North American Union? F*ck that

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

I never said the payout was on hold because the Jews and the government set up 911...
He said that the insurance companies paid out the claim, and that in itself proves that planes hit the towers, and not bombs, because if it were bombs, the insurers would have won.

He totally ignored the evidence of the fall time of the towers (similar to demolition speed), he ignored the evidence of the eyewitnesses all claiming they heard explosions, he ignored the evidence of the firefighters themselves claiming they think it was a controlled demolition, etc, etc.

Deciding what happened based on the result of a lawsuit is definately more accurate than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I apologize, I should know better...

You know better than the experts of the insurance companies that are hired to save them assloads of money on fraudulent claims? I apologize, I should have known better...

I'm sure any "evidence" that you have seen, has also be viewed by the insurance companies and evidentally it wasn't good enough for them to make a case.

Its sad, but the money to the insurance companies is alot more important to them than anybody finding any "truth" about any catastrophe.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif take that.

Gettin my groove on now //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/happydance.gif.a963168fea27d8453c3ec467ddcf9e1c.gif

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

I never said the payout was on hold because the Jews and the government set up 911...
He said that the insurance companies paid out the claim, and that in itself proves that planes hit the towers, and not bombs, because if it were bombs, the insurers would have won.

He totally ignored the evidence of the fall time of the towers (similar to demolition speed), he ignored the evidence of the eyewitnesses all claiming they heard explosions, he ignored the evidence of the firefighters themselves claiming they think it was a controlled demolition, etc, etc.

Deciding what happened based on the result of a lawsuit is definately more accurate than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I apologize, I should know better...

Why should I look at the whackos "scientific" evidence? I am in no way qualified in physics, engineering, metallurgy or the numerous other branches of science that it would take to determine exactly why the buildings collapsed in the manner that they did. I will take a wild guess and suggest that you are not either.

What I have been able to determine through our discussion in areas that I am familiar in is that you will argue with great conviction about matters that you know absolutely about. Even when you should realize that you are wrong it takes someone beating you over the head before you can realize that you have been duped by the whackos.

I am sure there are many issues that I could go over with you. But frankly, you just do not catch on quickly enough. I do not have the patience to teach you.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Why not look at all the evidence for yourself and make the best educated guess you can?
I'd rather see the evidence myself and come to my own conclusion than just assume that that the lawyers for the insurance companies hold the answers that's for sure...

Because I could research till the day I die and never accomplish the level of research and data analysis that an insurance company on the hook for a 3+ billion payout can accomplish.

Add that onto the propoganda I've seen for this conspiracy already and I think the "911 was a setup" stance is downright retarded, and so are its believers.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

A setup? LOL, did you ever take a history class? Governments have been killing it's own citizens and blaming their enemies since the start of time. To think it wouldn't happen in this day and age is just silly. It has happened all throughout history and it has happened again, you guys are just too brainwashed to see it at the moment. Later on in time it'll be considered common knowledge that 911 was committed by the CIA to get the American people behind a war and to give up many personal rights and liberties.
And to base your beliefs based on the result of a single insurance company's lawsuit rather than all the evidence as a whole is downright retarded...but whatever.

Just so you know, it was not a single insurance company.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

A setup? LOL, did you ever take a history class? Governments have been killing it's own citizens and blaming their enemies since the start of time. To think it wouldn't happen in this day and age is just silly. It has happened all throughout history and it has happened again, you guys are just too brainwashed to see it at the moment. Later on in time it'll be considered common knowledge that 911 was committed by the CIA to get the American people behind a war and to give up many personal rights and liberties.
And to base your beliefs based on the result of a single insurance company's lawsuit rather than all the evidence as a whole is downright retarded...but whatever.

You show alot of conceit, ignorance, and just plain stupidity to think you have more on the ball and are better studied than a team of experts on the hook for finding the way out of a $3,000,000,000 payment.

Has our government done bad things in the past...yes. Will they do bad things in the future...yes. Were they behind 911...I don't think so, and neither do high paid professionals at an insurance company who do for a career, what you do for fun in your free time.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

You show alot of conceit, ignorance, and just plain stupidity to think you have more on the ball and are better studied than a team of experts on the hook for finding the way out of a $3,000,000,000 payment.
Has our government done bad things in the past...yes. Will they do bad things in the future...yes. Were they behind 911...I don't think so, and neither do high paid professionals at an insurance company who do for a career, what you do for fun in your free time.

The thing is Duece, I don't think that it ever even occurred to him that the insurance companies would have denied the claim if there had been legitimate evidence of arson. That is part of getting wrapped up in these videos and not thinking. If he had thought about it, I don't think that he would have ever opened the door to the issue of insurance. (Of course, he did it because he had heard that it was somehow unusual for the leaseholder to have bought inurance).

Now once the issue was brought to his attention, he should have immediately realized that this was a problem for the conspiracy theorists. He did not, which tells me that further discussion with this particular young man will be exhausting.

 

[richierich75 10+ year member]

Why should I look at the whackos "scientific" evidence? I am in no way qualified in physics, engineering, metallurgy or the numerous other branches of science that it would take to determine exactly why the buildings collapsed in the manner that they did. I will take a wild guess and suggest that you are not either.
QUOTE]

True, I do not either - but if you took half the time to research or even watch one or two of the links provided to you - you would soon learn that there were/are QUALIFIED PHYSICS, ENGINEERING - AND NUMEROUS OTHER BRANCHES OF SCIENCE THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHY THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED IN THE MANNER THEY DID.

and then watch building 7 come down - same exact manner and what did we learn about building 7 - that it was in fact a controlled demolition.

