Another motive for 9/11 may have been money laundering through insurance claims. Former Texas Assistant Attorney General Eric Moebius tried to expose this racket. I am closely related to the cases he investigated. Larry Silverstein got away with over insuring the World Trade center and the claim was still paid by the insurance companies!
Everyone is smiling in a photograph of the settlement meeting between Larry Silverstein and insurance executives settling the claims for destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7. Wonder why the insurance executives are also smiling? The payoff to Larry Silverstein may have been with "dirty money" in need of laundering. http://www.911blogger.com/node/8886
Former Texas Assistant Attorney General Eric Moebius uncovered a huge money laundering scheme by the insurance industry. Money to pay for insurance claims came from organized crime, not the premiums paid by insurance policy holders. http://www.mackwhite.com/Yogurt1.html
Eric Moebius, cited cases of money laundering and insurance claims settled in cases of obvious arson. The fact that insurance companies launder money is not widely known. I am aware that money probably was laundered in the WTC claims. That could also include the payouts of hush money to the personal claimants as well. There is a huge network involved in insurance claim money laundering. That network facilitated 9/11 and the following cover-up.
Mutual and privately owned insurance companies are not regulated by the Securities and Exchange commission or any federal agency. These companies are regulated by state insurance commissioners. There is no oversight or investigation of money laundering by the insurance industry, other than some life insurance products used for individual money laundering. While the banks receive some scrutiny for obvious cases of money laundering, the state regulated insurance companies have a free hand.
From: The Bar, Insurance Fraud and Murder by Eric Moebius
Because I was formerly with the Attorney General's office, I've done a lot of public works contracts so I knew there must be insurance coverage because the construction company's contract would mandate it (usually $500,000). Don found the contractual provision and saw that they had to have $500,000 in coverage so he started digging into the file and found the big surprise -- $19.3 million in insurance coverage. (He also found that three weeks before the death occurred there was a letter from the contractor to the insurance agent who, by the way, happened to live next door to each other, asking him to make sure the coverage extended to the trucks as they were taking the workers to and from the site. Apparently, they were "locking down" coverage.) We'd never seen this before. You normally have a geometric relationship between what we call your "primary insurance coverage"and then your "umbrella coverage". If you have $500,000 in primary insurance, your usual ratio is between three and six, so you might have as much as $3 million in umbrella coverage. With the $19.3 million policy, we saw for the first time what we now call a "hidden towering umbrella policy"...
After the truck hit the boy, the driver's only explanation was that he was mad at a laborer for slapping his sister. It didn't make sense. But what also doesn't make sense is why does this pickup truck have $20 million worth of coverage on it? And why did the contractor and the insurance company both deny there was any coverage?
We suspect the truck may have been intentionally over-insured in anticipation of causing a catastrophic accident that could be used to launder $20 million out of the mutual insurance company's reserve fund.