Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tophat9000

Notice bldg 5 and 6 were closer to towers and actually did have the towers fall on them, a direct hit, and were on fire....they did not collapse...their steel framing withstood the direct hit..there’s even an aerial photo in the Fema report on bldg 7 that shows this...It can’t be true, what the conspiracy people say...if it were, that would mean that we were the aggressors and were killing masses of people just for empire.


22 posted on 10/10/2009 8:38:00 PM PDT by usshadley (It's time to choose..the empire or the republic? You can't have both. Time is running out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: usshadley

Yeah, actually, they did collapse.

And it is not relevant anyway. In a severe earthquake, in some buildings collapse, some don’t.

The fact that not every building collapses does not invalidate the fact that some did. If some buildigns did not collapse, does that mean that the buildings that did collapse could not have collapsed from the earthquake?

Furthermore, high rise buildings WEIGH MORE. THere is more weight much higher in the air. To reach great heights, high-rise buildings require very LIGHT weight construction, to reduce the height piled up at great heights.

So the total weight of all the many floors is greater, while the building is actually WEAKER.

So a high-rise building is far more likely to collapse when damaged than a low-rise building.


24 posted on 10/12/2009 11:18:52 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.ManualOfRomance.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson