Why don't controlled demolition companies use fire to demolish buildings as with the Twin Towers?

It doesn't work as the skyscraper in Seville Spain proved in 2003...it burned for 18 days and is still standing. 2000 DEGREE FUEL FIRE DOESN'T MELT STEEL you boobs. The only three steel framed buildings to be brought down by fire in history are WTC 1, 2 and 7. Guess what they too were brought down by explosives.

Controlled demolition was not used on 9/11.

Wasn't it because of the way the twin towers were designed? I thought the external walls of the twin towers carried all the weight, so when the walls were breached, the weight of upper floors pressed downwards.

If the planes had gone into the Empire State Building it would not have collapsed.

The twin towers had so much jet fuel to burn off, which would not save heaps of cash

If they have a way of getting the fuel up there without the loss of life, sounds good to me, but then again you have all these environmental freaks to contend with

Air pollution would be awful - can't imagine residents near by would be too happy about it not to mention the Ozone layer. Plus fire is very hard to control.

It's much less dangerous because it can be controlled more easily, it's more predictable, and most steel structures will hold up to fire

Was Building 7 a.... 'fine example?'.

Why don't you go to Pakistan and learn the trade A**hole!?.

Blasting is far easier to control which is important when there are other structures close by....and it's incredible to watch.

LMao ... obviously most these guys don't watch 24 ..

Not saying it did happen .. but it could

Dr Bad