• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

911 and the Propaganda Model

mjd1982 said:
I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.
Click to expand...

Would you be saying that if, let's say, 7,000 people had shown up?

Unless you are saying that the polls reflect "everywhere but Seattle" or something, I'd be inclined to say it does mean "something".

BTW, I didn't hear of anyone demonstrating here in Dayton. Maybe I missed the notices...
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Would you be saying that if, let's say, 7,000 people had shown up?

Unless you are saying that the polls reflect "everywhere but Seattle" or something, I'd be inclined to say it does mean "something".

BTW, I didn't hear of anyone demonstrating here in Dayton. Maybe I missed the notices...
Click to expand...
Boston was equally as quite. I didn't get over to Cambridge (the peoples' republic) but I didn't hear anything about there either.
 
mjd1982 said:
I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.
Click to expand...
What about the people in New York? Or Norway? Or anywhere? You can trot out all the conflated poll numbers you want to to, but when it come down to real, live people coming out to support your beliefs, well... clearly no one cares.
 
DGM said:
Boston was equally as quite. I didn't get over to Cambridge (the peoples' republic) but I didn't hear anything about there either.
Click to expand...
The local "hotbed of communism" (as I like to call it :) ) in the Dayton area is Antioch University in Yellow Springs. I didn't hear of anything going on their either.
 
mjd1982 said:
Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement. Who do you think issues re-insurance if not insurance companies? There were some pretty heavy hitters among the insurers.
 
mjd1982 said:
I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.
Click to expand...

If people on the street in Seattle mean nothing, why do you put so much stock in the alleged conversations you have with people on the street in your community?
 
mjd1982 said:
I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.
Click to expand...

Really?

Total number of current signatories: 15115 (8 pending review)
Click to expand...

http://www.justicefor911.org/

That’s approx 0.005% of America. Where are the other 119,984,885 people that support you? Maybe they couldn't be bothered to sign an online petition in support of you.
 
mjd1982 said:
2 problems here:

2. Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I really have to ask. Does this (re, and re re) really mean something in insurance-speak? Honestly I don't know.

And what about the Sun Ra Orkestra? Hah?
 
mjd1982 said:
I am supported by the polls.
Click to expand...

Chwala Bogu! Czy mozna... Polacy...

Oh, sorry. I'm afraid you can't lay this one off on the Poles. "Marsz, marsz, Dabrowski,/ Z ziemi wloskiej do Polski..."
 
mjd1982 said:
2 problems here:

1. A strong correlation between 2 things, by definition, suggest causality. There is, of course, the caveat of datamining, and coincidences, but when the correlation is supported by evident facts, some of whih are listed in my OP, then this makes this possibility unlikely.
Click to expand...

Not by definition, and "suggests" is about as decisive a verb as you can use there. (Certainly not "proves," and not "implies" or "provides strong evidence" either.)

There is a correlation between watermelon sales and fireworks accidents in the U.S.. What causality is suggested by this? Does watermelon cause fireworks accidents, or do fireworks accidents increase the demand for watermelon? Are these "suggestions" valid?

2. Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies. These are not the ruling power strctures. The corporate elites, the massive corporations, have benefitted from 9/11, as have the political elites. That some re re insurance companies, not even all of which are American, have had to pay out, is insignificant.
Click to expand...

Shuffling the approximately (conservatively) 20 billion dollars in total 9/11-caused insurance payouts (the WTC insurance is the tip of the iceberg) among different companies doesn't make it go away. It takes enormous organized corporate power to come up with 20 billion dollars of liquidity. And what about the banks, the stock brokerages, the entire major industry sectors that were also harmed?

The main power structures have benefitted, as have the US government. Mass censorship of rudimnentary detail suggests that they are being protected by such censorships.
Click to expand...

You need to state how you define "the main power structures." What are the criteria you use to differentiate a "main power structure" from an interest that happens to have a lot of money or power but is not a "main power structure"? Note that as long as your only answer is "by whether or not they benefitted from 9/11," your assertion quoted immediately above is a meaningless tautology.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
SDC said:
I'm sorry but I really have to ask. Does this (re, and re re) really mean something in insurance-speak? Honestly I don't know.
Click to expand...

Yes, reinsurance does mean something in insurance-speak. However, I seriously doubt that it means what mjd1982 thinks it means.

To state it in a somewhat oversimplied manner, it is a means by which one insurance company (the reinsurer) agrees to indemnify another insurance company (the ceding insurer) against loss. For instance, Company A writes a policy to Customer 1. Then, Company A pays a premium to Company B so that in the event of a loss on Customer 1's policy, Company B indemnifies Company A against some or all of Company A's payout to Customer 1.

The impetus behind reinsurance is the same as it is with all insurance; that is, to spread risk. It is a very common practice. It allows the ceding insurer to address their own business needs while still writing large amounts of insurance, and protecting themselves somewhat from a massive catastrophic loss or multiple large losses, among other things.
 
LashL said:
Yes, reinsurance does mean something in insurance-speak. However, I seriously doubt that it means what mjd1982 thinks it means.

To state it in a somewhat oversimplied manner, it is a means by which one insurance company (the reinsurer) agrees to indemnify another insurance company (the ceding insurer) against loss. For instance, Company A writes a policy to Customer 1. Then, Company A pays a premium to Company B so that in the event of a loss on Customer 1's policy, Company B indemnifies Company A against some or all of Company A's payout to Customer 1.

The impetus behind reinsurance is the same as it is with all insurance; that is, to spread risk. It is a very common practice. It allows the ceding insurer to address their own business needs while still writing large amounts of insurance, and protecting themselves somewhat from a massive catastrophic loss or multiple large losses, among other things.
Click to expand...


It's also worth noting that reinsurance generally has very high deductibles; I seem to recall that the primary insurers of the WTC paid 30% of the total amount of claims, and the other 70% was paid by reinsurers, though I don't currently have a source for this.
 
mjd1982 said:
Cos the average person disagrees with you in their droves! I know this because i talk to crowds about this. I have done such today in Parliamant Square. You havent. This is why you are a disconnected fringe movement, indirectly complicit in the murderous, never ending War on Terror.
Click to expand...
Pssst, it's spelled "Parliament". Not with an "a" as the final vowel.

Anyhow, I'd like to see a video of your speeches at Parliament Square with all your droves of admirers in attendance. Can you rustle one up and throw us a YouTube of yourself plying your trade?

I promise I won't laugh...much.
 
Myriad said:
Quote:
2. Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies. These are not the ruling power strctures. The corporate elites, the massive corporations, have benefitted from 9/11, as have the political elites. That some re re insurance companies, not even all of which are American, have had to pay out, is insignificant.
Click to expand...

Shuffling the approximately (conservatively) 20 billion dollars in total 9/11-caused insurance payouts (the WTC insurance is the tip of the iceberg) among different companies doesn't make it go away. It takes enormous organized corporate power to come up with 20 billion dollars of liquidity. And what about the banks, the stock brokerages, the entire major industry sectors that were also harmed?
Click to expand...
What about the re-insurers themselves? Good grief, mjd1982, please try and find out what you're talking about before you denigrate a vital industry like that.

This may seem like a small point, but the MSM "corporate propaganda model" has also been derelict in reporting this gem: http://www.swissre.com/pws/media ce...nt on wtc litigation appeal confirmation.html. I figured that it wasn't over when the insurance trade papers excoriated the "pull it" Larry Silverstein in 2003 and 2004. You will still find "truthers" implying that the leaseholder "won big" on 9/11 and that this was the reason the WTC complex was "demolished".

I can't recall exactly, but I believe there are roughly two dozen firms involved in the Silverstein Properties legal battles and I would imagine nearly all of them will use (or have used) this 2006 decision in their preparations.

Again, I have rarely encountered anyone as misinformed or presumptuous as mjd1982 on the internet--and I've seen a lot of misinformed and presumptuous folks. In mjd1982's weird world, all events have just three outcomes:

1] Deliberately supports the "power elites".
2] Ends capitalism entirely.
3] Is "insignificant".

You really have "droves" of admirers supporting that world-view?
 
mjd1982 said:
I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.
Click to expand...

If you dont have people on the street, and only have polls, you have lost.

The TM is a dodo.

Real movements for change actually get out on the streets and fight for what they believe in, they dont hide in forums acting like spoilt children because other people disagree wih them.

Polls mean absolutely zero

Nothing

Get over it
 
funk de fino said:
If you dont have people on the street, and only have polls, you have lost.

The TM is a dodo.

Real movements for change actually get out on the streets and fight for what they believe in, they dont hide in forums acting like spoilt children because other people disagree wih them.

Polls mean absolutely zero

Nothing

Get over it
Click to expand...

Yes, it does seem the segment of the population with a strong predilection towards 9/11 Trutherism lacks the level of motivation one would think such a position (conviction?) entails.
 
LashL said:
If people on the street in Seattle mean nothing, why do you put so much stock in the alleged conversations you have with people on the street in your community?
Click to expand...
You have missed the point. The opinion of the people is one thing- their activism is another. All we are looking at here is their opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom