The collapse of the two towers was equivalent to an earthquake. It severely damaged WTC7.
But my main argument against "controlled demolition" is logic. If someone was going to use explosives to take down the buildings and blame terrorists, why not just do that? They'd already tried it once before, in 1991. Just blowing up the buildings with no warnings would have meant far more casualties. Adding hijacked airliners makes no sense because the hijackings might not succeed (Flight 93) or might not hit their intended target (Flight 77). The hijacking would have been an extra complication with a great risk of failure, and as we saw, half of them did fail.
Without the hijacked airplanes, we wouldn’t get a great reset on how we travel and surveillance. Furthermore, the primary argument for controlled demolition is near perfect building disintegration at terminal velocity. Mathematically speaking, even earthquakes cannot produce that effect on building akin to an avalanche gaining momentum as it accrues more mass.
The collapse of the two towers was equivalent to an earthquake. It severely damaged WTC7.
But my main argument against "controlled demolition" is logic. If someone was going to use explosives to take down the buildings and blame terrorists, why not just do that? They'd already tried it once before, in 1991. Just blowing up the buildings with no warnings would have meant far more casualties. Adding hijacked airliners makes no sense because the hijackings might not succeed (Flight 93) or might not hit their intended target (Flight 77). The hijacking would have been an extra complication with a great risk of failure, and as we saw, half of them did fail.
Without the hijacked airplanes, we wouldn’t get a great reset on how we travel and surveillance. Furthermore, the primary argument for controlled demolition is near perfect building disintegration at terminal velocity. Mathematically speaking, even earthquakes cannot produce that effect on building akin to an avalanche gaining momentum as it accrues more mass.