Do you think Warren Buffet who owns a big chunk of the loss, through one of these insurers or another, is so afraid of kikery that he would eat this loss if he had solid evidence that would stand up in court against a bad faith claim? I doubt it. I think you underestimate the egos of some of the whales out there.

On the other hand, the way that Allianz caved in to Jewish intimidation on these bullshit "lost holocaust victim insurance claims" was amazingly weak. Really I could barely believe it, when it happened..

I don't live in America so I'm not familiar with the 'whales' and their individual egos. I do believe however that those at the top levels in society are well aware how powerful and dangerous the jews can be if you cross them. In Buffet's case, who knows? Maybe he believes the official line too. Allianz is a German company, if you and I worked for them in Germany and the Zionists came along and demanded some compensation for the holocau$t, no matter how bogus, our denying it would be a crime punishable by imprisonment for 5 years.

So we'd pay.

The jews have in Germany what they want to achieve in America. I'd say if they had their way they would make questioning the 911 fairy tale illegal as they have done with questioning the holyhoax in many European States and Canada.

The next best thing however is already available to them. Political correctness, those of us who think Silverstein and the Port Authority jew colluded with their zionist cronies in the US Administration to bring about an incident involving the WTC which would cause BILLIONS of Insurance dollars to come raining down upon them are Anti-Semitic!

So there.

Thanks for that list Fissile. I see that there were US Insurers involved after all. However I'm pretty sure JP is mistaken when he says Silverstein's Syndicate was denied the 'second' claim for the $3.6 Billion. I understood the matter went to the courts with the Insurers claiming they were liable for just ONE event under the terms of the Insurance. This would have meant they settle on ONE building and not the others as JP seems to believe. I understand the courts didn't see it that way and ruled in favour of Larry's lucky syndicate. Gee some people have all the luck don't they?

Brings me to the question of how they treated the collapse of WTC7. How did the Insurers see that I wonder? In spite of our differences, we on this thread I'm pretty sure, ALL understand this building was in no way affected by the Planes or anything else, including debris from the collapsed towers as it was TOO FAR from the WTC1 and WTC2 Towers.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall as the Re-insurers were discussing this issue among themselves.

Sorry Bernie but the news story was already posted on this board a long time ago. Silverstein tried to claim that the attacks, plus the collapse actually counted as two seperate attacks so the insurance should have paid out twice or something along those lines. Naturally the judge didn't see it this way. He was upset because he claimed the money he got would not cover costs of rebuilding the complex on that site.

The fact is nobody in the US government is stupid enough to take that amount of risk just to pull off a "Jewish lightning" scam. Clinton couldn't even keep his affairs secret; there is no telling how many wistleblowers would emerge from the woodwork over this.

Sorry Bernie but the news story was already posted on this board a long time ago. Silverstein tried to claim that the attacks, plus the collapse actually counted as two seperate attacks so the insurance should have paid out twice or something along those lines. Naturally the judge didn't see it this way. He was upset because he claimed the money he got would not cover costs of rebuilding the complex on that site.

The fact is nobody in the US government is stupid enough to take that amount of risk just to pull off a "Jewish lightning" scam. Clinton couldn't even keep his affairs secret]

Silverstein initiated two separate law suits. One suit was against 9 of the insurers, and the other suit against the remainder. Two separate suits were filed because the first group of insurers used a contract form that was written differently from the second group of insurers.

As regards the first group of insurers, which included Swiss RE, the jury found the WTC attack to be one event. The insurers did not pay out double as Silverstein had demanded.

In the suit against the second group of insurers, a second jury found that the attack was two separate events based on how such an event was defined in the contract used by this group of insurers. The second group of insurers had to pay out double. This is by Silverstein received $4.6 billion dollars -- 1.1 billion more than he paid for the WTC lease but not the $7 billion that he was demanding.

BTW, one of the insurance companies that Silverstein sued was Westfield WTC LLC. Westfield WTC LLC is owned by Larry Silverstein. Silverstein is so jewy he sued himself!

Critical Mass

 

Means has not been even remotely hinted at by the conspiracy theorists. And opportunity is the nail in the coffin. The idea that a building like that, with that much people in it, could be fully rigged with demolitions while nobody noticed anything was up is simply ludicrous.

What appears, on the basis of fundamental physical considerations, to have been the demolition, simulating freefall, of WTC7 suggests that the buildings were and are pre-set for demolition. This is to say that they were constructed with explosives in place in anticipation of the day when they would be brought down. I suggest examining the surviving buildings in the complex.

And at least one theorist whose contribution I consulted claimed that a period of some days not too long before 9/11 had been available for building maintenance absent the occupants. I was not involved in this thread at the time and did not anticipate having to prove this claim having been made.

What appears, on the basis of fundamental physical considerations, to have been the demolition, simulating freefall, of WTC7 suggests that the buildings were and are pre-set for demolition. This is to say that they were constructed with explosives in place in anticipation of the day when they would be brought down. I suggest examining the surviving buildings in the complex.

And at least one theorist whose contribution I consulted claimed that a period of some days not too long before 9/11 had been available for building maintenance absent the occupants. I was not involved in this thread at the time and did not anticipate having to prove this claim having been made.

Wait a minute, are you saying that the building was constructed WITH the explosives in place, as a sort of "self-destruct" mechanism?

Wait a minute, are you saying that the building was constructed WITH the explosives in place, as a sort of "self-destruct" mechanism?

I am suggesting that as a reasonable speculation. I have no direct evidence.

And at least one theorist whose contribution I consulted claimed that a period of some days not too long before 9/11 had been available for building maintenance absent the occupants. I was not involved in this thread at the time and did not anticipate having to prove this claim having been made.

That's right. There's a fellow named Scott something who worked on a very high floor, like 97 as a senior computer manager who says the weekend before 911 they were advised NO POWER would be available on floor above (say) the 50th.

His concern was their computer systems would need to be handled with great care. He was at home on 911 and made the observation when he watched the Towers come down, that he had this queazy feeling that the absence of people that weekend had something to do with it.

Interesting..

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg

I am suggesting that as a reasonable speculation. I have no direct evidence.

Before 'terrorism' became such an issue I can well understand buildings having provisions for their ulimate disposal built at the time of their construction. I'm no engineer, I'm thinking who better than the original designers and builders to know where the best places to locate cutter charges?

But to actually have bombs waiting in there for many years is a bit much I reckon.

In case anyone here was not aware, Neocons are not only obsessed with the Middle East. In Europe, they hate Russia, in Asia they hate China and North Korea, and in the Middle East they hated Iraq(out of all the other countries there). A local radio show host in Phoenix remarked about how some neocons he interviewed in early 2001(long before 9-11) literally wanted to go to war with China over that spy plane thing.

The point is that neocons love war. They do not have to take those massive risks by blowing up their own important buildings- they can turn the slightest provocation into a massive crisis. They just got lucky.

"Oh lord, make my enemies ridiculous"

---Voltaire 1767

"Oh lord, make my enemies ridiculous"

---Voltaire 1767

Logic is ridiculous? People talking about remote-control planes, and buildings constructed with 20 year old demolition charges rigged in them is not ridiculous?

Logic is ridiculous? People talking about remote-control planes, and buildings constructed with 20 year old demolition charges rigged in them is not ridiculous?

In 2000 an Aircraft left Edwards Airforce Base Ca. and flew to Adelaide South Australia without a soul on board. The Plane is about the size of a 737 when it landed it was even taxied into a hangar by pilots perched many thousands of miles away. Remote controlled Aircraft may seem ridiculous to you but the technology has been around for many decades.

I'm a reader of http://www.whatreallyhappened.com Yesterday, in their readers letters section, a woman wrote in saying her husband was some kind of technician for an oil company. His concern is the flammability of jet aircraft fuel, she says her husband was a witness to the deliberate crash of a DC10 filmed with high speed cameras so as to record the flame propagation rate as its wings sheared off on impact.

When its all said and done making a few old Aircraft remote controlled, tarting them up in Airline Colours and ramming them into landmark buildings to divert attention from demolition charges earlier placed by experts, is certainly possible and a hell of a lot cheaper than the enormous costs involved in a 'proper' demolition.

And if it can be blamed on Arabs by your pals who own the press and teevee and kickstart a few wars with Israels enemies all the better.

Too bad about the three THOUSAND dead schmuks in New York on 911.

The fact that remote-control piloting is POSSIBLE does not offer proof of anything. The army has been researching "directed energy" weapons for decades, but that doesn't mean they have been used in anything yet.

Ridiculous:

* 19 dumb as shit Arab madmen, who couldn't pilot a single engine Cessna, guided by a turbanned mastermind on the other side of the planet, hijacking 4 commercial airliners successfully, using "boxcutters", at the exact same time, and then piloting them on suicide missions which result in the total collapse of two of the world's largest towers. And then making a 757 completely vanish at the Pentagon.

Dude, where's my Boeing?

You ARE ridiculous. 9-11 was just another jewish sitcom.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

What the fuck is that?

No soup for you!