in Höhe von 3,5 Mrd. Dollar. Hört sich nach einem unschlagbaren Deal an, oder?

[Marathon]

Da sind wir wieder da, wo keiner mehr hin wollte, beim Urschleim wie vor 10 Jahren.

Beschwer' dich bei Jürgen Meyer.

Macht euch nichts vor, die ganze Sache stinkt zum Himmel.

Warum genau?
Bitte mehr Details und mit Beleg.

[Klopperhorst]

Der Eigentümer von WTC 7 hat aber im Fernsehen zugegeben, dass zumindest dieses Gebäude willentlich abgerissen/ gesprengt wurde....

Warum sollte das Ding gesprengt werden, wenn man doch schon die eindrucksvollen 2 Türme kollabieren hat lassen?
Wozu dann noch Nebenschauplätze sprengen?

---

[Illuminati]

- Aufgrund des nicht reagierten Anteils des Thermits rechnet man anhand der Angaben im Aufsatz von Niels Harrit zurück auf die Gesamtmasse des Thermits vor der Reaktion.
Es kommt heraus, dass diese Gesamtmasse viel zu groß ist.]

Blödsinn, nur weil du es dir nicht vorstellen kannst und nicht weißt wie man soviel Nano-Thermit reinschmuggeln kann, heißt es noch nicht, dass es nicht möglich wäre. Übrigens kamen jeden Morgen zig Trucks in der untersten Ebene mit Warengütern an. An der unvorschtellbaren Logistik solls nicht scheitern.

- Anhand des angegebenen Energiegehalts berechnet man die nötige Thermitdicke, um den Stahlträger zu durchtrennen. Diese Dicke wäre zu groß.

Harris und Jones haben nie mit 100%-er Sicherheit behauptet wie das Nano-Thermit angewendet worden war, nur, dass dieser Stoff mit Sicherheit nicht zufälligerweise enstanden ist.

- Man kann auch die Untersuchungsmethoden kritisieren, da die XED-Methode für einen Nachweis nicht geeignet ist.

Kann man, nützt einem sowieso nichts.

[Gottfried]

"Pull it" kann auch "aufgeben" oder "Scheiß drauf" bedeuten.
Das ist Slang.

Und warum sollte der Feuerwehrmann darauf eingehen? Ist dieser Silverstein in seiner Freizeit auch ein freiwilliger Feuerwehrmann, oder was?

[Gottfried]

Warum sollte das Ding gesprengt werden, wenn man doch schon die eindrucksvollen 2 Türme kollabieren hat lassen?
Wozu dann noch Nebenschauplätze sprengen?

---

Weils da einfach mehr Geld von der Versicherung gibt. Der Typ hat 3,5 Mrd. in den Komplex investiert, und durch den Anschlag 7 Mrd. rausbekommen.

[Chronos]

Das solltest eher Du Dich fragen. Vor allem, in welcher Zeit Du lebst. Die mit Pferden, Kamelen und Krummsäbeln erfolgte moslemische Expansion liegt schon ein paar Jahrhunderte zurück. Die Schlacht bei Poitiers, in der Karl Martell die Araber besiegte, war Anno 732.

Mit Verlaub, Euer Ehren,

so ganz en passant hast Du ein paar ebenfalls einschneidende, vielleicht noch wichtigere Ereignisse der jahrhundertelangen europäischen Islam-Abwehr unterschlagen:

- Seeschlacht bei Lepanto
- Einnahme von Byzanz durch Seldschuken bzw. Osmanen
- Einnahme durch die Osmanen Zypern
- 2 x Wien-Belagerung durch Türken
usw.

Dank vieler - für die Europäer günstigen - Zufälle, besserer Kämpfer und teilweise besserer Strategien gingen alle diese Konflikte für uns glimpflich aus, sonst würden wir heute vielleicht auch fünfmal täglich mit der Stirn auf den Boden klatschen.

[Marathon]

Überzeugt mich alles nicht so wirklich. Der hat ja z. B. auch über 7 Milliarden Dollar von Versicherungen bekommen. Ein paar Monate vor dem Anschlag, hatte er noch einen Pachtvertrag für 99 Jahre abgeschlossen in Höhe von 3,5 Mrd. Dollar. Hört sich nach einem unschlagbaren Deal an, oder?

