English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It wasn’t hit by a plane or the falling rubble. It would be the first steel-framed, high rise building (47 stories) in history that was brought down entirely by fire alone. So why did the 9/11 commission fail to mention that it even collapsed in their report? Very much the mystery indeed….

2006-09-05 04:09:57 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

23 answers

At this point and faced with the facts of:

THERMATE
BOMBS GOING OFF EVERYWHERE
FREEFALL INTO FOOTPRINT
DETONATION SQUIBS
SMOLDERING POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL FOR WEEKS
KRONGARD INSIDER TRADING ('PUTS' ON UNITED AND AMERICAN)
BLATENT BLDG 7 DEMO-IMPLOSION
SILVERSTEIN'S "PULL IT"
PEOPLE WARNED NOT TO FLY
PROVEN FAKE OBL TAPES
7 OF 19 ALIVE
NO ARABS ON ANY FLIGHT MANIFESTS
NORAD STAND DOWN ORDER
CNN REPORT OF "NO PLANE AT PENTAGON"
RUMSFELD ADMITTING A MISSILE HIT THE PENTAGON
RUMSFELD ADMITTING FLT 93 WAS SHOT DOWN
MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS WARGAMES ON 9-11 OF THE EXACT SCENERIO
FEMA'S ARRIVAL TO LOWER MANHATTAN ON SEPT.10TH
PNAC'S PUBLISHED NEED FOR A "NEW PEARL HARBOR"
SS NOT REACTING TO GOAT READING CHIMP TARGET
OPERATION NORTHWOODS
THE DOWNING STREET MEMO
BUSH'S DIARY ENTRY 'NEW PEARL HARBOR'

ANYONE STILL CLINGING TO THE BUSHCO ISSUED FAIRYTALE IS EITHER A DOWN SYNDROME VICTIM OR SOMEONE WHO WOULD FOLLOW BUSH'S LIES TO THEIR GRAVE.

THERE'S NO MORE DEBATING

THAT'S THE END OF THIS STORY

2006-09-05 04:15:24 · answer #1 · answered by mikeygonebad 2 · 4 7

It actually was hit by flying rubble. The standard video of it going down was shot from the "safe" side where it hadn't been hit.

The fire burned for 7 hours without any attempt to put it out. (The firefighters understandably had many higher priority concerns like saving lives and protecting the surrounding area.) High rise buildings are designed to burn for at least 3 hours without sprinklers working. After over twice that long in an area with extremely high ambient temperature due to other nearby fires, the steel weakened (not melted) and collapsed. It is assumed by many that the building should not have gotten that hot with "just paper" but there was diesel in the building due to there being many generators and there are items that will burn hot in any office if you can just get the fire hot enough to ignite them.

It is unbelievable to me that people actually think professional demolitionists would implode the building in the middle of such chaos and tragedy. If it was done by the terrorists, why would they let everyone escape? If it was a government conspiracy, why not wait a few days until the fire was out and then declare a collapse imminent and bring it down then. The conspiracy could have simply guarded the building until it was convenient for them.

To me it's not so much of a mystery why WTC7 collapsed as a miracle that the other buildings in the area did not. The bigger miracle of course is how many lives were saved. We will mourn each of the lives lost but also celebrate each person who survived.

2006-09-05 12:15:41 · answer #2 · answered by Kuji 7 · 1 0

if you want an answer as to why they did not say anything i cant help you. but as to why it fell the steal structure suffered concussion damage from the of the buildings falling so close to it. though not significant it was enough to weaken it. also there was debris that landed on top if it and added weight to the structure itself. the fire heated the steel and weakened it. so... the heat from the fire combined with the added weight and the concussion caused the steel structure to be overwhelmed and unable to support the weight of the building. alone those factors are not enough to cause it. interestingly those same factors are what caused the tall building to fall. the plane crashing into them was not enough. the fire weakened the surviving steel, and where the aircraft hit there was not enough frame left to hold the weight above it and so it fell. it would have fallen eventually anyway, the amount of time it was able to stand is a testament to how good the engineering was. where the planes hit the frame was mostly gone and the weight of all above it supported less than half of the steel beams originally placed there.

2006-09-05 11:27:43 · answer #3 · answered by cwfraggle 3 · 2 1

Not realy . Construction materials are supplied by the lowest bidder and it would seem like New York in the day was corupt to the eyeballs in the 70's. HAVE you checked the docket to see what law suits have been fialed against the suppliers contractors and others involved in the building of building 7 .
YOU might see some interesting names back in the day connected with the project . HAVE some fun checking it out for yourself .

2006-09-05 18:08:45 · answer #4 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 1 0

Any one who see the building go down in that manner has to question how it went down or they are just not interested or scared of finding out the truth. No one will even tell you how it caught on fire to begin with. How did it catch on fire from the inside if the debris hit it on the outside. If it did get hit on the out side and that was the cause why did it fall so perfectly to the ground. What was burning so hot inside the OFFICE BUILDING that could not be put out by the fire department, and over stock of paper? Doesn't make sense, but then again neither does a plan flying into the most heavily protected air space in the world (Washington D.C.)-Arlington V.A. and manage to hit the Pentagon with out being intercepted by Jet fighters. If you believe all this was just good planing by Terrorist your head is in the clouds.

2006-09-05 11:26:45 · answer #5 · answered by DEEJay 4 · 2 3

It most certainly WAS hit by falling rubble! Where do you ever get the idea that it was not?

Quite obviously you have not read the 9/11 report yourself.

The only mystery is how otherwise intelligent people can suddenly become so bloody THICK when it comes to verifying sources of rumor and innuendo!

2006-09-05 11:18:58 · answer #6 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 5 2

Apparently, there was also a fire in world trade center 7, which caused the foundations many stories below to become weak. Combine this with the violent earth tremors occuring during WTC collapse, then WTC7 was bound to collapse.

What a load of bollocks. I find it incredibly hard to beleive that the only 3 skyrapers to ever be destroyed by fire were WTCN, WTCS and WTC7. And for some reason none of the other WTC buildings collapsed. It's just all wrong! Something is very wrong!!

2006-09-05 11:13:53 · answer #7 · answered by Joe_Floggs 3 · 5 4

It was hit by lots of rubble and the ground shaking made it weak. Think of all the broken and heaving concrete that was around the building. That combined with the heat of the fire. (Several thousand Degrees) no building would be able to stand up to that.

2006-09-05 11:13:30 · answer #8 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 5 2

Actually, yes, it was hit by the rubble. There is a picture (I'll see if I can find it) that shows one entire side of the building, stretching over several stories, that was pretty much GONE before the tower collapsed.
Don't fall for the conspiracy theory. You're smarter than that.

2006-09-05 11:14:11 · answer #9 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 4 3

Termites

2006-09-05 11:27:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The huge vibrations cause by the twin towers falling weakned the structure. It was like an earthquake to the building,

2006-09-05 11:28:27 · answer #11 · answered by a.fricker 3 · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers