Any evidence of pre setup?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I should think insurance policies against acts of terrorism for double indemnity just months before 9/11 might count.

Again, context is important.

One, that is innuendo. Not physical evidence of CD.
Two, the owners did not make money off the terrorists attacks to rebuild at no cost to them.
Three, the insurance companies invested the WTC. They found no evidence of CD. Especially in the WTC 7 lawsuit.
Four. The WTC already suffered one terrorist attack.

Did a WTC Leaseholder Buy Terrorism Insurance Just Before 9/11

www.snopes.com...

Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of “terrorism insurance coverage,” what we’re actually speaking of is coverage that doesn’t have a terrorism exclusion. Such exclusions aren’t uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There’s no reason to suppose that the WTC wasn’t routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time Silverstein took over the lease in 2001.

Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or “fortuitous,” therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy — which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage — two months before 9/11, because that’s when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn’t even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer.

It’s a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for double the damages. It’s also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, “occurrences”), not one. But this wasn’t some premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein’s court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus, he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10 million per month to the Port Authority.

The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single “occurrence” by his insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally soughtAdded

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: firerescue


This one always gets me guessing, the BBC reporting the third tower collapsing before it goes down. Pre scripted

Which is more likely:

Reporters were fully briefed on the plans for the day and given scripts to read containing descriptions of the events that were going to occur and be witenessed by thousands of people. All the reporters were sworn to secrecy and will take their hidden knowledge to the grave

OR

Information got garbled and a reporter made a mistake

a reply to: mrthumpy

Especially the foreign news agencies concerning a past administration they didn’t like?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: mrthumpy

Especially the foreign news agencies concerning a past administration they didn’t like?

Ridiculous isn't it. Truthers never think through the implications of their claims

a reply to: mrthumpy

You mean like the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?
In 1964 the engineers were predicting 45 years for the steel tower design (without inertial damping on the roof).
What the engineers did not have was accurate vacancy rate predictions for NYC (as far as you know).

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: mrthumpy

Especially the foreign news agencies concerning a past administration they didn’t like?

Ridiculous isn't it. Truthers never think through the implications of their claims

But but but... NWO, NWO, NWO and government magical technology.......

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

We would see the aluminum plane turn into shredded pieces and not pierce through the THICK steel & THICK glass outer shell (all under compression). People dont' understand how tough and resistant those windows are/were and just because they were glass doesn't mean they break easily. those things were THICK and HEAVY and incredibly strong - add into that the massive outer steel support structure, the high density rebar-reinforced concrete floors, and the interior walls. All of this would SHRED the plane and it woudln't pass through as it was shown to do.

So why in 1945 could an aluminum plane pierce the side of steel ships

USS Hinsdale APA 120

www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/APA/APA-120_Hinsdale-kamikaze.gif

USS Sterett DD 407

www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h98000/h98062.jpg

I have an answer. Please read below.

Ena, 92, had been drafted into the depleted ranks of the navy as a 20-year-old economics student at the prestigious Waseda university in Tokyo. He was sent to join a squadron of pilots in Kyushu, Japan’s southernmost main island, in April 1945, when the kamikaze were at their most active.

He was to pilot a crew of three aboard a plane with an 800kg [1,763-pound] bomb strapped to its undercarriage. The aircraft would have fuel only for a one-way flight.

800 kg bomb attached to a plane will make a hole in steel.

Source www.google.com...

a reply to: TopSecretMan

The bombs did not explode until the plane was inside the ship. The bombs did not go off when the plane ripped through the hull.

www.ibiblio.org...

Sunday 1 April 1945, D-day for Okinawa, was very nearly Hinsdale's last day in the Pacific. With only a few seconds' warning, Hinsdale could not evade the kamikaze; at 0600 the suicide plane crashed into her port side just above the water line and ripped into the engine room. Three explosion rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep insider her and tore the engine room apart--only one member of the watch survived death by scalding steam from the exploding boilers.

a reply to: anonentity

Yea BBC admitted they f***** up

They were quoting a Reuters report which in term was quoting a local source that WTC 7 had collapsed

Considering that were anticipating that WTC 7 might collapse - a collapse zone had been created around building in mid
afternoon (3PM) and given the chaos that day is easy to see how someone could get it wrong

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I should think insurance policies against acts of terrorism for double indemnity just months before 9/11 might count.

Easy to understand when people lending you the money (GMAC now ALLY Bank) demand that you have such insurance

No insurance, no money - or did you think Silverstein put up the money himself ? Its called leverage, you put up small
amount then get investors to lend the rest

In fact Silverstein wanted only 1 billion per building, investors wanted 5 billion, settled on 3.55

Kinda hard to envision insurance scam if want LESS insurance

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I should think insurance policies against acts of terrorism for double indemnity just months before 9/11 might count.

Easy to understand when people lending you the money (GMAC now ALLY Bank) demand that you have such insurance

No insurance, no money - or did you think Silverstein put up the money himself ? Its called leverage, you put up small
amount then get investors to lend the rest

In fact Silverstein wanted only 1 billion per building, investors wanted 5 billion, settled on 3.55

Kinda hard to envision insurance scam if want LESS insurance

a reply to: TopSecretMan

Which accounts for the nice plane shaped hole in the hull ……..

Then again explain on how wood & fabric trainers were able to penetrate a steel hull ship

Japanese were using them - proved very effective because the fabric did not give a good radar return allowing them
to get close before ships would open fire

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TopSecretMan

The bombs did not explode until the plane was inside the ship. The bombs did not go off when the plane ripped through the hull.

www.ibiblio.org...

Sunday 1 April 1945, D-day for Okinawa, was very nearly Hinsdale's last day in the Pacific. With only a few seconds' warning, Hinsdale could not evade the kamikaze; at 0600 the suicide plane crashed into her port side just above the water line and ripped into the engine room. Three explosion rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep insider her and tore the engine room apart--only one member of the watch survived death by scalding steam from the exploding boilers.

The MXY-7 Navy Suicide Attacker Ohka was a manned flying bomb that was usually carried underneath a Mitsubishi G4M2e Model 24J "Betty" bomber to within range of its target. On release, the pilot would first glide towards the target and when close enough he would fire the Ohka's three solid-fuel rockets, one at a time or in unison,[4] and fly the missile towards the ship that he intended to destroy.

The kamikazi/glider itself was a rocket/missile with wings.

In the example you posted The three solid fuel rockets was probably used one at a time.
The unused fuel exploded once inside the ship.

Also the kamikazi was designed to penetrate unlike a Boeing.

Source en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: neutronflux


We must also remember the stock markets PUT's on the airlines involved, one was checked back to a member of the Bush family. The German stock exchange flagged these PUT's simply because they were completely illogical at the time.

a reply to: TopSecretMan

Am I missing something? Can you cite where the Hinsdale was hit by a MXY7 Ohka? I don’t see the Hinsdale listed as being hit by a Ohka?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka was used mostly against U.S. ships invading Okinawa, and if launched from its mothership, could be effective because of its high speed in the dive.[15] In the first two attempts to transport the Ohkas to Leyte Gulf using aircraft carriers, the carriers Shinano and Unryu were sunk by the U.S. submarines Archerfish and Redfish.

Attacks intensified in April 1945. On 1 April 1945, six "Bettys" attacked the U.S. fleet off Okinawa. At least one made a successful attack; its Ohka was thought to have hit one of the 406 mm (16 in) turrets on the battleship West Virginia, causing moderate damage. Postwar analysis indicated that no hits were recorded and that a near-miss took place.[16] The transports Alpine, Achernar, and Tyrrell were also hit by kamikaze aircraft, but it is unclear whether any of these were Ohkas from the other "Bettys". None of the "Bettys" returned.

The U.S. military quickly realized the danger and concentrated on extending their "defensive rings" outward to intercept the "Betty"/Ohka combination aircraft before the suicide mission could be launched.[16] On 12 April 1945, nine "Bettys" attacked the U.S. fleet off Okinawa. The destroyer Mannert L. Abele was hit, broke in two, and sank, witnessed by LSMR-189 CO James M. Stewart. Jeffers destroyed an Ohka with AA fire 45 m (50 yd) from the ship, but the resulting explosion was still powerful enough to cause extensive damage, forcing Jeffers to withdraw. The destroyer Stanly was attacked by two Ohkas. One struck above the waterline just behind the ship's bow, its charge passing completely through the hull and splashing into the sea, where it detonated underwater, causing little damage to the ship. The other Ohka narrowly missed (its pilot probably killed by anti-aircraft fire) and crashed into the sea, knocking off the Stanly's ensign in the process. One Betty returned. On 14 April 1945, seven "Bettys" attacked the U.S. fleet off Okinawa. None returned. None of the Ohkas appeared to have been launched. Two days later, six "Bettys" attacked the U.S. fleet off Okinawa. Two returned, but no Ohkas had hit their targets. Later, on 28 April 1945, four "Bettys" attacked the U.S. fleet off Okinawa at night. One returned. No hits were recorded.[16]

May 1945 saw another series of attacks. On 4 May 1945, seven "Bettys" attacked the U.S. fleet off Okinawa. One Ohka hit the bridge of a minesweeper, Shea, causing extensive damage and casualties. Gayety was also damaged by an Ohka's near miss. One "Betty" returned. On 11 May 1945, four "Bettys" attacked the U.S. fleet off Okinawa. The destroyer Hugh W. Hadley was hit and suffered extensive damage and flooding. The vessel was judged beyond repair. On 25 May 1945, 11 "Bettys" attacked the fleet off Okinawa. Bad weather forced most of the aircraft to turn back, and none of the others hit targets.

On 22 June 1945, six "Bettys" attacked the fleet. Two returned, but no hits were recorded. Postwar analysis concluded that the Ohka's impact was negligible, since no U.S. Navy capital ships had been hit during the attacks because of the effective defensive tactics that were employed.[16]

a reply to: TopSecretMan

You might want to read your own link and do more research.....

USS Hinsdale (APA-120)

en.m.wikipedia.org...(APA-120)

Later investigation indicated that a Jap suicide plane, probably a Tony Kawasaki Ki-61 carrying three 132 lb. bombs hit the ship on the port side at the water line in the vicinity of frame 80.

Kawasaki Ki-61
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: neutronflux


We must also remember the stock markets PUT's on the airlines involved, one was checked back to a member of the Bush family. The German stock exchange flagged these PUT's simply because they were completely illogical at the time.

Oh, the Puts recommend by the investment publication? Or the Puts that Middle Eastern interests profited from knowing the hit the airlines would take from real jets being used by the terrorists.

And PUTs that have nothing to do with physical evidence of implosion/ CD at the WTC.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TopSecretMan

You might want to read your own link and do more research.....

USS Hinsdale (APA-120)

en.m.wikipedia.org...(APA-120)

Later investigation indicated that a Jap suicide plane, probably a Tony Kawasaki Ki-61 carrying three 132 lb. bombs hit the ship on the port side at the water line in the vicinity of frame 80.

Kawasaki Ki-61
en.m.wikipedia.org...

It says probably, meaning they don't know and nobody will if it was or not.
Just like jet fuel probably melts steel beams. But no one will know if it does or not.

originally posted by: TopSecretMan

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TopSecretMan

You might want to read your own link and do more research.....

USS Hinsdale (APA-120)

en.m.wikipedia.org...(APA-120)

Later investigation indicated that a Jap suicide plane, probably a Tony Kawasaki Ki-61 carrying three 132 lb. bombs hit the ship on the port side at the water line in the vicinity of frame 80.

Kawasaki Ki-61
en.m.wikipedia.org...

