If 911 was an inside job, why did insurers pay out?

Dohnjoe

There were tens of thousands of insurance claims arising from 9/11 costing the industry tens of billions, if 9/11 was an inside job, then why didn't one single insurance investigation spot this?

Why hasn't any insurer stepped forward since and said "hold on.."?

There were extensive investigations into how the buildings fell, none found that the collapses were the result of controlled demolitions, lasers, energy weapons, mini-nukes or any of that..

What's the alternative explanation for this, are all these insurance companies and their associated experts stupid?

The Question of Cost: Insured Losses from September 11
As of this writing (early August 2002), the “official” insured loss estimate issued by
the Insurance Services Office (ISO) stood at $20.3 billion. The figure was revised
upwards in June 2002 from the previous estimate of $16.6 billion. The figure is
comprised of 51,000 claims in total (49,000 of them in New York and 2,000 in
Virginia): 15,200 commercial claims (15,000 in New York, 200 in Virginia), 31,500
personal property claims (30,000 in New York, 1,500 in Virginia) and 4,300 auto
claims (4,000 in New York, 300 in Virginia).

https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/sept11paper.pdf

Larry Silverstein was involved with a years long legal battle with his insurers after the attacks. They seemed like they were fighting tooth and nail to not pay out.
The whole thing went to court several times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#Insurance_dispute

Conspiracy theorists allege that Larry Silverstein admitted culpability to the conspiracy on camera and broadcasted on national tv.

This would have been a boon to the insurance company as it would be clear evidence that he was engaging in insurance fraud on top of his other crimes.

Yet at no point did the insurance company ever draw attention to this alleged admission for some reason...

double jobbing

King Mob wrote: »

Larry Silverstein was involved with a years long legal battle with his insurers after the attacks. They seemed like they were fighting tooth and nail to not pay out.
The whole thing went to court several times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#Insurance_dispute

Conspiracy theorists allege that Larry Silverstein admitted culpability to the conspiracy on camera and broadcasted on national tv.

This would have been a boon to the insurance company as it would be clear evidence that he was engaging in insurance fraud on top of his other crimes.

Yet at no point did the insurance company ever draw attention to this alleged admission for some reason...

Not to mention motive.

In 2001 Silverstein was a 70 year old billionaire. He was already

a- fantastically wealthy

b- at an age of physical decline where one's potential death can be any time in the next few minutes to weeks away.

It's very late in life to involve yourself in such a nefarious scheme that if found out would have you ending your days in a prison cell/ electric chair.

Cheerful Spring2

A local transport contractor has come forward detailing new information about work activity in the Twin Towers two weeks before the attack. He came across many men inside the towers wearing blue jumpsuits using jackhammers and heavy equipment to drill and dust was everywhere. He saw wiring being installed. The floors was emptied out for this shutdown.

He was contracted to remove network computers from floors inside the Towers because they planned to power down the buildings. And he heard the heavy noise and went to have a look "what the hell was going on there" and came across a number of men doing work.

He says later after doing enquiries s and ringing up friends in companies, he was told, there were former Israeli paratroopers doing internal work inside the building. Some story this.

https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/pre-911-activity-at-the-twin-towers

Man with broke phone

Because they were in on it.

Effects

It was the insurance companies that planned the whole thing. I thought that was already widely known?

Cheerful Spring2

Man with broke phone wrote: »

Because they were in on it.

If we get a proper court case, let the man testify. He likely has evidence he was working inside the towers at the time and can give many detailed descriptions of the men he saw and the van ands trucks they used.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A local transport contractor has come forward detailing new information about work activity in the Twin Towers two weeks before the attack. He came across many men inside the towers wearing blue jumpsuits using jackhammers and heavy equipment to drill and dust was everywhere. He saw wiring being installed. The floors was emptied out for this shutdown.

He was contracted to remove network computers from floors inside the Towers because they planned to power down the buildings. And he heard the heavy noise and went to have a look "what the hell was going on there" and came across a number of men doing work.

He says later after doing enquiries s and ringing up friends in companies, he was told, there were former Israeli paratroopers doing internal work inside the building. Some story this.

https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/pre-911-activity-at-the-twin-towers

This has nothing to do with the insurance companies.

So far there is no evidence that they were all "in on it" and no explanation as to why they would have paid out billions in claims if there was any real evidence 9/11 was an inside job

Effects

Detailed descriptions after 20 odd years?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A local transport contractor has come forward detailing new information about work activity in the Twin Towers two weeks before the attack. He came across many men inside the towers wearing blue jumpsuits using jackhammers and heavy equipment to drill and dust was everywhere. He saw wiring being installed. The floors was emptied out for this shutdown.

He was contracted to remove network computers from floors inside the Towers because they planned to power down the buildings. And he heard the heavy noise and went to have a look "what the hell was going on there" and came across a number of men doing work.

He says later after doing enquiries s and ringing up friends in companies, he was told, there were former Israeli paratroopers doing internal work inside the building. Some story this.

https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/pre-911-activity-at-the-twin-towers

How did he get this information?

Dohnjoe

Effects wrote: »

Detailed descriptions after 20 odd years?

Yes. Before providing details perhaps start off by explaining why the insurance companies, who had to pay out billions, were involved? and then provide a basic timeline of your theory

Cheerful Spring2

Effects wrote: »

Detailed descriptions after 20 odd years?

He talked about it with others obviously, but the first time coming forward on radio.

After listening again, he says some trucks belonged to Moishe's Moving Systems. He says the men in the blue jumpsuits were not loading or unloading anything and one driver told him to mind his own business when he asked about the work they are doing

Seems to be a legit company in New York.
https://www.moishes.com/

Why these men were drilling on an empty floor seemed odd to him. He says their boss was an older man, had a funny accent. He got angry with him for finding them and told him you should not be in here, get out.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He talked about it with others obviously, but the first time coming forward on radio.

After listening again, he says some trucks belonged to Moishe's Moving Systems. He says the men in the blue jumpsuits were not loading or unloading anything and one driver told him to mind his own business when he asked about the work they are doing

Seems to be a legit company in New York.
https://www.moishes.com/

Why these men were drilling on an empty floor seemed odd to him. He says their boss was an older man, had a funny accent. He got angry with him for finding them and told him you should not be in here, get out.

Whats that got to do with the questions in the OP?

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How did he get this information?

Facilities manager for a company inside the Towers told him Moishe had trucks over at WTC7 and Twin Towers and was doing work there. He learned from people that some Moishe employees were former Israeli paratroopers. I love a longer interview to hear more details.

He says some man in the blue jumpsuits were hanging off the wall, dust was flying from the work and work was along the interior wall. This was the week before 9/11.

Cheerful Spring2

That interview may have exposed who did it, maybe?

Suter was head of Urban Moving Systems, which his sites say was disbanded on or after September 11, 2001. He was questioned by the FBI around September 12, and they removed boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. Suter then left the country.[2][3]

Suter is known to be a Mossad operative. He escaped back to Israel.

Looking at his bio, this is very suspicious.

Employment Operations manager

In office
1993 - 1996
Employer Moishe's Moving System

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dominik_Suter

Overheal

Mod

Numerous posts deleted. Thanks for reporting; do not backseat mod on such posts.

@Cheerful you have a chance to explain how your posts are relevant to the subject matter lain out in the OP? None of your posts appear to connect with the notion that the insurers were part of the conspiracy theory. If you can't: cut it out or make another thread to post about this stuff in.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Mod

Numerous posts deleted. Thanks for reporting; do not backseat mod on such posts.

@Cheerful you have a chance to explain how your posts are relevant to the subject matter lain out in the OP? None of your posts appear to connect with the notion that the insurers were part of the conspiracy theory. If you can't: cut it out or make another thread to post about this stuff in.

Insurance company will settle when they have no qualms about the official narrative for the collapse. Since this an intimate personal story told here, it’s highly improbable, the insurance company knew about it when they paid out. Dohnjoe of the opinion insurance companies knew everything and that may not be true it seems!

