I've read dozens, if not hundreds, of posts that went something like this...

The WTC couldn't have been brought down by controlled demolition because of how many people it would have taken to plant the explosive and how much explosives that would necessary to bring down the buildings.

The implication is that since it would have been impossible to plant enough explosives to bring down the buildings, no explosives could have been planted. This is even what the State Department's website says in debunking the CD theory.

BUT... this makes no logical sense. This reminds me of a logic question on the SAT exam -except the official reasoning has no logic:

I.e., since it would have taken a lot of people planting a lot of explosives in the WTC buildings to bring them down with a controlled demolition, then, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all imploded with NO explosives.

How can it make sense to argue that it would have taken a lot of explosives to bring down the buildings, therefore no explosives were used? Does this make any sense at all?