Larry Silverstein's "insurance job"

(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.

a reply to: audubon

Good question.
If I remember correctly it ended up in court, and Larry claimed 2 terrorist attacks, because 2 planes were used. I don't remember the insurance co paying in full and Larry getting all he wanted. He is a very (more) rich man.

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.

a reply to: audubon

From what I recall, Silverstein signed a lease for 99 years for the WTC in June of 2001.

When all was said and done, he was able to collect over the "per occurrence limit" due to his argument regarding multiple planes and multiple occurrences. I don't know if it was treated as 2 separate occurrences, or how much he was ultimately paid to become "indemnified" for the loss.

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.

Hmm. That kind of sounds like an opinion asserted as a fact.

I should emphasise here, before we go haring off into the usual routines, that I'm as interested to find out what the insurers found during their investigation as I am to discover whether they disputed the claim. Those could be two separate subjects for all I know. It just seems odd to me that no-one seems to know what the insurers learned about the attack.

The reason they ultimately paid out is due to the fact that once the U.S. government came out with the official version of events, the issue of whether or not it was a terrorist attack was determined. There is no practical way for the Insurer to convince a judge that this was definitely not an act of terror. Furthermore, the insurance company would ruin itself trying to claim that the U.S. government did it and that it therefore was not an act of terror. The stigma would leave the company wanting for further insureds to sign on.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Which part? I don't know all the details of his claim but assuming from what I know and what you put in the OP, he made a claim for a terrorist attack. An attack occurred, can't we agree on that? As long as Silverstein wasn't in on the attack itself, his claim would be valid regardless of wether it was done by muslim terrorists, the Mossad, the CIA, or Lee Harvey Oswald.

Further, if the insurance company wanted to say an attack occurred but was with Silverstein's approval, or at least knowledge, they would have to fight the official US narrative of 19 ME high jackers.

So I'm really not seeing what I asserted as factual that was not factual.

Put it this way,

The insurance company are selling a product that Larry paid for with his premium, they can argue the official story if they wanted but since the NIST report was the accepted account of the event then in a court the insurance company loses unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is false. When the US Government are peddling the report as fact then good luck winning that case.


Larry did end up in court over the claim regarding the payout of if it should be classed as two attacks which I "believe" he successfully argued and won.

To simplify you have a Fire and theft policy on a car, if it goes up in flames because the engines goes pop you get paid out, if it goes up in flames because a fuel line slits and ignites, you get a pay out, same here it was classed as a terrorist attack, the premium was paid up and there was no evidence that Larry was involved "officially" so no none claim due to fraud..

They had no option but to pay up....

Bottom line who the hell knows what shady deals went down prior and post event, all we have to go on is what information we are told or that comes to light and in a civil matter like this not a lot..

RA

There was an effort to get out of paying for WTC 7.

By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

From thread at metabunk, aegis-insurance-v-7-world-trade-company-expert-reports.t7112/

This thread contains the court documents that have the sign depositions from each side that fire initiated structural failure lead to collapse. Independent analysis. Aegis pushed that WTC 7 was inadequately designed.

www.metabunk.org...


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...

And in the context of WTC 7, the EPA lost their court cases concerning the toxicity of WTC dust.

a reply to: timequake

I think that is a reasonable surmise but a mistaken one. The federal government's decisions can indeed be fought in court - here is an example of an insurance company suing the government last year. The circumstances aren't analogous (this insurance company was suing the government for breach of contract). But it does show that the US govt's word isn't final in the eyes of the judiciary and that insurance companies will take cases to court when the stakes are high.

There were a lot of loose ends tied up with that attack. Health regulations required that the asbestos in those towers had to be removed. That would have cost billions in lost revenue over a decade if it were done bit by bit.

Various investigations into corruption and insider dealing were going on. All the evidence was eliminated once the buildings collapsed.

You might find this old Thread of mine interesting.

9/11 actually left them out of pocket and there were loads of big court cases in the early 2000’s with them trying to squeeze cash out of various insurance companies.

The insurers were more invested in exploring legal avenues to to avoid payouts, as such one would have expected if they did find anything they would have used it in the various court cases that went on. I have followed 9/11 very closely over the years and I have never came across anything to suggest that the insurance firms found any evidence of some false flag conspiracy.

I would post more but I am on a iPad and it’s time for bed

For the false narrative of CD and Silverstein. Why would the government master mind the towers then clue in Silverstein on 9/11 to ride the coattails concerning WTC 7. Then who installed explosives in WTC 7? How did the CD system survive hours of fires to carry out what AE 9/11 Truth claims was a precise timed CD, beyond the timing capability of thermite / nano-thermitr?

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.

Well covered in this thread www.metabunk.org...

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.

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.

a reply to: mrthumpy

RationalWiki covers it too.

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.

First cousin? Second cousin? Seventh cousin?

False argument. There was Insurance investigations and court cases.

If you listen to the few on the internet the keyboard warriors know more than the professional investigators do.
They ignore that those investigators would have received bonuses had they uncovered some devious plot to shift the blame to the government.