So, an aspiring “demolition expert” contacts the city of New York. He’s heard the city needs two 110 story buildings demolished. Confident he’s going to get the job, he marches in and slaps his bid down on the table...it’s cheap (real cheap.) As a matter of fact, it’s less than 1/10th the cost of all other bids the city has received.
When asked how he can do it so inexpensively, the man smiles and replies: “It’s simple…all these other guys are going in and placing charges the entire length of this enormous building, with the majority of their efforts and material spent on the thickest / heaviest part of the infrastructure (the base.) That’s all a waste of time and material. I’m just going to place some charges on the 94, 95, 96, and 97th floor. Once those floors start moving, the entire building will come straight down no differently than if you took out the other 1,100 feet of core columns. The other demo companies know this; (he explains), they’re just doing all that extra work to get more money.”
Simple question: Would you hire this guy for the job? Would other “demolition experts” support his approach or laugh at him? Final question: Assuming this theory for how to bring down a steel framed building is legitimate, why haven’t we seen demolition companies begin saving themselves a fortune in time and materials by employing it?
People need to stop acting like it is “crazy” to question the way in which the towers (let alone building 7) collapsed. When architects, engineers, physics professors, former CIA, military, etc. all are screaming “this is horse biscuits,” you’d be crazy NOT to take a closer look at the "official story." (Especially when you consider the source of that story.)
Poster Comment:
I think that is a very good way to make the point to the naysayers. Set it up as a joke.
