I thought that was the on going theme for this decade.
2007-11-26 07:20:52 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
.......WTC7?
2007-11-26 07:31:50 · update #1
i could give you facts but most would turn the other cheek....http://wtc.nist.gov
2007-11-26 07:33:23 · update #2
click where it says presentation: WTC7
2007-11-26 07:35:59 · update #3
scroll to page 11
2007-11-26 07:52:49 · update #4
they build em very solid in Houston.
2007-11-26 07:32:55 · answer #1 · answered by acid tongue 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Quasi scientific answer:
It was a normal fire. Tall building contractors are required to apply a flame retardent/heat protection substance to the structural framework. The building might be gutted by fire, but it wouldn't fall.
In New York, WTC 1 and 2, the retardent substance failed, possibly due to impact damage.
Conspiricy theorist's answer:
Because President Bush didn't have explosive charges installed in Houston.
Edit: Oh, thx IMKevlar. I forgot about the NeoConservative kerosine variation.
2007-11-26 15:29:27 · answer #2 · answered by Pragmatism Please 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Could be because they have two entirely different super structures. Also the building in Houston didn't have a jetliner crash into it. Care to give us any facts to work with rather than paranoia
Here's a line from his own link source that he probably can't be bothered to read.
Has NIST responded to those who believe that the WTC towers collapsed in ways other than the mechanisms determined by the NIST investigation?
When the final report on the WTC towers was released in October 2005, many in the building design, construction, fire, rescue, safety, and legislative communities praised the three-year effort as the authoritative accounting of the events that took place and began working with NIST to use the report’s 30 recommendations to improve building codes, standards, and practices. However, there have been claims from so-called “alternative theory” groups that factors other than those described in the NIST report brought the towers down.
2007-11-26 15:25:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Because fire at high temps does not melt steel. Only something like thermite could. No other building in history did what the towers did.....steel just doesn't melt at the temp fuel gets to. PERIOD. Its physics.
But ppl believe what is easiest for them to accept.
2007-11-26 16:13:44 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Did a plane loaded with jet fuel fly into it?
2007-11-26 15:26:58 · answer #5 · answered by booman17 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It wasn't slammed by a plane full of jet fuel.
2007-11-26 15:26:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
maybe a 200ton plane did not hit it and knock loose the intumescent paint that acts a fire retardant.
maybe it did not have 40,000 gallons of jet fuel keeping the fire burning
2007-11-26 15:25:26 · answer #7 · answered by teamlessbear 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The CIA Division of Jewish and Halliburton Affairs didn't plant thousands of gallons of kerosene in it first.
2007-11-26 15:27:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's integrity wasn't compremised with a high speed aircraft!
2007-11-26 15:26:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel ?
I pity you and your tin foil hat.
2007-11-26 16:36:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