2006-10-01 10:12:57 · 22 answers · asked by H.I. of the H.I. 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why did building seven collapse at all? Building seven was not even hit by a plane!
2006-10-01 10:16:11 · update #1
There is a good deal of evidence from eyewitness accounts and video tape recordings that support the conclusion that the collapse of WTC buildings on 9/11 was infact a planned demolition. Maybe a cover story was needed and so the jetliners were flown into the buildings before hand. We will never know for sure unless the American people do something to bring Bush to justice.
2006-10-01 11:52:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If the collapse of the twin towers was controlled, I don't think when they collapsed they would of destroyed all the other buildings in the WTC complex, which they did.
While I guess it is always okay to believe in answers other than what the media tells you to believe, saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy is such an outrageous statement. How could you trick all the some million people who saw the buildings collapse in real life? It is like when David Copperfield made the statue of liberty disappear, but on at world scale, with irrevocable consequences (a.k.a You can't bring the towers back, like Blane did with the Statue of Liberty)
2006-10-01 10:24:22 · answer #2 · answered by mare0705 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Building 7 collapsed because the fires burning under WTC 1 and 2 spread via the underground service tunnels, when the buildings collapsed the fire was pushed up into WTC 7 like a blow torch.
WTC 1 and 2 collapsed like a controlled demoliition because the principle behind two jets full of fuel wekening steel girders and anchors act like a controlled demolition.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.911.myths.com
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
2006-10-01 10:32:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
As for the first question, probably because that's the way the buildings were DESIGNED to fall. If you designed the World Trade Center, would you have made it so that it would have fallen sideways? DUH.
As far as Building 7, it was highly damaged from falling debris, and yes, it was on fire. No one could get close enough to it to put it out. So it burned, until finally it couldn't take any more damage, and collapsed.
2006-10-01 10:23:10 · answer #4 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Gravity. Once the the top half broke off, it cause a chain reaction straight down into the buildings. The pancake effect that you saw.
2006-10-01 10:29:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It does not. The towers came down top to bottom,controlled demolition goes from bottom to top. Buildings one and two fell on building seven.
2006-10-01 10:19:16 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It was very much the same thing. Placed charges in controlled demolition set up harmonic convergences which cause the building to collapse in upon itself. The strike by the airliners to two swaying towers set up the same harmonic convergence and thus the same type of collapse. Kind of like they shivered themselves down.
2006-10-01 10:17:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Because it was controlled demolition.
Jet fuel burns at 45 degrees C and steel melts at 1550 degrees C, so the official explanation is obviously invalid.
2006-10-01 16:24:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Why does the video of Michael Moore talking look like my butt cheeks flexin' while I'm taking a deuce??
2006-10-01 10:30:13 · answer #9 · answered by Steven B 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It only looks that way to lib-tards but then again that's no suprise since their collective grip on reality is tenuous at best...
2006-10-01 10:23:01 · answer #10 · answered by juandos 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