Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,440
Titanic,
Your post, quoted below, is troublesome because it ignores prior posts where confirmation of each claim was found. It is I who has long recognized and pointed out that "denial" is a key attribute of adherence in the common storyline of 9/11. So, while it may be tiresome to have to post, re-post and then post again and again the proof of each assertion I make, I am going to have to get used to doing so.
OK, so, once more for this page. You say:
The claims your post referred to were:
So, the claims I made are identified above. Here is how they are and have been sourced:
1--No insurance payouts:
I have plainly said, I can find no evidence of insurance payouts, despite searching:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6180709&postcount=2888
More on the subject was presented in post # 2853
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6178244&postcount=2853
"Bardamu points out that the article linked by Oystein does not refer to any actual payout. Rather, the article speculates on what might be paid out.
The direct quote is:
"One year after the terrorist attacks in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Insurance Information Institute estimates that the total insurance loss from September 11 will ultimately be about $40.2 billion dollars.
...
* $11 billion (27 percent) in claims for business interruption; * $10 billion (25 percent) in liability claims; * $6 billion (15 percent) in property claims for damage to property, including vehicles, other than World Trade Center buildings One and Two; * $3.5 billion (9 percent) in property claims for WTC buildings One and Two; * $3.5 billion (9 percent) for aviation liability; * $2.7 billion (7 percent) in life insurance claims; * $2 billion (5 percent) for workers compensation claims; * $1 billion (2 percent) in claims for event cancellation and * $500 million (1 percent) in hull claims for the loss of the four commercial aircraft."
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90342 **
OK, so far; but, what was actually paid out; to whom, in what amount, from what source?
Oystein doesn't say. And, the information about payouts does not seem to have been of much interest to mainstream media.
In fact, we can find sources claiming that insurance rates went up after 9/11 and that "terrorism" was excluded from coverage, of course, but that doesn't tell us anything about 9/11 payouts:
"A final insurance product a shop manager may want to consider is insurance for acts of terrorism. Since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism has changed. If you read most policies, they will have an exclusion clause for terrorism. Terrorism, today, includes things as simple as acts of sabotage from disgruntled employees. If a loss occurs as the result of something like this, and you are not covered for acts of terrorism, your other policies will leave you without coverage."
See: http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/cate...nce_21554.html"
Thus, the claim of no insurance payouts has been properly sourced and adequately analyzed.
2--Governmental slush fund for airlines (hush money)
Post # 2853 was likewise a place where the insurance slush fund was properly sourced and adequately analyzed. Ironically, perhaps, it is a Flight 175 victim's family member -- Ellen Mariani -- who appears to have been among the first to call attention to the airline insurance slush fund:
Here's how it was put in post 3 2853:
"Victims Family member Ellen Mariani was one of the few who called attention to the passage of the $10billion airline slush fund right after 9/11, an amount that far exceeded the amount set aside for victims. And, as we know, just this week victims were again shafted by Congress, but not the airlines:
"On September 22, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act ("Act") (Public Law 107-42). The Act establishes the Air Transportation Stabilization Board ("Board"). The Board may issue up to $10 billion in Federal credit instruments, e.g. (loan guarantees)."
See: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/atsb/
What was that $10billion really for? Was it hush money?
There is a lot more than meets the eye in the discussion of insurance payouts, posters, lurkers and victims family members."
3--No authenicated passenger lists.
The lack of authenticated passenber lists is not really contested much. However, I suppose it appropriate to restate the proof of this contention and to do so in a fairly comprehensive way.
So, let's begin:
Here is what passes as and for the best claim of a passenger list for Flight 175:
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/Flight175Manifest_a.jpg?t=1281361252[/qimg]
Stupid debunker websites have trumpeted the above seventh generation fax list dated October 4, 2002, as proof of a passenger list.
