Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

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.



You keep sidestepping the issue of your use of the word proper.

If all parties that have real standing in the matter are satisfied, why is this not proper? Do you have standing in the issue? What need is there to satisfy you? Can you site any relevant party that has issued a notification that they are not satisfied as to the identity of the airplanes? I am not aware of any, if you can show that any party has not stipulated to the authenticity of the facts and evidence in the case you should be able to show record.




posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
If all parties that have real standing in the matter are satisfied, why is this not proper?


Ther is no evidence of ANY parties being satisified. THAT IS THE POINT.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
If all parties that have real standing in the matter are satisfied, why is this not proper?


Ther is no evidence of ANY parties being satisified. THAT IS THE POINT.



Wrong again.

YOU have not seen any evidence that the parties are satisfied, that does not mean that there is no evidence. YOU are not the measure of all things.

In as much as these are private financial matters, like just about any civil matter, you may never be privy to any of the paperwork or settlement details. Now, filing a lawsuit is a public matter and it is the means that we use to settle disputes. Like I said the final settlement may not be a matter of public record, records may sealed at the request of the parties or the direction of the administrator, but the initial filing is public.

If you can find a case wherein the identity of the planes in 9/11 are in dispute as a basis for a claim, then you will MAY have evidence that not all parties have been satisfied. I say "may" because anyone can file a suit claiming damage as a result of the planes not being properly identitfied, however, this does not prove the planes were not identified in other relevant cases.

So there you go, file a suit, come up with a way to claim damage and get standing and ask for discovery.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

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.



What does properly mean?

Once again you're setting your standard of evidence ludicrously high. If insurance wasn't paid - and note, it wouldn't just be the insurance on the aeroplane itself, but on the passengers too - then I imagine we might have heard something from the victims' families.

One could find this out, by contacting them. But personally I can't be bothered. The matter is settled as far as any reasonable person is concerned.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
One could find this out, by contacting them. But personally I can't be bothered. The matter is settled as far as any reasonable person is concerned.


Be honest with yourself. How many other things do you believe because, while you have seen nothing to make them true, you have not heard otherwise either. You admit you do not know one way or the other but you are going to believe one thing because you have not heard the opposite? Is that really logical?



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson


Be honest with yourself. How many other things do you believe because, while you have seen nothing to make them true, you have not heard otherwise either.


Absolutely loads. So do you I'd imagine. I've never been to Djibouti or seen a Balinese person but I believe both exist.


You admit you do not know one way or the other but you are going to believe one thing because you have not heard the opposite? Is that really logical?


Yes. I've read about 9/11 compensation and insurance payouts fairly extensively. I've linked to articles here which give an overview of those payments. And I think on balance it's likely I would have come across something if the families of flight 77 had not received any monies.

In the course of that reading I've seen quite detailed examinations of how the overall compensation was handled and come across individual cases where people feel they or others have been wrongly treated. But I've never heard of all or any of the 77 passengers' families or the other parties involved in the crash complaining they weren't paid.

For a reasonable person I think this is enough. It's enough for me. But if you desperately want to see a conspiracy it might not be, I suppose.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
YOU have not seen any evidence that the parties are satisfied, that does not mean that there is no evidence. YOU are not the measure of all things.


If i have not seen it that means it is not out there.

I do research and file FOIA requests to find the truth.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What does properly mean?


According to requlations for criminal investigation.


The matter is settled as far as any reasonable person is concerned.


You mean as far as anyone who is closed minded and living in a fantasy world.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
YOU have not seen any evidence that the parties are satisfied, that does not mean that there is no evidence. YOU are not the measure of all things.


If i have not seen it that means it is not out there.

I do research and file FOIA requests to find the truth.



First, your skills may not be quite as extensive as you imagine. And second, if there's no evidence of dissatisfaction then presumably you - having apparently seen everything - might conclude that everyone is satisfied.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
First, your skills may not be quite as extensive as you imagine.


What have you done to find the truth?


And second, if there's no evidence of dissatisfaction then presumably you - having apparently seen everything - might conclude that everyone is satisfied.


This is the last time i try to get this through your small, closed mind. There is no evidence of proper ID for investigvation or insurance.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
YOU have not seen any evidence that the parties are satisfied, that does not mean that there is no evidence. YOU are not the measure of all things.


If i have not seen it that means it is not out there.

I do research and file FOIA requests to find the truth.



Wow. That is simply stunning.

Then you do consider yourself to be the measure of all things. That's very god-like of you. I pity all the poor people out there that do not exist because you have not yet decided whether or not they are part of the fabric or reality. But, then again, if you have not yet decided then they don't exist so there is nothing to pity.

So we have a new twist on the old philosophical paradigm. Instead of

"I think, therefore I am".

We now have:

"REMINSE thinks, therefore you are".

Please do not blink me out of existence.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Then you do consider yourself to be the measure of all things.


No i just do real research, something most people on here like you do not do.

How much research have you done? List research sites used.

How many FOIA requests have you filed?

How many e-mails have you sent?



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



If i have not seen it that means it is not out there.


I really think you need to read that again and think about what you are saying.

Yes, you and your "research". Like the research about the remains of Flight 93 being secured in Iron Mountain? You did not even bother to look up who Iron Mountain is, what they do, where their facilities are, etc. Yeah, you're a real researcher alright. Good luck with that.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, you and your "research". Like the research about the remains of Flight 93 being secured in Iron Mountain?


Like i really need to look them up since you cannot even show real evidence that the remains are there.

All you have is a video of the media stating somthing about them being there, again NO REAL EVIDENCE.

Like most OSers you believe everything the media tells you. You cannot think for youself.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


This is the last time i try to get this through your small, closed mind. There is no evidence of proper ID for investigvation or insurance.



And yet there's no evidence that it wasn't paid.

I think you might be a bit stuck.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And yet there's no evidence that it wasn't paid.


Thanks again for showing you cannot post evidence to support the official story.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Thanks again for showing you cannot post evidence to support the official story.



What are you on about? You've got no evidence that the insurance wasn't paid, and I've got no evidence that it was. Since, as you pointed out earlier, you have seen every piece of evidence relating to this occurrence then I just think it odd that you haven't found anything that supports your suspicions. Particularly as people who have been denied rightful monies tend to be quite vocal about it.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What are you on about? You've got no evidence that the insurance wasn't paid, and I've got no evidence that it was.


Yes, there is no evidence that the planes were properly identified for the airlines to collect insurance.

Since you have no evidence that they were then you would have to agree that insurance was not paid to the airlines.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What are you on about? You've got no evidence that the insurance wasn't paid, and I've got no evidence that it was.


Yes, there is no evidence that the planes were properly identified for the airlines to collect insurance.

Since you have no evidence that they were then you would have to agree that insurance was not paid to the airlines.





But since I live in the real world and am able to assess evidence with a more reasonable frame of mind, I think that I would have heard quite a fuss from any airline that was unable to claim because of plane identification issues.

I've also read significant amounts about the way compensation was made to the airlines and never read anything about them receiving no payout.

So no, I don't think I do agree.

Just to be certain - you are claiming, straight faced, that the airlines involved in 9/11 received no insurance compensation for the loss of the aircrfaft because those aircraft were never properly identified?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Just to be certain - you are claiming, straight faced, that the airlines involved in 9/11 received no insurance compensation for the loss of the aircrfaft because those aircraft were never properly identified?


I am stating (living in the real world) that there is no evidence of proper identification of the planes for the investigation or for insurance.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join