Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
.
It's not ambiguous at all: they paid.
Therefore the claim that the planes were destroyed was found to be valid.
Unless you have evidence that the consortium conspired to commit insurance fraud.
Which you don't, or you would have presented it.
So the point stands: the planes were destroyed on 9/11.
.
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
.
Because you're doing your best to insinuate without actually stating that the investigation was insufficient.
So the question stands: What, exactly, do you expect the insurance companies investigations to entail?
.
The problem obviously is not the labels as such but the fact that they simply divert and sometimes completely derail the discussion. What do I care if you call me a truther if I don't even know what do you mean by that? And what do you care if I call myself a truther if you don't know what do I mean by that?
The only important thing is that by calling me names you shift the attention from the topic to me personally... like you did in your last post. I for one don't really care what are your general beliefs and convictions about anything, I came here to hear the arguments of the skeptics about issues I wanted to resolve somehow. And all I got so far was verbal gymnastics aimed to dodge my points and discredit me. Standard divide and conquer.
You sort that out...
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Charmer, quite honestly, if you think that the no planes on 9/11 idea is even remotely credible, I don't think you'll ever resolve anything.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
The information that insurances did pay for the hulls corroborates the prevailing theory, namely, that 4 planes were lost when they crashed into buildings and and a field. Because that is what the theory would predict: Owners of the planes would try to seek reimbursment and get it, if the insurances were sufficiently convinced the damage was actually done and of the kind covered by the specific insurance terms (such as: airlines did not participate in the intentional destruction, as that would never be covered).
Of course, that information alone is not sufficient to prove that planes crashed. it is just one more nail to the coffin of 9/11 truth.
Because if your theory is "no plane crashed", then you would predict one of the following:
- Insurances would not have accepted the evidence, would not have paid out anything, and someone there would have broken the story eventually that the whole 9/11-story is wrong and become rich man. This did not happen.
- Insurances are in on it and invested many millions into the conspiracy for whatever returns by whomever. You'd have to add assumptions or more proof to your theory!
- Insurances were negligent and allowed themselves to be defrauded by the airlines. The airlines are in on it and invested their reputation and very nearly their existence into the conspiracy for whatever returns by whomever. You'd have to add assumptions or more proof to your theory!
- The perpetrators managed to con the airlines and the insurances into thinking their planes and passengers crashed. In this case, you have to explain what became of the planes, crews and the passengers
Seems to me all of these predictions did not come true, at least I am not aware of any corroborating evidence.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
That would make it a bad investment for AA and UA, wouldn't it?
Claim= "Immutable facts. Unassailable reason."
Fact= "Blatant Propaganda, planted story as a substitute for investigatory finding."
I have already shown in post # 2662 that the website relied on for these planted stories is directly linked to Pentagon and to DOD funding.
The Corporate America honor-roll of sponsors of the website relied on by Compus as a substitute for investigatory links includes the following:
"Weber Merritt Strategies was acquired by Clark &Weinstock, a unit of Omnicom, in 2003 and was added to its Washington, D.C. office. "Weber Merritt Strategies brings a team of professionals who collectively have over 30 years of successful grassroots campaign experience."
And:
"In September 2005, WMS acquired the public relations contract for the Pentagon Memorial Fund, "the private fundraising group aiming to build an $18M memorial to victims of the 9/11 attacks adjacent to the Department of Defense headquarters."
Has anyone here yet engaged in a search of the background of Clark &Weinstock?
Chances are it won't be all that easy to get information. The reason is that in researching them, you're going to land smack in the middle of the US Department of Defense PSYOPs apparatus. There, you'll find SAIC, OMNICOM, the LINCOLN GROUP and the heart of PSYOP land.
Compus is shamelessly relying on expensive, sophisticated, but nonetheless blatant propaganda. With each post of the type to which this one replies, Compus is only admitting the absence of any sources that are investigatory in nature. Instead, the only sources that Compus can link us to for purposes of furthering the common storyline of 9/11 are those that are planted stories, "human interest" strories and psyop-fronted organizations that seem perfectly innocuous at first glance because that is the way they are designed.
It is only possible to be fooled by that sort of operation when and to the extent that one wants to be fooled by it.
See also:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6163522&postcount=2662
And:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/.../a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/print/
The Washington Post article on TOP SECRET AMERICA can provide some clues as to the process involved here in the use of PSYOPs.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
There is a big and obvious difference between using a newspaper article as an informational resource versus using newspapers as proof of what a certain witness has or has not said.
However, even as a resource, newspaper articles are of limited value. I have already noted, for instance, that the WashPost article on Top Secret America, welcome though it may be, is woefully inadequate and incomplete. I gave as one example the fact that the article does not list SAIC as a PSYOP contractor, irrespective of the WashPost having published an article not too long ago concerning SAIC's involvement in the Iraq psyop contract.
I do try to be consistent in my approach to posting. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't look for inconsistencies, if that is what floats your boat.
all the best
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I do try to be consistent in my approach to posting. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't look for inconsistencies, if that is what floats your boat.
all the best
Let me double check for accuracy;
When you say inconsistencies, aren't you really just trying to have it both ways?
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Follow-up Question:
Dr. Wood emerges from the bath, skin all aglow and tingly in the cool Derbyshire evening. You sink yourself in the comfy chair, gazing upon the splendor that is she. As she gracefully shlepps across the room and plops herself in front of the vanity, you raise the pint to your lips and thank your stars for being the luckiest man in world, if just for the moment. She smiles demurly at you over her shoulder and turns toward the mirror.
As the mirror violently explodes, showering the room in a maelstrom of glass shards, you dive for cover under the setee. Your heart fills with dread because you know Dr. Wood has likely bought the farm. Sadly, you find this to be the case. Your fury immediately turns to the Innkeepers, who were explicitly instructed to have the Doctor's suite equipped with laminated safety mirrors throughout. You are outraged. They beg forgiveness and offer you a sizable bribe to make you go away.
So? What will it take? Name your price.
Dr. Wood emerges from the bath, skin all aglow and tingly in the cool Derbyshire evening. You sink yourself in the comfy chair, gazing upon the splendor that is she. As she gracefully shlepps across the room and plops herself in front of the vanity, you raise the pint to your lips and thank your stars for being the luckiest man in world, if just for the moment. She smiles demurly at you over her shoulder and turns toward the mirror.
As the mirror violently explodes, showering the room in a maelstrom of glass shards, you dive for cover under the setee. Your heart fills with dread because you know Dr. Wood has likely bought the farm. Sadly, you find this to be the case. Your fury immediately turns to the Innkeepers, who were explicitly instructed to have the Doctor's suite equipped with laminated safety mirrors throughout. You are outraged. They beg forgiveness and offer you a sizable bribe to make you go away.
So? What will it take? Name your price.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
The crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 175
On the morning of September 11 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying to Los Angeles from Boston, and was hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Shortly after taking off it was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.
59 passengers and crew were on board (not counting the hijackers).
All were killed.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 CREW
Alfred Gilles Padre Joseph Marchand, 44, was a flight attendant on Flight 175. He lived in Alamogordo, New Mexico. Alfred had been in his job for less than a year. He signed up on a whim after seeing a job posting for a flight attendant with UAL. He had previously worked his way up in his local police department to the rank of Lieutenant. Said his wife's best friend, Connie Lane, "He just decided to do something really different. It really surprised us."
He left behind his wife of four years, Rebbeca, two sons, two stepsons and his mother. The weekend before his death Rebbeca and Alfred met in Boston. She had considered switching her flight home to fly on his plane.
Source:- HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
On the morning of September 11 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying to Los Angeles from Boston, and was hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Shortly after taking off it was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.
59 passengers and crew were on board (not counting the hijackers).
All were killed.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 CREW
Alfred Gilles Padre Joseph Marchand, 44, was a flight attendant on Flight 175. He lived in Alamogordo, New Mexico. Alfred had been in his job for less than a year. He signed up on a whim after seeing a job posting for a flight attendant with UAL. He had previously worked his way up in his local police department to the rank of Lieutenant. Said his wife's best friend, Connie Lane, "He just decided to do something really different. It really surprised us."
He left behind his wife of four years, Rebbeca, two sons, two stepsons and his mother. The weekend before his death Rebbeca and Alfred met in Boston. She had considered switching her flight home to fly on his plane.
Source:- HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Suppose someone started a thread saying he has discovered that every night, every person in the world removes his intestines and wraps them around his neck like a scarf.
Now, this is an absurd claim and demonstrably untrue. But supposing this person kept insisting that it was true, and kept suggesting that everyone else was deluded because they didn't accept his version of reality.
Would he be considered laudable because he is persistent and tirelessly posts his beliefs without throwing insults?
If others threw insults at him for making this absurd claim over and over again, could you really blame them?
Would you say they are "being offended" because they choose to disbelieve something that is clearly untrue?
Now I, personally, would soon write that person off as being insane and would simply ignore him. That's exactly what I did to jammers.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
You know, minus the whole federal crime thing.....Yeah, good call......
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
But I don't start a discussion with a conclusion. Like I said I'm not a supporter of that theory but considering the historical record of US govt, its agencies and military, to lie, mislead, cover up and obfuscate, and their capabilities to do so, I can't really say what are we yet to see to emerge.
1) What do you make of the quote? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?
2) Would you agree that to "write off" a person cca 214 times basically about the same thing in the same derisive or insulting manner won't likely make them to stop?
3) What kind of claims do you expect to find in Conspiracy theories forum anyway?
- Status