North American Union? F*ck that

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

Here is a video of the twin towers collapsing. Anyone with "common sense" can tell it didn't happen from planes hitting it 3/4ths of the way up, as the building crumbles straight down in a perfect footprint upon itself, just like in a controlled demolition.

Youre way over your head. I always was suspicious about 7, but I think we knew something was going to happen, and didnt try hard enough to prevent it so it happened. Norads activity that day with cheney at the helm, that must be the biggest coincidence of all time. The govt shouldve known that info would leak sooner or later so why not just say yes we were expecting an attack, were preparing to defend and got beat, so LETS GO

But then you look at afghanistan, WMD's in Iraq, Powell, Shock and Awe, go into Iraq to get Saddam, find a cure for civil war, always a new agenda, and whos getting paid?

I dont trust it. ALL LEVELS. Over here congestion pricing didnt get passed in Albany yet but they broke ground for the toll booths that cost 354 million of Federal money //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Here is a video of the twin towers collapsing. Anyone with "common sense" can tell it didn't happen from planes hitting it 3/4ths of the way up, as the building crumbles straight down in a perfect footprint upon itself, just like in a controlled demolition.

If it is so obvious that the buildings did not fall as the result of the plane crashes, then why on earth have the insurers paid billions of dollars on the claim? If you have any experience with insurers you will appreciate that they will use any viable defense to deny a claim.

How do you explain that? It can't be that you think that you are that much smarter than people who investigate fraudulent claims and incidents of arson on a daily basis. After all, you have just said that it is easy to for anyone to tell that the buildings collapsed due to other causes. According to your position, this should have been a cakewalk for the insurers. At the very least one would expect that one of the dozen or so insurers would have tried to prove this defense.

Think man, think.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

The "official story" says the planes brought the towers down, but again who actually saw the videos can use their own common sense to see what really happened. You can either believe the official story, or you can open your eyes, look at the collapse of the building itself and see how blatently obvious it is. Combined with the other evidence of eyewitnesses talking about hearing explosions in the buildings, along with the firefighters themselves testifying to hearing explosions as if the building were being brought down on purpose.
The insurance company was probably dealing with the same type of intelligent people we're dealing with here right now. Refuse to look at evidence because it goes against what we've been lead to believe....BAAHHHH

I will be willing to bet that you wish you had never opened your piehole about the insurance coverage. It really kills your arguments in so many ways.

If you believe for one second that the carriers turned a blind eye to any possible way to avoid paying billions of dollars then you are a fool.

I did not expect you to think of this yourself. But now that this has been pointed out to you then I wold hope that you would begin to question this yourself. Otherwise you are a stubborn fool.

No, it is definitely not obvious that something other than the planes caused the buildings to collapse. You can say that all you want, but it does not make it so. You can even use all caps if you would like. It doesn't change a thing.

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

It is interesting that our next president will continue the war on terror. McCain is already locked in and it doesnt matter which dem wins because just face it neither will be elected. The media created the Obama phenomenon just to slew it out with Hillary

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Still having problems admitting that there are alot of holes in the official story?
Or are you trying to dig up anything you can to try to prove that the official story is true.

It's sad that it's easier for me to provide evidence that the official story is false, than it is for you to find evidence that it is true.

You see, that's just the thing. I don't have to go scrambling around the internet hoping that someone has made an argument for me. I am perfectly capable of using my own mind to determine that there is no logic to your arguments and therefore, no reason to delve deeper into though subject.

Oh, I have watched some of these whacked out documentaries before. I can't tell you how easy it is to spot lie after lie that these guys tell to keep this bullshit alive. It makes it very difficult to watch when you know it is just a bunch of freaks mentally masturbating.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Are you incapable of reading? The carriers are fighting the insurance claims tooth and nail. They still to this date have not paid out on the insurance


Who is the stubborn fool now?

You are. Do you not realize that what you quoted only proves my point that the carriers will use any viable defense?

They are arguing about coverage issues related to the definition of the word "occurence." There is no telling how many law firms they have employed and how much money they have spent to litigate this issue. This is just a matter of how much they will pay -- not whether they will pay.

Do you really think that they would not pursue an "obvious" defense of arson that would completely remove their obligation to pay one dime.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Lol, every site I've linked has been a mainstream news site, retard. You are making blanket statements like (why have the insurers paid out billions then if you're so right) and then find out that the insurers have not paid out a penny, and instead of maybe learning something, you change the subject or resort to name calling.

At least I'm backing up what I say with evidence. You make claims that aren't even true and then won't even man up to it.

Oh really? Are you absolutely certain that the carriers have not made any payments under the policies?

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

I guess you missed this part:
With only one cause, there was only one insured event, said Harvey Kurzweil, a lawyer for Travelers.

"We are talking about a highly coordinated military style precision attack," he said.

You dumbass. The reason that he is saying that is in support of his argument that the crashes constitute one "occurence" for determining how much to pay. That is the issue they are litigating.

Geez you are retard.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Regardless of what a judge decides or a jury decides in the insurance case doesn't make it any more clear to the ***** eye as any person with common sense can see the buildings fall down exactly like a controlled demolition. There are eyewitness accounts of people hearing explosions and even firefighters saying they believe it was a controlled demolition.
But you're inclined to ignore that evidence and make the claim that it had to be planes because the insurance company lost the lawsuit. Reality check. If there are people powerful enough to rig the twin towers up with bombs and detonate them simultaneously with planes hitting the towers, then maybe those same people can rig a court settlement.

Good lord, people like you make me wonder why I even try...

You still don't get it. A jury is not going to decide whether the buildings fell because of a controlled demolition. The insurance companies are not even raising arson as a defense.

The issue is not whether they will pay -- but how much they will pay.

BTW, the insurance companies did not "lose" you moron.

Why would I bother listening to you on all these other wild *** ideas you have when I can readily determine that you are completely incapable of comprehending an an article that you posted about the insurance case?

You know, earlier I tried to encourage you to think for yourself. I take it back. You are not competent to do that.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

True, but are you then implying that Osama Bin Laden in a cave somewhere and a few ******* bombers orchestrated a "highly coordinated military style precision attack"?

Ok, he made a valid point and you just move on? The argument that the payout is in hold got called, and it is because of the double payment...not because the jews and the gov setup 9/11 //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

I do have to agree that insurance companies are tight and don't want to pay out if its fraud, especially large amounts. You can rest assured that they have subject matter experts that tore into this farther than you or your conspiracy theory buddies have the resources to do.

That is unless the insurance companies are in on it too...

I gave up on this when I saw loose change, then screw loose change. Those two as a pair just shows that conspiracy theorists can drum stuff up, and others can call BS and refute it, and the cycle will continue. Propaganda is propaganda.

 

[LouDEnougH? 10+ year member]

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

True, but are you then implying that Osama Bin Laden in a cave somewhere and a few ******* bombers orchestrated a "highly coordinated military style precision attack"?

Thank God. You may not be capable of comprehending a simple article on your own, but at least you had enough sense to listen when I told you what it meant. Of course that was probably about the fifth time I went over it.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Ok, he made a valid point and you just move on? The argument that the payout is in hold got called, and it is because of the double payment...not because the jews and the gov setup 9/11 //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Yeah, actually IIRC there have been some substantial payments made already. There are some fairly complex (at least for this forum) issues of whether some companies owe more than others and they may still be litigating those.

 

[LouDEnougH? 10+ year member]