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

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He was paid to move computers? What's his qualification? What is his expertise?

Off-topic I feel, but listen to the interview if you can bear it.

• It's a claim by one person
• The guy is a member of a 911 conspiracy group
• He didn't see anyone planting anything or doing anything illicit, his claim is that he saw something that was "suspicious" according to him
• He could be lying, he has nothing to support or corroborate what he claims to have seen
• Even if he isn't, it's meaningless as there's no concrete claim, just vague suspicions
• Maintenance work happens in buildings, it doesn't mean bombs are being planted

AKA

"I used to work in the music industry, I suspect I saw Elvis recently, I'm also part of the 'Elvis is still alive club', no one can support my claim, but it's evidence Elvis is still alive"

Cheerful has tacked on a tenuous link to this insurance topic in order to fill this thread with it, not to backseat here, but as far as I am concerned it my opinion it should have it's own thread, but we'll see

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I think the FBI should interview Mr Hosey and go from there. If this is a true story, we may find who took out the buildings. Mr Hosey said he spoke with people back then and they can confirm this information for a new investigation. FBI openly admitted Urban moving company based in New Jersey employed Mossad spies, and here we have another moving company based in New York, with suspicious ties to Mossad, their trucks, identified outside the towers and WTC7 a week before the attack occurred. Coincidence?

A coincidence in your head only.

FBI said that there was no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Case closed.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That doesn't answer the questions I asked you

I also asked

Let's say they were not a cable company and they were there for nefarious reasons, what do you think they were doing and why were they doing it?

I let the FBI figure out the rationale here for the destruction.

Hosey says one of the blue jumpsuit men was resting in a truck belonging to Moishe moving company. The driver obviously arrived with the crew inside the building drilling.
What piqued my interest here is the Moishe trucks described by Mr Hosey. The fact Dominic Suter, an acknowledged Israeli intelligence spy worked for them as a manager in the mid 90s, i find very suspcious.

He left later and organized his own company (Urban moving) Some of his employees later were identified as the "Dancing Israelis" and the US intelligence community confirmed later 2 or 3 of them were Mossad and they got deported back to Isreal. They committed these companies to spy and gathering intelligence here. It’s possible they planted spy devices in homes and federal offices under the guise they were merely moving companies? Suter fled to Israel days after 9/11.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

A coincidence in your head only.

FBI said that there was no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Case closed.

US being covering up for Saudi Arabia and Israel for decades. USS liberty was deliberately attacked by Israel to start a world war. US knew that, but covered up for Israel and accepted their apology.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I let the FBI figure out the rationale here for the destruction.

Hosey says one of the blue jumpsuit men was resting in a truck belonging to Moishe moving company. The driver obviously arrived with the crew inside the building drilling.
What piqued my interest here is the Moishe trucks described by Mr Hosey. The fact Dominic Suter, an acknowledged Israeli intelligence spy worked for them as a manager in the mid 90s, i find very suspcious.

He left later and organized his own company (Urban moving) Some of his employees later were identified as the "Dancing Israelis" and the US intelligence community confirmed later 2 or 3 of them were Mossad and they got deported back to Isreal. They committed these companies to spy and gathering intelligence here. It’s possible they planted spy devices in homes and federal offices under the guise they were merely moving companies? Suter fled to Israel days after 9/11.

So you don't even have an explanation for your own silly conspiracy?

Anything to add about the actual thread subject or are you going to keep derailing for a while longer?

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you don't even have an explanation for your own silly conspiracy?

Anything to add about the actual thread subject or are you going to keep derailing for a while longer?

The thread has no new comments for weeks, until i posted, but to continue to believe it was an active thread on here.. Believe your narrative correct:)

Finished now nothing more to say about Hosey story. If i hear more information i make a new thread.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

US being covering up for Saudi Arabia and Israel for decades. USS liberty was deliberately attacked by Israel to start a world war. US knew that, but covered up for Israel and accepted their apology.

Irrelevant waffle

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The thread has no new comments for weeks, until i posted, but to continue to believe it was an active thread on here.. Believe your narrative correct:)

Finished now nothing more to say about Hosey story. If i hear more information i make a new thread.

Posting just to stir the pot with off topic soap boxing due to activity level on the forum is not justification for doing so.

Don’t post in this thread again. /mod

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which ones in particular? have you read any?

No I read the summation of the case by judges Pooler Parker and Wesley
A little bit more concise then long winded engineers reports



Guy Nordenson, aprofessor of architecture and structural engineering at Princeton University and a practicing structural engineer in New York City, opined that “based upon my review of available photographic and video evidence, and the deposition testimony of eyewitnesses, including 12 members of the F.D.N.Y., it is my opinion that the collapse of WTC1 or WTC2 did not cause structural damage to any of the core columns of WTC7.”


In its initial response, Con Ed submitted a few summary declarations, which drew a single declaration from 7WTCo. in support of its reply papers. After the motion was fully submitted, however, Con Ed sought leave from the district court to file supplemental declarations attaching hundreds of pages of expert reports. In granting leave, the district court stated 7WTCo. “[is] under no obligation to respond to the supplemental declarations unless and until the court requires them to do so.” At oral argument on the motions,the district court repeated that direction, stating “f I want you to respond, I’ll let you know.”

Wesley dissenting

Plaintiffs’ experts have articulated a standard of care: high-rise buildings must be built to withstand a fire that cannot be extinguished by the efforts of firefighters. Plaintiffs’ experts have also identified a deviation from that standard: the building was designed and erected in such a way that it was subject to failure if a fire broke out that could not be quelled. They have tied that standard and its deviation to the injury for which they seek recompense. Lastly, plaintiffs’ experts have offered opinions that 7WTC did not collapse as a result of structural damage from falling debris. One would think that, on this record, the majority, would want to hear from defendants’ experts on why 7WTC collapsed. It may well be that causation, be it proximate or in fact, can be decided as a matter of law in the district court after a careful review of all expert submissions or that a trial will result in a defendants’ verdict, but that is not the path the majority has chosen for this case. I would remand the matter to the district court for trial. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.


So as I said computer models ,photographs,testimonies and videos only with re to WTC7
could be hardly classed as an indept investigation into 9/11

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, this post doesn't make sense.

It doesn't really address or answer any of my points either.

You have not at all covered the issue with Silverstein.
You just declared that his confession wasn't valid because it was on YouTube.
That's very ironic...

Nothing ironic at all because thats not what I said

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

So as I said computer models ,photographs,testimonies and videos only with re to WTC7
could be hardly classed as an indept investigation into 9/11

How is this view going to be consistent if you are going to dismiss every investigation (insurance and otherwise) into 9/11

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Nothing ironic at all because thats not what I said

That is what you said.

enno99 wrote: »

Silly argument you think a judge would entertain a youtube video without further evidence in a case of that magnitude

Again you believe that he made a complete confession on camera on national TV. You believe that he is openly admitting to insurance fraud.

But for some reason you believe that since it is also on YouTube it's not relevant in a court case about insurance fraud.

That doesn't make sense.
Again it just seems like special pleading to avoid the reality of the situation.
That reality being that Silverstein didn't actually confess anything.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

That is what you said.


Again you believe that he made a complete confession on camera on national TV. You believe that he is openly admitting to insurance fraud.

But for some reason you believe that since it is also on YouTube it's not relevant in a court case about insurance fraud.

That doesn't make sense.
Again it just seems like special pleading to avoid the reality of the situation.
That reality being that Silverstein didn't actually confess anything.

You made a silly post got called out on it

Youtube/CNN/FOX/Dailymotion its irrevelant the content would not stand up in court without further evidence to support it

but you know that and you keep arguing the toss making your self look foolish

Overheal

enno99 wrote: »

You made a silly post got called out on it

Youtube/CNN/FOX/Dailymotion its irrevelant the content would not stand up in court without further evidence to support it

but you know that and you keep arguing the toss making your self look foolish

A dash cam video is still evidence regardless of whether it is streamed in court from YouTube or not. Social media posts have been used to convict people. I could give loads of examples or should you just acquiesce from this silly idea that streaming video is inadmissible evidence? /imho

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Youtube/CNN/FOX/Dailymotion its irrevelant the content would not stand up in court without further evidence to support it

Why wouldn't a recorded confession of involment in a massive crime and insurance fraud stand up in court?

Why did you being up the fact it was YouTube if it was irrelevent?

I know that the video wouldn't stand up in court because it's very obviously not a confession. But you believe it is a confession despite all the issues with that.
Yet for some reason you don't think it's relevant or good evidence and that's a bit odd.

Adam9213

I don't really know much about it but I'm sure if it was an inside job the people who orchestrated this would have thought all this through so it wouldn't have been a problem.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Why wouldn't a recorded confession of involment in a massive crime and insurance fraud stand up in court?

Why did you being up the fact it was YouTube if it was irrelevent

I know that the video wouldn't stand up in court because it's very obviously not a confession. But you believe it is a confession despite all the issues with that.
Yet for some reason you don't think it's relevant or good evidence and that's a bit odd.

If you wanted to find this video what would be your first port of call

enno99

So absent any real indept investigation into 9/11 by an insurance company
the OP is pretty weak
They went with the official story and only tackled Silverstien when he got greedy

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

If you wanted to find this video what would be your first port of call

Ok. So why would that mean it wouldn't stand up in court?
Why wouldn't a video of him confessing to insurance fraud be relevant?

You've dodged this question.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

So absent any real indept investigation into 9/11 by an insurance company
the OP is pretty weak
They went with the official story and only tackled Silverstien when he got greedy

But why would they have gone with the official story?
They have all the evidence you guys have including evidence of the explosives used and an on camera confession from one of the organisers.

Are you saying that all of that wouldn't stand up in court?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

But why would they have gone with the official story?
They have all the evidence you guys have including evidence of the explosives used and an on camera confession from one of the organisers.

Are you saying that all of that wouldn't stand up in court?

Read the thread

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

So absent any real indept investigation into 9/11 by an insurance company

As I've mentioned before, you've decided no investigation into 9/11 was in-depth enough. That allows you to take the position that insurance investigations weren't up to some arbitrary personal standard you've set, which is irrelevant

It's irrelevant because the cases and investigations were accepted in a court of law, were deliberated and their rulings stand

None of these investigations, cases or claims included any evidence of any "inside job". If amateur internet users from the university of Youtube and Google keep claiming to have found "evidence" of an inside job, why are insurance companies, with their massive resources, entire departments dedicated to investigating claims not able find a single shred of evidence of any inside job

The explanation, of course, is because these claims of 911 being an "inside job" are complete duds based on faulty/nonsense evidence.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Read the thread

I have read the thread. You have not addressed my points. You are once again avoiding them because you can't address them directly and honestly and still maintain your belief in your fringe conspiracy theories.

Again you claim that a video taped confession of someone admitting to a crime (specifically mass murder, terrorism and insurance fraud) isn't admissible or useful in court.
Why?
You previously stated that this was due to it being on YouTube but now object to this idea.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

None of these investigations, cases or claims included any evidence of any "inside job". If amateur internet users from the university of Youtube and Google keep claiming to have found "evidence" of an inside job, why are insurance companies, with their massive resources, entire departments dedicated to investigating claims not able find a single shred of evidence of any inside job
.

And why do they not mention (nevermind use) the "evidence" all ready collected and presented by conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theory organisations?

NIMAN

Insurer's : "lads we aren't paying out on these 9/11 claims".

Claimants : "but why not?"

Insurer's : "cos some lads on the internet are claiming it was all a conspiracy".

enno99

U.S. insurers want taxpayers to back pandemic coverage for businesses

Insurers want the pandemic policies to be backed by the U.S. government, similar the government-supported commercial terrorism products after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-insurance-pandemic-idUSKCN22B1J8



Some wonder whether the program, designed to limit the economic fallout from terrorism, has simply built the insurance industry a money machine, subsidizing their business with risk-free profits.

“To me it’s a subsidy that largely benefits corporations,” Calabria said, arguing that insurance companies get a lower risk to their profits, and businesses get artificially cheap insurance. “You’re not minimizing the costs of terrorism, just shifting them from corporations to the taxpayer.”

Clearly the insurance industry likes the guarantee, having profited handsomely from it. So they have no motivation to change the status quo.

But without a public discussion, it’s hard to see whether Tria merely facilitates commerce and lowers the risk of a terrorist attack becoming an economic disaster, or if it just facilitates corporate welfare, with government guaranteeing the costs, and insurance companies taking the profits.

The amount of money they will rake in here is mind boggeling
Not every one would want terrorism insurance
But after this covid 19 stuff :eek:

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I have read the thread. You have not addressed my points. You are once again avoiding them because you can't address them directly and honestly and still maintain your belief in your fringe conspiracy theories.

Again you claim that a video taped confession of someone admitting to a crime (specifically mass murder, terrorism and insurance fraud) isn't admissible or useful in court.
Why?
You previously stated that this was due to it being on YouTube but now object to this idea.

I claimed neither

<snip - raise the civility please>

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

And why do they not mention (nevermind use) the "evidence" all ready collected and presented by conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theory organisations?

Not "in-depth" enough.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

I claimed neither

Then, what did you mean by "wouldn't stand up in court"?
And why wouldn't a confession stand up in court?

I think it wouldn't stand up in court because it is very obviously not a confession.

Hoop66

enno99 wrote: »

Your assuming here that insurance companies investigated anything

I have worked for many insurance companies over the last 30 or so years doing IT. They are all different in their own ways.

The one thing they all have in common is that, when a claim comes in, their first concern is "is there any reason we can avoid paying this claim".

So, to suggest that insurance companies would not investigate the largest payout they have ever had to make seems a little illogical.