Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1235

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    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.

    Indeed. And on top of that we do know the insurance companies did hold their own in-depth investigations. Many cases spent years in court. Some of the rebuttals to the insurance litigation involved 5 year investigations.

    Ultimately, whether it was any of the ten's of thousands of individual insurance claims, the larger insurance cases and investigations, the litigation in court, the rebuttals to the claims, all the way up to the official investigations into 9/11 (Flight 77 air crash investigation, the forensic investigation of the passengers/crew at the Pentagon, the FBI investigation, FEMA, the NIST investigation). None found any evidence of any "inside job".


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    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.
    And on top of that, conspiracy theorists like enno99 believe that one of the people involved in the conspiracy admitted it on camera.

    I think they might have looked into that...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    WTC Insurers Pay Out Huge Amounts to Support Official 9-11 Fairytale

    Based on the facts of this story, it appears that the payouts were agreed upon in order to lend credence to the government’s official account of what took place on September 11, 2001. If any of these 24 companies had seriously challenged the official version of events, the entire house of cards would have collapsed like the World Trade Center towers.

    Going even deeper, in a September 29, 2006 article entitled “9-11 and the Greenberg Familia,” Jerry Mazza pinpoints another major player in this scam: Maurice Greenberg. As a former deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and former director of the New York Federal Reserve, Greenberg also has notable Central Intelligence Agency ties and is known as the godfather of insurance giant AIG.

    Mazza wrote: “The three companies who originally insured the WTC were AIG, Marsh [McLennan] and ACE, all run by the Greenbergs at the time. They then sold stakes in the original contract to their competition, a technique called reinsuring. Once the towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag. This would inextricably tie the Greenbergs to Silverstein and the larger conspiracy of 9-11. If they had no foreknowledge of the events to occur, why would the Greenbergs have unloaded so many stakes in their contract?”

    https://americanfreepress.net/wtc-insurers-pay-out-huge-amounts-to-support-official-9-11-fairytale/

    <<snip>>

    This is not an Insurance fraud forum


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    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.

    Not true they will payout if its cheaper to settle
    I know this from personal experience
    I even posted about it on the legal forum here


  • Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    enno99 wrote: »
    WTC Insurers Pay Out Huge Amounts to Support Official 9-11 Fairytale

    Based on the facts of this story, it appears that the payouts were agreed upon in order to lend credence to the government’s official account of what took place on September 11, 2001. If any of these 24 companies had seriously challenged the official version of events, the entire house of cards would have collapsed like the World Trade Center towers.

    Going even deeper, in a September 29, 2006 article entitled “9-11 and the Greenberg Familia,” Jerry Mazza pinpoints another major player in this scam: Maurice Greenberg. As a former deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and former director of the New York Federal Reserve, Greenberg also has notable Central Intelligence Agency ties and is known as the godfather of insurance giant AIG.

    Mazza wrote: “The three companies who originally insured the WTC were AIG, Marsh [McLennan] and ACE, all run by the Greenbergs at the time. They then sold stakes in the original contract to their competition, a technique called reinsuring. Once the towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag. This would inextricably tie the Greenbergs to Silverstein and the larger conspiracy of 9-11. If they had no foreknowledge of the events to occur, why would the Greenbergs have unloaded so many stakes in their contract?”

    https://americanfreepress.net/wtc-insurers-pay-out-huge-amounts-to-support-official-9-11-fairytale/

    <<snip>>

    This is not an Insurance fraud forum

    Reinsurance happens all the time, especially when you are exposed to any one risk. Nothing here underhand based on that. Pure economic sense on their part.


    Please don't post dump numerous insurance fraud press releases.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    enno99 wrote: »
    Not true they will payout if its cheaper to settle
    I know this from personal experience
    I even posted about it on the legal forum here

    Is there a valid reason, according to you, that 120+ insurance companies should not have paid out billions in 9/11 claims?

    Do you have information they don't?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    . If any of these 24 companies had seriously challenged the official version of events, the entire house of cards would have collapsed like the World Trade Center towers.

    This would inextricably tie the Greenbergs to Silverstein and the larger conspiracy of 9-11. If they had no foreknowledge of the events to occur, why would the Greenbergs have unloaded so many stakes in their contract?”

    But these statements contradict your previous statements and position.
    You had been arguing that insurance companies weren't involved and that they wouldn't have been able to prove a conspiracy for one reason or another.

    But now the article you are plagerising says the exact opposite.
    It claims that insurance companies were involved and they they could have easily proven the conspiracy theory.

    Did you change your mind suddenly?

    Also could you address the previous points you've left hanging?
    Particularly could you explain why you believe a video taped confession wouldn't stand up in court?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    Reinsurance happens all the time, especially when you are exposed to any one risk. Nothing here underhand based on that. Pure economic sense on their part.


    Please don't post dump numerous insurance fraud press releases.


    They were about the companies involved in the alleged scam not just random companies :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    But these statements contradict your previous statements and position.
    You had been arguing that insurance companies weren't involved and that they wouldn't have been able to prove a conspiracy for one reason or another.

    But now the article you are plagerising says the exact opposite.
    It claims that insurance companies were involved and they they could have easily proven the conspiracy theory.

    Did you change your mind suddenly?

    Also could you address the previous points you've left hanging?
    Particularly could you explain why you believe a video taped confession wouldn't stand up in court?

    No im arguing that they didnt try and took the option that best maximised their profits

    plagiarism[ pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz- ]SHOW IPA
    SEE SYNONYMS FOR plagiarism ON THESAURUS.COM
    noun
    an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plagiarism

    See the link to the article in my post and please retract you accusation


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    enno99 wrote: »
    They were about the companies involved in the alleged scam not just random companies :confused:

    You linked conspiracy blog site "which is labeled a hate site by various sources"

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-free-press/

    As for the blog piece itself, it seems to contain vague claims without providing credible evidence/context and relying a lot on "appeal to motive"
    Factual Reporting: LOW
    Country: USA
    World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

    History

    Founded in 2001 by Willis Carto, who is one of America’s most influential political racial theorists known for his promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial. The American Free Press describes itself as “maverick, independent grass-roots media” and proclaims a “populist and nationalist” political orientation.

    Basically this website and weekly newspaper promotes conspiracy theories regarding race and white supremacy.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You linked conspiracy blog site "which is labeled a hate site by various sources"

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-free-press/

    As for the blog piece itself, it seems to contain vague claims without providing credible evidence/context and relying a lot on "appeal to motive"

    The links that were removed by the moderator were not from a "conspiracy blog" site

    But did show the three initial insurers were later involved in corruption


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    enno99 wrote: »

    But did show the three initial insurers were later involved in corruption

    Corruption related to 9/11 how?


  • Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    enno99 wrote: »
    They were about the companies involved in the alleged scam not just random companies :confused:

    What is the scam here?

    Reinsurance is not one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    No im arguing that they didnt try and took the option that best maximised their profits
    But that's not what you were arguing previously.
    You were previously arguing that they weren't involved. You are now saying they were.
    You previously argued that they couldn't have exposed the conspiracy. You are now saying that they could have done so easily.

    You've changed your position completely based on a single article so that you can avoid points you cannot address.

    And now since you have avoided the point again, I will take it that you can't explain why a video taped confession wouldn't stand up in court

    So since they had a video taped confession of one of the people behind the plot admitting to insurance fraud, the option that would have maximised the profits would have been to point that out, have Silverstein exposed and then not pay out anything to him.
    Yet they didn't do this.

    Why?
    enno99 wrote: »
    plagiarism[ pley-juh-riz-uh m -jee-uh-riz- ]SHOW IPA
    SEE SYNONYMS FOR plagiarism ON THESAURUS.COM
    noun
    an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plagiarism

    See the link to the article in my post and please retract you accusation
    Nope. I know what plagerism is.

    Which part of your post did you write yourself?

    Why did you not put the part you did not write in a quote box? Or at the very least quotation marks to indicate what was your work and what was not?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not what you were arguing previously.

    ?

    Read my first post in the thread


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,033 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    enno99 wrote: »
    WTC Insurers Pay Out Huge Amounts to Support Official 9-11 Fairytale

    Based on the facts of this story, it appears that the payouts were agreed upon in order to lend credence to the government’s official account of what took place on September 11, 2001. If any of these 24 companies had seriously challenged the official version of events, the entire house of cards would have collapsed like the World Trade Center towers.

    Going even deeper, in a September 29, 2006 article entitled “9-11 and the Greenberg Familia,” Jerry Mazza pinpoints another major player in this scam: Maurice Greenberg. As a former deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and former director of the New York Federal Reserve, Greenberg also has notable Central Intelligence Agency ties and is known as the godfather of insurance giant AIG.

    Mazza wrote: “The three companies who originally insured the WTC were AIG, Marsh [McLennan] and ACE, all run by the Greenbergs at the time. They then sold stakes in the original contract to their competition, a technique called reinsuring. Once the towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag. This would inextricably tie the Greenbergs to Silverstein and the larger conspiracy of 9-11. If they had no foreknowledge of the events to occur, why would the Greenbergs have unloaded so many stakes in their contract?”

    https://americanfreepress.net/wtc-insurers-pay-out-huge-amounts-to-support-official-9-11-fairytale/

    <<snip>>

    This is not an Insurance fraud forum

    I think it is fair to point out that there is no original content in this post, so I'm not shocked at cries of plagiarism. However:
    King Mob wrote:
    Nope. I know what plagerism is.

    Which part of your post did you write yourself?

    I think it's very easy upon comparing it to the link to know that the entire portion of the post is copypasta from the link, drawing out pedantic questions like this, when we all can pretty easily discern what's up here, is not helpful. One thing to point it out, but who really enjoys pedantry.

    I would suggest however to all in the future when copypasting for context use a quote block (you can never go wrong with a quote block!), "quotation marks," or at least italics (when I'm on desktop I also use an indent tag) to differentiate between user opinion/contribution and whats carried over from a link. Aside from the bolded emphasis you added, enno, there's no original content or thought from you in the post. Can you both drop this plagiarism business now though? Point made.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Read my first post in the thread
    Yes. I have.

    You're dodging points again. There's no point in continuing to chase you down on them.

    You are illustrating Dohnjoes original point pretty perfectly though.
    Conspiracy theorists like yourself have to fall down on one of two sides to explain the issue of why insurance companies paid out.
    You guys either invent a whole new layer to the conspiracy where every insurance company was involved in the conspiracy.
    Or you have to ignore the issue and dream up excuses.

    To me it seems like you flipped from one camp to the other in the space of one article.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Interesting film/video of Rik Mayall trying to explain the collapse of the towers to someone who hates conspiracies. Die hard debunkers on here not like it of course, but it good mental exercise this video.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Interesting film/video of Rik Mayall trying to explain the collapse of the towers to someone who hates conspiracies.


    It's a TV clip with an example of the physics of solid wooden building blocks that has little or nothing to do with the physics or forces involved with a skyscraper

    The fact that you think this is interesting indicates you genuinely don't know the difference


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's a TV clip with an example of the physics of solid wooden building blocks that has little or nothing to do with the physics or forces involved with a skyscraper

    The fact that you think this is interesting indicates you genuinely don't know the difference

    9/11 unduly complicated for you to follow, we have noticed that play out on different threads here. You couldn’t identify one steel framed building collapsing from fire in Europe or America prior to 9/11 or after 9/11 up till today's date 2020. Yet your so convinced your theory about fire causing the collapse on 9/11 right.

    You have shown disdain for other possible ways to destroy the buildings on 9/11. You not open minded, your close minded here to evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,457 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    9/11 unduly complicated for you to follow, we have noticed that play out on different threads here. You couldn’t identify one steel framed building collapsing from fire in Europe or America prior to 9/11 or after 9/11 up till today's date 2020. Yet your so convinced your theory about fire causing the collapse on 9/11 right.

    You have shown disdain for other possible ways to destroy the buildings on 9/11. You not open minded, your close minded here to evidence.

    Ermmmm so are you!


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You couldn’t identify one steel framed building collapsing from fire in Europe or America prior to 9/11 or after 9/11 up till today's date 2020. Yet your so convinced your theory about fire causing the collapse on 9/11 right.

    Lol this again. :rolleyes:
    You have been shown examples of steel framed structures collapsing.
    You have been shown example of a steel framed high rise falling due to fire, but you are randomly excluding that because it's inconvenient for you. (It doesn't matter if the building is in Europe or America or anywhere else.)

    Conversely, you have never once pointed to any examples in support of your theory.
    You can't point to any examples of:
    A building being secretly demolished.
    A building being demolished by any kind of thermite.
    A building being secretly demolished by thermite.
    A building being secretly demolished by thermite during active fires.
    A building falling at free fall speeds during a demolition.
    A building remaining hot weeks and months after it's demolition.
    Any type of demolition resulting in pools of molten metal.
    And the list goes on.

    You keep bringing up this point as if it hasn't been addressed or as if it doesn't apply to your conspiracy theory.
    But it has been addressed over and over. You just ignore the answers. You ignore how it "disproves" your own theory.
    You have shown disdain for other possible ways to destroy the buildings on 9/11.
    You mean like space lasers?
    Mini nukes?
    Holograms?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Yet your so convinced your theory about fire causing the collapse on 9/11 right.

    It's not my theory. It's accepted historical fact, it's taught in schools, it's referenced in universities, it's in print everywhere. So no, it's not some personal theory.

    You on the other hand do you have a personal theory. You believe that all the history books are wrong, that every single conspiracy theorist out there is wrong, and that "secret Nazi's" carried out the attacks. A vague theory that is entirely unique to you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,610 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's a TV clip with an example of the physics of solid wooden building blocks that has little or nothing to do with the physics or forces involved with a skyscraper

    The fact that you think this is interesting indicates you genuinely don't know the difference

    Ive seen this clip do the rounds this week. Ive no idea why. Its from a 10 year old movie. It wasn't "banned" as people have been saying.

    So easily manipulated. Just say its been "banned" and the conspiraloons go mental.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's not my theory. It's accepted historical fact, it's taught in schools, it's referenced in universities, it's in print everywhere. So no, it's not some personal theory.

    You on the other hand do you have a personal theory. You believe that all the history books are wrong, that every single conspiracy theorist out there is wrong, and that "secret Nazi's" carried out the attacks. A vague theory that is entirely unique to you.

    Yes acknowledged the United States got attacked on 9/11, planes hijacked during flight, 19 men from the middle east listed as the hijackers. The flew the planes miles across country and then directed the aircraft towards buildings in New York and the Pentagon. That's in the history books agreed, no problem.

    You are wrong about the timeline of accepted facts.
    9/11 commission report omitted building seven collapse on 9/11. NIST was the first government agency to declare fire brought down the building seven in 2008. Seven years after the attack occurred. Up to till then nobody would commit to the theory fire brought down this building.

    Building seven is the holy grail that proves demolition occurred here, because the NIST report has been shown to be flawed in every aspect. Debunkers still ignore there missing elements on flanges, beams and girders if not removed would have stopped a total collapse. These highlighted discoveries doesn’t seem to bother debunkers.NIST probable scenario for destruction can’t happen in the way the described in the report.

    It well known story in the conspiracy world- Mohammed Atta had a meeting with rich German Industrialists in Florida on board a yacht. Atta was sponsored by the Carl Duisberg Society to leave Egypt and study in Germany. Why do you think he felt comfortable in Hamburg? His early life was mixing with Germans not Jihadists, a fact ignored by the 9/11 official story.

