Now let's take a look at WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 for a little contrast to the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7

All of the buildings at the WTC site were steel frame construction. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were heavily damaged by falling debris from the towers which fell on them from a maximum height of almost 1300 feet. That's 30-60 ton girders falling from 80 stories or higher, together with tons of pulverised building material. Yet NONE of these buildings suffered complete collapse.

Why? Because of their steel frame construction designed to withstand at least five times the load they were required to bear.

Both building 5 and 6 endured hours of raging fires that were easily more involved than anything seen in the towers, and significantly more than building 7, in addition to substantial structural damage. Yet despite being shorter buildings (8-9 stories, and thus of much lighter construction) none of these buildings suffered catastrophic failures. Portions of building five did indeed fail, but nowhere near complete and sudden "global" catastrophic failure.

The FEMA report ignores most of these aspects but does point to building five's engulfing fires, tower damage and subsequent partial collapse.

Another interesting fact is that all of these buildings were either completely or mostly evacuated within minutes of the first attack. By contrast, the folks in the as yet undamaged tower 2, were told to stay put. Then the second plane hit tower 2.

These buildings, on a normal business day, these seven buildings housed 50,000 people. Yet the death toll was only about 5% of that, including the passengers of the planes.

I guess my point here, and I'm a little loathe to make it this early on, is that if you were trying to sell this to (assuming government involvement), it would be a much, much easier sell if you could assure the potential conspirators that there would be minimal loss of life. Which "miraculously" was indeed the case.

If you were a terrorist, and wanted to cause maximum loss of life, had months or years to plan this, and three airports full of planes and flight times to choose from, why on earth would you choose two early morning flights? The only thing less effective would be to have attacked during the night.

Now add to all of this that aside from some minor damage, not one building outside of the WTC campus was significantly damaged. Contrasting the nearly complete destruction of every building on campus. How fortunate that Silverstein (lease holder of the WTC site) had taken out billions in insurance covering terrorism on the site for the first time in it's 30+ year history. How incredibly fortunate that each building largely fell within it's own footprint and didn't damage those buildings not covered by terrorist insurance, thus circumventing some very noisy lawsuits and independent investigations.

Silverstien has paid $200 million for the lease rights for the WTC complex. The value of the insurance policy was $4 BILLION ! In addition, he tried to sue for $8 billion arguing that each plane constituted separate attacks. His bid failed. But he netted 3.8 billion for a few months "work". Think he's gonna have an attack of conscience and come forward to tell what he knows?

Still much more to come....

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall