It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper
You don't do an in-depth analysis of the plane's serial numbers and maintenance records to determine who hijacked the plane.
No you do it to properly ID the plane for the criminal investigation and for the airlines to collect insurance.
You do another investigation into the hijackings and another to find out what happened to the buildings.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why are the insurance companies who paid out on the crashes satisfied? Are they in on it?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper
You don't do an in-depth analysis of the plane's serial numbers and maintenance records to determine who hijacked the plane.
No you do it to properly ID the plane for the criminal investigation and for the airlines to collect insurance.
You do another investigation into the hijackings and another to find out what happened to the buildings.
Why are the insurance companies who paid out on the crashes satisfied? Are they in on it?
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper
You don't do an in-depth analysis of the plane's serial numbers and maintenance records to determine who hijacked the plane.
No you do it to properly ID the plane for the criminal investigation and for the airlines to collect insurance.
You do another investigation into the hijackings and another to find out what happened to the buildings.
Why are the insurance companies who paid out on the crashes satisfied? Are they in on it?
The insurers paid out in the same way as they did for WTC 7, despite the owner blabbing on tv that he had ordered it's demolition. Insurance companies are just generous loveable people who can't wait to pay claims.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why are the insurance companies who paid out on the crashes satisfied? Are they in on it?
Originally posted by hooper
Just a simple question - do we even know for sure that there were any insurance claims involved? I mean it would make sense to most of us to insure a physical asset against loss but is that always the case?
They may be insured for the open - ended liability of a crash such as damage to other's property, death and injuries but there is the possibilty that the airlines don't carry insurance on the actual physical plane.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why are the insurance companies who paid out on the crashes satisfied? Are they in on it?
Show me evidence that the insurance companies paid out for the properly IDed planes.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
How about showing us evidence that insurance company claims even remotely have anything to do with whether or not it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
How about showing us evidence that insurance company claims even remotely have anything to do with whether or not it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon.
The point being is what hit the Pentagon. If would read my post would know that the aircraft have to be properly identified for the investigation and for insurance.
So far we have no proof of either.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Show me evidence that the insurance companies paid out for the properly IDed planes.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
How about showing us evidence that insurance company claims even remotely have anything to do with whether or not it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon.
The point being is what hit the Pentagon. If would read my post would know that the aircraft have to be properly identified for the investigation and for insurance.
So far we have no proof of either.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by REMISNE
Furthermore, it's kind of strange that you'd want me to provide you with evidence that there was an insurance payout for 77. Do you not think it likely that we might have heard from the victims' families and from the airline if there wasn't?
Originally posted by hooper
Do you mean properly identified to the satisfaction of the parties directly involved, the airline, owner, insurance carriers, the investigative agencies
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you not think it likely that we might have heard from the victims' families and from the airline if there wasn't?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by REMISNE
Furthermore, it's kind of strange that you'd want me to provide you with evidence that there was an insurance payout for 77. Do you not think it likely that we might have heard from the victims' families and from the airline if there wasn't?
So your source for what you "know" is not hearing about it? You know the insurance was paid because you have not heard complaints from the victims families? Seriously? That is your logic? I am curious.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you not think it likely that we might have heard from the victims' families and from the airline if there wasn't?
But have we heard from anyone that the planes were properly identified?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You'll have to explain your terminology. What does "properly" mean? "Properly" enough for billions of pounds of insurance to be paid, or properly enough for you to be satisfied?