Es waren keine 7 Milliarden Dollar und er bekam das Geld auch nicht geschenkt, sondern mit der Auflage des Neubaus.
Einer meiner Textbausteine zum Detail Versicherung und Silverstein hat 384 Zeilen. Das ist etwas viel für dieses Forum.


The insurance companies involved in the case were:
1. Travelers Indemnity Co.
2. Industrial Risk Insurers
3. Royal Indemnity Co.
4. Allianz Insurance Co.
5. Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co.
6. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.
7. Tig Insurance Co.
8. Westfield WTC LLC
9. Zurich American Insurance Co.

Diese 9 Versicherer müssen die doppelte Schadenssumme bezahlen.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

Diese 9 Versicherer haften insgesamt für 1,1 Milliarden Dollar.
Diese Summe ist in den 3,55 Milliarden Gesamthaftung enthalten.
Die 9 Versicherer müssen jetzt die 1,1 Milliarden Dollar zwei mal bezahlen, da diese 9 Versicherer ein anderes Formular (nämlich das "Travelers Form" der Travelers Indemnity Co.) bzw Vertrag ausgefüllt hatten als 12 andere Versicherer.
Diese 9 Versicherer zahlen also 2,2 Milliarden Dollar.
Insgesamt hat damit Silverstein ein Recht auf 3,55 + 1,1 Milliarden Dollar = 4,6 Milliarden Dollar.

Diese 9 Versicherer müssen 2 mal bezahlen, weil in dem Traveler Formular der Ausdruck "per occurrence" steht, in dem Formular der anderen Versicherer aber nicht.

Einige der anderen Versicherer, die nur einmal bezahlen müssen:
Chubb Corp.
Swiss Reinsurance Co.
Lloyd's of London
Allianz AG ?
ACE Ltd.
XL Capital Ltd.



Swiss Reinsurance Co. (ca 22 Prozent = 780 Millionen Dollar)
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
SR International Business Insurance Co. Ltd. (Swiss Re)
778 Million Dollar

The defendants then included Swiss Re, which is liable for a single payout of up to $880m. A third trial with a different jury might be held to determine how much Swiss Re will pay.
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

Allianz AG (533 Millionen Dollar ?)
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

Lloyd's of London (684 Millionen Dollar)
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]



Um dieses Travelers Form entbrannte nachträglich auch ein heftiger Streit, weil nämlich zu diesem Formular gewechselt wurde, obwohl ein großer Teil der Verhandlungen sich auf das vorherige Formular bezog, wobei einige Versicherer aber das Kleingedruckte nicht so recht bedachten ("per occurrence").
Man verhandelt also ausgiebig auf Grundlage eines anscheinend "sauberen" Formulars und als sich fast alle einige sind, da wechselt man plötzlich zu einem anderen Formmular und fällt sechs Wochen später voll auf die Schnauze, weil man wegen des Zettels 1,1 Milliarden Dollar zusätzlich blechen muss.

-----

Versicherungs-Dokument : "travelers form"

Travelers Indemnity Company ("Travelers")

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Silverstein had built Seven World Trade Center in 1987 on property leased from the Port Authority, but the six-building World Trade Center complex remained under public control until Silverstein and Lowy obtained the 99-year lease on July 26, 2001.
...
Slightly more than a year after the attack, The New York Times reported that developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre were close to recieving about $98 million from their down payment of $124 million toward the 99-year lease of the World Trade Center. Under the arrangment Silverstein would retain control over rebuilding office space at the site. 1
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

Lender GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation accused Silverstein of misallocating insurance awarded him for the 9/11/01 attack. In a complaint filed on Jan. 14, 2002 in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan the lender maintains Silverstein used some of the insurance money to pay lobbyists in Washington and Albany to limit his liability to the victims.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Swiss Re, like the rest of the 21 insurance companies battling Silverstein

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

1. WTC insurers needn't pay developer's lawyers-court

By Ed Leefeldt and Joan Gralla - NEW YORK, June 8 (Reuters) - A unit of Swiss insurer Zurich Financial Services (ZURN.VX: ) does not have to pay fees for World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein's lawyers, who are fending off some suits stemming from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the Twin Towers, a U.S. District Court judge ruled on Thursday.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York said that Zurich American and other insurance carriers -- with the exception of Royal Insurance Co. -- had refused to extend coverage for legal defense costs and had issued policies that specifically excluded those costs. Royal Insurance, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a unit of Britain's Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group Plc. (RSA.L: )

...

