# WTC7 collapse, new numerical results **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064 "2019-09-11T19:35:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/81 "2019-09-12T20:11:28Z")
Oh, I’ll bite: > [@LAZombie](#): > > Explain this: > > (1) Why did all three buildings collapse symmetrically as in a controlled demolition? As in, straight down? it’s called _gravity_. > [@](#): > > (2) Why did all three buildings collapse at free fall rates of speed ? What makes you think they did? Look at the videos. > [@](#): > > (3) WTC7 wasn’t hit by a plane. Why would normal office furnishings and material cause such a massive structural collapse? A helluva lot of debris being blown sideways by 1 and 2 during their collapses hit 7. > [@](#): > > (4) Why wasn’t the steel from the structures analyzed for explosives and why was it shipped to China for scrap rather than keeping for it for analysis of a crime beyond the government issued explanation? Because there was no reason to analyze it. Most of the debris was actually sent to a landfill on Staten Island. Or are you saying the Chinese were in on the asbestos-insurance scam? > [@](#): > > (5) What were the explosions that many people heard? The ones from the grassy knoll? There were a \*lot \*of sudden, sharp sounds from big things breaking during the collapses. Which are you characterizing as explosions, and why? > [@](#): > > (6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse? There couldn’t. Molten \*and re-hardened \*steel, sure, plenty of that. Molten because of the jet-fuel fire, re-hardened as it cooled off. Question for you: Do you think explosives cause mostly melting, or fracture? > [@](#): > > (7) How did the fire get so “bad” in a relatively modern structure that would surely pass code? Code does not and still does not require surviving a plane crash. > [@](#): > > (8) Why has no other skyscraper collapsed the way these three buildings did? What other skyscrapers have been hit by airlines full of fuel? ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/82 "2019-09-12T20:15:37Z")
All this talk of explosive residue testing (or a lack of) for WTC steel makes me wonder… when Kennedy was assassinated (either one), did they test for arsenic? I mean, how do we know it wasn’t poisoning that finished them off? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/83 "2019-09-12T20:30:28Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > It is so easy but you still cannot explain it. > > I refer you to the video above from the University of Alaska that states fire as well as debris and heat from WTC 1 and 2 did not cause the WTC 7 to collapse. Except I DID explain, in broad terms why it collapsed. It’s pretty simple, really. Debris, including flaming debris from the North/WTC 1(IIRC) tower crushed the building and took out key structural elements in the south facing facade as well as (again IIRC) on the 5th - 8th floors. In addition, said debris set the building on fire, including things like generator bunkers, but all sort of other of the myriad things that are flammable in buildings (paint, cleaning supplies, paper, furniture, etc etc etc). This fire was not able to be responded too…including the building fire suppression system, which was out ALSO knocked out…and since it wasn’t along the same priority (as well as the whole ‘nothing we can do with the water lines cut’ thingy) it was basically left burning. All day. So, a structure that was already weakened by having, literally, tons of debris hitting it, and a building that had a significant portion of it’s main structural elements which were in the facade destroyed by said debris was then left to burn, uncontrolled, for again literally hours. It’s a wonder it actually stayed up as long as it did, really. I don’t need to refer to any video or even bother to look this stuff up again as I’ve been over this multiple times. The debris from WTC 1 DID LEAD to the collapse. It didn’t cause it directly, since it took almost a full day for it to happen (IIRC, WTC 7 finally gave up the ghost and collapsed around 5pm that afternoon…THINK about that and consider that the first started by the debris were burning for all that time, unchecked). But it was the ultimate cause, and anyone saying it wasn’t is either lying or doesn’t know what they are talking about. End of story. I understand that you aren’t going to accept any of this. You aren’t. You don’t care that the building burned uncontrollably for nearly a full day, or what the ramifications of that are. You don’t care that key structural elements in the facade and even in the core were outright cut out or severely weakened by tons of debris falling on it from WTC 1. You want there to be some big mystery or coverup or whatever. But there really isn’t. It comes down to physics, material science and, well, just reality in the end. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/84 "2019-09-12T21:35:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A helluva lot of debris being blown sideways by 1 and 2 during their collapses hit 7. It’s been a few years, but the biggest impact damage to WTC7 was due to a very large chunk of core columns from the North Tower toppling over and smacking WTC7. With both the North and South Towers, the perimeter area collapsed quickly, but left behind and still standing, large sections of the massive core columns, which stood for a few seconds more before they fell apart. The core columns were strong vertically, but relied on connections to the tube structure of the perimeter columns to keep them upright. Once the perimeter was gone, the core columns failed, and one or more of those toppled to the north and hit WTC7, leaving a giant gouge all the way down its south face. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/85 "2019-09-13T00:08:35Z")
