How in the world do you explain the collapse of WTC7 when a plane didn't even hit it (hence, no jet fuel)? And please, spare me the "not another conspiracy theorist" or "you're dumb" answers. That only tells me that you have no valid answer.
2006-09-11
04:36:07
·
9 answers
·
asked by
someguy
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
That's all fine and dandy, nicolasraage, but the steel wouldn't have gotten that hot in a concentrated area due to conduction - the heat would've dispersed throughout the entire building and the steel wouldn't have heated to the temps you're suggesting in any one specific area (and especially not throughout the entire building). Nice try, though.
2006-09-11
04:45:21 ·
update #1
Thermite
2006-09-12 15:29:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bring back Democracy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
My understanding is that when when the twin towers were hit and fell, the impact of those towers falling and all the flying debris hit WTC7, taking out support beams and chuncks of structure. The debris caused fires which then further compromised WTC7's structure and caused it to collapse much like the Twin towers.
The jury is out on this, however, as the final report has not been released and is due in early 2007. I'd wait for that as I'm sure it'll be pretty comprehensive.
Personally, I think this is probably the most likely answer. WTC7 was right next door to the Twin Towers and it's quite plausible and reasonable to assume that the massive destruction of the Towers directly impacted their smaller neighbor.
2006-09-11 11:56:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lendorien 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
We could always wait for the official report due out in 2007 and not sit around trying to armchair quaterback this.
Most of the conspiracy theories are pretty dang dumb... "why did they haul away the debris so fast?" (Because it was in the way of the rescue, and where do yuo store that much sheer material?) "Why was it captured on so many cameras?" (Because it happened after the 'main event' and people were primed. Secondary events usually get better video coverage since everyone grabs their cameras just a little to late for the first event.)
I sorta suspect that the investigation revealed construction flaws and possibly evidence of violations, perhaps proscecutable actions. Such would certainly require more care and deliberation before being released. Look at other big collapses that have killed people and been the result of errors- lots of speculation but no 'official' findings until things are pretty locked in.
2006-09-11 11:54:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Madkins007 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
A large amount of debris from the collapse of the towers hit WTC7 and took out a hole 20 floors high on the south side, starting fires on those 20 floors. Even minor structural integrity loss along all 20 floors would obviously result in the main beams buckling, which is exactly what happened.
2006-09-11 11:48:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by James 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
here is an idea. look up the temperature at which jet fuel burns. I believe it is around 1500 degrees, give or take. Now look at how much temperature it takes to reduce the strenght of steel. I remember reading (i look stuff up before i believe crazy conspiracy theories) that a temperature of around 1100 degrees will weaken steel to about 20% of its strenght. Now when metal gets hot enough, it bends. Melting doesn't have to mean a puddle, by the way. Now take into account the amount of weight (also off centered due to the crash) the melting steel had to hold up. Now, go buy some dominoes, and stand them end on end next to each other, and topple one, and see what happens.
------------
Nice try? Jet fuel burns hotter than it takes to melt the steel. You obviously don't know much about conduction. Are you suggesting that the heat is evenly distributed amongst every piece of metal that it touches? Heat transfers differently than electricity. Now go back to your basement and put your pyramid hat back on.
2006-09-11 11:42:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The answer lays in the fact that 1/2 a million tonnes of wrecked tower crashed down causing a massive shock wave which demolished wtc7 nothing more sinister..
2006-09-11 11:47:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by robert x 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
i agree with nicolas, the fuel would have burned hot, and yes while the heat would have dispersed it would not have been able to disperse quick enough to prevent the weakening of the steel.
2006-09-11 11:48:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Go to 911myths.com. It goes a long way to explain things the conspiracy buffs claim. Snopes is another good website.
2006-09-11 11:39:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by darkemoregan 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Don't know. I would think the blast from the other buildings. Can't tell you don't know. I hope someone can explain it to you I would be interested in knowing myself.
2006-09-11 11:41:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