Comment: I think her point was

(See in situ)


I think her point was

that if you want to make it look like a building was not demolished, you wouldn't place the explosives so that it falls in a way that looks like demolition. Your point about money and manpower just makes that observation even more valid. They had the the time, money and expertise, and it never occurred to anyone that if they wanted to make it look like an accident they shouldn't just use standard demolition techniques?

I'll throw out a couple of theories. Use the progressive collapse argument against them. The penthouse thing doesn't fall symmetrically, nor does it fall at free-fall speed. In other words, that part of the collapse doesn't look like demolition. Maybe the intention was not to just take out the central support in that asymmetric non-free-fall fashion, but the whole thing was supposed to be asymmetric. But something went wrong, and the asymmetric non-free-fall part just took out the central support, and you couldn't see it happening after the first bit with the penthouse. Then of course once all the core of the building is gone, if the facade starts to fall a bit later it's not meant to support its own weight and the central part of the building is gone so it just falls with little resistance. If just one side of the facade had been taken out earlier, with the penthouse, it would have all looked very haphazard.

Another theory I've heard is that the building was wired to be demolished from the start, because it housed some top-secret facilities. They pulled everyone back, announced that they were concerned it was going to fall (that much is in the public record), and then took it down the only way they had available to them and hoped nobody would look too deeply. In this case the assymetric, non-free-fall collapse in the middle could be that some of the charges burned off in the fire so it was *mostly* like a demolition (because that's how it was set up) with just some asymmetric behavior where charges didn't fire as planned.

In any case, it's a fair point that even for government work, wiring a building to collapse and wanting it to look like an accident, and completely missing the fact that a controlled demolition doesn't look like an accident, is a bit hard to believe.