North American Union? F*ck that

[WhoSayWho? 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".

Actually, the reason that I got on this issue and the reason that I have stayed on this issue are not the same. I did not raise the issue about insurance --- you did. I have stayed on the issue ad nauseum because you are slow.

Take the highlighted portion of the quote from above for example. I have told you several times that the insurance companies did not lose the lawsuit. They won. The issue was over how much they are obligated to pay, not whether they should pay.

You and your friend are just not capable of even pedestrian thought. I am wasting my time with you and I feel silly for having gone on with this for as long as I have. It is pointless, you are just not smart enough to understand.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

You don't believe 911 was a conspiracy yet you believe we attacked Afghanistan in order to grow heroine. Come on man. I'm not saying you're not right (because the statistics you quote are actually close to correct), I'm just saying there's too much evidence to deny that 911 didn't happen the way the government said it did.
And I mean congressional evidence. Anytime it's brought up in front of a court, the judge dismisses it based on "STATE SECRETS", and that means it was a SECRET GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION. The citizens are just not supposed to know about it, it is necessary the government feels to do what needs to be done to keep our country the number one country in the world. They feel we need to do it militaristicly and I don't have any argument there. But 911 was still a secret govt OP.

we didn't attack afghanistan, first off. we occupied it. there is more evidence that it was a terrorist attack than a conspiracy. we could find a conspiracy in anything if we look hard enough. money is the determining factor when it comes to what our government will do and not do. they aren't stupid regardless of what all the short sighted bush haters spew. we did not make enough money by doing that to warrant a government operation. we could have just gone to iraq without wasting billions in such an operation. as far as the drug conspiracy goes, without the importation of illegal drugs in to this country, our government would lose billions. i refer you the the iran-contra affair.

 

[SLrocket 10+ year member]

You don't believe 911 was a conspiracy yet you believe we attacked Afghanistan in order to grow heroine. Come on man. I'm not saying you're not right (because the statistics you quote are actually close to correct), I'm just saying there's too much evidence to deny that 911 didn't happen the way the government said it did.
And I mean congressional evidence. Anytime it's brought up in front of a court, the judge dismisses it based on "STATE SECRETS", and that means it was a SECRET GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION. The citizens are just not supposed to know about it, it is necessary the government feels to do what needs to be done to keep our country the number one country in the world. They feel we need to do it militaristicly and I don't have any argument there. But 911 was still a secret govt OP.

wont it be the day if someone leaks those 'STATE SECRETS'

i would risk my life to do that.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

i still don't see the motivation behind this conspiracy. what were we able to do that we couldn't have done without blowing up the towers and wasting billions?

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Let me spell it out really really slow for you.
The (generally) peaceful people of the United States would not have supported an aggressive war involving multiple invasions without some type of attack upon ourselves to justify it.

Project for a New American Century (this document signed by Cheney himself)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[22]

bull. since when do we have to support something for them to do it anyway? you still haven't explained what exactly we gained monetarily by doing this. 911 can't be compared with pearl harbor.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I would trust an actuary determining whether or not it was arson versus what I see on a video.

Are you arguing that those 100s of lawyers fighting agianst a payout are more ignorant than you + google search engine? Why aren't the lawyers using this evidence? If it is so simple, as you make it seem, it would be a closed case by now.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Let me spell it out really really slow for you.
The (generally) peaceful people of the United States would not have supported an aggressive war involving multiple invasions without some type of attack upon ourselves to justify it.

Project for a New American Century (this document signed by Cheney himself)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[22]

These are the same people who forgot about that war of 1812....it doesn't take that much to convince the American people anything. Hell, I grew up thinking yellow #5 makes your penis small....(and I still don't drink Mt. Dew because of this notion...even though I am pretty confident it is false)

You don't have to go that far...

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Keep in mind this document was written in 2000:
In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that it aims to:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:

• defend the American homeland;

• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;

• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;

Written before 911, you can see how this group that now leads the country, were able to get their mission done, and it was because of 911.

You don't work for the department of defense or have served in the Military do you?

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Keep in mind this document was written in 2000:
In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that it aims to:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:

• defend the American homeland;

• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;

• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;

Written before 911, you can see how this group that now leads the country, were able to get their mission done, and it was because of 911.

the first one on the list is in direct violation of there own mission pertaining to 911

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

It's funny how you all keep going back to the insurance issue. Maybe they lost because it is considered a "terrorist attack" whether Bin Laden committed them, or whether our government committed them. How about that?

How about you can't prove a theory with another theory...

Once again, 4yo reasoning

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

It's funny how you all keep going back to the insurance issue. Maybe they lost because it is considered a "terrorist attack" whether Bin Laden committed them, or whether our government committed them. How about that?

If it is discovered the government committmed terrorism against it's own people, the insurance company will go after the federal government. That is how insurance companies work.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

What about the scientists?
http://physics911.net/

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84604

"Video clip of an interview with Prof. Jones can be seen here: http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

ABSTRACT

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government."

some scientists also believe in the global warming scam.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

It's funny how you all keep going back to the insurance issue. Maybe they lost because it is considered a "terrorist attack" whether Bin Laden committed them, or whether our government committed them. How about that?

I know how you love links -- link us to an article that states that the issue in the litigation has ever been whether the insurers could escape liability completely. As I mentioned in a post last night, there are multiple insurers involved and they are all litigating over the same basic issue -- how much should be paid.

There are apparently different forms that were used by the various insurers and that is why you have different "phases" of the litigation -- which may or may not be in different courts.

The bottom line is that the lawsuits are (and always have been) over contract inetrpertation -- not whether the leaseholder had a role in the destruction of the buildings.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Maybe so, but maybe the government has more power than the insurance companies. This isn't as free a nation as you think. Do you think if the CIA wanted to attack something and blame it on someone else that they couldn't accomplish it? Do you think they would let an insurance company sue them, and risk the citizenry finding out, jeopardizing possible national security? Think about it.

Many insurance companies are owned by international investors. There would have to be huge payoffs to soverign wealth funds for them to look the other pay on a multi-billion dollar payout. It would cause WWIII.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

If the result in the lawsuit could jeopardize national security or any governmental secret op, then you think they would let the insurance company win on the grounds of "fairness"?
Hell no, they're going to continue with their government operation until they achieve what needs to be done. There's no fairness here. There are the elite who run the world, and there are the rest of us. I just get sick of you who are on THIS side, believing the side that doesn't give a shit about you. Governments have lied to it's citizens all throughout history. You're a fool for thinking they wouldn't do it right now.

How exactly would they stop them?

Furthermore, the same company that owns CBS runs an insurance company. If the govt caused them to suffer that extreme of a loss, do you think they wouldn't have coverage saying so? The govt can't prevent the use of television because they do not control anything in the process of televison. There is nothing anyone could do.