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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1246

Comments

  • #92
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #93
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,420 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #94
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #95
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #96
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,396 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #98
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,420 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #99
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #100
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • #101
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #103
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #104
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • #105
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #106
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #107
    Adam9213
    Registered Users Posts: 274 ✭✭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.


  • #108
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • #109
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • #110
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #111
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • #113
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #114
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #115
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #116
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,951 ✭✭✭✭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".


  • #117
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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:


  • #118
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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>


  • #119
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #120
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Hoop66
    Registered Users Posts: 2,287 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement