|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Dec 8, 2010 7:17:43 GMT -5
So, against my better judgment I went over to Topix to see what the nut jobs were jabbering about over there. I was going over the thread Three sought in Civil War Chapel arson. The conversation was going fast and furious, mostly because of the constant ramblings of Bill Kearny and Libby the Loon, and then someone brought up Susan's Facebook post trying to link the fire to the chapel's casino position. They NCG posters vanished from the conversation immediately. The few that remained refused to make any comment on SSP's post. I think she has finally crossed a line that even her most fervent followers will not even go near.
|
|
|
Post by orrtannaoracle on Dec 8, 2010 9:49:49 GMT -5
I hope that the alleged arsonists turn out to be three idiot teenage stoners who thought it would be "amusing" to burn the place down. I sincerely hope it was not a volunteer fireman; there's a sad positive correlation in that regard. And if the jackasses did it because of their stance on the casino (either side of the question), that's just sick. I'm putting my nickel on #1. If so, they better find a g-d good defense attorney.
|
|
dspitz17325
Need to Get a Life!
I came to chew bubblegum and kick some ass and i am all out of bubblegum .
Posts: 543
|
Post by dspitz17325 on Dec 8, 2010 10:09:21 GMT -5
I think we will find out it's the people who built it , and here's why they insured an illegal building it would be cheaper to rebuild it to code than to make the old one to code along with all the fines and court cost .Humans can and always will be capable of the most vile and despicable things .
|
|
|
Post by gburgbaseballmom on Dec 8, 2010 10:22:37 GMT -5
I think we will find out it's the people who built it , and here's why they insured an illegal building it would be cheaper to rebuild it to code than to make the old one to code along with all the fines and court cost .Humans can and always will be capable of the most vile and despicable things . I tend to think along the same lines as this but have not said so until now because there is no proof. Mr Wega sure seems to have been lucky with this fire. Insurance to rebuild not to mention all the money collected from the Save the Chapel drive. Seems if he rebuilds he will have little to no out of pocket costs to bring his building up to code now. On top of his comment on news 8 last night that the "outcry" over this issue has been suprising low in his estimation.
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Dec 8, 2010 10:54:11 GMT -5
It has been a while since I have taken or taught an arson class, but as I recall there are about six primary motives for arson.
As I recall they are Vandalism, Crime Concealment, Extremist (political, social, or religious causes), Profit, Excitement, and Revenge.
If we look at this list of motives, we can probably open the phone book and put one of these possible motives to about 50 percent of the people in the book if we stretch things or look hard enough.
I am sure those investigating this incident are looking at all of these motives and will consider them all, and at least look at everyone and anyone who gets their attention. I’m just very happy I have a good alibi for the time of the incident. At least I think I do.
|
|
|
Post by orrtannaoracle on Dec 8, 2010 11:21:13 GMT -5
? for FMB. Isn't it true that if arson is proven against the owner of a property no insurance claim will be paid? I don't think insurance companies are in the habit of rewarding their clients found guilty of arson. Additionally, the value of what was there and insured may not come close to the cost of building a UCC-compliant structure to replace the chapel. Didn't Wega say the original only cost about $10K?
|
|
|
Post by weekender on Dec 8, 2010 13:11:34 GMT -5
I will take this one further. I find it hard to believe that any insurance company would write a policy for a building that was knowingly not up to code. It is easy to understand how the insurance company would not know and would issue the policy (I am sure the owner would not offer up the info). I would think that when they (policy holders) file the claim and the insurance company in their investiagtion of the incident discovers the facts (not a legal structure) that they would fight paying it with the argument that it was not up to code and the policy holders knew it.
I have no idea if that is how it works, but it seems logical to me...
