Insurance companies refuse to pay Silverstein

[Micpsi]

WTC builders tell 2 insurers to pay up
Associated Press
March 13, 2007

World Trade Center builders rallied with hundreds of construction workers Monday to protest stalled payments by two insurers, saying their failure to pay is jeopardizing ground zero rebuilding.

Trade center developer Larry Silverstein, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey executive director Anthony Shorris, lawmakers and labor leaders rallied outside a midtown Manhattan hotel where the National Association of Insurance Commissioners was meeting, saying insurers Allianz and Royal & Sun Alliance UK are delaying rebuilding.

The two insurers are among those that have not agreed to pay their part of $4.6 billion (€3.5 billion) in insurance money being used to design and rebuild five office towers on the 16-acre (6 1/2 hectares) site, the officials said. Allianz and Royal owe about $800 million (€608 million), said Edward J. Malloy, president of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York.

Said Silverstein: "The insurers will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying legitimate debts. ... We will not stand by while they duck their obligations to New York and this nation."
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/posting.php?mode=newtopic&f=4
-----------------------------------------------
I wonder whether executives of the two insurance companies have been visiting 9/11 websites......?

[bigyin]

I hope they don't pay. After all it's Joe Public that ends up paying this in the end with higher insurance premiums. We should support these companies and encourage them to take issue with the facts of the case.

[Micpsi]

Wow! Indeed, it looks like Allianz at least IS witholding payment because they believe WTC 7 represents an insurance fraud! Propagandamatrix.com reported that one of the shareholders proposed in 2005 to the Board of Directors that payment be withheld. Here is the text:

Countermotion (Shareholder Proposal) to the General Meeting of Allianz AG to be held May 4th, 2005

From Shareholder:
John-Paul Leonard,
P.O. Box 126,
Joshua Tree, California 92252


Re: Agenda Item 3, Approval of the actions of the members of the Board of Management, I propose that approval not be granted.

Re: Agenda Item 4, Approval of the actions of the members of the Supervisory Board, I likewise propose that approval not be granted.

Reasoning:

The managing and supervisory boards have taken a passive attitude toward the insurance claims and the suspicious aspects of the WTC insurance loss.

The investigation of insurance losses and insurance damage claims against the Company is naturally one of the chief duties of the management of every insurance firm.

The WTC catastrophe was doubtless one of the biggest insurance incidents in history. A significant portion of the multi-billion dollar loss is expected to be borne by Allianz.

Numerous observers and researchers find the WTC case very suspicious. For example, in a public opinion survey, 49.3% of respondents in New York City agreed that “some of our leaders knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” [Source: www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855.]

When this belief is so widespread among unrelated parties, haven’t the affected insurance companies ever asked whether perhaps the US Government instead of the insurers is responsible for the damages, or whether the possibility of insurance fraud has been investigated?

From reports in the media about the trial in New York between the insurers and the insured WTC leaseholder, no sign of such motions has been made public. The dispute has been mainly over the question, whether to pay out $7 billion or “only” $3 billion, whereby the shareholders are supposed to be relieved at the latter sum as a victory of the “lesser of two evils.”

Nor has there been any lack of critical and analytical voices in Germany. Several books in the last few years have posed sharp questions to the official WTC scenario. In 2003, Deutsche Welle published an article entitled, “9/11 Conspiracy Theory Books Dominate Debate at Frankfurt Book Fair.” (www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,993523,00.html .)

Anyone who is interested can quickly obtain similar materials from the Internet free of charge, as well as continuing researches of the background of 9/11 by independent journalists.

Two German-American writers, Jim Hoffman (www.wtc7.net) and Eric Hufschmid, have contibuted greatly to the theory of the dynamiting of the Twin Towers and Building WTC-7. Hufschmid’s work was translated and published in German (www.painfulquestions.de). They claim that never in history has the structure of a steel building ever been destroyed by fire, and that on the contrary, the evidence points to a controlled demolition. I could find no evidence to gainsay their thesis anywhere.

WTC-7, as is well-known, was never struck by airplanes, and photographs of it show only insignificant fires ( www.globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523 ). Nevertheless, the 47-story building at WTC 7 suddenly collapsed at around 17:28 on 9/11/2001. This fact was not even mentioned in the report of the official 9/11 commission. (www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf )

How can an insurer take such an extreme case simply and casually as business as usual?

There is plenty more such evidence that would be useful in the billion-dollar lawsuit, which every citizen with an Internet connection can confirm. Why aren’t Allianz (and the other insurers) able to?

When the managing and supervisory boards take no action to join the investigation of a case as huge and notorious as the WTC, how are the shareholders to know that other cases, too, for whatever reason, are not paid out without being properly investigated?

There is already a private lawsuit against US government officials in connection with the events of 9/11, see http://www.911forthetruth.com.
--------------------------------
Full story at http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2005/040505potentialfraud. htm

[Micpsi]

More news about Allianz 'not paying' for destroyed WTC: http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21372424-462,00.html

[Bongo]

Guys!!! Guys!!!

Stop getting sucked in so easily!

The whole story about this is a deliberate 'false flag' propaganda stunt!

The insurance companies stated above are 'So' in Cahoots with corporate business... in fact... they are an integral part of the scam, just as much as Silverstein is a major player. They want you to get wrapped up in their bullsh1t stories so you lose focus on their real agenda....

... Please, see this for what it is! A BLATANT attempt to distract from Silversteins capitalising on 3000 innocent peoples murders.

As I said in a previous thread... I would not set foot in Silversteins new so called 'Freedom tower' (which he stands to make a further killing, excuse the pun)... as I simply would not 'dis-respectfully' trample over the ground and the remains (as their bodies still lie in the rubble ) of the victims of this attrocious crime.

With utmost respect to the families and victims of this crime, I continue to fight for full justice and the immediate prosecution of the perpetrators of this evil crime (and that includes Silverstein as well as those who aided his agenda!).

You are either with me or you are with the Neo-cons!

[Micpsi]

[Micpsi]

What were the 3 companies who insured the WTC?

AIG, Marsh and ACE. All run by Greenbergs at the time.

They then sold stakes of the original contract to their competition, a process called reinsuring. Once the towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag.

Who mortgaged the WTC? The Blackstone Group, headed by Peter J. Peterson, current head of the CFR. The Blackstone Group bought into Kroll in 1993 at the same time as AIG took majority control. Henry Kissinger sits on the board of the Blackstone Group.

On July 24, 2001, 6 weeks prior to 9/11 Silverstein took control of the lease of the WTC following the Port Authority decision on April 26. [2] (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html) Silverstein owned all the buildings. Later he wanted to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies because it were two seperate events. [3] (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WTC312A.html) Only ACE, XL Insurance - strategic partners of AIG and currently owned by AIG - included a WilProp in their clauses, so Silverstein "only" got $5 billion.
--------------------------------------------
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Who_Killed_John_O 'Neill

There is NO evidence that reinsurers like Allianz and others were part of the original 9/11 insurance scam. Instead, they got left holding the tab.

[Thermate]

that would be http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Who_Killed_John_O %27Neill

Its good news the insurance companies are asking questions, I've long thought this could be a possible route to crack the real events of 911 wide open.

[kbo234]

Congratulate the Royal and SunAlliance here.


http://www.royalsunalliance.co.uk/royalsun/contactus/index.jsp?link=7& country=1&contactyou=7&Go=GO

[Micpsi]

Royal & SunAlliance seems to be disputing that it owes Silverstein more money, rather than the principle of paying him anything, although this might be a cover story for public relations that hides their REAL reasons, which might be too explosive to reveal. Anyway, here is their public statement:


Royal & SunAlliance USA Comments on World Trade Center Obligations
02/08/2007

In light of recent inaccurate statements made concerning Royal & SunAlliance USA with regard to its World Trade Center obligations, the company wishes to make the following facts known.

Royal & SunAlliance USA has paid over $1 billion to tenant policyholders and building owners in and around the World Trade Center, including $56 million to Silverstein Properties.

Royal & SunAlliance USA does not currently owe Silverstein Properties additional payments and is not delaying the rebuilding process. The amount that Royal & SunAlliance USA will owe is being determined in an ongoing court-directed appraisal process, in which many complex issues affecting the obligations of Royal and the other insurers are yet to be addressed.

More importantly, Royal & SunAlliance USA’s obligation to pay any further amounts toward future rebuilding costs does not come into play until Silverstein has actually spent a minimum of $5 billion or the appraisal panel decides that the market value of the Trade Center exceeded $5 billion as of 9/11, neither of which has occurred. When Silverstein acquired his 99-year interest in the WTC in 2001, $3.2 billion was the widely reported value of the transaction.

Royal & SunAlliance USA has repeatedly told Silverstein, The Port Authority and public officials that the company fully intends to honor its policy obligations as and when they become due. The Arrowpoint Capital acquisition of Royal & SunAlliance USA will benefit all policyholders because it provides an additional $287.5 million to pay legitimate claims.

Contrary to the suggestion of Silverstein’s lawyers, the finding in the hearing officer’s report as to the fairness of the Arrowpoint acquisition was not lightly reached. Professor Hamermesh, the Delaware hearing officer, exhaustively examined the transaction, including allowing Silverstein’s lawyers to make voluminous submissions and arguments at the hearing. In his decision recommending approval, he concluded, among other things, that "…these litigations have been addressed by the insurers, and their reserves and reserving practices with respect to such litigation have been reviewed by outside auditors and actuaries and have been determined to be reasonable by the insurers and [the Delaware Department of Insurance]." (222)

Royal & SunAlliance USA’s good faith cannot be called into question; nor can its commitment to the rebuilding at Ground Zero in accordance with its contractual obligations, which it will continue to honor.
http://www.royalsunalliance-usa.com/rsa-usa/498/GetPage.aspx

[karlos]

notice how the companies involved in the re-insurance are NOT american

[bigyin]

[Micpsi]

Update: Allianz now in mediation with Silverstein: http://i.today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=bankingFinan cial&storyID=nN12373408&imageid=&cap=&from=business
To avoid opening up the 9/11 can of worms, will Allianz agree to a fudge or will they hold their ground?

[karlos]

Remember all the money the German businesses and taxpayers had to pay the decendents of the victims of world war two. And to this date are still paying. The same thing was attempted with some swiss companies and they were told they would be blocked from trading in the US unless they paid up.
Now the same thing applies to 911 if any insurer challanges the official story ofr refuses to pay up they will be blacklisted from trading in the US.
That is why they will all bite the bullet and swallow the loss. The haggling is exactly that haggling not anything more.

It is a shame none of them have their shareholders wishes in mind nor do they have the minerals to demand a full and thorough investigation.

[Micpsi]

I think you are right. I just wish enough of the shareholders would make a stand on principle and accept possible loss of the American market if needs be. Crooks like Silverstein have got away with it for too long.

[conspiracy analyst]

[Justin]

Just sent this to:

http://www.royalsunalliance.co.uk/royalsun/contactus/index.jsp?link=7& country=1&contactyou=7&Go=GO

[bigyin]

Very well put together Justin. In any follow up you could offer the services of any of us if they need help in understanding the issues.

[Micpsi]

Excellent, Justin. You have certainly given Royal & Sun Alliance the right message. They now have no excuses other than selfish business ones for ignoring it. Let's hope they put fraud and murder before self-interest.

[illeagalhunter]

Why pay him its insurance fraud , its because of him we all pay more

[rodin]