did the twin towers fall correctly for an impact on what looked like a very small area on tower 2 ?

Question

just a question i was asked im not a conspiracy nut i'd like to know a professional opinion that isn't hidden behind debunking theories and all that "seperate argument"

Answer 1

No, they did not, they fell pefectly normal for a controlled explosion.



The entire tower wouldn't colapse from an impact that high up, any framework below the impact site wouldn't be affected.



Old buildings have burnt for much longer without collapsing like these towers did.



"burning jet fuel" could not reach the temperatures required to damage the framework enough to make it collapse a little, let alone throughout most of the buildings.

Answer 2

No building in the world was ever designed to resist a large airliner hitting it at flying speed. I am only surprised that either tower stood for as long as they did before the eventual collapse.

Answer 3

all the centre of the towers were hollow.and it was designed

like that so they could get more lift shafts in.and when the top of

the outsides of the buildings cave in with all the weight.they just collapse like a pack of cards.

Answer 4

I think they fell due to poor construction technique. The exterior walls on the building were the full load bearer's. NOT The floors like conventional skyscrapers.

Answer 5

What I'm wondering is if there is really a "correct" way to fall? I am very interested in seeing what kind of answers you get!

Answer 6

they blew up and fell.