Tom Hosey was the contractor selected by WTC management to remove numerous mainframe computers systems from the towers before the shutdown on the weekend before 9/11. His qualification and background here make’s his story more persuasive and, we know, FBI and local enforcement, insurance companies have not learned of his account before!

The fact he saw trucks belonging to this firm outside all three buildings a week before the event has repercussions for future research. It reads like Moishe moving systems company least in the 90s and before 9/11 was a front group for Mossad. The fact Suter was an Employment operations manager for this firm in the 90s is no coincidence!

You're right in a way it deserves a new thread because this the first time i heard from an actual witness. i have not heard men in blue jumpsuits were working there a week before 9/11. There was cabling and wiring and drilling of walls on many empty floors cleared out according to Tom.

Overheal

Well, that sounds like it belongs in its own thread then tbf: you're saying the insurance companies weren't in on the conspiracy, so it's not aligned with the nature of this thread.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Well, that sounds like it belongs in its own thread then tbf: you're saying the insurance companies weren't in on the conspiracy, so it's not aligned with the nature of this thread.

I disagree with your final remark.

Since Dohnjoe wrote this, clearly is relevant to the thread.

Dohnjoe wrote

There were tens of thousands of insurance claims arising from 9/11 costing the industry tens of billions, if 9/11 was an inside job, then why didn't one single insurance investigation spot this?

Like i have said. Tom Hosey story he only told friends and colleagues and no insurance or local law agency is aware of his story. If they knew his story the insurance company may have investigated this firm work in the towers a week before the 9/11 attack! Mr Hosey was suspicious also how Moishe got the contract for work since they are operate under no union rules and regulations there non union. He found that odd since WTC management hire only union companies.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I disagree with your final remark.

Apparently 3 large skyscrapers were "blown up" by separate controlled demolitions on 9/11, so why didn't any of the insurance investigations find a single piece of evidence for any of that? some of these investigations were going on 10 years after the event. In fact the evidence for what occurred on 9/11 was so conclusive that they paid out billions.

(As for your point, an ex-worker, who is coincidentally a 911 conspiracy group member, making uncorroborated claims they saw something "suspicious" on 911 is not evidence. It's as strong as someone claiming that Elvis lives because they saw him, were suspicious he was maybe in the vicinity).

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There were tens of thousands of insurance claims arising from 9/11 costing the industry tens of billions, if 9/11 was an inside job, then why didn't one single insurance investigation spot this?

Why hasn't any insurer stepped forward since and said "hold on.."?



What's the alternative explanation for this, are all these insurance companies and their associated experts stupid?



https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/sept11paper.pdf

Your assuming here that insurance companies investigated anything
And if they even tried that they would get around FBI CIA and all government blocks

A proposal by a small shareholder to withhold approval from the Board of Directors for failure to investigate signs of insurance fraud on 9/11 has been published on the website of the Allianz Group, one of the worldÂ?s largest insurers, in preparation for its May 4th annual meeting.

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/05/prweb235341.htm

What were their options cry foul and go to the media and try expose the government who regulates them
or try to mitigate their loses

option 2 seems to be their best bet


How Insurance Companies Exploited 9/11


The companies are not so crass as to suggest that they need the protection because a 66.4 percent increase in profits (after paying out more than $40 billion in claims) was inadequate. Instead they explain that unless the government lets taxpayers become coinsurers against terrorism losses, the companies will be unwilling to write insurance against terrorist attacks and the taxpayers will be the losers. That is a dismal prospect for the taxpayer and the government and the Congress.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/19/how-insurance-companies-exploited-9-11/

New $40bn terrorism insurance law is full of gifts to corporations

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act has never covered a single company from terrorism costs and has earned $40bn in revenue for insurance companies. But Congress is too afraid to end it

The appeal is clear – to insurers, who have been raking in cash. Over 60% of all businesses have purchased government-subsidized terrorism insurance since 2002. The program has cost the government $1m a year – almost nothing – but has made an estimated $40bn in revenue for insurance companies, who have never paid a claim, or given a dime to the government for their reinsurance protection.

