reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I'm not going to try to convince you towards either, I will just throw my two cents in....
As with any controlled demolition, it takes a lot of work, it's not just slapping some explosives in there and setting them off. The core structure
first has to be exposed. Then the structure is weakened with strategic cuts and such. then the explosives are applied to the columns and timed in
such a way as to help direct the collapse.
When you are demoing a building, you aren't blowing it up, it's more like imploding. You are weakening the core structure so gravity brings the
building down. Because we are well versed in the law of gravity, we can use this to our advantage.
You mentioned a building going over on it's side. This is one method, it really depends on the surrounding structures. You can basically direct the
building to collapse in any direction by taking out the support on that side first, letting gravity pull the other side down. Or, if you are say
right smack dab in the middle of a city block, you bring the center of the building in and bring the supports down at the same time.
The time it takes for a fuse to go is fast enough that the charges go off, the collapse doesn't start until the charges have all gone off, so
there's no worry of the collapse severing a fuse, the signal has already gone through the fuse long before that can happen.
Ok, now specifically the WTC. first, I suggest you look into building 7, that's the on that is hard to explain, and mimics almost exactly standard
But you talked about the twins, so I will too. This is just conjecture on my part, lets keep that in mind.
Lets say you are whatever nefarious group that did this. Your plan is to bring those towers down, but you also want a shock and awe, inescapable
horror aspect to it as well. So your plan is to slam hijacked jets into the buildings, which is horrific and terrifying in it's own right. But you
are aware that, in reality, those towers were built to withstand almost that exact scenario, and you can't ensure destruction.
Now, lets also say, you don't want the fact that this was a much more sophisticated attack than mere arab hijackers on a suicide mission. Well, you
use the fact that most people have lost the ability to think critically against them. The action movie scenario is, jet hits building, big bright
explosion, building collapses.
So you decide to wire the building, below the suggested point of impact (a little above half for both) with explosives. This way, the plane strikes
towards the top and causes a fire, then because the lower half is wired with binary explosives (fire aint gonna set them off) you destroy the core
support beams, allowing for a gravity fueled collapse (at first glance).
This way, to the person watching, all appears to happen as it should, building collapsed at the point where the plane hit.
But they didn't, the collapsed down, with little to no resistance, which means the structure below the point of impact had to offer no resistance,
meaning it had to be weakened before hand.
Again, not trying to sway you, just my two cents, not saying that's even how it happened.