I guess CUNY (whose building at 30 West Broadway was rendered unusable by a large portion of 7 falling on it) and the congregation of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at 155 Cedar Street (literally crushed by a large portion of 2 falling on it) were “in on it”? If so, why would CUNY have bothered with a full renovation which was nearly complete when the building became unusable? ---
**Author:** ![LAZombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@LAZombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LAZombie)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/86 "2019-09-13T00:54:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The planes were scheduled to fly cross-country, and had about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel aboard. How much do you think it would take, and what is the basis for your belief?No, actually they didn’t. Typically in a demolition, the windows blow out, which wasn’t observed to happen. > > I was working for a company whose office was hit by the second plane, and none of them noticed anyone scurrying around planting explosives beforehand. I assume you know that buildings of that size fall down rather than sideways. > > And again, how did they know which floors the airplanes were going to hit so they could plant the explosives only there? That’s some pretty fancy flying from amateurs who don’t even know how to land. > > Also interested in hearing your response to the asbestos thing, if possible. > > Regards, > Shodan Hi Shodan, Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings. If this were a building in some Third World country, I might accept “the fires did it explanation”. But modern buildings have redundant measures to stop fires from spreading. Come on, it’s absurd to think the explosives were placed after the planes struck. If this was a controlled demolition, it was done before. There are theories that the 19 Hijackers were patsies and that others actually flew the planes. In a situation such as 911, I don’t assume anything really. I would think it would be hard to predict how a building struck by a plane would collapse. However, the University of Alaska seems pretty adamant and NIST models predict an asymmetrical collapse. As for the asbestos issue that I raised, I was simply repeating a theory raised by other commentators. Thank you for clarifying the issue and setting me straight. However, if there was asbestos abatement, the fire retardant protections that took the place of the asbestos should have protected the steel supports even more since they were newer and recently installed. This bolsters the idea that fire did not bring down these buildings. LAZ ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/87 "2019-09-13T01:09:24Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings. What about all the office furniture that was in those buildings? An ordinary furniture fire has brought down a steel-framed building approximately the same size as one Tower floor. Extrapolate that one floor to the Towers, what would such a loss of integrity have meant for the floors above and below? ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/88 "2019-09-13T01:20:24Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > … > > Come on, it’s absurd to think the explosives were placed after the planes struck. If this was a controlled demolition, it was done before. There are theories that the 19 Hijackers were patsies and that others actually flew the planes. > > … There is so much wrong with your whole post, but I only have the patience to comment on this part. I absolutely agree it would be absurd to think explosives were placed after they struck. But nobody anywhere here has ever said that (or did I miss it). I also find it absurd that there were any explosives planted at all. And if there were no explosives, then what does that leave? A plane strike and fire. A fire suppression system,\* if undamaged \* designed to keep small fires from becoming large fires. Like if someone’s cigarette in a trashcan or burned popcorn. Not thousands of gallons of fuel and the massive amount of heat that come from a big jet disintegrating at 500+ mph. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/89 "2019-09-13T01:25:14Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > I also find it absurd that there were any explosives planted at all. Do did the only demolition expert the Movement could find to agree with them on anything. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/90 "2019-09-13T01:42:35Z")
Another thing to keep in mind is that much of each Tower’s structural integrity was in the roof. Once the roof was gone, so was a whole bunch of stability. This can easily be seen with the collapse of 2, the top floors initially tilted toward the hole. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/91 "2019-09-13T01:47:25Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings. You’re awfully sure about things you admit to not knowing. > [@LAZombie](#): > > If this were a building in some Third World country, I might accept “the fires did it explanation”. But modern buildings have redundant measures to stop fires from spreading. There is nothing it the building code that talks about prevention of fire burning at these high temperatures. Additionally, an airliner is going to destroy most if not all of the infrastructure that prevents fires, on impact. How does a fire barrier withstand catastrophic impact of that magnitude? > [@LAZombie](#): > > Come on, it’s absurd to think the explosives were placed after the planes struck. If this was a controlled demolition, it was done before. There are theories that the 19 Hijackers were patsies and that others actually flew the planes. Before what? By whom? For what reason? Who were those others that flew the planes? What difference does it make who flew the planes? Did planes fly into buildings or didn’t they? > [@LAZombie](#): > > In a situation such as 911, I don’t assume anything really. I would think it would be hard to predict how a building struck by a plane would collapse. However, the University of Alaska seems pretty adamant and NIST models predict an asymmetrical collapse. Instead of speculating from ‘alternative facts’, why not actually read the [NIST FAQ](https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation) that addresses all these issues in a way that actually explains what happened. Or, you know, just keep rollin’ with the c.t. bullshit videos. Strap in: [Full set of final NIST reports](https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/92 "2019-09-13T04:02:17Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Explain this: > > (6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse? There could not and there was not. [http://911myths.com/html/wtc\_molten\_steel.html](http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html) Claims of “molten steel” are using casual language. Note the number of references to “red hot” metals. Molten steel is pale green. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/93 "2019-09-13T08:41:04Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Hi Shodan, > > Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings. Jet fuel has to carry some rather heavy planes a long way. And that means its really energy dense. Meaning, it burns **hot!** I don’t really see how much fuel could “evaporate” or “splatter away” in that kind of inferno. > [@LAZombie](#): > > If this were a building in some Third World country, I might accept “the fires did it explanation”. But modern buildings have redundant measures to stop fires from spreading. Not after a plane smashes through a building at umpteen miles per hour they don’t. Also, remember that the steel support structure is carrying the weight of all the floors above it. Heat weakens the strength of steel. More heat weakens it more. Every smith ever knows that. Its even an expression: Strike while the iron is hot. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/94 "2019-09-13T08:54:40Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Explain this: > > (1) Why did all three buildings collapse symmetrically as in a controlled demolition? Why wouldn’t they? How did you think they would collapse? > [@LAZombie](#): > > (2) Why did all three buildings collapse at free fall rates of speed ? Why wouldn’t they? What kind of speed should they collapse at? > [@LAZombie](#): > > (4) Why wasn’t the steel from the structures analyzed for explosives and why was it shipped to China for scrap rather than keeping for it for analysis of a crime beyond the government issued explanation? Why would it be analysed for explosives? Was in analysed for the bitemarks of goblins? And as people have shown, it was hardly shipped off. > [@LAZombie](#): > > (5) What were the explosions that many people heard? What kind of noises do you think towers like that will make when the concrete starts to shatter? > [@LAZombie](#): > > (6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse? There couldn’t and isn’t. Why would you think there would be? > [@LAZombie](#): > > (7) How did the fire get so “bad” in a relatively modern structure that would surely pass code? Because an airplane hit it. > [@LAZombie](#): > > (8) Why has no other skyscraper collapsed the way these three buildings did? Because fully fueled passenger airplanes haven’t hit them. What you are doing here is set out a lot of “why did”, like why did the towers fall at freefall speed, why did it look like a controlled demolition, without setting out why you think that is wrong and how you think the towers should behave. Tell us how you think it should have happened and how that differs from the real events. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/95 "2019-09-13T09:02:15Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > When a rebuttal is provided, do you a) reconsider your position based on new information; b) simply ignore the rebuttal and restate the already-rebutted point; c) move on to a new talking point without acknowledging that the rebuttal of the previous one has already put a serious dent in your theory; or d) b and c, but never a? > > If the answer is b, c or d, there is no point in either you asking or us answering your questions. So based on subsequent replies, the answer is d). Got it. ---
**Author:** ![namahoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/77aa72/32.png) [@namahoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/namahoo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/96 "2019-09-13T10:33:01Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > The stupidest thing about these Truther conspiracy theories is this: they would require the cooperation and ongoing silence of literally thousands of people[…] This is provably false. For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it _could_ have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously. One reporter who’s been putting forward a sketch of how it _could_ have been done is one Christopher Bollyn. I’m sure I’ll be told he kicks puppies or something. Ad hominem seems to be pervasive here. Keep plugging away. Cheers! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/97 "2019-09-13T11:01:12Z")
> [@namahoo](#): > > This is provably false. > > For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it _could_ have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously. > > One reporter who’s been putting forward a sketch of how it _could_ have been done is one Christopher Bollyn. I’m sure I’ll be told he kicks puppies or something. Ad hominem seems to be pervasive here. > > Keep plugging away. Cheers! Now we know where you actually stand on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/98 "2019-09-13T11:16:20Z")
> [@namahoo](#): > > This is provably false. > > For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it _could_ have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously. > > One reporter who’s been putting forward a sketch of how it _could_ have been done is one Christopher Bollyn. So I’m sure you can summarize his hypothetical, since you find it compelling. Who would be involved in this “fairly limited number of people”? A link would also be helpful, but note that merely linking other people’s YouTube videos is not in itself an argument. Also, I have no information on Bollyn’s treatment of puppies one way or the other. > [@](#): > > I’m sure I’ll be told he kicks puppies or something. Ad hominem seems to be pervasive here.! Look at the banner. See the bit about “fighting ignorance”? We tend to have a low tolerance for people who promote it, and a lower tolerance for people who wilfully ignore evidence. We have been around and around the Truther conspiracy theories ad nauseum for the better part of two decades. They don’t get any more convincing, and the vast majority of Truthers appear to be arguing in questionable faith. Look at **LAZombie** ’s “You can’t explain why WTC7 fell” statement even after it was already explained, and his continuing to ignore the even more substantive explanations afterwards. Why should we even bother answering the questions, when the responses merely get ignored? So you want to present a new study. You’re making an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence just for a start. Instead, you linked to a YouTube video, which is not a credible source for anything, and the one bit of detail you provided - about WTC7 collapsing in a way that could not have happened without deliberate intervention - is demonstrably false. In addition, pointing out that the author of the paper is not actually a “forensic structure engineer” and that the people who commissioned the report have a specific agenda they commissioned the report to support is not “ad hominem”; it is entirely germane to assessing the weight to be given to the report. You asked us “what we make of it”. We told you. You didn’t like it. You are welcome to put forth a robust counterargument - indeed, it would make a nice change - but don’t blame us if we don’t immediately fall to our knees aghast at the brilliance of it, like the subjects of some secular Jack Chick tract. ---
**Author:** ![Sparky812](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/99 "2019-09-13T11:16:29Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > For 18 years I believed the official government narrative and believed that Truthers were deranged individuals, then I decided to take the time to hear Truther arguments. They have some very disturbing points to make that resonate with me. Some things they say may be wrong or exaggerated or twisted to support their overall beliefs, but I have seen enough to say the official narrative is not correct. I joined this discussion to get a rebuttal to what I have recently learned. It is quite shameful that people feel the need to mock me when I just want a civil discussion. > > All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson. > > I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a “New Pearl Harbor” that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything. Except you’re basing your argument on opinions, beliefs, and falsehoods. > [@](#): > > I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. - False - unless you’re you an aerospace engineer or something? > [@](#): > > The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. False - the asbestos was not a “massive issue” and the cost of abatement (if even necessary) was not substantial, especially when amortized over the years it would take to complete. I don’t think you realize gross revenues that were generated by the WTC which is what made them the target of the attack. > [@namahoo](#): > > This is provably false. You’re gonna have to do better than that. Go ahead, prove it then. That said, I believe this could be one of the cons against legalization. ---
**Author:** ![namahoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/77aa72/32.png) [@namahoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/namahoo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/100 "2019-09-13T11:17:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Now we know where you actually stand on this matter. This is not a fair statement, and it would not be useful at any rate. My beliefs are entirely irrelevant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064.md?page=6)