I just checked the updates on this and my work email and we are slow right now. So I'll give this a go.

Update Zero

My point on there is no Larry Silverstein evidence is you can conclusively prove there was no controlled demolition on 9/11 using science, so you don't need politics or he said/ she said....

I like this update. This is the one where we learn that DarkMath not only doesn't understand science, he doesn't understand insurance and real estate.

If I have a 20,000 car that is totaled and my insurance company gives me 20,000 dollars to replace it. I did not "make" 20,000 dollars. I've been made whole, I'm back where I started minus what I paid to my insurance company. I didn't make anything. I didn't lose $20,000 because I bought and paid for insurance.

He's also unfamiliar with NY commercial real estate contracts because included in Silverstein's lease is this clause

If the Premises . . . shall be damaged or destroyed by fire, the elements, the public enemy or other casualty, or by reason of any cause whatsoever and whether partial or total, the Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, and whether or not such damage or destruction is covered by insurance proceeds sufficient for the purpose, shall remove all debris resulting from such damage or destruction, and shall rebuild, restore, repair and replace the Premises . . . substantially in accordance, to the extent feasible, prudent and commercially reasonable, with the plans and specifications for the same as they existed prior to such damage or destruction or with the consent in writing of the Port Authority, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, make such other repairs, replacements, changes or alterations as is mutually agreed to by the Port Authority and the Lessee. Such rebuilding, restoration, repairs, replacements, or alterations shall be commenced promptly and shall proceed with all due diligence. . .

Silverstein was on the hook to rebuild the WTC.

So Larry Silverstein has just borrowed an enormous amount of money to buy the lease to a property worth several billion and on which he collects hundreds of millions in rent every year. What would be more valuable to him?

A. Continue to collect the hundreds of millions of dollars rent every year?

B. Enter into a crazy risky conspiracy to destroy the buildings killing thousands and causing billions in damage to your buildings and other buildings. Then to keep paying your lease for years while you collect zero in rent (or lose your rights) and spent $4 billion dollars on a new WTC tower? And if anyone finds out you would go to jail forever AND owe billions of dollars to NYC, the Port Authority and other property owners.

This insurance scam looks a lot sillier when you understand you have to rebuild what you destroy. In fact, that kills the whole scam theory. This part looks silly too

he took out so much insurance on the property it took 25 insurance companies to carry the risk. That was unusual given this is the exact behavior that starts off countless insurance scams. It's classic. By a property, max out the insurance

Just as DarkMath can't understand the physical forces generated by the size of these buildings, he can't understand the finances behind them. He got 25 insurers because he needed $3.5 billion in insurance. He did not max out the insurance and the many insurers were not part of some scam. The amount of insurance was determined not by Silverstein, but by the people who lent him the money to buy the lease. That was their estimate of the buildings worth/cost of replacement. This is just like when the bank requires you to have insurance when you get a mortgage. They worked with 25 insurers not to double dip, but because no one wanted to take the whole risk.

Silverstein hired a well-known broker, Willis Group Holdings Ltd., to** find enough coverage to satisfy his lenders.** Willis scrambled mightily to place $3.55 billion in insurance, ultimately dealing pieces to 25 carriers. http://web.archive.org/web/20030628160838/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1030343783307

A quick reply to your ten reasons.

1 spheres

This is not science whatsoever. This does nothing to prove thermite. Spherical nodules are consistent with lots of things. You can't prove thermite when your evidence is consistent with many, many other causes. This like saying the DNA is consistent with a white male, so there this particular white male is the murderer.

Burning coal produces "fly ash" a fine powder filled with spheres like this http://www.caer.uky.edu/kyasheducation/images/ccbs/Class-F-fly-ash-1-600.jpg

Fly ash is then used industrially. It's often put in concrete.

In particular, we are looking at iron spheres in the dust. Any sparks involving steel produces microsheres. Many of the ways to produce iron spheres were present in the towers. Friction of steel girders in the collapse would have produced tons of sparks and thus iron microspheres. I can produce these with stuff in my house right now. Steel wool plus a bic lighter will produce these. Tiny bits of steel like thin wires or flakes attached to rust would be small enough to vaporize in temperatures well below the normal metal pointing of steel. The burning of steel beams coated in primer in a wood fire will produce this.

Here's an experiment of a woman making tiny bits of thermite in her hands just by friction by smacking a rust covered cannonball against a cannonball covered in aluminum foil.

https://youtu.be/7JRiFJRD20A?t=52

2 and 3. Molten "steel"

You cannot tell what molten metal you are seeing simply by looking at it. There's no reason to believe this would be steel as there were many metals and alloys that melt at a lower temperature than steel. Aluminum is one. Lead is another.

4 Hotspots

The temperature at hotspots during cleanup couldn't be produced by thermite. Thermite simply wouldn't have enough energy to do this. AND thermite burns out super quickly. Something else had to be the source of heat. That something is the kinetic energy released during the collapse. Each tower had something like 100 tons of TNT worth of potential energy. The collapse would have generated enormous friction and heat.

5 Diagonal Cuts

This has multiple things wrong with it.
The video shows use of a different substance, thermate and not thermite. If thermate was used, you'd be able to see a lot barium in WTC dust. You don't.

He never produces a diagonal cut, does he? I didn't see one.

Diagonal cuts in steel girders are used when using conventional explosives and not thermite.

There's no evidence for this statement:

Numerous steel girders showed diagonal cuts.

Or shall I say, there's zero evidence of girders being found this right after initial collapse. After the ironworkers arrived to help dismantle the 10 story pile of debris at 911 there are dozens of photos. Example of this type of cutting can be seen here https://youtu.be/LJyBuANVkQ4?t=88

DM acknowledges this "debate"

(It's debatable who put the diagonal cuts there but cases could be made for either demolition charges before or torches used to cut up the steel during cleanup. This ambiguity could easily be resolved by reopening the 9/11 investigation.)

If this cuts were caused by demolition charges you would see effects of the explosions on the steel. You do not. You don't need another 9/11 investigation as this only became an issue years later. The experience demolition workers who removed the steel, the ironworkers who later cut the steel and the structural engineers who examined the steel never saw any of these cuts that someone years later claimed is evidence of thermite. They didn't see them because they didn't exist.

7. Symmetrical collapse

WTC 7 did not fall symmetrically. The collapse on one side of the building occurred first. It traveled up from lower floors to one side of the roof and then the other side of the roof collapsed.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC-7-Explosion.gif

This view is less than half the view of the building. You don't see the lower floors, but you can clearly see the roof collapse asymmetrically. The roof also Kinks right before full collapse, the roof line is no longer straight. The building was a tube within a tube. After the interior collapsed, the unsupported outer shell fell down following gravity. It is only this part of the collapse

7,8,9 are political arguments.

10 William Rodriguez

This is someone whose story changed many times and his eye/ear witness account needs to compared to others. You can't cherrypick witnesses.

Some events that could account for what he heard that we know happened.

Elevators crashing into the basement.

Explosions of jetfuel that fell down the elevator shafts.
This happened on multiple floors and in particular there was a fireball in the lobby and the victims experience burnt skin, but not internal injuries or blown eardrums like from the pressure wave of a bomb.

Here's his story from one day afterwards. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

Rumbles. Not explosions. Rumbles.

Well you did not have to convince me, I already knew. Thank you for explaining a lot of the technical aspects that I would not know about. The statements of the men on the ground and at the scene that we would not otherwise have access to. The words of Larry Silverstein were especially incriminating. @DarkMath

thank you for reminding and keeping it fresh!