I'm not a conspiracy theorist or even remotely believe Sept. 11 was an inside job, but I am curious as to why world trade center 7 fell. No other buildings around it fell, and it was the third time in history that a building fell because of a fire. The other two times in history were the other two world trade centers. I was just seeing if anyone could give me some insight. By the way I am planning on going into the marines after college to fight those damn terrorist: for those of you who might question my patriotism.
2007-03-27 16:09:20 · 13 answers · asked by Steven G 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
someone farted
2007-03-27 16:22:21 · answer #1 · answered by joe 2 · 0⤊ 7⤋
The twin towers were not the first two buildings to collapse due to fire. There was a high rise hotel which did the same thing. From what I can tell WTC 7 may have been demolished in an attempt to snuff the fires and keep them from spreading. This would explain some of what conspiracy theorists, what a dumb term, are saying about radio communications between different people. The structure was burning and seriously damaged by falling debries from the two towers.
2007-03-27 16:19:12 · answer #2 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why do you think anyone would question your patriotism? Can't give you any insight at all, as this is a question for an engineer. The other answers concerning heat from the fires and structural compromise because of this fact make sense, however. Why don't you Google and do some research. There are vast sites concerning that day, and you will probably arrive at some answers. And frankly, if you are going all the way through college and getting your degree, joining the Marines seems a little after the fact, as most enter the program out of high school THEN go to college after their tour of duty.
2007-03-27 16:18:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The initial blast from the crashes of the two aircraft was followed by the shock wave of not one, but two towers falling. The vibration hit World Trade 7 worse than the other buildings. If I remember right two other buildings had to be demolished because of similar damage.
You do not need to justify asking an intelligent question nor do you have to join the Marines to prove your patriotism.
Keep in mind that Iraqi citizens were NOT involved in the 911 attack. Saddam Hussein had been slapped down hard enough in 1991 that he wasn't at all interested in taking on the US again. There are terrorists in Iraq now. With Saddam gone, the power vacuum has let in every radical from the Arab countries. They have turned Iraq into a religious battleground and we are stuck in the middle of it.
Do you wonder why Osama Bin Laden was working out of Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia? His family knew he was a radical and he was trouble and they told him to get out. They didn't want Saudi Arabia brought into a war against the US. The other Saudis sent their radical sons to join him. Now that he is nearly out of the picture, those radical sons from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other countries are being sent to Iraq to spread their hate.
In a way Bush was right. By turning Iraq into a battleground, we are keeping our own shores safe. It will work for a while.
2007-03-27 16:39:03 · answer #4 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
on the beginning up, i'd desire to ask in case you will ever seen crimson heat steel being bent? you do not would desire to need to succeed in melting element to weaken steel. It truly had to get susceptible adequate so as that this is going to now not help the burden of the form above it. If, by utilising pointing out the 'rewiring', you're with reference to the theories that the towers have been presented down by utilising explosives planted indoors, like those controlled explosive demolitions, i'd desire to ask -- do you recognize what quantity communities there are international that would desire to attend to a interest on the threshold of to that magnitude? and function you ever seen how plenty preparation is going into those controlled demolitions -- do you think of that would have been carried out devoid of single between the lots indoors the tower noticing? there is the question of motivation -- if the towers have been presented down by utilising explosives and not the jet gas fires, why venture crashing the planes into the towers indoors the 1st place? Do you think of it would desire to have been much less useful, from a propaganda attitude, to wreck the towers with explosives on my own? would desire to the widespread public outcry and help for of government's measures been any much less?
2016-11-23 20:32:18 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The planes hit the towers. The bombs in the planes exploded and caused so much damage that the top floors collapsed. The weight, etc. was so great that the other floors collapsed. It was sort of like a domino effect. I saw the second plane on TV as it hit the second tower and believe me fire was not the cause of the collapse.
2007-03-27 16:25:51 · answer #6 · answered by sissyd 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Simple. Building 7 suffered significant structural damage from the collapse of the two BIG towers that fell.
2007-03-27 16:16:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
It is funny that people blame Bush in one breath he was the master mind, in the next breath they call him an idiot. Makes you wonder who the idiot was.
The fire was so almighty hot from the fuel that the weight of the building could not support it.
2007-03-27 16:51:14 · answer #8 · answered by Jim R 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Shock waves and flying debris from the collapse of 1 and 2.
2007-03-27 16:25:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
extreme heat and structural collapse
2007-03-27 16:17:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
watch the film "loose change"
2007-03-27 18:48:49 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