It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: audubon
It's a point worth knowing more about. However, I would also point out that trying to deny the claim would mean not just that the OS is bs, but that Silverstein was in on the entire thing. No matter who did it, it WAS a terrorist attack. To deny the claim would be to take on the entire federal gov't.
If there were any evidence that the tower was demolished deliberately, by the way, that would have been a much stronger claim--fraud--for Aegis to argue, so you can draw pretty strong inferences against them believing controlled demolition was a plausible hypothesis by them pursuing the negligence claim alone...
originally posted by: audubon
(This could be a short thread, I have no idea.)
Time and again, Silverstein's new insurance policy on the WTC towers is brought up, as though it were a winning ace of a detail. But we never hear of any investigation carried out by the insurance companies he took out policies with.
Since Silverstein's claim amounted to multiple billions of dollars, I feel sure that the insurance companies must have gone through his claim with a very fine-toothed comb indeed. (And anyone who thinks insurance companies don't conduct their own investigations into very large claims doesn't know what they are talking about.)
I think that, in the end, Silverstein got most of what he was trying to claim, but there was no quibble from any of his insurers about the basic facts.
Is that correct? Or did the insurance companies find anything controversial with which to dispute the claim?
We often hear aspersions cast about NIST and other official investigators. Yet Silverstein's insurers were independent private companies with a clear (and massive) collective interest in exposing any fraud involved in 9/11.
So - anyone know the score with this issue? Perhaps I'm googling the wrong things, but I can't find any coverage of the insurers pushing back on the official story.
It's more complicated than that - the WTC complex was insured via multiple insurance policies with 23 different companies for a total of $3.55 billion for a single event. He asked that it be considered two events, so the limit be raised to $7.1 billion. The insurance companies disputed this, and there was a court case, and the resultant total limit was much less the $7.1 billion ($4.577 billion). And this only covered half the cost of rebuilding the complex, in 2007 this was estimated as $9 billion. Public investment (loans) was required to cover the difference.
originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: audubon
I think the reason for a non-existent insurance investigation lies in the fact ( fact as in reported on ATS) that the judge in the case was George w's cousin.