On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."
and your going to tell me wtc 7 fell because of fire and the twin towers lmao people are so umbelievably stupid u cant explain molten steel not being by explosives r u guyss like dumb?
2006-08-08 16:51:53 · 20 answers · asked by forzaitalia232569 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
check this ****** out rite now seriouslyhttp://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/f-15.htm
2006-08-08 17:10:52 · update #1
Yes I knew. And yes, the towers were not brought done by a hydro-carbon fire. It's pretty obvious to me as a civil engineer that the collapse was caused by explosives.
2006-08-08 16:57:24 · answer #1 · answered by janemarsdel 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes I did know that about the Twin Towers.
Does that answer your question?
No I am not going to "tell you wtc 7 fell because of fire and the twin towers lmao people are so umbelievably stupid u cant explain moleten steel not being by explosives r u guyss like dumb?"
LOL
Idiot.
Your argument is very enlightening -- that is, it would be if your words were coherently written. It doesn't help your argument.
You're very dumb.
Please stop.
2006-08-08 16:56:47 · answer #2 · answered by i_am_the_bmf 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
On 9/11 large commercial planes with tanks full of gasoline hit the towers.
This event has been investigated by stupid engineers and idiotic scientists from all over the world. The thing that did surprise them is that the towers didn't come down even faster.
Popular Mechanics wrote a story on 9/11 myths. Link below.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/911myths
2006-08-08 17:06:03 · answer #3 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
how do you know how hot a fire in 1975 burned? also, it only occurred on one floor. that's a big difference right there.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Apr_05/100405_WTC_Fire.html
here is a newspaper from that event. it does not say how hot the fires were. where did you get that?
ok... i have no idea what that is, but i don't really think it's a jet. my first thought was, a flaming chunk of crap. then i wondered if maybe it's a bug or leaf closer to the camera since it's so incredibly out of focus i don't think it's anywhere near the wtc. it doesn't disturb the smoke either, so i wonder if it was added to the clip later.
2006-08-08 16:58:59 · answer #4 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely Kareem and Russell. they could stability one yet another out, seeing as Russell makes a speciality of protection, at the same time as Kareem, inclusive of his patented skyhook, can concentration on the offensive area. as well to both honestly one of them are shown winners and experienced Finals veterans. Kareem is often relied upon for end of the game heroics. I also like the mixture of the Dream and Duncan, because they're both finesse participant that concentrate on the basics. both have also been Finals MVPs, and Duncan is likewise shown contained in the grab. Olajuwon is a desirable participant to observe, extremely his Dream SHake. Chamberlain and Malone will be an explosive offensive mixture, yet in some way i do not see them gelling. honestly one of them will likely ***** about no longer getting adequate seems. also, they could assemble technical fouls swifter than you could say 100 factors in a sport. Shaq and Robinson are happy with me, yet - sorry for saying this - Shaq is merely too a lot of a showboat to in good structure the Admiral's style. having stated that, this would also artwork; Shaq can concentration on getting each of the factors at the same time as Robinson cleans the glass and protects the rim. desire that facilitates.
2016-11-23 16:58:13 · answer #5 · answered by cutter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read real info, the airplanes force on top of the jet fuel was well above tempatures, plus in a city of millions its amazing no one saw a bunch of people carrying enough explosives to topple the towers, conspiracy theories just spit on the graves of 3000 people and their suffering families.....not cool....shows how uncaring some people can be
2006-08-08 17:01:00 · answer #6 · answered by lost&confused 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are to many inconcistencies with the governments story regarding 911. If you have not heard the other side of the story and looked into the facts, then please hold on to you opinion until you become informed. Remember truth is absolutely unique, but ignorance is for the masses!
2006-08-08 17:29:30 · answer #7 · answered by ANyone but you 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm The biggest fault in that false statement is the shock wave of the explosion. Jet fuel is extreemly combustable and will cause one hell of an explosion, on big enough to rock the towers to their foundations. It is a shame that you believe everything you see on the internet.
2006-08-08 16:57:26 · answer #8 · answered by chupakabra123 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hope your facts are straight. I suppose I'm unbelieveably stupid that structural damage would weaken a building over 110 stories tall. Tee hee, stupid me.
2006-08-08 16:56:53 · answer #9 · answered by gnomef0cker 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ya I didn't understand his question either. But where did the plane that crashed into the pentagon go. No1 has seen video of it even though the pentagon is one of the most closely monitored buildings in Washington.
2006-08-08 17:09:03 · answer #10 · answered by Magic Fan 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