Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
It just hit me; definitive proof there was no cover-up, no conspiracy; well maybe not definitive, but definitely something to think about. If it was 'so obvious' the towers were brought down by explosives, and not terrorist, why are the insurance agencies paying out. to anyone who says there was no investigation, don’t you think the agencies that insured the building would make damn sure they did not have to cover the damages, instead of shelling out the money, the insurance agency would cry foul, and they have the money to get any investigation done, it would be insurance fraud after all.
|
Good question. This is my response to the hypothetical insurance fraud (thus suggesting that my response is equally hypothetical):
Insurance companies have added "terrorism" to the insurance of tens of thousands of buildings across the world. That means that their income for decades to come has been notably increased across the board. Spend $100 million now, and rake in $12 billion over the next 10 years.
It would be an investment.