9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 16
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

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?




posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why are the insurance companies who paid out on the crashes satisfied? Are they in on it?


everyone but the "truthers" are in on it, It appears the "truthers" are upset that they Are Not In On It!



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   




Well we have been a busy cherrypicker and quote-miner haven't we.

By the way, when someone says " You felt like you could touch it " it is a figure of speech is it not.

Anyway, despite your feeble attempts to ridicule a few of the people there that day, it is still all plane, plane, plane, crash, crash, crash as are all the witness statements you ignored.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

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.


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?

I once worked for a very large company with a large physical plant and operations in 13 states and we were self-insured for the first $34,000,000. Basically a $34,000,000 deductible. Maybe this is the case with airlines as well. 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.

Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

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?


Thats why i e-mailed the last known owner of AA77 to try to get the information.


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.


Well there is basic hull insurance for the plane but that does not cover hijacking.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

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.


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. It's as ridiculous as arguing over what Barbara Olson's last meal was.

At what point will it finally dawn on you that these "cruise missile at the Pentagon" claims are complete rubbish?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

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.



Do you mean properly identified to the satisfaction of the parties directly involved, the airline, owner, insurance carriers, the investigative agencies or do you mean properly identified to the satisfaction of annonymous posters on internet forums?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Show me evidence that the insurance companies paid out for the properly IDed planes.



That will be difficult, but I'll try. It'll take me some time I would imagine.

Meanwhile here's some stuff that is fact.

There were over 32 billion dollars worth of insured losses as a result of 9/11. Over 30 times more than in any previous terror attack. (Source: www.rand.org...)

At the time the industry offered coverage against terrorism ("undifferentiated cover") in the same manner as for anything else. It doesn't do this any more, partly because it's very difficult to price. Indeed 9/11 would have bankrupted the industry if not for government payouts that nearly matched those of insurers.

So you really think an industry would have made payments large enough to nearly destroy itself if it thought there was a way it could get out of it? If there was any merit in your claims (about 9/11 as a whole) do you not think that someone intelligent at one of these companies might have tried to use it to get out of paying?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

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.



So how would the insurance claims being paid off be proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon? All it would prove is that the insurance companies accepted the (as you refer to it) "the official story that flight 77 hit the Pentagon", and you don't need to investigate insurance claims to know that they did.

It really isn't the case that there's no evdence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. It's really the case that you have built for yourself such an artificially high stringent criteria of acceptable credibility that literally *nothing* will be acceptable proof to you. Photos of recovered wreckage aren't acceptable. The recovery of the black box isn't acceptable. Even eyewitness accounts aren't acceptable. What DO you find acceptable? It's conspicuously the things you know that won't ever be revealed (I.E. amounts of insurance payouts, which they're not going to tell you unless you can show a valid legal reason why you're entitled to know).

I also notice that this artificially high stringent criteria of acceptable credibility doesn't apply to your OWN claims (I.E. witnesses saw molten steel at the WTC), which you accept 100% at face value. This is a double standard by anyone's definition.

Please, explain to me why I should NOT see this as a deliberate stalling tactic on your part for you to to avoid having to acknowledge your conspiracy claims are rubbish? Whatever you claim your motives are, an honest desire to find the truth certainly ain't it.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I just love how one can have hundreds of eyewitnesses swearing they saw a plane strike the Pentagon, even ID'ing it as an AA 757, flying low, etc, and that is not sufficient evidence for the "truthers", but one person's account (which has been edited and twisted just right) mentioning initially how they thought it flew over is sufficient proof that the plane didnt crash into the Pentagon.

You can have 20 accounts of a plane crashing at Shanksville, all not acceptable for the "truthers", but one guy who thinks the plane was smaller is auto-proof a 757 didnt crash at Shanksville.

THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses saw planes hit the WTCs and that is not enough or credible. One shmuck mistakes the impact for a bomb in the basement and that is proof of bombs in the basement. Someone hears a boom and thinks its bombs, and poof! Its bombs! Proof! lordy lordy, if only they did put the same amount of stringent critique on their own "witnesses".



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

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


Yes, we have no real evidence of the aircraft being properly identified.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   

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.


You put the word "know" in quotation marks, as though I used it.

I don't "know" that insurance was paid to victims' families. I suspect that it was. I've read reports of amounts paid to victims and first responders and newspaper articles complaining about people who weren't killed being paid too much compensation.

From that, and the fact that I haven't heard a single victims' family complaining about having no insurance payout, I would surmise that they were made.

You may of course know better.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

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?



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?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

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?


What proof do you have that the insurance was paid on the aircraft.

What proof do you have that the planes were properly identified.





top topics
 
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join