10-24-2012, 08:30 PM
ztirffritz wrote:
[quote=decay]
i agree with him.
there has never been a good, believable explanation.
You're kidding, right? Two of the tallest buildings in the city collapse and you don't think that a third building next to it might be affected? The fact that it didn't liquify the ground at Ground Zero and bring down several blocks is a miracle in my opinion.
I always assumed debris from one of the other towers took out WTC 7. But I never thought deeply about it. The ground 'liquifying' as a result of the collapse of the other two towers (and hence the 'earthquakes' they might have generated) seems plausible, but has anyone actually looked into it? Now that i think about it, why didn't WTC 7 collapse immediately as a result of the liquefaction (I assume it was some time afterwards).