?? Virtually all at-the-time and subsequent news about
Ground Zero mentions WTC Towers 1 and 2; however, Towr
No. 7 also collapsed, in upon itself ("footprint"). No 7 implosion came 7 hours after planes hit WTC's,
collapsed only as possible if pre-planned, at least weeks beforehand. What's the (real) story?
2007-07-05 07:20:46 · 9 answers · asked by NeedToKnow 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Pretty simple, really. All of the fallen buildings were demolition jobs.
a) 9/11 was the first time steel framed buildings *ever* collapsed to a 'fire'.
b) the elevators in the buildings were hermetically sealed. In case you don't know, fire needs oxygen to burn, let alone travel dozens of stories to the base of a building.
c) tower 7 collapsed without any quantifiable damage from the other buildings... it was a demolition job, plain and simple.
my only hope as a proud american, is that the truth will one day be known, and those responsible within the full scope of this act of terrorism will be held accountable.
2007-07-05 10:13:33 · answer #1 · answered by spillmind 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Take some time.
2. Study engineering, specificall Static analysis.
3. Study engineering, specifically structural design.
4. Ask questions.
5. Learn.
6. Study demolitions and why demolitions experts are able to implode buildings. (hint, they paid attention to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above.)
Then this will be as simple as counting to 3.
Even mygrade schooler understands.
When towers 1 and 2 fell, tower 7 was damaged. Given the extend and scope of damage, colapse was inevitable.
2007-07-05 07:30:10 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff Engr 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here in California a fuel tanker catch fire under a freeway overpass. In a short time a over crossing made of concrete in case steel collapsed. So much for the structural steel not collapsing theory
2007-07-09 13:24:37 · answer #3 · answered by Brother Steve 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check with the WTC commission report produced by congress over a year ago.
2007-07-05 07:35:48 · answer #4 · answered by dumb 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure what happened there maybe it was one of the 2 110 storey buildings falling on it but whatever you do DON'T listen to the worthless ramblings of Rosie O'Donnell
I don't think it was pre-planned
2007-07-05 08:28:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you truly believe that the only possible explanation is that the building's destruction was planned weeks in advance by people who must have planted bombs in the building, how am I to dissuade you from this point of view?
2007-07-05 07:24:55 · answer #6 · answered by Ginseng 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How about a 110 storie building falling on it? Would that be a reason?
2007-07-05 07:23:56 · answer #7 · answered by booman17 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The real truth is that when gravity is "on", things fall after their supports are damaged.
2007-07-05 07:24:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
government cover-up and conspiracy... now what do we do?
2007-07-06 18:56:42 · answer #9 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