911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?
Discussion
XslaneyX said:
I remember when the whole event happened whilst i was still at school. Came home and put the news on to see the twin towers smoking and thought it was a new film being made and couldn't quite take it in.
Myself and the girlfriend were in the US when 911 happened although we were in California.We woke up in that day's motel and g/f went to the motel reception for brekkie.
She came back saying that the girl behind the desk had told her that 2 planes had collided with a building.
I assumed she was mistaken and meant 2 places had hit each other.
The odds of 2 planes hitting a building on the same day were astronomical.
We put on the TV and watched the events live with replays of the planes crashing.
It felt like watching a movie. A totally surreal situation but the TV presenters were talking of how the fire crews were on the scene and everything was going to be ok.
The idea that they may collapse was never mentioned.
Then, the first one went and it seemed obvious that the second was not far behind.
I have 2 strong memories of that day.
It may seem odd but the releif when hearing the death toll. earlier news had mentioned it being 10,000 + and the other being the people we drank with in Long Beach that night.
The complete shock and utter disbelief of what had happened, the thought that they were suddenly very vulnerable and they were scared.
They had stopped access to downtown Los Angeles which is why we ended up in Long Beach.
They even had an armed guard around the Queen Mary. They wouldn't let us anywhere near it.
There we are, a few ramblings.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The Twin Towers were covered on a stop loss basis. Both covered but claims capped at the value of 1. No one foresaw what actually happened.
So, to all you conspiracy theorists, why was the policy renewed on a stop loss basis. Why not renew on a full value basis covering both buildings?
Reptilian illuminati schoolboy error innit.. Ever seen a Lizard with a solid grasp of risk management.? So, to all you conspiracy theorists, why was the policy renewed on a stop loss basis. Why not renew on a full value basis covering both buildings?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
XslaneyX said:
- Insurance being taken out a day before the event
OK, let's deal with this. The policy was up for renewal, and negotiations had been ongoing and were concluded the day before.But....the policy was renewed on a stop loss basis. Which means, if you have 2 houses worth a million each, you are a higher risk that someone with 1 house worth a million (you have 2 places where something could go wrong), but a lower risk than someone with one house worth £2 million (as with 2 houses at a million each the most you can lose in any one event is £1M)
So you insurer both houses on a stop loss basis, both covered for £1m but with a condition that you can only claim up to £1m. If a house burns down, you then have to buy back the further cover to cover your 2nd house.
The Twin Towers were covered on a stop loss basis. Both covered but claims capped at the value of 1. No one foresaw what actually happened.
So, to all you conspiracy theorists, why was the policy renewed on a stop loss basis. Why not renew on a full value basis covering both buildings?
Who owned the towers at the time and is there any indication of how much they lost?
longshot said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
XslaneyX said:
- Insurance being taken out a day before the event
OK, let's deal with this. The policy was up for renewal, and negotiations had been ongoing and were concluded the day before.But....the policy was renewed on a stop loss basis. Which means, if you have 2 houses worth a million each, you are a higher risk that someone with 1 house worth a million (you have 2 places where something could go wrong), but a lower risk than someone with one house worth £2 million (as with 2 houses at a million each the most you can lose in any one event is £1M)
So you insurer both houses on a stop loss basis, both covered for £1m but with a condition that you can only claim up to £1m. If a house burns down, you then have to buy back the further cover to cover your 2nd house.
The Twin Towers were covered on a stop loss basis. Both covered but claims capped at the value of 1. No one foresaw what actually happened.
So, to all you conspiracy theorists, why was the policy renewed on a stop loss basis. Why not renew on a full value basis covering both buildings?
Who owned the towers at the time and is there any indication of how much they lost?
But the point it, why was the building underinsured at all, if the conspiracy bods are right and it was all pre planned?
They are quite happy to trot out the "it was only insured the day before" line suggesting the owners were in on it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The shortfall was huge, hundreds of millions. They owners sued the insurers on 2 counts, firstly that the advice was wrong and as insurance professionals, they should have predicted this could happen, and secondly that they would have bought back cover for tower 2 had the timescale allowed it. It dragged on for years and was settled with some sort of compromise agreement.
But the point it, why was the building underinsured at all, if the conspiracy bods are right and it was all pre planned?
They are quite happy to trot out the "it was only insured the day before" line suggesting the owners were in on it.
They are focusing on ' the day before' as if that's in anyway meaningful.But the point it, why was the building underinsured at all, if the conspiracy bods are right and it was all pre planned?
They are quite happy to trot out the "it was only insured the day before" line suggesting the owners were in on it.
Bit like when people get excited when they meet someone with the same birthday - as if this is a rare coincidence and means something. Put 22 random people in a room and there's a 50% chance you'll have a shared birthday.
My wife's birthday is one day before mine... The amount of people who go 'ooooooh isn't that amazing/spooky/fate ....etc"
I usually counter with; what if her birthday was two days before mine, still spooky? okay how about three days or exactly six months apart...?
Same with this conspiracy nonsense - the day before!!! Well it had to be on one day of the year because insurance is renewed yearly.
What about two days before or a week - still suspicious?
I'd also add if I were about to commit the crime of the century then I'd probably not redo the insurance the day before -exactly because it does look suspicious.
)Europa1 said:
TheExcession said:
Excellent thread! We've had Moon Landings and 911 - can we do crop circles & aliens next 
And don't forget Princess Diana for the full house...People, we're through the looking glass here.
Faust66 said:
'Princess' Diana didn't die
Of course she did. Prince Philip and the third degree masons did it. We know this for certain because:1. The ambulance could have taken a different route that might have been a bit quicker.
2. Henri Paul, the driver who was meant to be over the limit, wasn't seen staggering on "the pic shot every 10 seconds" cctv.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Faust66 said:
'Princess' Diana didn't die
Of course she did. Prince Philip and the third degree masons did it. We know this for certain because:1. The ambulance could have taken a different route that might have been a bit quicker.
2. Henri Paul, the driver who was meant to be over the limit, wasn't seen staggering on "the pic shot every 10 seconds" cctv.
That shifty bugger with the dodgy 'tache had to be involved somehow.
Buzz84 said:
RE the whole jet fuel cannot melt steel argument, where the fuel burns at 1500C and steel wont melt till 2700C
There is a good video here: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
Yeah, but the planes were also loaded with the stuff they make chemtrails with, and who know what temperature that stuff burns at.There is a good video here: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
https://xkcd.com/966/
Edited by gmaz on Wednesday 24th August 15:45
A very good film to watch if you have the time!
JFK to 911 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM
I really enjoyed it,but, failed to see any evicence!
As far as 911 is concerned, why have controled explosions? They are used to demolish buildings so they cause as little damage to the surrounding area, this wouldn't have been a concern in these circumstances!
JFK to 911 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM
I really enjoyed it,but, failed to see any evicence!
As far as 911 is concerned, why have controled explosions? They are used to demolish buildings so they cause as little damage to the surrounding area, this wouldn't have been a concern in these circumstances!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff