Or that the laws of physics temporarily changed to allow for a jet fuel fire to burn at a steadily increasing temp outside of a blast furnace and work its way down instead of up to destroy each floor before the next fell on it to allow it to collaps at freefall speed.
2007-04-23 19:40:31 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
we all saw the planes I am not disputing their involvement. I am disputing that they are souly what caused these buildings to collaps
2007-04-23 20:03:03 · update #1
Of course, it was controlled demolition! That is a no brainer! Nothing else makes any sense. It was also planned weeks in advance on all three buildings! It was an inside job, and a false flag operation, and when the truth finally comes out, which it most certainly will, those who have called us freaks and wackos will feel really foolish!
2007-04-23 20:11:51 · answer #1 · answered by LadyZania 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I saw a video of a plane crashing into the one of the towers, and since there is an axiom that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, I think it unlikely someone rigged the buildings with explosives. Also I know form experience that steel will lose strength at temperatures far lower than a blast furnace. I fact I was surprised when people were surprised that the towers fell, because it is well known that steel structures are weakened by fire and it seems very unlikely that (in the past) anyone designing fire proofing would figure on thousands of pounds of jet fuel being inside a building.
2007-04-23 19:53:09 · answer #2 · answered by tinkertailorcandlestickmaker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your additionally forgetting with regard to the consequence of the plans ripping out the structural helps. This became no longer a controlled demolition as replied many situations earlier. Dallas Contracting Co., Inc. is a demolition contracting expert. for greater tips on demolition contractor centers, demolition photos and project write-united statesbypass to their internet site
2016-12-26 21:33:51 · answer #3 · answered by gunger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For those who care about serious answers:
1. The fires were more intense and lasted longer than the buildings were designed to handle. The wonder is that they lasted as long as they did.
2. The 80th floor of a 100-story building is designed to handle the weight of the 20 floors above it, with some margin. It's not designed to handle a 20-story building being dropped onto it.
3. Skyscrapers are actually designed to collapse vertically rather than to topple and thus damage adjacent buildings. That part of the design worked perfectly and prevented an even worse disaster.
2007-04-23 20:26:14 · answer #4 · answered by Frank N 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I've watched several PBS/Discovery channels as to how the buildings collapsed and it sounds quite feasible to me that it was primarily due to improper structural issues with the buildings which allowed the jet fuel to collapse the buildings.
I do not believe it was a controlled demolition.
2007-04-23 19:49:04 · answer #5 · answered by Kleineganz 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
As a theory, I believe that your two choices are the least probable versions of what happened that I have heard of.
2007-04-23 19:53:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What the **** are you talking about? The airplane hit the building. There were literally thousands of witnesses.
2007-04-23 19:49:03 · answer #7 · answered by charliecizarny 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