It was never hit by a plane, and it is a goverment builting, so it was built to withstand a earthquake.
Also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iGuWTjc3ao&mode=related&search=
The BBC knew about 23mins before it fell, what do u think about that?
2007-04-04 10:16:37 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you are what we call an idiot...watch the view..rosie and you are both insane
2007-04-04 10:19:26 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 1 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Building 7 was part of a command center, containing a huge back up supply of diesel fuel for the electrical generators - these fired up despite the damaged fuel lines when the power was initially cut.
The resulting fires plus the physical damage from the WTC debris sealed the buildings fate.
Remember, structural steel looses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees F - unlike most of the op-blogs and conspiracy web sites, this fact is valid and verifiable.
I have an open mind and I am not opposed to any valid facts that dispute the events of 9/11 as presented - but I have yet to see any - only unreliable sources, oversimplified arguments, out of context quotes, out right false conclusions based on pseudo-science, cherry picked facts and fictional "documentaries."
2007-04-04 10:34:39 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Based on the facts, no. It directly took a significant portion of the collapsing Tower #2, which started numerous fires that burned throughout the building. Completely debunked at http://www.911myths.com . I guess some people will believe ANYTHING, despite all the facts presented to them.
And just because some idiot on the BBC said something doesn't mean they knew what they were talking about. It was mass confusion that day, facts were hard to come by, and anybody who thinks the leftist BBC was in on it has got to be drinking from the stupid fountain.
2007-04-04 10:27:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
And the BBC retracted that story. In other words they made an error in reporting with all the confusion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
2007-04-04 10:23:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The building was damaged by the falling of the towers and deemed unsafe, and yes it was taken down. But of course if Fat Head Rosie says somethiing outrageous to validate her existance and importance in this world, the sheep shall follow.
"SO sayeth the shepard, so sayeth the flock"
2007-04-04 10:29:30 · answer #5 · answered by Papa Joe 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Don't you think that if some type of foulplay really happened, somone would have proved it by now. I mean, it's already been 6 years, I would think that would be enough time.
2007-04-04 10:29:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Every theory has been completely debunked. But who wants to pay attention to structural engineers when you can see what Charlie Sheen has to say.
2007-04-04 10:22:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
One name out of a dozen for you to research at your leisure, Alex Jones.
2007-04-04 10:19:58 · answer #8 · answered by itchy.crack i 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. It wasn't a gov. building either.
It wasn't hit by a plane but was hit by stuff much larger-- parts of WTC 1 and/or 2.
2007-04-04 10:20:26 · answer #9 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I have it on tape, the TV reporters saying that the building was going to be "pulled" and stating that it was rigged with explosives and would be taken down. It was on CNN the evening of 9/11/2001.
2007-04-04 10:20:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
No.
Go away and don't come back until you can prove any 9/11 conspiracy theory.
2007-04-04 10:21:46 · answer #11 · answered by Zapatta McFrench 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