do u believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy?also why did tower 7 fall?

Question

i use to think people that did were crazy,then i saw 1 question that was raised.why did tower 7 fall?a lot of you out there probably didn't hear or know what tower 7 was.it fell the same day as the towers but it wasn't hit by a plane and was like 2 blocks from the towers. also u can watch this video if u want
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw


i've seen other conspiracy videos that were done by obvious nuts but this one seem to raise some real questions

how come no one will answer the question.how does a building a block away not hit by a plane of anything collaspe in on itselfs.all u can u do is insult me because u have no answer

good point dainelle,but there's one thing a fire engineering-"small fires has never destroyed a steel building

nope fivekids tower 7 is the only that fell.and it fell in a manner as not to damage the other buildings around it

lone starr u do know they're have been comittees created by many univesities to investigate 9/11,the only reason i used this video is that it was the most convinent to me and easiest to get.if i can get information from 1 of these instition of higher learner will u not believed them and call them nuts even though they're college professors

u might think i'm crazy to ask this question but i think it would be crazy not to raise these questions.
"did u know hitler burn down the parliment assembly building and then later blamed it on jews and communist terrorist to create ammunition for his war.

dieyou explain how does a building collaspe from the base because of a fire started at the roof again?

here's another one,yes from you tube name me an acredited source to get this from who isn't afraid of the bush adminstrationhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECMJ2LBK90Q

if the second video is true which i doubt it is but lets say that it is infact true ,then how do u explain the diagonally cut beams?

Answer 1

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll take this question seriously, since nobody else is.

WTC7, which isn't two blocks away, the whole WTC complex is one large area. WTC7, if you look up on greatbuildings.com where it sits, you'll realize there is a fair bit of space between the buildings (that's the NYC building code, zoning setbacks, etc.), but still, WTC7 is a much shorter building, in addition to one of the planes that hit WTC1? throwing flame and debris onto the roof of WTC7, the debris from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 travelled a long distance, despite claims that they fell straight down, there was a large amount of ejected material, including columns that flew a long distance during the collapse - there are a number of buildings damaged that are farther away than WTC7, and if any of the 9/11 debunker/lurkers are out there (shrodinger wave?) posts their bombardment of information, you can look for something about how far the debris flew. Anyway, WTC7 was hit heavily by debris from WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing, and the water main below WTC1/2 feeds to WTC7, so there were no sprinklers to suppress the fire. From 102 minutes, firefighters did not even attempt fire suppression on WTC7, (ironically, this is where the NYC disaster facility is located, as discussed in 102 minutes), the debris pattern from WTC1 and 2 have been mapped out, roughly, and appear in both Modern Steel Construction "How they fell", published in late 2001 or 2002, as well as the NIST final report.

As for your comment to danielle about small fires not causing building collapses, this is true, but these are not small fires. There have been some partial collapses from fire, but total like the WTC1/2/7 no. There was a survey published by ASCE about building performance under extreme events, and that discussed several large scale fires that caused partial collapses, I cannot completely rebut your claim, however, these buildings did not have the same structural systems as the WTC1/2 (which says nothing for WTC7 as I don't know the structure of that building), and WTC1/2 also had severed columns from the airplane impacts, and with collapsed buildings, we have little basis for comparison on the size of the fires. Severed columns, if there is no immediate collapse, find a way through the structure that remains to transfer load to the ground to prevent collapse, which they both did for 56 minutes and 102 minutes respectively. WTC7 had a well developed fire that apparently spread over multiple floors that raged for hours, pre-collapse sagging was observed and partly was the reason for abandoning the building and letting it burn.

Contrary to popular belief, buildings are not invulnerable to fire, but steel and concrete tend to perform better than wood buildings during a fire, but the most common form of fireproofing on steel buildings (columns) - on WTC1/2 and one presumes WTC7 was to enclose things in sheetrock. Sheetrock is not known for its blast resistance. The sheetrock issue is discussed very briefly in 102 minutes as well. In other words, WTC7 collapsed after possibly a) roof fire started from fuel from airplanes b) no firefighting efforts - building was evacuated long before WTC1&2 collapsed and after WTC1/2 fell, efforts were dedicated to recovery / rescue at those sites, and WTC7 was abandoned c) possible no water in the sprinkler system d) damage to sheetrock fireproofing for columns from ejected debris from WTC1/2. The spray fireproofing blamed early on in the collapse was on the floor trusses. The current research indicates that fireproofing stayed in place, mostly, but the fireproofing on the columns (the sheetrock) was stripped off by flying glass, aluminum cladding, and aircraft parts during the impact.

I'm not going to insult you and suggest you get a tinfoil hat, asking questions is good, as it is the only way you can get more information, but continue your own investigation and continue to evaluate the evidence as you find it. Of each piece, ask, does it make sense? Who made it? What might their motives be?

Youtube isn't the best place to get information on this subject, nor is Yahoo Answers (note all the abuse you're attracting), but I don't have a better suggestion for where to look, sorry. if you are looking for more technical discussions, there was a nice Nova episode on PBS that covered a lot of these questions (not as many as the conspiracy folks would like, but some of them), as well as there being books both on the construction and the collapse that I've found interesting and accessible even to the general public.

If you have more technical questions on the collapse, come over to Engineering under Science and Technology and ask, you'll probably encounter less abuse over there as well.

Answer 2

A'ight well I'll be honest and admit I'm no architect or anything, but here's a reason why Tower 7 fell.

A ton of weight was displaced after the Twin Towers fell, resulting in major structural damage throughout the WTC complex. The bases of all the buildings were connected. Now, no one's ever done tests, and no one's ever recreated what its like to suddenly destroy TWO of the tallest (and of course heaviest) buildings in the world at about the same time, but it seems to me that with that much weight suddenly displaced, and with that much structural damage done to the foundation of all the buildings in the surrounding area, it would make sense that other buildings, not just the ones directly hit, would also fall. I believe that other buildings in the area did fall, so that kinda kills the "only tower 7!" argument. I don't think that Tower 7 was two blocks away from the other towers, either, but either way all the towers were connected to the same foundation.

There, no insults, just a straight, rational reason for the fall of Tower 7.

edit: No other buildings? Ok. Well then, there you go. But I think the important thing to remember is that nothing like this has ever happened before. There are no tests to look back on and say "Well, if the Twin Towers fall, we've proven, over and over again in a controlled setting, that this will happen, or that will happen, or this will fall, or that will stay." The engineering major who answered below me has a good explanation, I was just stating what seems right to me, from everything I've read.

But, again, its not like we can re-create this in a lab and then PROVE anything, the way that most conspiracy theorists seem to want things to be PROVEN (for some reason many of these questions want PROOF to be in capital letters).

But at some point, you have to get off the couch and say "Dammit they fell, now what can I do to make the world a better place?" instead of wondering if someone is lying to you about this minute detail or that small discrepancy.

Answer 3

Structual and fire damage,caused by the collapse of the towers.

After the north tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[22] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[23][24] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[3] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[25] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[26] Around 3:30 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[27][25] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Answer 4

Congratulations, you have just joined the ranks of the awakened. But, I think you should do more research on your own, and look at more videos with an open mind. There are so many more questions that the "official version" fails to answer in a satisfactory manner, that it boggles the mind. The "official story" is mostly smoke and mirrors. *sm*

Answer 5

very scientific answer jimmy j explains everything.i agree with dieyou.utube is not a good place to information,so is wikipedia dainelle,they're basiclly the same. i think its good to ask question.did u know hitler burn down his own parliament and then blamed it on jews and communist terrorist which was ammuntion for his war.not to ask questions would be crazy

Answer 6

It was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. They hit the building and started an uncontrolable fire forcing rescue workers to pull out after they realized the structural integrity was severly compromised.

To simplify this think of this analogy... Shaq is on fire standing 4 feet away from you.. he then collapses into you while on fire... what happens to you???

Answer 7

Tower 7 fell because a whole lot of heavy crap from the 2 collapsing towers landed on it. Why are there so many idiots who can't comprehend the obvious?

Answer 8

Everyone knows that the government had super soldier chipmunk commandos chew through the supports to make the building fall. Then they scurried away.

Answer 9

NO! Honey-- If you believe agenda-driven amateurish internet websites created by non-experts who ignore major problems with their theories who can not, after six years, get their “research” peer-reviewed by any of the relevant professional organizations rather than believe countless professionally-produced reports by widely-varied organizations, why should anyone listen to you?

Answer 10

With out researching I can't give you a full valid answer. I can however, unequivocally say, It was not a conspiracy or cover up by President Bush, which is what all this leads to.