9/11, A question of Insurance.

We all have our own ideas and theories of what really happened on that day. Infact there are now so many opinions that they are beginning to negate eachother with equally powerfull contraditory information.

Six years later NO ONE has brought foward the perfect smoking gun, and I guess that is one of the objectives of such an operation. Leave no TANGIBLE evidence behind.

So I will ask this question, and I know there will be people whos proffessional backgrounds will give us the answer.

What was the probabillity as measured by the insurance underwritters, of such an event taking place as it did.

As I understand it, insurance companies work from Actuary tables which determine the probability of events taking place that they will have to payup on, if such an event occurs. That way the probability factor detemines the premium that the insured will have to be pay.

They undoubtedly looked at fires in other steel structures and the money payed as compensation and came up with a figure that applied to the WTC.

So what is that number. Is it so ridiculously high that it defies the probability that such an event as 9/11 could have taken place in the way that it did?

Enquiring minds would love to know the answer. Me thinks it has seven digits.

Great posting! Of course you're absolutely right although your guess at the odds makes a day like that seem all too common. I'll bet there are very few people who can THINK who take the "official story" seriously. Unfortunately as anyone who watches mainstream television knows, the vast majority of the population has bread pudding for brains.

yes but the buildings were insured against acts of terrorism , that by definition covers a broad spectrum of possibilities.

and can you imagine the uproar if the insurance companies had decided not to pay out.


its hardly a smoking gun.

The insurance issues are quite deep here. Some time ago I took the trouble to look into Silverstein's legal woes vis a vis his insurance claims. I (naively) thought "Ah ha, here's where the rubber meets the road. They can fool the public but somewhere down the line some very shrewd and parsimonious insurance people are going to be asked to fork out a truckload of money." I thought the insurance people would take one look at the 911 Commission report and refuse to pay up on what must look like an obvious insurance scam. I found out that there were layers of companies insuring Silverstein and that there was at least one important CIA connection (in the form of executive that was a former high ranking CIA officer) within the insurance companies. It seemed likely at the very least that the fix was in on the insurance side. In the real world, faced with the kind of payouts they were facing, the insurance companies demand a thourough investigation of an actuarially impossible building collapse.

they will have made back the money somewhere along the line.

its one rule for 9/11 and another for the real world.

why were people promoted after 9/11 when there department or agency appeared to have totally messed up on 9/11 ?

Did Silverstein collect on WTC7? I don't know. After admitting that he and the fire department had decided to "pull it", I should think not. Did the insurance companies issue a statement in regard to WTC7? Not to my knowledge, although to be fair, I don't follow the insurance industry press. However in the real world someone in the press muses about these things and maybe writes an interesting feature to explain and reassure (pardon the unintentional pun). Not in this case. These peculiarities go completely unremarked. In Kevin Costner's (as Jim Garrison) words, "We are through the looking glass, people." Post 911 we slipped into the world of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare.

Thanks for the responses folks.

Where I'am trying to drive this question, is that once you know what the probaility of 3 Steel framed buildings - built in a manner that has never failed before - collapsing all on the same day for WHAT EVER the reason. You are just a hop skip and a jump away from Oakhams Razor, which states.

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."


In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

Consequently if the Probability factor as gauged by the Insurance companies was so high. that a helping hand must have been applied to pull those 3 buildings to the ground, you have conspiracy in some shape or form.

If you have Conspiracy and you apply Oakhams Razor the most likely outcome is a Conspiracy of Silence, rather than an Ian Flemming plot line.

The fact that US secret services are portrayed as less than credible over and over again, is a scam purpotrated by the secret services themeselves. Never let your enemy know just how clever you are.

The best intelligence organisation in the world KNEW the attack was coming, they just kept quite because they where told to.

Thats the conspiracy guys! No remote control military holographic planes, no passengers being whisked away and put in Witness protection programs, no lamp posts being blown up to indicate different flight paths at the pentagon, blah blah blah. Bombs in buildings? Absolutely!

The harsh fact is. Those that govern, decided it was in the BEST INTEREST of the United States for that event to take place. And what is in the best interest of the US? Quite simply access to the Oil fields of the world.


Oakhams Razor.....You gotta love it.

Not sure I buy everything you said although I'm all for clear argument. I would be satisfied if everyone who broke the various laws and statutes both federal and state on that day did the time that their crimes merit.

You mention that "access to the oil fields of the world" was found to be in the best interests of the United States by those that govern. No argument there. Didn't realize anyone had objected to that. Must have been quite a surprise to the Iraqis too. Is that what this war was about? Haven't heard that announcement yet. I have a feeling that it might have been more about the billing arrangements.

As far as Occam's razor goes, it's a good tool to use in forming logical arguments or realistic speculative positions. However some complex situations require numerous partial formulations, none of which should be excluded for the sake of an unrealistic or simple minded simplicity.

I'll go one better than that: what is the probability of 3 of the 7 WTC buildings collapsing on the same day, under the same circumstances? One building collapse? OK. Two buildings? depends. Three? (especially when one was relatively undamaged)?? INVESTIGATE.