Profits from terrorism protection
Here’s how Tria rewards insurance companies: Tria only gets triggered if the Treasury secretary designates an attack as a “terrorist event.”

That’s a high bar: Even the Boston Marathon bombing was not considered a terrorist attack for insurance purposes. In fact, the industry got a boost from that event, as more businesses decided to buy terrorism coverage in the aftermath.

Because Tria forced transparency from insurers for the cost of terrorism insurance, we have a decent handle on precisely how much insurance companies have collected from companies in premiums.

Tom LaTourette, a Senior Physical Scientist with Rand, ran the calculations. “In the end, I came up with $4.6bn a year,” he said.

From that estimate, you can make a reasonable guess that the insurance industry has accumulated over $40bn in revenue from terrorism insurance premiums since the introduction of TRIA -- without ever paying a claim, and without giving a dime to the government for their reinsurance protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/19/congress-renews-tria-terrorism-insurance-bill

So as of the guardian article in 2014 they have recouped their money
and it s set to run until 2027


The fact that the industry was providing coverage against terrorist
attacks for little or no additional premium is a practice that Berkshire Hathaway
president and investment guru Warren Buffett would later deride as “foolish” and “a
huge mistake.” In the wake of the attacks, however, Berkshire quickly emerged as
one of the few insurers to offer coverage against terrorist acts, but in exchange for
tight limits and a sizable premium.

https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/sept11paper.pdf

Funny how these guys keep popping up

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/01/insurance-company-bailouts-editors/

Dont rock the boat

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

Your assuming here that insurance companies investigated anything

I'm not assuming. They did. For example
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf

Insurance companies even tried to recover losses by launching litigation, one of several cases claimed that negligent design/maintenance of one of the buildings contributed to the collapse, which the above investigation addresses

At no point in any of the investigations was it discovered that 9/11 was "an inside job" of any sort

ExMachina1000

Why didn't the air force shoot the planes down? Surely there is a nearby base?

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

Well, that sounds like it belongs in its own thread then tbf: you're saying the insurance companies weren't in on the conspiracy, so it's not aligned with the nature of this thread.

Are you a mod?

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Are you a mod?

Yes. Stay on topic please.

Ted_YNWA

Overheal wrote: »

Well, that sounds like it belongs in its own thread then tbf: you're saying the insurance companies weren't in on the conspiracy, so it's not aligned with the nature of this thread.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Are you a mod?

Yes, he is.

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm not assuming. They did. For example
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf

Insurance companies even tried to recover losses by launching litigation, one of several cases claimed that negligent design/maintenance of one of the buildings contributed to the collapse, which the above investigation addresses

At no point in any of the investigations was it discovered that 9/11 was "an inside job" of any sort

Who was that investigation for ? which insurance companies

ExMachina1000

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Yes, he is.

I was wondering alright. Iv reported him many times for various obvious infringements of the charter yet no action was ever taken. Now I know why.

Why weren't the planes shot down or at least harassed by fighter jets?

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I was wondering alright. Iv reported him many times for various obvious infringements of the charter yet no action was ever taken. Now I know why.

We don't have any record of reports from you here, or in the CT parent forum. If you are referring to reports from other forums, that is completely out of bounds here. If you have a problem with moderation in other forums this is not the place to air those grievances: try the help desk, or PM the mods of those forums.

This serves as your last notice to stay on topic. Thanks.

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

Who was that investigation for ? which insurance companies

The Collapse Analysis and Assessment Report WTC 7 by Weidlinger associates was commissioned I believe by the building owners to rebut arguments presented by insurers: Aegis ins, Liberty insurance, National Union insurance, Nuclear Electric insurance and other underwriters (Lloyds)

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Collapse Analysis and Assessment Report WTC 7 by Weidlinger associates was commissioned I believe by the building owners to rebut arguments presented by insurers: Aegis ins, Liberty insurance, National Union insurance, Nuclear Electric insurance and other underwriters (Lloyds)

So not by the insurers as you said earlier

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

So not by the insurers as you said earlier

You claimed insurance companies may not have investigated anything, I provided the Weidlinger study which was a response to insurance investigations, several of them, demonstrating that insurance investigations did actually take place. Not only that but someone on the internet paid money and we can now look at those particular investigations, can link them if you want.

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You claimed insurance companies may not have investigated anything, I provided the Weidlinger study which was a response to
, several of them, demonstrating that insurance investigations did actually take place. Not only that but someone on the internet paid money and we can now look at those particular investigations, can link them if you want.

Which insurance companies

Wanderer78

It's clearly obvious insurance companies were involved, paying out was a pr stunt, they knew it would have created large amounts of business for them, they also knew there was gonna be a financial crash years later, as they were involved in that to, setting themselves up nicely for large bail outs, it's clearly obvious folks.

enno99

Maybe you were right some did investigate


Amid renewed public interest in determining the identities of all the culprits behind the 9/11 attacks, comes word that a second executive with one of the World Trade Center’s insurers has died from “suicide.”

Zurich Insurance Group’s former CEO Martin Senn was reported to have shot himself at his vacation home near Davos in Switzerland. No suicide note was found by police. Senn resigned as CEO of the insurance giant last December after the company experienced losses from the still-unexplained large explosions in Tianjin, China, last August.

Zurich Insurance’s payout to settle claims was the second such large expenditure for the firm in a little over a decade. Zurich was one of the insurers of the World Trade Center in New York and it, along with six other insurance companies, paid out $4.56 billion to the complex’s lessee, Larry Silverstein.

Silverstein angled for an even larger payout from the insurance companies but was unsuccessful. It is known that the insurers conducted their own investigations of the culprits behind 9/11, which may have yielded different conclusions than those reached by the U.S. 9/11 Commission.

In August 2013, Zurich Insurance’s then-chief financial officer, Pierre Wauthier, was found hanging at his home in Walchwil, in the canton of Zug, Switzerland, not far from Zurich. Wauthier previously worked for JPMorgan Chase. Police said the hanging “pointed to” a suicide. The insurance company conducted an investigation and determined that Wauthier was not suffering from stress as Swiss police contended.

In January 2014, Tim Dickenson, the communications director for Swiss Re, another World Trade Center insurer, died from unexplained causes in London. Swiss Re was one of the firms that experienced suspicious put options on its stock prior to 9/11 and which went toe-to-toe with World Trade Center lessee Larry Silverstein on settling insurance claims. Swiss Re, like Zurich Insurance, conducted its own investigation of 9/11 and both companies indicated that Silverstein was using the attacks and destruction of the WTC to bilk the insurance companies and make a handsome profit.

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/18295

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

(As for your point, an ex-worker, who is coincidentally a 911 conspiracy group member, making uncorroborated claims they saw something "suspicious" on 911 is not evidence. It's as strong as someone claiming that Elvis lives because they saw him, were suspicious he was maybe in the vicinity).

Strange thoughts again when his story was only disclosed to the wider population a few weeks ago. There is literally no evidence at all, he was a truther since 2001. I would have come across this story by now if he was with AE911 truth from the start.
His offered his name and job title back then all of it can be checked. FBI can easily cross reference other personal details provided by Mr Hosey.

If you listen to him you can tell this is a guy not making up a story, because he details company and facility and background information only someone who was actually there at the time would perceive.

What he saw explains how they managed to destroy the buildings undetected. They were drilling inside empty rooms inside the buildings, with no tenants. All that was inside the room was concrete and steel.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

At no point in any of the investigations was it discovered that 9/11 was "an inside job" of any sort

If they learned men in blue jumpsuits were drilling inside the Twin Towers a week before 9/11 we may have got an entire new investigation here.

enno99

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If they learned men in blue jumpsuits were drilling inside the Twin Towers a week before 9/11 we may have got an entire new investigation here.

Its been years but I remember Brownbomber posting
lots of stuff about the works going on in the towers

Cheerful Spring2

enno99 wrote: »

Its been years but I remember Brownbomber posting
lots of stuff about the works going on in the towers

There is plenty of speculation that is true. Mr Hosey information is a first-person account of someone carrying out work inside the towers a week before the 9/11 event. He was the contractor hired to remove mainframe computers from the Twin Towers. He said companies inside the towers appointed him because they planned to shut down the entire power inside the buildings on the weekend before 9/11. He reveals why that was necessary during the interview. He just heard the commotion when inside the building and went to have a look and found a bunch of men in blue jumpsuits drilling in the corner inside an empty room. Unfortunately the interviewer failed to ask him what floor that was on when he discovered the men.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You claimed insurance companies may not have investigated anything, I provided the Weidlinger study which was a response to insurance investigations, several of them, demonstrating that insurance investigations did actually take place. Not only that but someone on the internet paid money and we can now look at those particular investigations, can link them if you want.

I'm fairly certain here this involved building seven only, not the Twin Towers. Aegis insurance vs Silverstein properties .

Aegis insurance believed WTC7 design contributed to the failure. They selected two mainstream engineer groups Arup and Partners, and Guy Nordenson and Associates (Nordenson) to find design problems here. Silverstein properties hired Weidlinger Associates Inc. The insurance company lost the battle they could not support their claim the building design was the cause. Court ruled it was the events on 9/11 that lead to the collapse.

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

Which insurance companies

Named in earlier comment

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Aegis insurance believed WTC7 design contributed to the failure. They selected two mainstream engineer groups Arup and Partners, and Guy Nordenson and Associates (Nordenson) to find design problems here. Silverstein properties hired Weidlinger Associates Inc. The insurance company lost the battle they could not support their claim the building design was the cause. Court ruled it was the events on 9/11 that lead to the collapse.

Arup, Nordenson, Weidlinger - none of these found any evidence of this "inside job" you keep claiming happened, why is that?

By 2002, according to the data, 119 insurers were impacted, were they "in" on the attacks like other posters have suggested? or were all of these companies just "stupid"?

ExMachina1000

Insurance companies weren't in on 9/11. They were victims also.

I reckon the Us government were aware of the attacks coming and decided not to intervene. Only top brass would have known in the various intelligence agencies.

There is the opportunity for drilling beforehand and also to have fighter jets away training.

The mossad guys who were supposedly cheering were doing so because they knew America just got its excuse to invade and set up base in the middle east.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Insurance companies weren't in on 9/11. They were victims also.

I reckon the Us government were aware of the attacks coming and decided not to intervene. Only top brass would have known in the various intelligence agencies.

The issue here however is that if the insurance companies weren't in on it, why didn't they bring up the fact it was an inside job when they were fighting not to pay out?

If they weren't in on it, there's no reason why they would have stayed silent.
And it's not rational to assume that conspiracy theorists were just better investigators than the ones used by insurance companies.

Then if they were in on it, they wouldn't have fought so hard to not pay out.

The only way to explain these contradictions rationally and sanely is to conclude it wasn't an inside job.

ExMachina1000

King Mob wrote: »

The issue here however is that if the insurance companies weren't in on it, why didn't they bring up the fact it was an inside job when they were fighting not to pay out?

If they weren't in on it, there's no reason why they would have stayed silent.
And it's not rational to assume that conspiracy theorists were just better investigators than the ones used by insurance companies.

Then if they were in on it, they wouldn't have fought so hard to not pay out.

The only way to explain these contradictions rationally and sanely is to conclude it wasn't an inside job.

Most likely it wasn't an inside job. I agree

Great excuse for the United states to invade the middle east though.
There have been examples of false flag attacks throughout history all the same.

All of the fighter jets being away training on the same day is very coincidental

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You claimed insurance companies may not have investigated anything, I provided the Weidlinger study which was a response to insurance investigations, several of them, demonstrating that insurance investigations did actually take place. Not only that but someone on the internet paid money and we can now look at those particular investigations, can link them if you want.

Ah I see these "investigations" carried out by engineers using computer models ,photographs,youtube videos and witness testimonies into WTC7 many years after the event
you can hardly call that a serious investigation into 9/11 they only looked at whether the building design was at fault

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

The issue here however is that if the insurance companies weren't in on it, why didn't they bring up the fact it was an inside job when they were fighting not to pay out?

If they weren't in on it, there's no reason why they would have stayed silent.[
And it's not rational to assume that conspiracy theorists were just better investigators than the ones used by insurance companies.

Then if they were in on it, they wouldn't have fought so hard to not pay out.

The only way to explain these contradictions rationally and sanely is to conclude it wasn't an inside job.

if they suspected it how would they prove it ?

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

if they suspected it how would they prove it ?

In a court of law using the same evidence you guys believe.
Finding additional evidence that can't be found from the comfort of a sofa and youtube, cause investigation is their job.
Finding experts to provide testimony to back up their suspicions.

They've gone to court many times about the issue.

In a specific example they could have taken Larry Silverstien to court for fraud and won easily, because you guys believe he confessed on camera in clear terms on national TV.
But they didn't do that.

You guys don't seem able to provide a reason why.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

In a court of law using the same evidence you guys believe.
Finding additional evidence that can't be found from the comfort of a sofa and youtube, cause investigation is their job.
Finding experts to provide testimony to back up their suspicions.

They've gone to court many times about the issue.

In a specific example they could have taken Larry Silverstien to court for fraud and won easily, because you guys believe he confessed on camera in clear terms on national TV.
But they didn't do that.

You guys don't seem able to provide a reason why.

Assuming they would want to try expose it
how would they get around the FBI/ CIA National security all the other obstructions to gather evidence
Would be a monumental risk to tackle the government that regulates their industry

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Assuming they would want to try expose it
how would they get around the FBI/ CIA National security all the other obstructions to gather evidence
Would be a monumental risk to tackle the government that regulates their industry

But that doesn't make sense. They already took people to court about it. They already contradicted the governments claims.

It also doesn't make further sense cause what can the government do to stop them?
Threaten them?
How could they do that in secret? It wouldn't be one insurance company, it would be dozens all who already stand to lose millions.

And why wouldn't then want to expose it? If they can show that the attacks are an inside job, that would result in them having to pay out much much less and they would be able to sue people involved and the government and win easily.

According to you they already have all the evidence you guys have. Is that not good enough in a court of law?

Again to point to a specific example: You believe Larry Silverstien confessed to being involved in the crime on camera. That video is easy to find and freely availible.
Why did his insurance company not bring it up? That would have been an open and shut case according to you.

And then you're now claiming both the FBI and CIA are involved. Why couldn't they get the insurance companies involved as well?

This is a part of the conspiracy theory that isn't very well thought through.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

But that doesn't make sense. They already took people to court about it. They already contradicted the governments claims.

It also doesn't make further sense cause what can the government do to stop them?
Threaten them?
How could they do that in secret? It wouldn't be one insurance company, it would be dozens all who already stand to lose millions.

And why wouldn't then want to expose it? If they can show that the attacks are an inside job, that would result in them having to pay out much much less and they would be able to sue people involved and the government and win easily.

According to you they already have all the evidence you guys have. Is that not good enough in a court of law?

Again to point to a specific example: You believe Larry Silverstien confessed to being involved in the crime on camera. That video is easy to find and freely availible.
Why did his insurance company not bring it up? That would have been an open and shut case according to you.

And then you're now claiming both the FBI and CIA are involved. Why couldn't they get the insurance companies involved as well?

This is a part of the conspiracy theory that isn't very well thought through.

No they went after Silverstein because he got greedy and wanted to be paid twice for the towers etc

What government claims did they contradict that would show government involve or expose any corruption

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/28143-court-documents-show-mueller-involved-in-9-11-cover-up