9/11 how much did the British MI5 / MI6 / MOD know about the terrorist plot...

So how much would the British authorities have known before the attacks? the US and UK have always shared intelligence but would they have done so with this high level info?

E

Well the owner of one/both (not sure) of the world trade center's took out 'Terrorist insurance' in the weeks prior to the event. People took out weird stock insurance policies and all sorts. So I'm sure both governments and security services had at least SOME inkling.

reply to post by EqualizerUK


How much did they not know is more pertinent, M16 knew as much as the CIA. The CIA knew all, so did ISI and Mossad and all the rest.

reply to post by TechUnique

Well the owner of one/both (not sure) of the world trade center's took out 'Terrorist insurance' in the weeks prior to the event. People took out weird stock insurance policies and all sorts. So I'm sure both governments and security services had at least SOME inkling.

Not this crap again.......

Reason Silverstein took out the policies which included coverage for terrorism was that the people putting up
the money (dont think Silverstein paid for all this out of his pocket?) DEMANDED IT......

The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal. The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.

The building had been bombed by terrorists in 1993

Or did you forget this......

en.wikipedia.org...

Silverstein wanted to buy less insurance, 1.5 billion Lenders balked and demanded 5 billion . Settled on 3.55 billion

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation. Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006 The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion). The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5. An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.

.

reply to post by thedman


Alright,
I give you leeway for your assumptions, there is not much else in your post, no meat on the table.
But consider this if you are really interested,

why did the original winner of the WTC drop out?

Why did Benjamin Netanyahu say, "September Eleven was good for Israel" while being a mate of Silverstein, and in regular contact. No loss to Silverstein ultimately then?

Galvanic corrosion, would the towers still be standing today or would they have been dismantled as uninsurable, and already a health hazard?

Originally posted by smurfy


Galvanic corrosion, would the towers still be standing today or would they have been dismantled as uninsurable, and already a health hazard?

Galvanic corrosion between the steel structure and the aluminum cladding would destroy only the cladding, and leave the steel intact. look it up.

reply to post by smurfy


The original bidder Vornado Real Estate could not come up with financing in time

Silverstein could so Port Authority gave hime the lease.....

Originally posted by TechUnique
Well the owner of one/both (not sure) of the world trade center's took out 'Terrorist insurance' in the weeks prior to the event. People took out weird stock insurance policies and all sorts. So I'm sure both governments and security services had at least SOME inkling.

What, you mean the owner of property somewhere that had already suffered a terrorist attack took out an insurance policy against acts of terrorism?

Surely not?

Next you will be telling me that people that live in flood prone areas take out policies that cover flood damage...

reply to post by thedman


...It was staged by Ronald Lauder an associate of Silverman who over saw the decision made by the port authority....

SIlverman...and Frank Lowry were associates of Ronald Lauder...the buildings were handed over to them on a plate.

read it up in the thread i did if you like.

Ronald Lauder - Billionaire Estée Lauder Cosmetics magnate. He was the chairman of NY Governor George Pataki's commission on privatization. He is the key individual who lobbied for the privatization of the WTC (Source, 9th pp) -- but he also got the former Stewart Air Force Base to become privatized. Oddly, the flight paths of flight 175 and flight 11 converged directly over this airport.

it is all sourced in the thread...might make you look.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
...but you do not seek truth....do you...really....you seek to just make things seem to be all legit..

you also might want to read this press release from the port Authority.....FLAGS and ALARM bells go off.

Port press release
Do we remember this press release...

Press Release Article

Statement by Lewis M. Eisenberg re: Net Lease of World Trade Center

Date: Mar 19, 2001
Press Release Number: 37-2001


STATEMENT BY LEWIS M. EISENBERG, CHAIRMAN, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
Re: Net Lease of World Trade Center

In connection with the net lease of the World Trade Center, on February 22, 2001, the Port Authority entered into an exclusive negotiating period with Vornado Realty Trust. During this period, Port Authority staff and its advisors, JP Morgan, Cushman & Wakefield and Milstein Brothers Realty Advisors, have worked with representatives of Vornado to complete the contract and associated transactional documents.

In view of the lack of a final agreement at this time, the Port Authority's Board of Commissioners has instructed staff and our advisors to engage in exclusive negotiations with Silverstein Properties and Westfield America to conclude a 99-year net lease transaction.

end

PA release

so the connection.

“Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist “charity” organization, to which media magnate Rupert Murdoch and Lowy generously contribute. In 1997, Henry Kissinger presented Murdoch with the UJA’s award for “Humanitarian of the Year.” Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel. [x]

BUSHS WAR

But you can continue to believe what you like Tedman....but is what your stating truth....or just tibits that you believe others will not delve into.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by smurfy


Galvanic corrosion, would the towers still be standing today or would they have been dismantled as uninsurable, and already a health hazard?

Galvanic corrosion between the steel structure and the aluminum cladding would destroy only the cladding, and leave the steel intact. look it up.

That's true, but I wasn't thinking about the aluminium and steel as a pair, anyway I havent seen any reports about corroded aluminium, maybe there was. It was more the different grades of steel, and/or some other source, perhaps the bolts, perhaps the welds. There were some bolts found that were anomalous, I'll have to look and see why, and I do know there was a huge amount of research done for the safety treatment of the bolts used in the new tower. I'm presuming that the air around the towers is salty to add to the possibility an electrical type of corrosion. Then there is the extreme corrosion that FEMA found in some of the limited amount of steel samples they had thought to have been done by superheating, that is something else altogether, and is still a mystery. There's nothing straightforward about those towers.