Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   One of the WTC towers wasn't insured; est. coverage for WTC just $1.5 billion   (cnn.com) divider line 40
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

4573 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2001 at 4:52 PM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2001-09-13 04:53:43 PM  
Well they weren't exactly expecting it to collapse...
 
2001-09-13 04:56:17 PM  
a shout out to funkychuck for spotting this first.
 
2001-09-13 04:58:19 PM  
The attempt in '93 should have been a warning.
 
2001-09-13 04:59:40 PM  
you'd think they would get full coverage after someone tried
to level a tower with a car bomb in '93.
 
2001-09-13 05:00:23 PM  
uh..oops
 
2001-09-13 05:03:08 PM  
I read in the Wall Street Journal that the insurance industry was saying that liability to the industry could be as high as in the $20-30 billion range. However the article also pointed out (sort of contradicting itself) that many of the policies do not cover terrorist acts which the insurance companies added to the policies after the '93 attack. So in essence the liability will probably be mostly covered by the Federal Government (since based on the Canadian letter that has been circulating the internet, we probably can't count on any foreign aid).
 
2001-09-13 05:05:53 PM  
really, in the face of this tragedy, insurance for the buildings doesn't seem to be very relevant. I imagine that if the buildings are going to be rebuilt, there will be plenty of money available either from the government, or from donations. Although after the WTC bombings, you would think that they'd have gotten insurance immediately...
 
2001-09-13 05:06:20 PM  
Personally, I can't even imagine the amount of money involved in all this, I barley pay my bills on my 250 dollar a week pay...

30 billion? wtf...
 
2001-09-13 05:09:32 PM  
Im sorry...but this can't be true. Hell, you need to have insurance to hang even a picture in any office building.

The World Trade Center is a complex, not a "building". The complex is insured.
 
2001-09-13 05:14:19 PM  
Good point Scatpack... there are SEVEN buildings in the complex
 
2001-09-13 05:14:56 PM  
did anyone get the pictures from the previous link? why was it taken down? does anyone know of mirror sites? these pictures were the ones of the inside of the WTC and outside as the buidlings fell.
 
2001-09-13 05:15:21 PM  
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Scatpack, the building insurance expert.
 
2001-09-13 05:15:57 PM  
I'm sure after the '93 bombing the rates went up pretty high.
 
2001-09-13 05:16:37 PM  
http://66.34.112.52/toys/wtc/default5.asp

that is the site that has the pictures.
 
2001-09-13 05:21:34 PM  
so





who pays?
 
2001-09-13 05:21:36 PM  
still can't get there... any other mirror links?
 
2001-09-13 05:40:56 PM  
SoyrentGreen: ROR

Pbsaurus: I hear that they weren't insured for Japanese monster attacks either. Buwahahahahahahaha
 
2001-09-13 05:47:30 PM  
I agree with Kristyn - I simply don't get all that upset over this. It's just money. If at all possible, I say use a small portion of it to build a memorial so we NEVER forget we are vulnerable to this type of attack, and use the majority to help the survivors and the families of the dead. Who gives a $hit about buildings?
 
Mex
2001-09-13 05:59:17 PM  
Do you think they will rebuild the towers there or are they going to make like a park and a memorial?
 
2001-09-13 06:02:03 PM  
Best thing they could use as a memorial, is the gold globe that was originally in the middle of the center.
 
2001-09-13 06:02:52 PM  
That would bring a tear to anyone's eye...unless they don't have eyes.
 
2001-09-13 06:02:55 PM  
Soylent,
Like a good neighbor...Scatpack is there. ;-P
 
2001-09-13 06:06:14 PM  
Who pays? Lloyds for the first $1.5B, after that, nobody. Who knows, the loss might drive the holding company to bankruptcy.
 
2001-09-13 06:31:34 PM  
Not that I'm against a memorial, but as farking if we need one to remember Tuesday, Bonobo62. Come on. You think this is going to be a day that fades in people's memories. Give me a farking break. This is the single most high scale attack on the US as a country since we became a nation. NO ONE IS GOING TO FORGET THAT!
 
2001-09-13 06:45:32 PM  

Afghan people are not against the western world...
USA should get rid of Taliban and Osama. Pakistan has a big hand....the farking bastards have relgious schools where they train arabs and pakistani then send them to afghanistan.

afghan people have nothing left ...no factories, no electircity, no food, no water, no shelter, no FREEDOM...all because of farking RUSSIA and farking ARABS...

they have destoryed our culture, our name, and our reputation.

Fark them all....u can nuke afghanistan, because all is left are begging widowed women, and children....

if u want to end terrorism, fark Pakistan, and get rid of Taliban..

peace

AFGHAN_ANTI_TALIBAN
 
2001-09-13 07:12:42 PM  
Intresting, that hurricane Andrew picture is from Marco Island Fl. Not hit to bad during Andrew but spooky to have been there just the same.
 
2001-09-13 07:19:16 PM  
So... which one was insured?

Dat one, or dat one? You got one a them serial numbers over there?
 
2001-09-13 08:09:59 PM  
At the risk of SoylentGreen calling me names and making fun of me...

Don't buy it, people. A piece of property like that not insured? I guarantee that even after twenty years it is still not fully paid for. Does a major bank hold the note? Would they self insure? I won't pretend to know much about insuring a $5 billion piece of property, but I can't believe their reasoning was "surely they won't BOTH collapse". Hell, I would think if something brought one of them down, it would get them both.

I know that sounds like a bad point now, but so does this discussion.
 
2001-09-13 08:17:37 PM  
I would just like to point out to anti_taliban, that while the Soviets occupied Afganistan, American funneled weapons and money to the Tabilan. And now they have gotted bitten in the ass, they say it was unpredictable.
 
2001-09-13 08:47:32 PM  
Im gonna cancel the car insurance on my other car cause "I can't crash 'em both!" ;-)
 
2001-09-13 09:24:06 PM  
scatpack? I didn't know it comes in packs!!! My exneighbor is a farkin choad smoker, maybe I'll tell him that he can buy it in packs now.
 
2001-09-13 09:25:10 PM  
side note, since this seems to be a bit slow here.
That chick doing msnbc during the day is hot
 
2001-09-13 09:32:57 PM  
Here's one excerpt from Fox News on the subject:

The property losses for the World Trade Center towers are likely to be covered under U.S. insurance polices, which do not usually mention coverage for terrorist acts explicitly, Hartwig told Reuters. Insurers paid out $510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

``It's unclear what the insurance arrangements are,'' Hartwig said, but U.S. insurance policies do cover damage from fire, explosions and smoke. However, some firms may have terrorist exclusions, Hartwig said, in light of increased attacks on U.S. property over the past few years.

Unless insurers have such explicit exclusions, they will have to pay out claims, which are likely to hit many firms worldwide.

The full article can be viewed here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34211,00.html
 
2001-09-13 11:18:59 PM  
I'm afraid of what the reaction would be if a Muslim temple(or whatever they call their places of worship) was built there........
 
2001-09-13 11:22:09 PM  
Or perhaps a Sbarro's.....
 
2001-09-14 01:48:38 AM  
Maybe they hoped that whatever was going to damage the insured tower would be absorbed before it hit the second one...
 
2001-09-14 02:18:47 AM  
Man, to tell you the truth, I could honestly care less about the money aspect of this tragity right now..
 
2001-09-14 05:52:14 AM  
Actually, from what I understand (I have a source on the inside), the complex is covered in case of acts of terrorism, but is not covered against acts of war. The insurers must love it when the Pres. and Bob Barr are calling it an act of war..
 
2001-09-14 10:40:15 AM  
Looks like the CIA inadvertantly paid for this : SCARY!

"Experts said that besides bin Laden -- who honed his guerrilla skills against Soviet troops in the 1980s commanding Arab fighters funded by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency -- few have the cash or expertise to mount such attacks."

Look in your own backyard America!
 
2001-09-14 10:44:12 AM  
excuse my ignorance... who owns the WTC then?
is it just the american government?

I'm english, i don't know this stuff
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report