What I said and will point out again is that if you believe that a plane can hit the towers and destroy them. i.e. Collapse without any explosives.
Then any argument that a demolition theory would require tons of explosives, many men to prepare or that it would take weeks etc etc is a logical fallacy because you believe it was achieved without any explosives.
Therefore any argument that it would require x amount of explosives, or require x amount of men, or x amount of weeks is instantly invalid unless you somehow believe that by adding explosives, it would somehow make the towers less likely to collapse. lol
I don't recall ever claiming that a single small charge would be all that is required because frankly I do not think the planes did a very good job on either tower and especially on WTC7. Hence the reason I support the possibility of a demolition theory because frankly without it, all 3 of those towers would have possibly stood.
2 planes hit 2 towers and 3 towers collapse from fires, that's very logical innit?