2007-04-07 17:04:43 · 25 answers · asked by Ugly Betty 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the elevator shaft did not go straight down. in order to get to the top, you had to switch elevators several times. The explosions in the basement is evidence of explosives being used, and the theory that jet fuel traveled down elevator shafts is laughable.
in a controled demolition, it is necessary to take out the bottom floor before setting off other explosions, in order for the tower to come down perfectly into its basement.
they did not have to hit where the explosives were set up, it would only take a person with their finger on the button to set off the collapse. there is no way the towers could come down in under 10 seconds without the help of explosives.
most of the jet fuel burned up instantly on impact. people, wake up!
2007-04-07 17:15:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 8⤋
. The fuel did not travel down 110 stories in the elevator shaft. Most of the fuel was burning in a 20 story section, and the heat melted the insulating material on the support columns. This also weakened the structure and caused a chain of failures floor by floor. If you watch video of the collapse You can see this effect as the top 25 odd floors above the crash site falls and appears to look like explosions as the individual floors collapsed like Boom,Boom, Boom. This has led some people to claim that explosives were used to make the tower collapse. The Airplanes with all that weight and fuel were more than enough to cause this destruction.
2007-04-08 00:26:18 · answer #2 · answered by redd headd 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Another question could be: How could the pilots have been so good to hit the exact spot where the alleged explosives were set up, and how were these planes able to hit the exact spot where alleged explosives were set up without setting off the explosives?
Now to answer your question. If you look at the video of the WTC it shows the building falling, and then what appears to be an explosion. Now, you must agree that if it were a planned demolition, the explosion would have come first followed by the building falling. What this proves is the pressure of the falling building along with the jet fuel fire made the appearance of an explosion. If you see the video, unless you are hard headed, you will be convinced. Also, if it were demolition, the building would have collapsed starting at the basement and pancaking upward. The building began to fall from where the planes hit and pancaked downward. So all of you people saying there was an explosion in the basement, please wake up!
2007-04-08 00:15:32 · answer #3 · answered by TE 5 · 7⤊ 2⤋
I'm tired of false accusation and insane theories. A lot of innocent people die on this horrible day.
If you want to talk seriously about impact and lateral forces in a structure you can go to the University. As an Architect I'm completely sure that the Towers collapsed by the continuous super-heat in the steel joist that support the slabs. The joist lost the insulation and the ability to resist continuous fire and the rest is history.
The truth is that the terrorist know very well the targets.
2007-04-08 00:24:00 · answer #4 · answered by Lost. at. Sea. 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
The buildings (you're referring, of course, to the World Trade Cedntre) imploded, not exploded. The heat of the burning fuel caused support beams to melt, and the floors started pancaking on themselves, all the way down. Or do you not understand the first thing about physics?
2007-04-08 00:37:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
You seem confused Ugly Betty/Nancy/Brenda/ Ginger/ Crypto/Skip/ Skipper/Surfer Dude/Citizen of the New World/ Neo-Con Flavored Kool-Aide/etc. I think you have been watching alittle too much "Loose Change"!
Can you provide a source, other than your thoroughly debunked "controlled demolition" fantasy, that indicates "any" buildings "blew up"? I don't remember reading that in the 9/11 Commission Report or seeing it in any of my research.
lol
2007-04-08 16:58:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If this is what you want to believe do it. There is never any proof presented with your allegations. There is no proof to present with your allegations. The fact is that it is a unproven allegation. No proof of what you assert and massive amounts of proof to counter you contention. Why then when a truck load of explosives in the parking garage was detonated it just blew a big hole and didn't collapse the Tower.
2007-04-08 00:22:41 · answer #7 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why not research some physics on the internet instead of getting your information from a lunny like Rosie? Oh, I forgot, you have to have at least a little common sense and Rosie can do nothing but spew forth rude, crude garbage.
I do not care to get my education or defile my mind with trash from the city dump.
2007-04-08 00:14:49 · answer #8 · answered by Heidi 4 6 · 8⤊ 2⤋
Are your questions generally just hate baiting types looking for the most replies, or are you genuinely this delusional?
If I had to explain why the premise of your question is totally bogus, you wouldn't understand anyways.
2007-04-08 00:45:36 · answer #9 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sigh..
Screw Loose Change-Not Freakin Again Edition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=screw+loose+change&hl=en
2007-04-08 00:09:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 4⤋