Though some 300 suits were initially filed against Silverstein and others who owned or leased the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks, many of the survivors accepted payments from a federal compensation fund. Steuber said this was one reason why they dropped suits against Silverstein.

...

The latest court battle is part of a long-running feud between Silverstein and his insurers. Silverstein warned in May that he might halt construction of the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site if insurers used an agreement between the developer and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as a reason to withhold payments.

The Port Authority, which owns the land, said in May that none of the insurers had said they were not going to pay.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

7.Dezember 2004:
The US District Court ruling means Larry Silverstein could now get an extra $1.1bn (£0.56bn) from nine insurers to finance reconstruction.

He has been fighting the insurance companies, arguing he was owed $7bn (£3.6bn) - double his $3.5bn policy.

The firms had argued at the District Court for the Southern District of New York that the twin strikes on the trade centre were part of a single, continuous, planned attack.

'Complete rebuild'

Mr Silverstein said in a statement that he was "thrilled" with his victory.

"The decision means an additional billion dollars of insurance proceeds will be available, which, together with Liberty Bonds, will ensure a timely and complete rebuild of the World Trade Center," he said.

"I strongly felt, and the jury agreed, that the destruction of the twin towers by two separate airplanes at two separate times was two separate occurrences and that these insurers have an obligation to pay their fair share to help make Lower Manhattan whole again."

He lost a similar case earlier this year against a dozen other firms. A different jury ruled policies from those firms had defined such an attack as a single event.

That insurance document tightly defined "occurrence" to make it clear that the 11 September attack in New York was one insurable event.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

A federal jury has decided that the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center was two occurrences for insurance purposes, meaning leaseholder Larry Silverstein stands to collect up to $4.6 billion.

The trial, which ended after 11 days of deliberations, was the first in which jurors were asked to decide whether the terrorist attack that killed 2,749 people could be considered two attacks since two planes hit two separate towers.

The verdict Monday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the latest twist in Silverstein's efforts to file separate claims for $7 billion, or two full payouts under the $3.5 billion worth of insurance coverage he took out on the trade center complex.

Silverstein lost a first trial on the issue earlier this year, but a separate jury said Monday that Silverstein is entitled to collect a double payout from nine insurers who accounted for $1.1 billion of the overall coverage.

In the earlier trial, the jury rejected Silverstein's contention that an insurance document defining the attack as one event did not bind some of the 24 insurance companies holding the bulk of the coverage.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Mr. Boyd e-mailed other Willis brokers on July 12, 2001-days before the program was completed July 17-telling them he "intended to use Travelers and accept form," noted Eric Roth, a lawyer with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York representing Silverstein.

Asked if that meant that he intended to use the Travelers form only for Travelers' own participations, Mr. Boyd replied, "The statement was to use the Travelers form as the program policy form."

Mr. Blackmore followed Mr. Boyd on the stand and was questioned over three days last week.

Acknowledging that he received Mr. Boyd's July 12 e-mail, Mr. Blackmore testified he did not tell London or European insurers-including Swiss Re-about the Travelers form before the program's July 17 completion and never told London underwriters of the form switch before the Sept. 11 attacks.

A Willis London office employee e-mailed portions of the Travelers form to Swiss Re on July 23, along with a revised binder that reflected changes a Swiss Re underwriter had sought in its original July 9 placement slip.

Mr. Blackmore also testified that he told Swiss Re underwriter Daniel Bollier between July 17 and July 23 that the program was being shifted to the Travelers form. Questioned by Mr. Ostrager, though, Mr. Blackmore conceded that he had made no notes of the conversation despite having taken detailed notes of other coverage concerns Mr. Bollier had raised earlier.

"You did not write down anywhere in any form that you had discussed with Mr. Bollier that the entire policy form was going to be switched to Travelers?" Mr. Ostrager asked.

"I didn't, but we sent him (the July 23) e-mail with the Travelers form. That is memorialization," Mr. Blackmore replied.

He acknowledged, though, that the e-mail itself-apart from attaching the Travelers form-says nothing about switching forms for the program.

Mr. Ostrager suggested that Willis sent the Travelers wording not because it wanted to shift from the Wilprop form but because Swiss Re wanted changes in the program's electronic data processing coverage and the Travelers form included language that could be adapted for the program.

Lawyers for Silverstein, though, noted that Willis' July 23 e-mail begins, "further to your telephone conversation with Paul Blackmore this morning," supporting Mr. Blackmore's claim that he told Mr. Bollier about the Travelers switch.

They also introduced an internal SCOR e-mail dated July 20 in which a SCOR underwriter discusses the placement and concludes, "Policy form will be Travelers and we will soon have a copy."



Silverstein, though, argues that the program was being shifted to the Travelers form and that the insurers either knew that or had waived approval of the policy form. The Travelers form, which contains no occurrence definition, would treat the loss as two events, entitling Silverstein to two $3.55 billion policy limits, the leaseholder maintains.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

In 2001, Larry Silverstein signed a lease for the World Trade Center, together with partner investors including Westfield America (shopping center developer), GMAC Commercial Mortgage (subsidary of General Motors), and Lloyd Goldman (private investor and former owner of the Chrysler Building).[3]

GMAC agreed to lend $833 million to Silverstein, which were to be financed through mortgage-backed securities that are often bought by pension plans and institutional investors. Westfield America borrowed $100 million from UBS Warburg, to help finance its share of the World Trade Center lease.[3]

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Ground zero was also a political minefield. Some relatives of 9/11 victims felt that any commercial development there would be sacrilege. But the governor couldn't let the site sit empty. The Port Authority, which he controls with New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, was counting on $120 million in annual lease payments from Silverstein. It was understood in Albany that the only way the developer could make those payments was to rebuild ten million square feet of office space--the same amount as the original trade center--at ground zero. If not, the Port Authority might have to raise the tolls at its bridges and tunnels in the city. That was unthinkable in an election year.

Pataki created the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, a government agency that would oversee the revitalization of downtown. Silverstein chafed under the LMDC's authority. He was going to be putting up the money to rebuild ground zero. Anyway, his lease was with the Port Authority, not with the LMDC. But state officials say that under the terms of his lease, he can build something other than a replica of the Twin Towers only if he gets the Port Authority's consent. What's more, the Port Authority has the right to cancel Silverstein's lease. If it does, however, there is no way he will be able to win enough money from his insurers to cover the cost of ground zero's redevelopment. Under his contract he is entitled to the full sum only if he rebuilds. Pataki and Silverstein, then, were locked in an uneasy partnership.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

While Swiss Re and other insurers are in federal court facing Silverstein Properties, the master lease holder of the World Trade Center, General Motors Acceptance Corp. has filed an action in State Court, seeking a share of the funds, around $150 million, which have been paid into a trust account by the insurers pending the outcome of the federal action.

GMAC loaned Silverstein Properties approximately $560 million to cover its initial payment for the acquisition of the master lease from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the WTC's owners.

It's seeking to have the funds paid to the Port Authority as rental payments, and to receive its share of principal and interest on the loan. Although Silverstein has made some payments to GMAC, it still wants a clarification of the amounts it's entitled to receive from the trust account, and has challenged Silverstein's claims against the fund for lobbying costs and management fees.

While Silverstein made no direct comment on GMAC's claims, it indicated that it understood the necessity of apportioning the payments among the respective claimants.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. today called on the Port Authority to explain what it has done with the more than $600 million in lease payments it has received for the World Trade Center and expressed concern that the Authority could be diverting the payments to fund other projects.

Thompson also noted that the City loses revenue in the form of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) as Ground Zero remains undeveloped. "The City of New York now collects $14 million annually, representing a fraction of the more than $100 million that would be owed to the City annually once the site is fully re-built and occupied."

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

5 Jahre mal 120 Millionen Dollar jährliche Pacht machen insgesamt 600 Millionen Dollar
von Silverstein an die Port Authority.

-----

Willis Group Holdings, die die Versicherungsverträge für das WTC vermittelt hat

Die Hafenbehörde von New York und New Jersey, der das WTC gehört, ist mit einer Gesamtsumme von 1,5 Mrd. Dollar pro Schadensfall gegen Sachschäden und Einnahmeausfälle versichert. Sie teilt Silversteins Ansicht, dass die Angriffe separate Ereignisse seien. "Nach unserer Ansicht gab es zwei Attacken", bestätigt Sprecher Dan Bledsoe. "Zwei Flugzeuge sind in zwei Türme eingeschlagen, und zwei Türme sind zusammengefallen."

Führungskräfte der Versicherungswirtschaft betonen, dass ein Versicherter nur äußerst selten zwei Schadensfälle mit einer Police abdecken kann. "Ich kann mich nicht erinnern, dass eine Versicherung jemals zwei verschiedene Schadensfälle über ein und dieselbe Police beglichen hat", sagt Loretta Worters, Sprecherin des Insurance Information Institute. "Mr. Silverstein denkt offenbar, dass er zweimal kassieren kann, weil es zwei Flugzeuge waren."

Silverstein hat nicht nur mehr als die Hälfte seines Immobilienbesitzes bei den Terroranschlägen verloren, sondern er muss auch mit Klagen von Angehörigen der etwa 5000 Toten und Vermissten rechnen. Erst vor drei Monaten hatte Silverstein den Mietvertrag für das WTC unterschrieben. Insgesamt muss er für das Gebäude in den nächsten 99 Jahren 3,2 Mrd. Dollar Pacht zahlen, aufgeteilt auf eine Anfangszahlung von 616 Mio. Dollar und jährliche Zahlungen von rund 115 Mio. Dollar an die Hafenbehörde. Das Eigentum an den Türmen verbleibt bei der Hafenbehörde.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Mr. Goldman, 47 years old, is the money behind the brash public face of Mr. Silverstein. When the two bid on the Twin Towers in 2001, it was Mr. Goldman's $80 million that led the $125 million initial payment. Mr. Silverstein put about $14 million in the deal. When the Port Authority awarded Mr. Silverstein's team the lease, he and Mr. Goldman established a 10-year agreement whereby Mr. Silverstein would operate the project through 2011.

Next year will be pivotal for Mr. Silverstein. In addition to needing to find tenants for 7 World Trade Center and secure the tax-exempt bonds, he plans to begin foundation work on the signature building on the site, the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower in April. He will also face an increase in the rent he has continued to pay to the Port Authority. The annual payment will rise to $138 million from $120 million a year next August and will further diminish the pool of insurance money he has to rebuild. At least $1.6 billion of the potential $4.6 billion already has been spent or allocated.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

It was the largest real estate deal in New York history when Silverstein and his partners paid the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey about $800 million in fees and down payments for a 99-year lease. They agreed to pay about $120 million in rent per year.

Of the $800 million investment, Silverstein put up about $14 million, Goldman and Cayre provided about $110 million, and about $127 million came from Westfield America, which operated the shopping mall at the trade center, the Times said. The GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. lent Silverstein $563 million.

Silverstein and the Port Authority have agreed to buy out Westfield America, the newspaper said. Silverstein will use insurance payments he has received to repay GMAC, which would then turn over $130 million in escrow and $98 million in reserve to Silverstein, the Times said.

The $130 million would be used for rebuilding and the $98 million would be returned to Silverstein and his investors, the Times said.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

The deal also dictates the amount of money the city would get each year from the Port Authority for the World Trade Center site instead of property taxes. Because the site is owned by a public authority, the city cannot collect property taxes; instead, it negotiates annual payments in their place. Under the terms of the deal, those payments would begin at $14 million a year and grow to $55 million annually when the site is fully developed.

That is more than the city used to get - in 2001 the city collected about $30 million in such payments, officials said - but less than the city would stand to collect if the site were privately held. City officials have estimated in the past that the site could generate as much as $100 million a year in property taxes if it were owned privately.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

October 16, 2003

New York City to Extend Lease on Airports

By MICHAEL COOPER
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

-----

Broker Willis Group Holdings Ltd. e-mailed the form to a Swiss Re underwriter on July 23, 2001, days before the underwriter signed a revised binder for Swiss Re's share of the $3.55 billion property program and several weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Silverstein has cited the e-mail as evidence that the program was shifted before the loss to a Travelers form from a Willis policy, known as Wilprop, that the broker originally submitted to insurers and that courts have ruled would treat the loss as a single event.

