DrVolin wrote:Although I do think that the collapse of building 7 is highly suspicious, I don't see anything unusual or smoking-gunnesque about the phone call. Guys like Silverstein or Trump typically operate with a great deal of debt, fairly immobile assets, and just enough liquidity to service the debt. Their empire prospers or falls on the confidence others have in their ability to make the next payment. With 2 buildings down and a third one on fire, he would have been concerned to get his cash flow going as soon as possilbe, and I am not surprised that he was on the phone with his insurer within hours (minutes?) of the plane strikes. He was understandably eager to learn whether the insurer would total building 7 (relatively quick payout in cash) or try to save it (relatively slow payout for contracted work performed). Silverstein would have been trying to convince the insurer to total it, and if he could get them to commit to it before adequate information was available, all the better. Does that mean he was planning to collapse the building that afternoon or able to do it? No. It means he was trying to convince his insurer that the building should be collapsed as soon as practicable, so within weeks or a couple of months at the outside.
Does the above mean that WTC7 was not a CD? No. But it does mean that the phone call is not particularly relevant to the investigation.
But Mr Volin, the insurance claim timing is Huge. And it doesn't take an insurer to realise that. Common sense really. Doesnt prove much alone, but dots are appearing more grand than the milky-way.