The sourcing of the above list, courtesy of debunkers, is as follows:
"We don’t actually subscribe to these ideas, but without any official documentation it’s hard to prove a point, one way or the other. Which is why we were very interested to see a photo of what looked like a passenger manifest in the Terry McDermott book, Perfect Soldiers. We emailed the author, and he said yes: apparently these were amongst a bunch of investigative files he obtained from the FBI while researching his book. 24 hours later we had copies, too. So what would they tell us?"
http://911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html
So, there you have it, a hearsay declaration with a claim about something as vital as an authentic passenger list about which, as to its sourcing, it is said:
"...We emailed the author, and he said yes: apparently these were amongst a bunch of investigative files he obtained from the FBI while researching his book. 24 hours later we had copies, too. So what would they tell us?..."
"Apparently" is not an adequate way to source or verify a claim about whether or not a passenger list is authentic or not.
As to getting documents from the FBI, that is odd, as it is known the FBI has not released any information about any passenger lists; and, instead, has uniformly refused to issue such information.
We have elsewhere discussed the fact that the chart presented at the Moussaoui trial is not an authenticated list and is, instead, a stupid chart:
Exhibit Number OG00010, United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui [...] Trial Exhibits, www.vaed.uscourts.gov, 7/31/06
This is not what an authentic passenger manifest looks like:
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/Flight175_s.png?t=1281361767[/qimg]
That is what a made up chart looks like. That is not authentic evidence for proof of the assertion that it refers to passengers. A chart may be used for illustrative purposes sometimes, but the caveat is that it cannot be used as proof of the claim that passengers were onboard, let alone that they died in a crash or that a crash took place.
However, that said, I also know it's falling on deaf ears. Supporters of the common storyline of 9/11 do not need proof. They only need any little something to support their overwhelming desire to believe.
4--No actual statement of plane crashes.
Here is the source of United's convoluted press release issued close on to Noon on 9/11:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010911...onse/PressReleases/0,11641,-1__1750_1,00.html
Content:
"United Airlines Confirms Incidents Involving Two UA Flight Numbers, Dispatch of Family Assistance Team 11 Sep 2001, 11:53 AM, EST
United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.
United Flight 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, NJ, at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers onboard, 2 pilots and 5 flight attendants. United Flight 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers onboard, 2 pilots and 7 flight attendants.
United has confirmed that it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, PA, as soon as possible to assist in every way possible with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members. "Our thoughts are with the passengers, employees and family members of those involved. Today's events are a tragedy and our prayers are with everyone at this time," said James E. Goodwin, United CEO. Goodwin said United is working with all the relevant authorities involved in today's events and will provide further information as soon as it is available. Friends or family members who want more information about United Flight 93 or United Flight 175 should contact 1-800-932-8555. United also will post any information it has on this website. "
Read the statement carefully, posters, lurkers and victims family members and you will see that it is disjointed and grammarically weird, such that, read for actual content, it may or may not be saying what you think it is saying.
And, United had nothing further to say about the matter. All subsequent comment was said to come from the FBI, who, of course, have said nothing of substance and who has refused to release any proof of the plane crash.
The best source for understanding that there is no publicly available proof of any airline debris, something that would prove crashes having occurred, including copies of the correspondence from the FBI, can be found at:
http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/fbi-refuses-to-confirm-identity-of-911-planes/1875/
One additional important, and sometimes overlooked factual issue here is the fact that records show that 3 of the 4 alleged aircraft allegedly flown on 9/11 were not in reqular service and had not flown at all in year 2001. As to the fourth there were no records at all.
See:
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/notfly2000.jpg?t=1281363170[/qimg]
The answer contained in the above shown correspondence is at variance with other information concerning the flights that does suggest there were pre-9/11 flights for the aircraft said to have been involved. This information confirms, yet again, that the "real world versus exercise" issue is important and serves to confound the ability to determine what happened on 9/11:
"According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).
However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:
AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)
UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)
UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)"
Source:
http://911blogger.com/node/20456?page=1
Claims 1 through 4 are thusly confirmed and verified.
I know posting this won't matter much. Posters will continue to claim there is no proof of the no plane claim and they can do so all they want. Henceforth, I will link them to this post.
Lies, delusion and paranoid drivel.
Clearly you think the airlines are in on a 'conspiracy'.Can you prove it?
Btw Jammy, i think I found your picture:
Last edited:
