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?

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,703 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


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


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    enno99 wrote: »
    Which insurance companies

    Named in earlier comment


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    No they went after Silverstein because he got greedy and wanted to be paid twice for the towers etc
    But they didn't use his confession of being involved in insurance fraud?
    That doesn't make sense.

    Why didn't they use that incredibly useful piece of evidence that would have ended the case instantly?
    Why did they let themselves lose?
    enno99 wrote: »
    What government claims did they contradict that would show government involve or expose any corruption
    Links have already been posted that show insurance companies disagreed with "official" reason the towers collapsed, calling into question the governments explaination.

    I've answered your question directly. Please go back and answer mine. Thanks.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    But they didn't use his confession of being involved in insurance fraud?
    That doesn't make sense.

    Why didn't they use that incredibly useful piece of evidence that would have ended the case instantly?
    Why did they let themselves lose?


    Links have already been posted that show insurance companies disagreed with "official" reason the towers collapsed, calling into question the governments explaination.

    I've answered your question directly. Please go back and answer mine. Thanks.


    Well thats a stretch they disputed the integrity of the building design

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

    They would need access in the aftermath of the event to send in forensic investigators to prove their theory

    how would that work get an injunction to stop the clean up

    So only option grin and bare it get sweetheart deal 12 months later recoup loses and continue to profit until 2027 :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well thats a stretch they disputed the integrity of the building design
    Which contradicts the governments official report.
    You guys have also told us that if the government reports were wrong in any way that shows they were lying, thus it's a conspiracy.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Silly argument you think a judge would entertain a youtube video without further evidence in a case of that magnitude
    But according to you guys, it's a confession.
    And it isn't just a YouTube video. It's from a PBS documentary that was on national TV.
    Why does it being also on YouTube invalidate the it being a confession?
    That doesn't make any sense.
    enno99 wrote: »
    They would need access in the aftermath of the event to send in forensic investigators to prove their theory

    how would that work get an injunction to stop the clean up
    Why would they need that?
    You guys have already claimed to have found tons of damning evidence without that.

    Kinda just seems like a special pleading excuse here.
    enno99 wrote: »
    So only option grin and bare it get sweetheart deal 12 months later recoup loses and continue to profit until 2027 :D
    Again none of that makes sense.
    They lost money because they had to pay out.

    And what do you mean by sweetheart deal?
    I thought you said they weren't involved?
    Now you saying that they are?

    You don't seem to have your story very straight...

    I'll take it my other questions are being once again ignore because they can't be honestly answered.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well thats a stretch they disputed the integrity of the building design

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

    They would need access in the aftermath of the event to send in forensic investigators to prove their theory

    how would that work get an injunction to stop the clean up

    So only option grin and bare it get sweetheart deal 12 months later recoup loses and continue to profit until 2027 :D

    And yet we have conspiracy theorists in here every day posting (hours long) youtube video's expecting us to believe they are proof.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which contradicts the governments official report.
    You guys have also told us that if the government reports were wrong in any way that shows they were lying, thus it's a conspiracy.


    But according to you guys, it's a confession.
    And it isn't just a YouTube video. It's from a PBS documentary that was on national TV.
    Why does it being also on YouTube invalidate the it being a confession?
    That doesn't make any sense.


    Why would they need that?
    You guys have already claimed to have found tons of damning evidence without that.

    Kinda just seems like a special pleading excuse here.


    Again none of that makes sense.
    They lost money because they had to pay out.

    And what do you mean by sweetheart deal?
    I thought you said they weren't involved?
    Now you saying that they are?

    You don't seem to have your story very straight...

    I'll take it my other questions are being once again ignore because they can't be honestly answered.

    your rambling what questions Silverstien covered FBI covered government


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


    And yet we have conspiracy theorists in here every day posting (hours long) youtube video's expecting us to believe they are proof.

    I dont think anyone expects anything its just information you can accept or refuse it


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    enno99 wrote: »
    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

    Which ones in particular? have you read any?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    enno99 wrote: »

    They would need access in the aftermath of the event to send in forensic investigators to prove their theory

    So according to you, the only valid investigations into 9/11 are those which had access to the site, proper forensic examination and access to the physical evidence (e.g. WTC steel), correct?


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


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

    It’s not rocket science, why? In this situation the insurance companies would have to be told officially men had entered the buildings before the 9/11 attack and planted devices to destroy the buildings. The Insurance companies had no such evidence this happened officially, so they had to pay out in the belief the official narrative was correct.

    Mr Hosey story is concerning since he spotted men who seem to not be American-born drilling inside the towers a week before the destruction of the towers. He was very distinct in details they had jackhammers and heavy equipment and were taking apart the corner internal wall in one room when he found them there. Considering what happened a week later the FBI should talk to him and see who this group was and have they perpetrated in a hidden crime here?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It’s not rocket science, why? In this situation the insurance companies would have to be told officially men had entered the buildings before the 9/11 attack and planted devices to destroy the buildings. The Insurance companies had no such evidence this happened officially, so they had to pay out in the belief the official narrative was correct.

    Wow, okay. Insurance companies (119 of them at least) were told that the 3 skyscrapers were actually blown up.. (why?)

    I hope you aren't making this up, you have evidence of this correct?

    You previously claimed that Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 "blown up", and that he was "in on it" with his insurance company, or are you changing that story?


Advertisement