I saw this on tv and it's exactly the same conclusions that the History Channel and National Geographic channels came up with, just with different talking heads and slightly differing evidence.

I found it impossible to disagree with the findings personally.

Now I do believe the towers were both brought down after the attack by explosives and my own mother who also saw the BBC documentary also thought that without prompt but personally, I believe the controlled demolition was to prevent the buildings toppling to one side and destroying other buildings in the vicinity and causing even more casualties.

In other words, I believe the Official Story but also believe the controlled demolition of the towers was a safety measure pre-installed in the towers as a "just in case" years before to allow them to collapse straight down so as to prevent even more loss of life and damage to other buildings.

Originally posted by curious7
Now I do believe the towers were both brought down after the attack by explosives and my own mother who also saw the BBC documentary also thought that without prompt but personally, I believe the controlled demolition was to prevent the buildings toppling to one side and destroying other buildings in the vicinity and causing even more casualties.

If the demolitions was designed and installed years before it would not have been designed to hurl 4 ton girders 600 feet.

People talk about the time involved to design a NORMAL controlled demolition. The normal objective is to minimize collateral damage. But if excessive explosives are used then the design does not need to be that precise or take that long. More explosives less precision.

psik