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Dec 8, 2010 14:23:05 GMT -5
? for FMB. Isn't it true that if arson is proven against the owner of a property no insurance claim will be paid? I don't think insurance companies are in the habit of rewarding their clients found guilty of arson. Additionally, the value of what was there and insured may not come close to the cost of building a UCC-compliant structure to replace the chapel. Didn't Wega say the original only cost about $10K? Not being an insurance agent or an attorney I don’t feel I am qualified to respond to this. But my speculation and understanding, but once again not an official or legally binding statement, I don’t believe that the insurance company will pay the owner of a property if they were involved in the arson. As you said it just doesn’t make sense to reward someone for destroying their own property, And there are, as I understand other possible crimes that could be involved such as insurance fraud that COULD come into play. Just as I know most life insurance policies will not pay for suicide. As for the value, again that is an insurance call. I do know some contents can at times be over insured because of the replacement cost, but I don’t know if that is an insurance standard and have no idea if that can be applied to a structure. Those would be questions for an attorney and/or insurance agent
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 8, 2010 17:42:53 GMT -5
Some Members are close to touching the third rail!
I'm sure that this is all speculation, and opinion - not accusation. I'd also bet that the owner of a building would often be a suspect whenever it is torched. It's just a logical first step in an investigation - albeit not a comfortable first step.
Who knows what the motives for the arsonist were!? In some twisted sense, maybe the teens thought that Wega's problems would be gone if the chapel were destroyed - and they would actually be helping him? Maybe they are just idiots with nothing better to do at 3:30 in the morning? Maybe there just happened to be 3 kids out and about at 3:30am - wrong area, wrong time.
Maybe they're just red herrings?
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 8, 2010 17:49:37 GMT -5
Hell, maybe they even SAW something???
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Dec 8, 2010 17:50:05 GMT -5
Some Members are close to touching the third rail! I'm sure that this is all speculation, and opinion - not accusation. I'd also bet that the owner of a building would often be a suspect whenever it is torched. It's just a logical first step in an investigation - albeit not a comfortable first step. Who knows what the motives for the arsonist were!? In some twisted sense, maybe the teens thought that Wega's problems would be gone if the chapel were destroyed - and they would actually be helping him? Maybe they are just idiots with nothing better to do at 3:30 in the morning? Maybe there just happened to be 3 kids out and about at 3:30am - wrong area, wrong time. Maybe they're just red herrings?Yes I am not accusing anyone, and I am sure the owner has been questioned and probably many more will be before the investigation is over. As I said before so many motives for arson, and I am sure that one or more more COULD apply to a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by gburgbaseballmom on Dec 8, 2010 19:56:11 GMT -5
I hesitated to even post my speculations. And that is ALL they were. There is no proof that Mr Wega was involved in this in any way shape or form.
|
|
HoneyBadger
Poster Child
HoneyBadger don't give a shit.
Posts: 373
|
Post by HoneyBadger on Dec 8, 2010 20:24:40 GMT -5
I like to touch the third rail. It's the most excitement I ever have.
|
|
dspitz17325
Need to Get a Life!
I came to chew bubblegum and kick some ass and i am all out of bubblegum .
Posts: 543
|
Post by dspitz17325 on Dec 8, 2010 22:10:39 GMT -5
I think we will find out it's the people who built it , and here's why they insured an illegal building it would be cheaper to rebuild it to code than to make the old one to code along with all the fines and court cost .Humans can and always will be capable of the most vile and despicable things . Everything in this comment is purely conjecture and speculation and there is no proof in my comments because only one man knows what evil lurks in the heart of men and that is The Shadow , not i but i do enjoy venting .
|
|
|
Post by Mr Blonde on Dec 9, 2010 0:37:57 GMT -5
I will take this one further. I find it hard to believe that any insurance company would write a policy for a building that was knowingly not up to code. It is easy to understand how the insurance company would not know and would issue the policy (I am sure the owner would not offer up the info). I would think that when they (policy holders) file the claim and the insurance company in their investiagtion of the incident discovers the facts (not a legal structure) that they would fight paying it with the argument that it was not up to code and the policy holders knew it. I have no idea if that is how it works, but it seems logical to me... That makes sense, but there's one big problem here. The boro allowed this structure to be built and used for years before they decided to take action against it. This all comes back to what Venter said, the Gettysburg Boro could be in some serious shit because of this fire.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Blonde on Dec 9, 2010 0:39:52 GMT -5
Some Members are close to touching the third rail! I'm sure that this is all speculation, and opinion - not accusation. I'd also bet that the owner of a building would often be a suspect whenever it is torched. It's just a logical first step in an investigation - albeit not a comfortable first step. Who knows what the motives for the arsonist were!? In some twisted sense, maybe the teens thought that Wega's problems would be gone if the chapel were destroyed - and they would actually be helping him? Maybe they are just idiots with nothing better to do at 3:30 in the morning? Maybe there just happened to be 3 kids out and about at 3:30am - wrong area, wrong time. Maybe they're just red herrings?I'll take C for $1,000
|
|
|
Post by weekender on Dec 9, 2010 8:10:32 GMT -5
That makes sense, but there's one big problem here. The boro allowed this structure to be built and used for years before they decided to take action against it. This all comes back to what Venter said, the Gettysburg Boro could be in some serious shit because of this fire. Actually, I would say that the Mission is in big trouble... It is my understanding that THEY own the land... That means that they let it be built without permits (or occupancy permits) and remain there. If I were Ragged Edge or the guy who was trying to sell that house (again...) my lawyers would have been banging on the Mission's door the morning after the fire. They must have a serious liability insurance plan and God knows that Chapel has turned out to be a serious liability! I would think that the Boro is covered because they acted on the knowledge (however recently...) before the place burned. Did the Wega people have some sort of court order stating it could stay until things were sorted out? That is the only way that I would think that the boro would be implicated in this... What a tangled web!
|
|
|
Post by orrtannaoracle on Dec 9, 2010 8:39:40 GMT -5
Interesting thought re ARM's possible liability. When we purchased our home, the insurance agent did an on-site inspection and measurement of the building. I wonder what was done for the chapel. Why would an agent insure a temporary building on a continuing basis? I've seen at least one article that claimed Wega purchased the lot, others say it still belongs to ARM. Anyone know for sure? That GIS link someone provided sure seems to show that the lot runs (undivided) back to the alley which means it's ARM's. If ARM owns the lot, weekender's points about the lack of permits are dead-on.
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Dec 12, 2010 15:22:41 GMT -5
They are completely off their chain now....
Nuts.
|
|
|
Post by historyaddict on Dec 12, 2010 15:43:50 GMT -5
I must say - I've never come across a group of people more in need of serious psychological help than the nutbirds of NCG. They're completely off the charts. Stephen King would be hard-pressed to come up with characters more frightening than NCGers.
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Dec 12, 2010 16:05:43 GMT -5
They are completely off their chain now.... As much as I hate to say Charles McElhose is the only one displaying any common since in this idea, but with all the other stuff they come up with, I wonder just what he may know. All flakes and once again giving the impression that they have never done or said anything that was controversial or could ever be considered inflammatory. Nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Dec 12, 2010 16:28:25 GMT -5
I wanted to make sure Charles' comment got posted here as well. First, because unlike NCG I have no interest in trying to only present part of the story to make my point. Second, because his single post surrounded by all the insanity of NCG really drives home that any voice of reason among NCGers is a lone voice in the wilderness of their collective delusional state of mind
|
|
HoneyBadger
Poster Child
HoneyBadger don't give a shit.
Posts: 373
|
Post by HoneyBadger on Dec 13, 2010 7:51:22 GMT -5
Is Violet perhaps referring to a "king pin" rather than a "king pen" in her statement?
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 13, 2010 17:37:46 GMT -5
Is Violet perhaps referring to a "king pin" rather than a "king pen" in her statement? King Pin, King Pen, Pig Pen... you can see how she could get it mixed up And SHE'S a PROFESSOR!
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Dec 14, 2010 7:27:17 GMT -5
Excuse me, but is Ms Clark accusing someone of lying, and under oath? Didn’t she tell everyone how the casino has ruined Vicksburg only to be proven wrong, first by a letter from the Mayor, and then by the Mayor in person?
And what about her famous drive that placed Pickett’s Charge at the intersection of Confederate Ave. and the Emmitsburg Road.
And did she claim someone tried to get her fired?
|
|