9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 18
9
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

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.



Yes, this is where it starts to fall apart. You see if you had said - I have seen no evidence of proper identification.... then you would have a point. But you insist that nothing exist until you see it, therefore there is no point in addressing anything you say.




posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, this is where it starts to fall apart. You see if you had said - I have seen no evidence of proper identification.... then you would have a point. But you insist that nothing exist until you see it, therefore there is no point in addressing anything you say.


Well if it exist i have not seen it,, so in a way yes it does not exist if i have not seen it.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

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.



That's not what I asked. I asked if you think the insurance was paid, since you claim to have no evidence that it was.

I repeat, do you claim that the airlines involved in 9/11 received no insurance compensation for the loss of the aircraft because those aircraft were never properly identified?

I am aware that you have no evidence that it was. I am also aware that you have no evidence that it wasn't.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That's not what I asked. I asked if you think the insurance was paid, since you claim to have no evidence that it was.


Well since there is no evidence yet that it was paid i have to say no.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That's not what I asked. I asked if you think the insurance was paid, since you claim to have no evidence that it was.


Well since there is no evidence yet that it was paid i have to say no.



Do you also think that the insurance and compensation on the victims was paid? Have you seen any evidence that it was?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you also think that the insurance and compensation on the victims was paid? Have you seen any evidence that it was?


Well i am not talking victims for now, i am talking proper ID of the planes for the airlines to collect.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you also think that the insurance and compensation on the victims was paid? Have you seen any evidence that it was?


Well i am not talking victims for now, i am talking proper ID of the planes for the airlines to collect.





But if the planes were not identified, then surely the same rules would apply for the people on them as the craft themselves. If there's no evidence that 77 crashed, for example, then why would an insurance company pay out on the people who were on it?

And anyway, I didn't ask that. I was just wondering whether you'd seen any evidence of them being compensated? Because if you haven't then presumably the same logic applies and they haven't been?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But if the planes were not identified, then surely the same rules would apply for the people on them as the craft themselves. If there's no evidence that 77 crashed, for example, then why would an insurance company pay out on the people who were on it?


I am talking about hijacking insurance since hull insuracne does not cover hijacking.

Actually it was congress who paid compenstation to the families.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


I am talking about hijacking insurance since hull insuracne does not cover hijacking.


I'm aware of that. Doesn't really matter though. The point is that you believe that it hasn't been paid, and the airlines have not raised any objection to this.


Actually it was congress who paid compenstation to the families.


Congress paid compensation, but they were also paid out monies by insurance companies, for life cover. Some complained at the time that those with cover got less from the government.

But it just seems odd to me that if the planes were not the ones we were told, nobody at the insurance companies (which had according to you already refused to pay out to the airlines because of the lack of identification) decided not to use the excuse to avoid paying the victims' policies.

Perhaps you can explain.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm aware of that. Doesn't really matter though. The point is that you believe that it hasn't been paid, and the airlines have not raised any objection to this.


Well just show me some proof then that it was paid and the planes were properly identified.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm aware of that. Doesn't really matter though. The point is that you believe that it hasn't been paid, and the airlines have not raised any objection to this.


Well just show me some proof then that it was paid and the planes were properly identified.


I trust you. It wasn't paid. That's fine.

But, to repeat --

it just seems odd to me that if the planes were not the ones we were told, nobody at the insurance companies (which had according to you already refused to pay out to the airlines because of the lack of identification) decided not to use the excuse to avoid paying the victims' policies.

Why did the companies pay out on the victims but not on the planes? Couldn't they just have used the same excuse - that the planes had not been properly identified?



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Since you're ignorant to the fact that "pull" is an industry term, which I happened to know for some odd reason, I'll use a different term.

How 'bout, "Keep your eye on that building, that thing's coming down."
or "We're walking back, there's a building about to blow up."
CNN videos of firemen leaving Bldg 7

Here's Larry Silverstein's exact words in a conversation with the NYFD, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh... and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." ~ Larry Silverstein
funny - I didn't notice them throw a bunch of cables on there either!

The oft "debunked?" word "pull" has been used before in demolitions-specific contexts. Sources are linked here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why did the companies pay out on the victims but not on the planes? Couldn't they just have used the same excuse - that the planes had not been properly identified?


Did the companies pay out on the victims?



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why did the companies pay out on the victims but not on the planes? Couldn't they just have used the same excuse - that the planes had not been properly identified?


Did the companies pay out on the victims?



Yep.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yep.


What are your sources?



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yep.


What are your sources?


If you United Airlines insurance underwriter paid for all the funeral arrangements for the victims of the crash Flight 93, then that would mean they were satisfied that indeed, Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pa. correct?



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
If you United Airlines insurance underwriter paid for all the funeral arrangements for the victims of the crash Flight 93, then that would mean they were satisfied that indeed, Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pa. correct?


So show the proper sources.



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by REMISNE

But you also have no evidence (with proper sources) that 93 crashed at that site.


Yes, I have evidence. Namely, the evidence that faking a crash site in the middle of nowhere serves no purpose whatsoever, is a waste of time and resources, adds unnecessary extra layers on top of an already heavily convoluted conspiracy plot, and just makes it that much more dangerous that the plot would be exposed.

Thus, the likelihood that flight 93 crashed there grossly outweighs the likelihood that flight 93 didn't crash there.


you use evidence and likelihood very closely together

you do know evidence overshadows likelihood?



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I believe we were talking about Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. But the same applies to the photo you posted of the Pentagon. If a plane crashes INTO a building I would be very suprised to see a lot of wreckage OUTSIDE of the building AHEAD of the point of impact. The photo you posted is, again in my opinion, consistent with a large plane crashing into that type of building.


outside of the building *BEHIND* the point of impact



this truly is amusing



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Sean48

Ever wonder why the windows above the hole, where the Tail should have hit,

weren't broken?


If you don't like the current explanation, then it becomes your obligation to give us an alternative scenario that better fits the facts. So then,, how does your "cruise missile" theory (or predator drone or sky warrior or hologram or UFO or whatever the heck you think it was that hit the Pentagon) explain the windows not being broken?



see, thats just it.

thats the first trick 'they' (Govt) pulled on 'us' (citizens) was to think that THEY are the dispensers of truth, and WE must prove them wrong.

see, when 9/11 happened, hours after actually, we had names and photos of the hijackers. AMAZING. no one had a 'conspiracy theory' yet, EXCEPT THE OS.

THEY put forth the info about the hi jackers.

THEY put forth the info about the collapsing buildings.

in short, THEY did what 'we" are doing now.... presenting an alternative theory... except at the time of their theories release, there was no alternative.

and no proof.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join