Even buildings that aren't even close? Like WTC Building 7?
Right...and if you believe that I have some beach front property to sell you in Wyoming with all the Kool-Aid you can drink, LMAO!!
2007-04-22 12:41:17 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree...you'd think there would have been some resistance from the lower floors...only time something like that could go into freefall is when it's brought down due to demolition.
2007-04-22 12:55:31 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 10⤋
Um, yes. As a matter of fact because NY banned asbestos in the '70s the 1st WTC building was only hardened half way up, and the 2nd was not hardened at all. So really, plains didn't bring the WTC down, the environmentalists did!
Same for a certain space shuttle or 2. The O-ring was changed from asbestos to rubber -- that was the root cause of the launch explosion. The CFC insulation on the tanks was changed to some green-friendly foam, that broke off and damaged tiles on another shuttle.
Environmentalists killed 2x crews of space shuttles.
2007-04-22 13:08:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Right well, I'm a liberal, and I have to say that these conspiracy theories are getting ridiculous. Yes, an impact caused by a plane carrying tons of jet fuel can most certainly weaken the steel girders supporting a building, causing the top floors to collapse onto the bottom floors, and causing the entire building to collapse on itself. Just like what happened on September 11th.
Watch the videos of the collapse carefully, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
2007-04-22 13:22:28 · answer #3 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's see if I can help....The jets that flew into the towers were full of jet fuel. This substance is flammable.The jets were full of it. The fuel poured down the center of the building. The jets knocked the asbestos flame retardant off of the steel beams.
Do you comprehend what I have said so far? I think this is enough for now. You need time to absorb this information. Good luck.
2007-04-22 12:59:40 · answer #4 · answered by Delray 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
WTC 7 was only a football field away, and caught fire when the planes hit, as well as took damage from debris.
And the fire did not melt the steel, but it did weaken it by more than 50%, causing it to collapse.
2007-04-22 12:47:42 · answer #5 · answered by Chopper 4 · 9⤊ 1⤋
Actually go back and look at the original video, the buildings are not in free-fall. This can be clearly shown if you actually time the building's fall and compare this with the result you should get using the acceleration of gravity, Newton's second Law, and basic kinematic equations.
2007-04-22 12:51:33 · answer #6 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
So you probably believe it was an inside job right? Planned by President Bush even before he got into office? You've probably started drinking the kool-aid already.
2007-04-22 12:46:04 · answer #7 · answered by Jim J 3 · 8⤊ 1⤋
yes , Steel is weakened with enough heat, it will even turn to liquid if the temperature get hot enough. the weight of the falling upper floors caused the lower floors to buckle under the weight. Common sense for most.
2007-04-22 12:54:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Have you any idea the heat that is generated by a huge plane with full fuel tanks of jet fuel?....complete meltdown!
2007-04-22 13:19:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton used our tax dollars to invest in Boeing, which was the company that made the plane that blew up the world trade center. Go figure how much he likes Al Qaeda.
2007-04-22 12:49:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
So, having been across the street at the time I didn't see anything else happen other than the planes. There was nothing detonated.
What, pray tell, did it then?
2007-04-22 12:45:08 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 0⤋