Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
If we build two new WTC towers, identical to the originals,
and recreate 9/11 as closely as possible, would you be willing to be inside the buildings when the planes struck?
2006-09-23 05:26:20 · 9 answers · asked by TLJaguar 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Reflection - we can build them somewhere else if that helps.
dr schmitty - seems to make sense to everyone else. If you’re sure the planes couldn’t have caused the collapse then you should have no problem being in an identical tower hit by the same type of plane.
eatmore - oh good answer, I can feel the tolerance and love!!
jonmor - um, no, but I’m not claiming that a building lined with explosives wouldn’t collapse...
2006-09-23 05:41:03 · update #1
dr schmitty - there is nothing wrong with my logic. This question was directed to the conspiracy theorists that claim the towers wouldn’t have fallen if they hadn’t been rigged with explosions, Im just asking how much they really believe that. Please point out the problem with any of my logic.
2006-09-23 16:19:41 · update #2
A new study shows that 99.7% of 9/11 Conspiracy believers were also abducted and anally probed by aliens.
2006-09-23 05:32:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, I wouldn't. A lot of people died from smoke inhalation, falling ceilings, etc., before the towers actually collapsed.
Also, I think it was stupid to build the three emergency stairwells right next to one another; they should have been one at each corner and one or more in the middle. That would have saved a lot of lives.
You don't have to believe the Twin Towers wouldn't have collapsed without extra help in order to believe there was something fishy going on. Have you ever asked yourself why Al-Qaeda is universally blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though they never claimed responsibility, and terrorist groups almost always claim resonsibility for their terrorist acts?
2006-09-23 05:48:10 · answer #2 · answered by telcontar328 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.
p.s. your argument is false; at any rate the towers fell- this could be due to planes, bombs, ufos, force majeur...one does not rule out another. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and i do believe that it was not the impact so much as the heat from the burning fuel that brought down the towers. At any rate you need a course in logic.
2006-09-23 05:29:32 · answer #3 · answered by dr schmitty 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A hypothetical question.
However, although I don't believe all the conspiracy theories, I would like to ask YOU the following. If you rebuilt the towers again and placed bombs inside them, would you be willing to be inside the buildings when they go off ????
2006-09-23 05:34:56 · answer #4 · answered by jonmorritt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that hearth did no longer soften the two the metallic or the concrete, even yet it did soften the metallic to the element the place it had no ability to undergo weight, in different words, mushy. to date as concrete and hearth, as long as their is moisture in any concrete it is concern to actual explode from the interior steam build up, subsequently teh highway could be ruined. metallic could be melted, even yet it rather is going to normaly take greater desirable than an open hearth to do it. Burning torches are one reliable occasion, a focused warmth source, plenty warmer than open hearth.
2016-12-12 13:35:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, I used to be a steel fabricator and I know the limits.
2006-09-23 05:33:19 · answer #6 · answered by MAD MEL 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I bet you got really excited typing this question........but my choice would be no, I don't like NY.
2006-09-23 05:28:40 · answer #7 · answered by The Angry Stick Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whit oil c e os on charge and that puppet of bush anything can ha pen
2006-09-23 05:31:39 · answer #8 · answered by thedeliciousone14 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why would any one want too, i wouldn't, unfournely there are more theories than answers thou
2006-09-23 05:33:37 · answer #9 · answered by jvg49er 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