Maybe the 9/11 report keeps saying they collapsed due to fire to make the insurance stand up?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Not sure I buy everything you said although I'm all for clear argument. I would be satisfied if everyone who broke the various laws and statutes both federal and state on that day did the time that their crimes merit.

You mention that "access to the oil fields of the world" was found to be in the best interests of the United States by those that govern. No argument there. Didn't realize anyone had objected to that. Must have been quite a surprise to the Iraqis too. Is that what this war was about? Haven't heard that announcement yet. I have a feeling that it might have been more about the billing arrangements.

As far as Occam's razor goes, it's a good tool to use in forming logical arguments or realistic speculative positions. However some complex situations require numerous partial formulations, none of which should be excluded for the sake of an unrealistic or simple minded simplicity.

why do you put your name in bold above your post , we know its you posting you fool.

I posed the same question here

My question is; If this fuel was known about by the fire marshal, and was knowingly breaking laws, how is it that the owner's of 7 got the insurance money?

I put my username in the blank at the top because it's optional. Honestly, the minutiae of "posting etiquette" doesn't interest me. I'm more interested in the content of the posts themselves. I hardly read the marginalia, people's cute avatars etc. That kind of thing seems juvenile to me, but to each his own. I'm not criticizing it. I gather that something about me irritates you. That's fine. I acknowledge that I am a fool at times. I've never met someone who wasn't some kind of fool about something. I think we should just stick to the discussion at hand. If you think I shouldn't put my user name where I put it then complain to the moderator or send me a personal message, don't clutter up the thread with this kind of stuff.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

As far as Occam's razor goes, it's a good tool to use in forming logical arguments or realistic speculative positions. However some complex situations require numerous partial formulations, none of which should be excluded for the sake of an unrealistic or simple minded simplicity.

Couldn't agree with you more ipsedixit. I'am only applying it however to the question of "DID" something untoward happen that day. not "WHAT" happened on that day".

I suspect there are millions who still believe the event unfolded exactly as we have been told. For their benefit, if you could show them the Odds of such a thing happening, it could give those people something more tangible to consider.

Do we have any Vegas bookies among us? It seems Insurance brokers do not frequent ATS. Go figure!

Shadow Watcher:

Thanks for the link, I'll give it a good read.
Hope you got the answer!
Cheers.

Here is a link to a new story on Alex Jones's Infowars site:

www.infowars.com...

Apparently somebody in the insurance industry is showing signs of responding to shareholder concerns about 911 related insurance fraud and is taking an awful long time to dig their ultra fat wallet out of their pocket.

The Allianz insurance group of Germany is delaying payment of funds, although they have paid some money, based on a stockholders meeting report that included an objection from a California stockholder regarding signs of insurance fraud with respect to WTC7. The article says also that they have been threatened with regulatory headaches if they don't pay up. It's an interesting story that gives a behind the scenes peek at the goings on in this industry.

Poor Allianz caught between threat of government punitive regulatory measures and potential corporate governance scandal fallout emanating from shareholder dissatisfaction. Poor poor Allianz! But lucky Allianz too. They are the only insurance company involved in 911 with an intelligent shareholder who might save them from a much bigger mess down the road.

Great update.

The linked article is very interesting.

I bet the guys at Allianz are looking at the very figure I'am trying to find with this thread.

And their shaking their heads, saying "No way is this possible".

I've been down a couple of other roads to find the answer, I know it will be worth finding.

Silverstein sure made a lot of money off building 7 according to the website ipsedixit posted. Building 7 was valued at $386 million but was awarded $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers. Doubled his money up and then some on that building. That sure sounds fishy to me.

The reason for this thread, stated a number of times by Seeker PI, is gradually penetrating my thick head. Here is a contributory link that might get us on the road to nailing down the number.

www.hq.usace.army.mil...

The site enumerates the large number of considerations that go into assigning risk in low probability but high consequence risk situations. You can bet that someone in the insurance industry did the calculations and laughingly said "Sure we'll give you a policy, sucker." It must have seemed almost like insuring the Great Pyramid against a terrorist strike. These were the first steel buildings in the history of modern construction to collapse. I believe I read a quote from a scrap metal industry person somewhere that said they had never seen beams that big in his industry before. Well, there's a reason for that. Very few, if any, old skyscrapers have been taken down in controlled demolitions. None have collapsed.

How do you calculate the odds against something happening, which has never happened before? What are the odds against George W. Bush being shot out of a cannon at the circus? Maybe that's where the word risk enters the picture.

Thats an excellent link ipsedixit.

I'll spend sometime trying to get a better feal for it, and then post back.

Again,Thanks for your effort and understanding.

Heres what the The US Army corp of Enginneers fact sheet on Security and Risk Assesment has to say on how the probability factor is determined.

It is EXACTLY what I'am trying to find with this thread. Thankyou for bringing it to our attention ipsedixit, I think it really clarifies the proposition.



"Risk Analysis

Identify the laws and guidelines applicable to the problem.

Assesses the adequacy of technical capabilities required.

Gather historical scientific data and integrate following agreement on proper procedures with which to collect that data.

Place these data into a risk assessment matrix.

Apply appropriate probabilistic tools".



Assessment Matrix ? and probabilistic tools ? Hmmmm

Does anyone here have any insight on those mechanisms.