    I remain open minded here to who knew about the attack before it happened. Some say Mossad planted devices in the Towers and Building seven, maybe they did, i remain open minded to the who executed the plan. I don’t rule out anyone shady in the criminal networks, and that includes post war Nazis( Rich German Industrialists)


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,195 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    How did he get this information?




    He read it on boards.ie


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes acknowledged the United States got attacked on 9/11, planes hijacked during flight, 19 men from the middle east listed as the hijackers. The flew the planes miles across country and then directed the aircraft towards buildings in New York and the Pentagon. That's in the history books agreed, no problem.

    You are wrong about the timeline of accepted facts.
    9/11 commission report omitted building seven collapse on 9/11. NIST was the first government agency to declare fire brought down the building seven in 2008. Seven years after the attack occurred. Up to till then nobody would commit to the theory fire brought down this building.

    Building seven is the holy grail that proves demolition occurred here, because the NIST report has been shown to be flawed in every aspect. Debunkers still ignore there missing elements on flanges, beams and girders if not removed would have stopped a total collapse. These highlighted discoveries doesn’t seem to bother debunkers.NIST probable scenario for destruction can’t happen in the way the described in the report.

    It well known story in the conspiracy world- Mohammed Atta had a meeting with rich German Industrialists in Florida on board a yacht. Atta was sponsored by the Carl Duisberg Society to leave Egypt and study in Germany. Why do you think he felt comfortable in Hamburg? His early life was mixing with Germans not Jihadists, a fact ignored by the 9/11 official story.

    I remain open minded here to who knew about the attack before it happened. Some say Mossad planted devices in the Towers and Building seven, maybe they did, i remain open minded to the who executed the plan. I don’t rule out anyone shady in the criminal networks, and that includes post war Nazis( Rich German Industrialists)
    And all of this is just the same rehashed nonsense that's been explained to you over and over again.

    None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread, which you are avoiding because you cannot address it.
    It's the same with any of those points you made.
    If we focus on any one of them, you will expose your ignorance and run into issues with them you can't address. Then you'll dodge and deflect and run away.

    You know this. You know you have to do this, yet you still spout this nonsense.

    It's very sad.
    But it's to the benefit of people who actually care about truth and reality.
    The more you post stuff like this and engage in the same behaviour, the more you make your position look ridiculous and dishonest. The more you make people realise that the conspiracy theories are empty, ignorant and dishonest.

    You're doing our work for us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Yes acknowledged the United States got attacked on 9/11, planes hijacked during flight, 19 men from the middle east listed as the hijackers. The flew the planes miles across country and then directed the aircraft towards buildings in New York and the Pentagon. That's in the history books agreed, no problem.

    Don't forget to keep going..

    And according to you they secretly loaded up and fully prepped 3 skyscrapers with silent explosives which were going to be rammed with fuel-laden airliners, in broad daylight, in the middle of New York, in front of the world's press..

    Why?

    Why take all those pointless extra risks?

    And why did they "blow up" WTC 7? If they got full access to the building to literally prep it for demolition, then they can get access to whatever they wanted to "destroy" inside, so why blow it up?

    I don't want stuff you make up and rationalise in your head about secret Nazi's, that's like talking to a flat-earther who is making up stuff on the spot about NASA. I don't think you grasp that part..


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Don't forget to keep going..

    And according to you they secretly loaded up and fully prepped 3 skyscrapers with silent explosives which were going to be rammed with fuel-laden airliners, in broad daylight, in the middle of New York, in front of the world's press..

    And remember it only took 16 or so people a weekend or two to do it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    And remember it only took 16 or so people a weekend or two to do it.

    because, ready for this, there isn't footage of them not planting explosives

    They haven't produced hundreds of thousands of hours of footage from every single camera, therefore we can't prove that someone didn't plant explosives..


Advertisement