It says probably, meaning they don't know and nobody will if it was or not.
Just like jet fuel probably melts steel beams. But no one will know if it does or not.

One, there is a clear record of what ships were struck by the MXY7 Ohka

Two: by the size and placement of the holes in the Hinsdale, the impacts that show where the bombs were carried under the wings, and the wing marks on the Hinsdale, there is no way a MXY7 Ohka made those marks.

Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka
en.m.wikipedia.org...
Wingspan: 5.12 m
Height: 1.16 m (3 ft 9⅓ in)
Loaded weight: 2,140 kg (4,718 lb)

Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien & Ki-100
www.airvectors.net...

wingspan
12 meters

height
3.70 meters

loaded weight
3,470 kilograms

Three: one would have left soild fuel rocket motors in the wreckage. The other would have left a v-12 engine and propeller in the wreckage. No way the two would be confused.

Your statement of

It says probably, meaning they don't know and nobody will if it was or not.

Implying it might be a MXY7 Ohka is blatantly false and/or utterly ridiculous. That you are to lazy to even read your own Links.

You again

Just like jet fuel probably melts steel beams.

Please quote where NIST ever said the collapse of the WTC buildings was from melted steel.

Anymore blatantly false arguments by you?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TopSecretMan

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TopSecretMan

You might want to read your own link and do more research.....

USS Hinsdale (APA-120)

en.m.wikipedia.org...(APA-120)

Later investigation indicated that a Jap suicide plane, probably a Tony Kawasaki Ki-61 carrying three 132 lb. bombs hit the ship on the port side at the water line in the vicinity of frame 80.

Kawasaki Ki-61
en.m.wikipedia.org...

It says probably, meaning they don't know and nobody will if it was or not.
Just like jet fuel probably melts steel beams. But no one will know if it does or not.

One, there is a clear record of what ships were struck by the MXY7 Ohka

Two: by the size and placement of the holes in the Hinsdale, the impacts that show where the bombs were carried under the wings, and the wing marks on the Hinsdale, there is no way a MXY7 Ohka made those marks.

Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka
en.m.wikipedia.org...
Wingspan: 5.12 m
Height: 1.16 m (3 ft 9⅓ in)
Loaded weight: 2,140 kg (4,718 lb)

The ship was holed in three places: A seven foot hole in the engine room at the water line caused by the engine and fuselage to which it is believed was attached a bomb which was the first explosion, a ten inch hole in the engine room about 2 feet above the water line caused by a bomb which was later discovered as a dud, and a four foot hole in Compartment A-304-EL a crew's berthing space, caused by a bomb which was the second explosion."

1st point. Wrong. If you read the article its not clear who the pilot was.

2nd point Look at the 10 inch hole. Its 2 feet above the water line. Hmmm so if that hole is 2 feet above waterline use it as a point of reference to find an estimate of wingspan.
I got around 16-18 ft wingspan from those statements.

3rd point. Okay okay now there is a 7 foot hole in the boat... tell me how a ki-61 that's 12 feet in height cause that hole with no dentation around the hole.

Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien & Ki-100
www.airvectors.net...

wingspan
12 meters

height
3.70 meters

loaded weight
3,470 kilograms

Three: one would have left soild fuel rocket motors in the wreckage. The other would have left a v-12 engine and propeller in the wreckage. No way the two would be confused.

Your statement of

It says probably, meaning they don't know and nobody will if it was or not.

Implying it might be a MXY7 Ohka is blatantly false and/or utterly ridiculous. That you are to lazy to even read your own Links.

You again

Just like jet fuel probably melts steel beams.

Please quote where NIST ever said the collapse of the WTC buildings was from melted steel.

Anymore blatantly false arguments by you?

The point I was trying to make wasn't the type of plane it was.
It was that aluminum cant penetrate steel. Look at the wing Marks. Why didn't it penetrate? But the dud bomb did?

Second part,
Also, I was being sarcastic..
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Part 3
How did the 3rd building fall? Because it looked exactly the same way WTC collapsed.