2006-12-28 05:29:00 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Well who'da thought there was someone out there wondering about that!
2006-12-28 07:09:30 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just a concurrence with Lucee up there, from the western shore of the Big Wet and Deep. Well, on the one hand, this is almost like asking , If your gran had four wheels, would she be a Ford or a Morris? If the Towers hadn't collapsed, obviously it means there would have been some less amount of damage. But how much less? Just enough less not to cause collapse? Or significantly less? It is, I think, barely possible that the lower portions might have retained enough structural integrity to have remained standing on their own; I think the uppper portions would have been too deformed by the impact and flame/explosion damage. But it still would have been virtually impossible to remove the damaged upper parts without either damging them beyond salvage, or being a prohibitively expensive exercise. So bottom line, either way they would be gone now. Interestingly, there is reliable information [I think] that the Towers were within a decade of their usable life anyway, and that plans were already being discussed as to how best demolish them. Of course this, true or not, has thrown new fuel on the conspiracy flame.
2006-12-28 05:55:15 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's been done before (a B-52 Bomber flew into the Empire State Building during WWII), it's being done today (remember the Yankee pitcher who flew into a New York high-rise?), and it will be done tomorrow. These buildings are built to withstand multiple airplane hits (as attested by the WTC construction manager DeMartini on the History Channel) without collapsing. They have never in history collapsed by fire and proof that something else brought down the twin towers (and Building 7 which you probably haven't heard of since you watch the propaganda mainstream media). See Scholarsfor911truth.org/
2006-12-28 05:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by protocols 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the damaged had been severe enough they may have had to partially demolish some floors and reconstruct. But structural engineers, contractors and building crews would have been able to rebuild them just fine.
When they bombed the basement garage of one of the towers several years ago, that was repaired and the tower was given a clean bill of health.
2006-12-28 05:39:29 · answer #4 · answered by briardan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would have had to tear down the levels below the major damage then basically rebuild new levels. Also they would have had to stripe the whole insides bare and repair that because of fire and smoke damage. At the base they would have put better foundation down im sure.
2006-12-28 05:33:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
working in an extremely busy furnishings warehouse. We did no longer have a radio or something on, so so a techniques as we knew, the 1st collision became climate-appropriate. with the aid of the time somebody ultimately lined us in, the 2d tower became down!
2016-11-24 20:22:53 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They couldn't have been repaired because of the structural damage. The buildings would have had to come down.
2006-12-28 05:37:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
From everything I have read about the construction, I would have to say that they could not have been repaired.
2006-12-28 05:32:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
awwww shut up already! they didnt collapse they were pulled! Aww gawd save us from the last stragglers who believe they were weak unsound buildings...
2006-12-29 00:29:38 · answer #9 · answered by Allasse 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
to all yahoo members,i dont know why you should answer this such ludicrous question as myself personaly i,think he lives on another planet .
2006-12-29 06:23:15 · answer #10 · answered by LYNDA M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