Comment: I want to try to answer your

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: voting down my comment is not (see in situ)

I want to try to answer your

I want to try to answer your questions more directly although I am not an expert.

I'm not sure what makes you think that arbitrarily placed explosives would cover it up any better or work any better than a controlled demolition. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that it would have been fairly obvious if they had just haphazardly placed explosives all over the place.

Why did they choose that building in particular? Well there was insurance involved, the owner of these buildings (who acquired them not long before 9/11) was able to cash in on a really huge policy for all the buildings. There may be other reasons I'm not aware of.

Why were planes not enough, but an improperly collapsed building was too much? Hmm I guess I'm not really sure you're asking here? Planes exploding cannot burn hot enough to destroy steel, that's just physics, ask any engineer.

As for how they prepped it, this is part of what really needs to be investigated in my opinion. You're right that it would have taken some time, but I believe that these explosives would have been placed in areas largely hidden from the public.

How did they know that debris would fall from the twin towers and start a fire in 7 WTC? -- I have personally never seen any evidence that said debris actually did hit building 7. Perhaps I am mistaken, but even if a video did back that claim up, I think it would have been really easy to just claim it without video anyway.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us