...and what columns? the core? because there were no columns thats why this building design was considered "radical" and "controversial" at the time. the core did provide resistance but not enough to "catch" the falling core from above that was slamming into it.

That makes no sense. And yes, the outer wall was all columns, and the core had 40 some columns, most of them were undamaged by any analysis.

The problem with your explanation is that there's NOTHING left to destroy the core, which means it should have remained standing.

I asked because I hoped you would have thought it through.

all the models i've seen seem to show that the floors were collapsing slightly ahead of the core and as the lower floors were being ripped out of the core it was helping to destroy it.

None of those models even resembled the collapses as they appeared on video, especially WTC7.

at the end of the day wiring an entire building with explosives is a blatantly obvious process that takes months of loud destructive prep work and everyone would have known. it's such a huge risk with so many variables.

You mean the 9 months earlier renovation of the entire elevator system, that would give total access to the core of the building and an explanation for any sound? That kind of renovation work?

plane crashing into the building is either going to set the charges off prematurely or sever the connection wires back to the control box.

Except the areas damaged by the planes don't need explosives, so the work there was done, also, it's required because of the lack of energy lost from gravity.

lol, this is all so silly.

The only correct thing you've said all day.