ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th December 2009, 05:40 PM   #1
Sultanist
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 91
Did the insurance companies refuse to pay claims for the loss of the 9-11 airliners?

I'm arguing with some truthers in another forum and they just threw this at me...

Quote:
As of this writing not one dime has been paid to any of the airline companies that lost planes on 911. Why? Because the insurance companies investigating the crashes have NEVER VERIFIED A SINGLE PIECE OF WRECKAGE FROM ANY OF THE 4 PLANES AT ANY OF THE 4 LOCATIONS ON 911. They pay only by wreckage.
And they provided this blog link...
http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/01...-adjuster.html

I've googled to try to get some info on this but without success. Can anyone shed any light on it?

Thanks
Sultanist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 05:48 PM   #2
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,898
I am not sure the answer to this question but Ace Baker is most certainly not the most reliable source of information. However, insurance did pay out the WTC. So, by Ace Baker's own "logic", we can conclude that the destruction of the WTC was as described by the "official story". Tell this to the twoofer moron you are debating, guaranteed his does some pathetic squirming or ignores the issue all together.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:01 PM   #3
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,751
The first question I'd have to ask is, were the planes insured with insurance companies in the first place? The purpose of insurance is to pool risk (and thereby even out the expenses associated with risk). So, an airline with one plane, or a dozen, would insure them because they'd likely be out of business if one of their planes crashed or were otherwise destroyed. But a large airline's risk of loss of aircraft is already evened out by owning a large fleet. It would be cheaper for a large airline to self-insure the aircraft it owns. In that case there would be no insurance company, no insurance policy, and no insurance claim.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:06 PM   #4
Sultanist
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I am not sure the answer to this question but Ace Baker is most certainly not the most reliable source of information. However, insurance did pay out the WTC. So, by Ace Baker's own "logic", we can conclude that the destruction of the WTC was as described by the "official story". Tell this to the twoofer moron you are debating, guaranteed his does some pathetic squirming or ignores the issue all together.
Well actually what he wrote was a response to me asking him to explain why the insurance companies rolled over and paid a $7 billion fraudulent claim without challenging it. And of course that is probably the most compelling argument against the "demolition" theory.
It's just that I like to be able to debunk all the stuff they throw back at me and this is the first time they've throw this crap at me. I hate to leave this as a loose end.
Sultanist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:08 PM   #5
Sultanist
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The first question I'd have to ask is, were the planes insured with insurance companies in the first place? The purpose of insurance is to pool risk (and thereby even out the expenses associated with risk). So, an airline with one plane, or a dozen, would insure them because they'd likely be out of business if one of their planes crashed or were otherwise destroyed. But a large airline's risk of loss of aircraft is already evened out by owning a large fleet. It would be cheaper for a large airline to self-insure the aircraft it owns. In that case there would be no insurance company, no insurance policy, and no insurance claim.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Excellent point. I'll hit him with it.
Sultanist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:21 PM   #6
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,035
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

Quote:
The catastrophic terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 caused unprecedented insured losses. While the insurance industry covered these losses, it also took swift steps to limit its exposure to such risks in the future

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ber_11_attacks

Quote:
Insurance

Insurance losses due to 9/11 were more than one and a half times greater than the what was previously the largest disaster (Hurricane Andrew) in terms of losses. The losses included business interruption ($11.0 billion), property ($9.6 billion), liability ($7.5 billion), workers compensation ($1.8 billion), and others ($2.5 billion). The firms with the largest losses included Berkshire Hathaway, Lloyd's, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, all which are reinsurers, with more than $2 billion each in losses.[8] Shares of major reinsurers, including Swiss Re and Baloise Insurance Group dropped by more than 10%, while shares of Swiss Life dropped 7.8%.[9] Although the insurance industry held reserves that covered the 9/11 attacks, insurance companies were reluctant to continue providing coverage for future terrorist attacks. Only a few insurers offer such coverage, and it is limited and very expensive.[1]
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:23 PM   #7
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by Sultanist View Post
Well actually what he wrote was a response to me asking him to explain why the insurance companies rolled over and paid a $7 billion fraudulent claim without challenging it.
I would have shot back with " They did investigate the claims. If your company was faced with a $$$ billion payout, wouldn't you want to guaranteed that your money is being paid out for the right reason"

It took 3 years for them to finally pay Silverstein the insurance money. It took 6 years for the insurance companies to finally settle (not 3) Honestly does he think that they just sat and twiddled their thumbs during this time?

ETA: he didn't get 7 billion. He got 4.557 billion. And he loses 102 million per year on rental income. He applied what he got back in insurance monies to REBUILDING 3 of the 7 missing buildings.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

Last edited by Arus808; 15th December 2009 at 06:29 PM.
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:34 PM   #8
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,810
This insurance thing has always been one of the stupidiest games around. Truthers can be excused for generally being high school students and not understanding anything about how finance works, but there's more to paying for a company than just Googling words.

Larry Silverstein is rebuilding the WTCs. That's just a fact. Is he paying for it himself with his own lunch money? He doesn't seem to think so, since he spent millions of dollars suing a group of the largest insurance companies over the details of the payments.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/2...ance-case/309/
At no time in these case did any one ever present evidence that Larry was behind the destruction of the buildings. As far as I can tell, at no time did any one of our Truther friends offer this as evidence. There was no Steven Jones and his thermite demolition. There was Dr. Judy and the space rays of death. There was no Ace Baker and his media conspiracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ace was too busy making videos and playing the drums to even approprach the insurance companies with an offer of help. But then, they would also have been aware of this 911 Truth crap and showed no interest in it.

You can find more information here
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcinsuranceissues

Infor Wars believes there are dark secrets involved in this that ordinary humans can only guess at
http://www.infowars.net/articles/mar...ilverstein.htm
These companies are some of the most heavily audited in the world. They are publicaly-owned, they are traded on stock exchanges. Unless the argumment is - and of course it is - that a cabal of rich people really control the world and murder you and me when they feel like it - how is it that billions of dollars can just vanish?

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 15th December 2009 at 07:37 PM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:49 PM   #9
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,733
Originally Posted by Sultanist View Post
I'm arguing with some truthers in another forum and they just threw this at me...



And they provided this blog link...
http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/01...-adjuster.html

I've googled to try to get some info on this but without success. Can anyone shed any light on it?

Thanks


You could also point out that they're accepting the unsupported word of someone with no special knowledge of the airlines, the insurance companies, or their interactions. He's made a very strong positive statement that there have been no payouts, and why that is. It's reasonable to ask him to provide some sort of evidence for that claim.

If the airlines did self-insure their aircraft, we will never be able to provide proof that payout were made, but he should be able to link to the insurance policies under which the claims were denied, if they exist. If he can't provide that information, we can safely assume he's just pulling it out of his ass.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:58 PM   #10
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,042
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post

To be fair, this doesn't say anything about the lost aircraft themselves. It seems Sultanist's opponent is claiming that the insurance company, or companies, refused to pay out on any policies that were assumed to cover the planes lost in the attack.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 06:59 PM   #11
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Sultanist View Post
I'm arguing with some truthers in another forum and they just threw this at me...



And they provided this blog link...
http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/01...-adjuster.html

I've googled to try to get some info on this but without success. Can anyone shed any light on it?

Thanks
I can't speak towards the insurance, since I've not studied that claim. I can tell you that some large organizations do indeed self-insure; I know of a university that does this, although I don't know to what extent it does (i.e. if they self insure certain things, but buy policies for others). I only know that they self insured items that were damaged in a fire sprinkler malfunction (I don't want to get too specific here and give away clues to my identity, since mentally unstable individuals have been known to read this forum). But that's a minor point, and is far from being proof or disproof of this claim.

Ultimately, someone like Ace Baker is challenging people on whether planes were there at all; look up posts by TruthSeeker1234 if you want exposure to this. The point is that Ace doesn't believe jets hit the Twin Towers to begin with, and if that's the direction those guys are going in, you can easily defeat them by pointing out that there are uninterrupted radar tracks for Flights 11 and 175. Not to mention eyewitnesses. Anyway, the point is that you may not be able to dig up any firm information on the insurance "claim" (pardon the double meaning here), but you can establish that the jets hit the towers. That is beyond doubt; multiple independent lines of evidence establishes this.
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 07:02 PM   #12
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,758
You are not arguing with Truthers, you are arguing with no planers.

Ace Baker is well known to be a lying no planer creep.

And once again, he is caught lying. Oh look a quote from the Insurance Journal:

"The insured value of the hijacked planes totals $128.8 million, ranging from $21 million to $45 million each, according to market sources. The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said."

Oh lookie, a cite:

http://www.businessinsurance.com/app...plate=printart

Tell them to go **** themselves.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2009, 08:06 PM   #13
Sultanist
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
You are not arguing with Truthers, you are arguing with no planers.

Ace Baker is well known to be a lying no planer creep.

And once again, he is caught lying. Oh look a quote from the Insurance Journal:

"The insured value of the hijacked planes totals $128.8 million, ranging from $21 million to $45 million each, according to market sources. The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said."

Oh lookie, a cite:

http://www.businessinsurance.com/app...plate=printart

Tell them to go **** themselves.
that's precisely what I was looking for. you are my hero.
Sultanist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 06:33 AM   #14
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,414
It's my understanding that many of the large Insurers won't even cover airline losses.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 06:41 AM   #15
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,768
While the fact that the insurance companies paid out billions is pretty compelling, most truthers have a built-in circuit breaker for evidence like that; the insurance companies were in on it.

You can't get better debate mojo than that!
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 06:44 AM   #16
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,221
Originally Posted by Sultanist View Post
that's precisely what I was looking for. you are my hero.
Has he printed a retraction or admitted he was wrong? Evidence doesn't matter to these people, He'll just claim it's fake and continue on his merry way, He's a no-planer.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 09:42 AM   #17
bardamu
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
You are not arguing with Truthers, you are arguing with no planers.

Ace Baker is well known to be a lying no planer creep.

And once again, he is caught lying. Oh look a quote from the Insurance Journal:

"The insured value of the hijacked planes totals $128.8 million, ranging from $21 million to $45 million each, according to market sources. The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said."

Oh lookie, a cite:

http://www.businessinsurance.com/app...plate=printart

Tell them to go **** themselves.
No more details? One sentence on the internet? Who are the "sources"? Did the victims' families receive insurance as well as compensation from the government?
__________________
"I creamed him without cracking a sweat. You may therefore assume by induction I can humiliate the entire gang of them at will. I probably won't even have to work a single calculation to do it." - R. Mackey (NASA scientist)
bardamu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 11:44 AM   #18
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by Sultanist View Post
I'm arguing with some truthers in another forum and they just threw this at me...



And they provided this blog link...
http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/01...-adjuster.html

I've googled to try to get some info on this but without success. Can anyone shed any light on it?

Thanks
The web blog looks like a hang out for the mentally ill. The blog entries seem to be products of mental illness. Easy to see this insane idea was born at this blog spot. With statements like "No Planes is Proven", this is clearly a person having trouble with reality; just plan insane.

Pure insanity...
Quote:
This looks very much like what happens to the entire building later on, which looks very much like known nuclear reactions. http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html
At least the blog is consistently stupid.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 11:48 AM   #19
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,758
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
No more details? One sentence on the internet? Who are the "sources"? Did the victims' families receive insurance as well as compensation from the government?
SERIOUSLY???????

Have you failed to realize that I was writing a response to a "claim on the internet" that was apparantly made up out of whole cloth by mentally ill no planer? Who are Ace's sources, champ?

Further, that is not a claim on the internet, that was a copy of article that was published in Insurance Journal, which is a leading insurance trade journal.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 12:50 PM   #20
TS-
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
No more details? One sentence on the internet? Who are the "sources"?
Do yourself a favor and start asking these questions of conspiracy theorists, too.
TS- is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 01:00 PM   #21
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,768
So, bardamu, are you claiming that no insurance money was paid out after 9/11? If not, what do you think the reason the money was paid? Do you think the insurance companies would just pay out if there was ANY chance that this was an inside job? Do you think they're "in on it"? (cue spooky music)
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 01:40 PM   #22
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,954
Originally Posted by Sultanist View Post
I
And they provided this blog link...
http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/01...-adjuster.html
Viewing anything associated with that cretin is hazardous to the health.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 02:42 PM   #23
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Ace was a nut, for sure, but didn't you always find him and amusing bard?

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 16th December 2009 at 03:32 PM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 02:44 PM   #24
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Ace was a nut, for sure, but didn't you always find him and amusing bard?

TAM
Judy would
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 03:28 PM   #25
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Ace was a nut, for sure, but didn't you always find him and amusing bard?
TAM
I recall that Ron Wieck always said that Ace was a nice guy. Pom could rip into anyone with a vengance, and he wouldn't spare Ace's opinions on 9/11 one bit. None of us did; I sure as hell didn't. But, Ron also pointed out repeatedly that, for all Ace's faults regarding 9/11, that outside of those delusions Ace was one heckuva decent fellow. Granted, that doesn't offset the lunacy of no-planerism one iota; it's still insanity, no matter how you cut it. But it doesn't mean that everyone who advocates for it is a raving, angry lunatic. It's possible for them to be merely a lunatic.

That's odd to consider, but Ron did feel that way about Ace. He came out and said it.
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 04:38 PM   #26
bardamu
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
SERIOUSLY???????

Have you failed to realize that I was writing a response to a "claim on the internet" that was apparantly made up out of whole cloth by mentally ill no planer? Who are Ace's sources, champ?

Further, that is not a claim on the internet, that was a copy of article that was published in Insurance Journal, which is a leading insurance trade journal.
There's nothing for Ace to source. As was pointed out in the OP, it's almost impossible to find any information on this subject. The debunkers here have managed to find one vague reference to an insurance payout for the aircraft. Without more details and better sources, the conspiracy theorists have won this argument without so much as a fight.
__________________
"I creamed him without cracking a sweat. You may therefore assume by induction I can humiliate the entire gang of them at will. I probably won't even have to work a single calculation to do it." - R. Mackey (NASA scientist)
bardamu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 04:42 PM   #27
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,768
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
There's nothing for Ace to source. As was pointed out in the OP, it's almost impossible to find any information on this subject. The debunkers here have managed to find one vague reference to an insurance payout for the aircraft. Without more details and better sources, the conspiracy theorists have won this argument without so much as a fight.
Do you think it might be important for you truth warriors to find out for yourselves if the insurance companies payed out for the aircraft? I mean, they did pay out for the buildings and other things, that is a matter of public record. Do you think that if the insurance companies were in on it you owe it to the world to let it be known? God knows if they paid out their being 'in on it' is the only explanation, given that the evidence of inside job is SO compelling, right?

What else can it be?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 05:11 PM   #28
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
There's nothing for Ace to source. As was pointed out in the OP, it's almost impossible to find any information on this subject. The debunkers here have managed to find one vague reference to an insurance payout for the aircraft. Without more details and better sources, the conspiracy theorists have won this argument without so much as a fight.
Do you even read what you type?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 05:13 PM   #29
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,758
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
There's nothing for Ace to source. As was pointed out in the OP, it's almost impossible to find any information on this subject. The debunkers here have managed to find one vague reference to an insurance payout for the aircraft. Without more details and better sources, the conspiracy theorists have won this argument without so much as a fight.
What a *********** joke. You mean the mentally ill no planers don't have to cite anything, and because I can only cite an industry trade journal, they win with their made up claim? Yeah, you might be a truther.

Last time I checked, champ, one was more than zero.

Do the math, pal.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 06:04 PM   #30
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
... the conspiracy theorists have won this argument without so much as a fight.
Only in their own delusional minds. Using Ace Baker's web site of insane claims to support your moronic claims is self critiquing.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 06:14 PM   #31
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,733
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
There's nothing for Ace to source. As was pointed out in the OP, it's almost impossible to find any information on this subject. The debunkers here have managed to find one vague reference to an insurance payout for the aircraft. Without more details and better sources, the conspiracy theorists have won this argument without so much as a fight.


A lot of the insurance claims on the WTC buildings went to court. Do you imagine that, if the insurance companies rejected a claim by the airline companies, that the airlines would just role over and quit?

If it had happened that the claims were rejected, there would almost certainly be some court action involved. Can you, or any truther, show us such actions? No? Why not?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 08:47 PM   #32
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,950
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Judy would

Of course Judy Wood would.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2009, 09:15 PM   #33
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,612
Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
There's nothing for Ace to source. As was pointed out in the OP, it's almost impossible to find any information on this subject. The debunkers here have managed to find one vague reference to an insurance payout for the aircraft. Without more details and better sources, the conspiracy theorists have won this argument without so much as a fight.
Ahem. Shift the burden of proof much? Ace Baker is the one making the claim and it is his burden to prove. Of course, he doesn't do so and, of course, he doesn't offer a scintilla of evidence in support of his pulled-out-of-his-arse claim. You are doing the same thing. It's his (your) claim and, therefore, you have the obligation to source the claim. Neither you (nor he) have done so. Why haven't you or Ace Baker sourced your claim? Why haven't you or Ace Baker contacted the airlines or their insurers?

And you have the audacity to decry a debunker for providing you with a source that refutes your own non-sourced claim? That's ridiculous.

Frankly, if Ace Baker wasn't such a raving delusional whackjob, he might consider getting off of the Internet and actually trying to consult real life insurers and such to try to back up his claim. But it appears that he just makes a bald assertion without a single source, and then expects others to do the legwork for him. Strange guy, that Ace.

As an aside, when Ace Baker was on Hardfire with Ron Wieck and Steve Wright (a genuine video expert), he was invited to and given the opportunity to go to Ground Zero to talk to his fellow conspiracy fantasists (and others) about his "no planes" theory, and he adamantly refused to do so. He was specifically given the opportunity to go to downtown Manhattan and ask people whether or not they saw planes hit the towers, but he declined and instead completely folded his tent. That says an awful lot about Mr. Baker.

There is no reason to buy anything that Ace Baker is selling.

Last edited by LashL; 16th December 2009 at 09:17 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2009, 09:24 AM   #34
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
 
Unsecured Coins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,912
Our Lady of The Golden Gavel has spoken. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhll Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiise.
__________________
http://kcbastards.com/
"If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski
"I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele
"Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again
Unsecured Coins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2009, 09:29 AM   #35
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Ahem. Shift the burden of proof much? Ace Baker is the one making the claim and it is his burden to prove. Of course, he doesn't do so and, of course, he doesn't offer a scintilla of evidence in support of his pulled-out-of-his-arse claim. You are doing the same thing. It's his (your) claim and, therefore, you have the obligation to source the claim. Neither you (nor he) have done so. Why haven't you or Ace Baker sourced your claim? Why haven't you or Ace Baker contacted the airlines or their insurers?

And you have the audacity to decry a debunker for providing you with a source that refutes your own non-sourced claim? That's ridiculous.

Frankly, if Ace Baker wasn't such a raving delusional whackjob, he might consider getting off of the Internet and actually trying to consult real life insurers and such to try to back up his claim. But it appears that he just makes a bald assertion without a single source, and then expects others to do the legwork for him. Strange guy, that Ace.

As an aside, when Ace Baker was on Hardfire with Ron Wieck and Steve Wright (a genuine video expert), he was invited to and given the opportunity to go to Ground Zero to talk to his fellow conspiracy fantasists (and others) about his "no planes" theory, and he adamantly refused to do so. He was specifically given the opportunity to go to downtown Manhattan and ask people whether or not they saw planes hit the towers, but he declined and instead completely folded his tent. That says an awful lot about Mr. Baker.

There is no reason to buy anything that Ace Baker is selling.
The same Ace Baker that called the Alex Jones Show & pretended to kill himself while crying like a baby.

Oh the misery! LOL!
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2009, 09:33 AM   #36
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
 
Unsecured Coins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,912
I think that was Fetzer's show
__________________
http://kcbastards.com/
"If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski
"I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele
"Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again
Unsecured Coins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.