I mentioned that the initial military response would be no different between W Tell's hypothetical and the actual events - so nothing to talk about there. I then extended the discussion to consider long term public support - that is the reason I believe the towers had to fall. The only difference between our opinion there, is that I accept from the horse's mouth that a new Pearl Harbor scale attack was deemed the requirement, whereas you try to impose your own requirement on their operation.
At the end of it all, what Neocon documents show is that a decades long driving force; a replacement to the Cold War threat; a history transforming event were required to maximise their policies. Whatever we personally think was 'enough' to secure this, what is for certain is that 9/11 achieved the end.
I'm going to use another excerpt from a document in a final attempt to convince you of the scale of attack on the Neocon mind, then believe what you will: -
CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL POLICY
Imagining the Transforming Event
An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."
I conclude again, the safe bet on their part, was that the towers should fall. And again, it doesn't matter what we think or would have planned given the task - it is only what the perpetrators thought that mattered.
I'm not sure that Silverstein was forced to increase the insurance or that the 'ins and outs' of the process are in the public domain for us to consider. What is for certain is that the final agreed figure was a significant increase on the existing policy.
Did you know that Silverstein was not the highest bidder, yet at the closing stages there was some complication and so he was still presented the lease by his Zionist associate and Chairman of the Port Authority, Lewis Eisenberg? It was another Zionist connection, Ronald Lauder who recommended the towers be privatised in the first place. One could be forgiven for thinking that the whole transfer to Silverstein was pre-arranged.
Incidentally, even now the insurance does not cover the rebuild project (as mentioned, this was not the aim). A large part of the funding has been covered by taxpayer bonds through the Port Authority, and this assistance actually led to Silverstein making a profit on the WTC7 phase of the rebuild.
To your question - had the transfer occurred prior to 1999 (this is when the 9/11 operation appears to have got underway), I'd have let it go. Then again... not completely. All indication is that the towers were demolished, which places Silverstein, as the building owner, in the spotlight.
The benefit to Silverstein is as the benefit to Israel. Do you understand how Neocon and Zionsit policies go hand in hand?
The control and compliance of a private individual is greater than a government agency board.
The insurance companies paid out on an act of terrorism - which it was anyway we look at it - I'm not sure there was anything for them to dispute on that matter. In my experience, it is decision of the policy holder to litigate responsibility leading to a claim, i.e. if Silverstein did not want to challenge who was at fault for the attack, there is nothing further the insurance companies could do.
For sure there are some narrow minded demolition experts out there who cannot comprehend a necessarily non-conventional demolition. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions Inc. comes to mind. He believes the WTC buildings were not demolished due to lack of a loud chain of explosions immediately prior collapse and/or lack of miles of detcord found in the debris. Yes, because that would make for a superb covert demolition, fantastic reasoning - what a moron.
It seems that experts are susceptible to bias and logic failures so much as anyone else. I use expert opinion in the most part to counter experts raised by official story adherents; to show there are experts on both sides. I'd rather keep discussion between us... than take turns to see who can quote most experts in their favour, which the official narrative would lose anyway.
I will get to the rest, the building/damage features and characteristics, tomorrow...