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

Actually...they didn't just collapes....they were pulverized into a fine pile of dust. Anyone care to explain?

Oh..and what about WTC building 7?....that building was built extra heavy duty...because it was also a bunker

2007-03-11 08:44:54 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

Because they didn't collapes. The goverment blew it up as a cover up

2007-03-11 08:48:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 12

First of all, brick buildings do collapse from fire. See, anyone with a high school education knows that buildings aren't made of brick or concrete, and nothing but. In the case of the towers, they were steel reinforced. Jet fuel, while it burns at a lower temp than steel melts, still burns hot enough to warp steel, thereby weakening the supports in the building enough to cause it to collapse. See, even a building with a reinforced basement (which is where any "bunkers" would be) will collapse in on itself when you take out the structural supports.

As for it being pulverized into fine dust, I seem to recall seeing people digging though rubble that was considerably larger than "pulverized dust". Sure, there was a lot of dust, but that happens when concrete falls from forty some odd stories up.

2007-03-11 09:02:16 · answer #2 · answered by Curtis B 6 · 2 0

The buildings concrete structure failing is not what caused the buildings to collapse. The fires from the burning jet fuel, which burns very hot mind you, it is after all kerosene, caused the inner steel structure to heat and become soft. When the steel softened to a certain point, it could no longer support the weight from within, causing an inner collapse. This is why the buildings came straight down instead of to one side, much in the way a building would which has had demolitions charges placed within. The concrete outer shell did hold a lot of the structure, but nothing near what the inner steel did.

2007-03-11 08:52:33 · answer #3 · answered by av8r_jim84 2 · 3 0

You are so wrong in so many ways. I suggest you do a little research on the engineering and architecture of the Towers..... all of them.

Then you might want to research just what happens when a huge jet filled with jet fuel slams into a building at 500 miles per hours.

Not only were the buildings pulverized but the people, desks, computers - everything.

Spend some time on the internet - learn.

2007-03-11 11:32:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

If you are wondering why the Twin Towers collapsed this is why: On the inside of skyscrapers there are several, I think 4, points of where the bulk of the weight is supported on the inside of the buildings They are made of steel and are very strong, able to hold the buildings up even in the event of an explosion from something like a bomb. Skyscrapers were designed to be able to stand even in the event of floor fires or terrorist bombs, but on 9/11 when the jetliner crashed into the second tower, the plane had so much momentum that it was able to reach at least one of these main supports. The plane itself had damaged the support and dumped 100's of gallons of gas to fuel a fire to an immense temperature. Over time this extremely hot fire melted the rest of the way through the supports and as one floor began to fall, landing on the floor below it, it picked up momentum and couldn't be stopped once it began.

2007-03-11 08:59:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

These buildings were designed to collapse on themselves when they became obsolete. The fact that tousands of gallons of jet fuel were able to weaken some of these pins created a weight ratio that ensured a total collapse. My best friends father worked on the WTC and could explain it if you have an engineering degree and 4 hours.

PS the Bunker was added 30 years later and was not designed to withstand the forces it met with.

2007-03-11 08:50:30 · answer #6 · answered by THOR! 1 · 6 0

They weren't just concrete, they were steel reinforced. Also if I run a jet into the Empire state building loaded with fuel, it will collapse too. 9/11 was a culmination of three things that work against buildings; Heat, Damage and weight. You get rid of those things and the towers would still be here. Oh, and on that topic; Why isn't Bin laden in US custody?

2007-03-11 09:10:04 · answer #7 · answered by psychotick 2 · 2 0

Explosives have been certainly used. Jet gasoline is extremely explosive as all of us observed on 9/11. And no, those are not the only homes to have fallen from hearth, no longer even the only concrete and steel homes to have fallen, merely the main important, viewed by way of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and subsequently the main concepts-blowing. Any firefighter assist you to recognize that warmth can crumple concrete and brick, and soften steel, and firefighters continually could desire to agonize approximately any construction collapsing in the event that they enter it for the time of a hearth in spite of what that's made out of. A 9/11 conspiracy by way of the US gov't is obtainable of direction, regardless of the indisputable fact that no longer likely, yet this "actuality" you're conversing approximately isn't in basic terms right and subsequently no longer information of any conspiracy. Sorry... playstation : Marlon S. makes a element, besides the actuality that that would not tutor a conspiracy the two. he's perfect that the vast "winners" after 9/11 weren't even the terrorists. GWB used it as an excuse to invade Iraq, which he had vowed to do long previously 9/11. Cheney's previous pals Halliburton (those paying him $9 million a twelve months in "retirement") have made actually billions, having been given contracts devoid of having to stress approximately bidding or opposition. And all of that with extensive tax cuts to acceptable it off. PPS: we could desire to continually experience sorry for paranoid neocons like "genuine sources" above, who're nonetheless attempting responsible invoice Clinton for each thing, even issues that occurred on Bush's watch. there is adequate blame to bypass around, and the kind of vitriolic, bitter hatred he spews in basic terms divides human beings and for that reason serves the applications of the terrorists themselves.

2016-10-01 22:58:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because no other building had a large jet, loaded with thousands of gallons of Jet Fuel,fly into it..
The 2000 degree heat caused the metal to weaken, causing a massive collapse
Why is it some people cant comprehend a situation that has been explained by experts? Are you some Pulitzer winning Engineer????
In NY, we call your "Bunker" a Subway

2007-03-11 08:50:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7 0

They weren't a pile of fine dust, they were 20 stories of large pieces and rubble. And they're arent the only concrete buildings to collapse because of fire, but they were the biggest and most famous.

2007-03-11 08:48:38 · answer #10 · answered by zebj25 6 · 7 0

Well Nancy Lisa Susy Q it's because they used flammable cement. Repeated post of the same nonsense is a violation. Oh wait it's only everyone that has outed you as a spammer and multi-account user point gamer is a violater. Reports anyone that disagrees with her goofyness.

2007-03-11 08:52:42 · answer #11 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers