I have a lot of trouble with a conspiracy, but questions remain.

As a structural engineer, could you imagine designing two 110 story buildings that would both collapse straight down after suffering random damage at random locations? And a nearby 47 story one that did the same hours later after suffering what appeared to be relatively minor damage?

Could you build three towers that all collapsed as a result of fire when no other such building has ever collapsed due to fire, even ones that burned for much longer?

And from what I understand of this video at least, no one is saying the fire melted steel, rather the molten steel described by witnesses was in the low levels, and the speaker ascribed it to thermite/thermate.

A lot of things just seem very weird about the whole thing.

ERs points:

If the buildings were undergoing renovatons/upgrading, there may have been an opportunity to place charges on support structures in the interfloor areas. Contrractors work in buildings all the time and most regular workers have no idea who they are or exactly what they are doing. Further, as the video mentions, the building (owner? lease holder?) Silverman apparently wanted to demolish the buildings but this would have been very expensive to do properly. A dramatic "terrorist" attack and relatively complete demolition would accomplish two goals at once - an excuse for war and cheap demolition. The hijackers did manage to crash two planes into the WTC towers, which would have seemed improbable on 9/10. (I'm not saying this did happen, just playing that side).

I've looked for information about Silverman's insurance policy relating to acts of terrorism, but all I see are a web of conspiracy sites. Has anyone shown this factor to be false?

It all just seems to me to require further investigation.