Minimum standards

As I have watched the entire WTC controlled demolition story over the past year, I am struck by how complex the theory is getting as each piece of evidence is incorporated.

As I currently understand the theory, the towers were laced with both high explosive and thermite cutting charges (I am ignoring some of the more esoteric theories) on multiple floors (every floor? every 10 floors? no one seems very clear on that particular detail but never mind).

Stepping back, my question is what was the minimum required to bring down the towers? I am talking purely theoretical here. No need to account for every anomaly on every piece of video - simply what would be required to make the WTC collapse.

I think the minimum would have been 47 high explosive cutting charges on the base of the core columns. I would have set them at ceiling level of the ground level space they were in so that the cut columns would move downward at least 10 - 12 feet. There is no way you could pull the core of the towers down that far without separating the horizontal floor trusses from the core. Without horizontal support, the core would disintegrate and tear the tower apart.

I'm assuming you've determined there are 47 "core columns". If you cut through half the columns on one side, that would create an assymetrical situation, which the remaining columns were not designed to handle, and they would break.

The columns at the bottom are probably much bigger than the ones near the top, so more explosive would be needed. It might be easier to do it near the 80th floor, where there supports are smaller.

Just pulling this out of my ass, you understand.

I'm not sure, but you might find this interesting
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1
Gordon Ross
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewforum.php?f=2&mforum=911studies

For some reason I didn't have that link.

edited by Steven Jones and described as "a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001."

Riiight.

It looks like he and his CT friends haven't been able to get their shoddy work accepted by any legitimate peer-reviewed publications and have not been able to get it published anywhere (except in some kind of compendium of other CT stuff - has that been published yet, by the way?) so now he's come up with a pseudo journal of his own to try to lend himself some kind of credibility.

Impressive.