 

[richierich75 10+ year member]

The thing is Duece, I don't think that it ever even occurred to him that the insurance companies would have denied the claim if there had been legitimate evidence of arson. That is part of getting wrapped up in these videos and not thinking. If he had thought about it, I don't think that he would have ever opened the door to the issue of insurance. (Of course, he did it because he had heard that it was somehow unusual for the leaseholder to have bought inurance).
Now once the issue was brought to his attention, he should have immediately realized that this was a problem for the conspiracy theorists. He did not, which tells me that further discussion with this particular young man will be exhausting.

That goes against one major thing though Who - if the insurance company infact will not pay on the grounds of arson or a controlled event - then the so called "conspiracy theory" would then be revealed as being REAL, you really think the government would allow this to happen? Nope, it will remain in litigation for years.

But as you would say if it were so clear and evident that this was in fact an act of terrorism, the insurance company would have settled by now and this wouldn't be part of the discussion; regardless of what is "published" to be the reason of the claim not being paid.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Why should I look at the whackos "scientific" evidence? I am in no way qualified in physics, engineering, metallurgy or the numerous other branches of science that it would take to determine exactly why the buildings collapsed in the manner that they did. I will take a wild guess and suggest that you are not either.
QUOTE]

True, I do not either - but if you took half the time to research or even watch one or two of the links provided to you - you would soon learn that there were/are QUALIFIED PHYSICS, ENGINEERING - AND NUMEROUS OTHER BRANCHES OF SCIENCE THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHY THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED IN THE MANNER THEY DID.

and then watch building 7 come down - same exact manner and what did we learn about building 7 - that it was in fact a controlled demolition.

Yeah, and there are other experts that say that your experts are full of shit.

Please try to understand:

1. There are some issues that would require me to spend countless hours studying scientific principles to even begin to understand.

2. There are other issues that I can make a determination on just based on common sense and my current knowledge.

Since I can readily tell, from category two issuues, that the conspiracy theorists are a bunch of fools and frauds, I have no reason to waste my time on category one issues.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

That goes against one major thing though Who - if the insurance company infact will not pay on the grounds of arson or a controlled event - then the so called "conspiracy theory" would then be revealed as being REAL, you really think the government would allow this to happen? Nope, it will remain in litigation for years.
But as you would say if it were so clear and evident that this was in fact an act of terrorism, the insurance company would have settled by now and this wouldn't be part of the discussion; regardless of what is "published" to be the reason of the claim not being paid.

OMG -- seriously, are you in special education? Please tell us that you are like 12years old so that there will be some excuse for being so ignorant.

You are a moron.

Screw this, I will go do volunteer work at the retard center instead of talking to you dumb bastards.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

ok. in a nutshell. what do you think happened. and how.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Also, to spend the last 2-3 pages with their entire argument on the claim that:
It must have been terrorist attacks like the government said because the insurance company lost the lawsuit

IS FVCKING RETARDED.

You find one piece of evidence that you find to prove yourself and hinge onto it like it makes a **** difference to the cause of "truth".

You don't have to get upset and type in caps because we've raised a flaw in something you've dedicated so much of your time to over the years.

If you can't understand that the insurance companies reviewed all of the evidence you have seen and more, with greater skill than you possess, then there is no need to keep arguing with you. If you continue the reasoning of a 4 year old, I might as well treat you like one and just say NO, and walk away.

In closing:

Insurance company experts on the line for 3bn > you, some random foil hat internet surfer

Thats more than enough reasonable doubt against your theory in my mind.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

we didn't need an excuse to go in to iraq. 911 wasn't even the deciding factor to do so. if you want to investigate a real conspiracy, explain why afghanistan was responsible for only 5% of the heroine coming to the US, and after we established ourselves there, it is now where 70% of our heroine is grown and getting here. i believe there are conspiracies, but the 911 conspiracy is simple paranoia.

 

[SLrocket 10+ year member]

we didn't need an excuse to go in to iraq. 911 wasn't even the deciding factor to do so. if you want to investigate a real conspiracy, explain why afghanistan was responsible for only 5% of the heroine coming to the US, and after we established ourselves there, it is now where 70% of our heroine is grown and getting here. i believe there are conspiracies, but the 911 conspiracy is simple paranoia.

LOL so they learned from frank lucas eh? oh the US government....so creative...hahah

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Don't you think if someone is powerful enough to orchestrate a militaristic precision attack against the world trade center, and fool most of the entire world, I don't believe that your fantasy scenario happened...which...

that they wouldn't be able to pay off or rig an insurance settlement??

...Makes this argument irrelevant, and to me resembling the reasoning of a 4 year old....so I'm forced to say...

I'm only mad because you believe your argument is actually some sort of proof.

Yeah, the people who pulled off 911 and fooled the world into thinking it was Arabs don't have the ability to rig a lawsuit in their favor. Sure buddy.

NO

and walk away, as there is no reasoning with somebody as basic as a 4yo