The Swiss Re underwriter, Daniel Bollier, denied ever being told of a form switch, though, and Swiss Re's lawyers pointed to the testimony of a London-based Willis executive, Paul Blackmore, that Mr. Bollier never expressly agreed to the Travelers form.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Es ist tatsächlich noch schlimmer, als ich zuerst dachte, denn die Verhandlungen bezogen sich immer nur auf das "saubere" Formular, dass dann nach langen Verhandlungen endlich akzeptiert wurde und am 24.Juli 2001 unterschrieben werden sollte und am 24.Juli 2001 wurde auch tatsächlich eine Mappe unterzeichnet, allerdings mit dem anderen teuren Formular.
Einen Tag vorher, am 23.Juli 2001 wurde dieses teure Formular per e-Mail an die Versicherer verschickt und Silverstein benutzte diese eMail in den Prozessen als Beweis dafür, dass die Versicherer der Formular-Switch bekannt war und akzeptiert wurde, wofür er ja zudem auch noch die Unterschrift unter der Mappe vorweisen konnte.
Die Versicherer waren so "einverstanden" mit Silverstein, dass sie ihn mit Prozessen überzogen.

-----

According to Rubenstein, the key points that should be noted about the lawsuit are as follows:

*Silverstein did not underinsure the WTC complex. Silverstein purchased coverage on the four WTC buildings in the amount of $3.5468 billion "per occurrence." This may well represent the largest amount of insurance coverage ever purchased on a multi-building real estate complex. By contrast, the Port Authority carried only $1.5 billion "per occurrence" on all of its properties (including the four WTC buildings) before leasing these buildings to Silverstein for 99 years.
Recovery of two policy limits would not be a "windfall" for Silverstein.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Die Hafenbehörde von New York und New Jersey, der das WTC gehört, ist mit einer Gesamtsumme von 1,5 Mrd. Dollar pro Schadensfall gegen Sachschäden und Einnahmeausfälle versichert.

Silverstein hat nicht nur mehr als die Hälfte seines Immobilienbesitzes bei den Terroranschlägen verloren, sondern er muss auch mit Klagen von Angehörigen der etwa 5000 Toten und Vermissten rechnen. Erst vor drei Monaten hatte Silverstein den Mietvertrag für das WTC unterschrieben. Insgesamt muss er für das Gebäude in den nächsten 99 Jahren 3,2 Mrd. Dollar Pacht zahlen, aufgeteilt auf eine Anfangszahlung von 616 Mio. Dollar und jährliche Zahlungen von rund 115 Mio. Dollar an die Hafenbehörde. Das Eigentum an den Türmen verbleibt bei der Hafenbehörde.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Under the summary judgment, Royal Indemnity Company, Hartford Financial Services Group and St. Paul Companies are responsible for $112 million of a single $3.5 billion reimbursement.
...
Making matters even more complicated, the insurers had only signed binder agreements pledging to provide coverage as the final documents hadn't yet been signed.
...
Herein lies the real dispute-Silverstein maintains that all of the WTC insurers were bound by a Travelers' insurance policy. The insurers, however, have asserted that they are bound by a more detailed document drafted by Willis Group Holdings. The Travelers' policy does not explicitly define "occurrence" while the Willis document covers all losses or damages "that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes." This wording--or lack thereof in the Travelers' policy--has become the thorny heart of the legal matter.
...
The ruling allows five of the original 22 insurers of the WTC to pay Silverstein for only one event. It's expected that a string of trials will be held to determine if the remaining 17 insurers owe double the amount.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

The appeal was based on whether three of the 24 insurance companies were bound by a form called "Wilprop" which contained a unique definition of the term "occurrence" that limited recovery to a single "occurrence."

The appeals court ruled that Hartford, a unit of Royal Indemnity and St. Paul, had each signed onto the "Wilprop" form and so was liable for one "single occurrence."

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

Silverstein lost a court decision last week against nine of 12 insurers of the old World Trade Center, which will only allow him to collect a maximum of about $4.7 billion, far less than the $7 billion he hoped to collect. The developer had sought payment for two occurrences, because two planes struck the towers.

A second trial determining the liabilities of several other insurers who have not yet settled is likely to begin this summer.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

The World Trade Center leaseholder has won a court victory over his insurers as he attempts to rebuild the site.
A New York jury has decided that the 11 September 2001 attack on the two towers constituted two separate events.
The US District Court ruling means Larry Silverstein could now get an extra $1.1bn (£0.56bn) from nine insurers to finance reconstruction.
He has been fighting the insurance companies, arguing he was owed $7bn (£3.6bn) - double his $3.5bn policy.
Mr Silverstein said in a statement that he was "thrilled" with his victory.
"The decision means an additional billion dollars of insurance proceeds will be available, which, together with Liberty Bonds, will ensure a timely and complete rebuild of the World Trade Center," he said.
"I strongly felt, and the jury agreed, that the destruction of the twin towers by two separate airplanes at two separate times was two separate occurrences and that these insurers have an obligation to pay their fair share to help make Lower Manhattan whole again." -BBC (12/07/04)

? "A federal jury has decided that the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center was two occurrences for insurance purposes, meaning leaseholder Larry Silverstein stands to collect up to $4.6 billion.
The trial, which ended after 11 days of deliberations, was the first in which jurors were asked to decide whether the terrorist attack that killed 2,749 people could be considered two attacks since two planes hit two separate towers.
The verdict Monday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the latest twist in Silverstein's efforts to file separate claims for $7 billion, or two full payouts under the $3.5 billion worth of insurance coverage he took out on the trade center complex.
Silverstein lost a first trial on the issue earlier this year, but a separate jury said Monday that Silverstein is entitled to collect a double payout from nine insurers who accounted for $1.1 billion of the overall coverage.
In a statement, Silverstein said he was thrilled with the verdict and cast it as a victory for all New Yorkers because it secures additional money to rebuild the trade center complex.
"I strongly felt, and the jury agreed, that the destruction of the twin towers by two separate airplanes at two separate times was two separate occurrences and that these insurers have an obligation to pay their fair share to help make Lower Manhattan whole again," he said.
The insurance companies involved in the case were: Travelers Indemnity Co., Industrial Risk Insurers, Royal Indemnity Co., Allianz Insurance Co., Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Tig Insurance Co., Westfield WTC LLC and Zurich American Insurance Co.
In her closing argument, lawyer Carolyn H. Williams argued on behalf of the companies that the hijacked planes were like guided missiles and that the insurance payout should not depend on whether terrorists used "one or two or 10 or 100 weapons."
On behalf of Silverstein, attorney Bernard Nussbaum said there was precedent in the insurance industry to find the terrorism was two events. A California case concluded that four separate insurance events occurred when an arsonist set four separate fires, including two six minutes apart in courthouses 200 yards apart." -Forbes/AP (12/07/04)

The insurance companies involved in the case were: Travelers Indemnity Co., Industrial Risk Insurers, Royal Indemnity Co., Allianz Insurance Co., Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Tig Insurance Co., Westfield WTC LLC and Zurich American Insurance Co.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

-----

[Die Petze]

Thermit zündet nicht bei 400 Grad Celsius.



Sie sind weder Lügner noch Schwindler, sondern sie wissen es einfach nur nicht besser.
Sie haben flüssiges Metall gesehen und nennen das dann Stahl, obwohl sie gar nicht wissen konnten, dass es wirklich Stahl war.
Metall ungleich Stahl.
Selbst ein Werkstoffprofessor könnte durch bloßes Hinschauen auf flüssiges Metall unmöglich nachweisen, dass es Stahl ist.
Für einen Feuerwehrmann ist Metall gleich Stahl, genauso wie auch für ein paar Schreiber hier Metall gleich Stahl ist.

Realität: Metall ungleich Stahl, denn es gibt Metalle, die kein Stahl sind.
Vielleicht kapiert man das mal endlich.
Hat man das kapiert, dann könnte einem dämmern, dass unterschiedliche Metalle auch unterschiedliche Schmelzpunkte haben.
Bei Autobränden zB kann man manchmal auch flüssiges Aluminium sehen.
Das ist flüssiges Metall, aber kein flüssiger Stahl.

Führe doch nochmal deine Menschenfetttheorie auf.....die ist so lustig......

[Klopperhorst]

Weils da einfach mehr Geld von der Versicherung gibt. Der Typ hat 3,5 Mrd. in den Komplex investiert, und durch den Anschlag 7 Mrd. rausbekommen.

Eine gezielte Sprengung in der Hektik der Anschläge zu machen, ist nicht möglich. Du kannst da nicht mal schnell einen Pfeiler anbohren und einen Chinaböller reinstecken. Davon kollabiert das nicht.
Ich denke, die Statik des Bodens war hier der Punkt.

Wahnsinn, was für Unsinn so zirkuliert.

---