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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Not to mention motive.

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

a- fantastically wealthy

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

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

Man with broke phone wrote: »

Because they were in on it.

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

That interview may have exposed who did it, maybe?

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

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

Looking at his bio, this is very suspicious.

Employment Operations manager

In office
1993 - 1996
Employer Moishe's Moving System

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dominik_Suter

Overheal wrote: »

Mod

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overheal wrote: »

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

I disagree with your final remark.

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

Dohnjoe wrote

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

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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

option 2 seems to be their best bet


How Insurance Companies Exploited 9/11


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Funny how these guys keep popping up

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

Dont rock the boat

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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

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

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

Who was that investigation for ? which insurance companies

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

So not by the insurers as you said earlier

Dohnjoe 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

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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

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

enno99 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.

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.

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

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 ?

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

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