The tunnels were barely de-stabilized at all. There is video footage of guys walking around down there after collapse looking for survivors. The carparks are mostly unaffected. There's a shopping area, same. There is some damage but the subway tunnels are mostly intact (though strewn with dust and debris). The whole underground WTC complex is bizarrely unscathed, except for the large gaping holes at ground zero down to the underground - but those don't correspond to the mass of the towers falling through the ground. They are in odd places, like where half of WTC 6 was for example.
Subterranean infrastructure doesn't hold up anything, it's generally built in such a way that it does not effect the load bearing of the surrounding material, which is supporting the buildings above.
Where buildings were built on "reclaimed land" from the Hudson, the foundations are actually laid on bedrock that would have been below the water and even sea/riverbed. This is ironically an even sturdier more reliable base to build on; than a higher up layer of compacted clay, earth, sand, whatever. The major risk with such building projects is water, flooding, since that is where the water naturally wants to be.
If you really want to be conspiracy-contrarian about the destruction of buildings in the WTC: you could bring up the fact that WTC7 had huge tanks of fuel that normal skyscrapers don't usually have - because of Mayor Giuliani's bizarre decision to put his "bunker" on a high-up floor there.
He was sharply criticized, and strongly advised not to put his bunker at such a location, expressly because it would require these large fuel tanks to be housed high up in the building (off-grid, emergency electricity generation for the emergency control center), creating a massive potential fire hazard in a high rise building. He did it anyway.
I think most people don't know about this when they mock the "out-of-control-fires" scenario with regards to WTC7 - but it could be (i don't know the exact amounts) that WTC7 actually had even more highly flammable liquid stored in it than the towers - so much that an out-of-control fire may actually structurally weaken it.
What if, of the 3 major building collapses that day - WTC7 - the "only one not hit by a plane" - was actually the most straight-forward, easily explainable collapse? Fires started by the collapse of the other buildings quickly became uncontrollable because of Rudy's massive fuel tanks. Wouldn't labeling it as the weirdest one and focusing attention on it, as the "9-11 truth-community" always does; wouldn't that be a great distraction from the utterly bizarre, impossible and inexplicable collapses of the two towers? Something to think about.
The tunnels were barely de-stabilized at all. There is video footage of guys walking around down there after collapse looking for survivors. The carparks are mostly unaffected. There's a shopping area, same. There is some damage but the subway tunnels are mostly intact (though strewn with dust and debris). The whole underground WTC complex is bizarrely unscathed, except for the large gaping holes at ground zero down to the underground - but those don't correspond to the mass of the towers falling through the ground. They are in odd places, like where half of WTC 6 was for example.
Subterranean infrastructure doesn't hold up anything, it's generally built in such a way that it does not effect the load bearing of the surrounding material, which is supporting the buildings above.
Where buildings were built on "reclaimed land" from the Hudson, the foundations are actually laid on bedrock that would have been below the water and even sea/riverbed. This is ironically an even sturdier more reliable base to build on; than a higher up layer of compacted clay, earth, sand, whatever. The major risk with such building projects is water, flooding, since that is where the water naturally wants to be.
If you really want to be conspiracy-contrarian about the destruction of buildings in the WTC: you could bring up the fact that WTC7 had huge tanks of fuel that normal skyscrapers don't usually have - because of Mayor Giuliani's bizarre decision to put his "bunker" on a high-up floor there.
He was sharply criticized, and strongly advised not to put his bunker at such a location, expressly because it would require these large fuel tanks to be housed high up in the building (off-grid, emergency electricity generation for the emergency control center), creating a massive potential fire hazard in a high rise building. He did it anyway.
I think most people don't know about this when they mock the "out-of-control-fires" scenario with regards to WTC7 - but it could be (i don't know the exact amounts) that WTC7 actually had even more highly flammable liquid stored in it than the towers - so much that an out-of-control fire may actually structurally weaken it.
What if, of the 3 major building collapses that day - WTC7 - the "only one not hit by a plane" - was actually the most straight-forward, easily explainable collapse? Fires started by the collapse of the other buildings quickly became uncontrollable because of Rudy's massive fuel tanks. Wouldn't labeling it as the weirdest one and focusing attention on it, as the "9-11 truth-community" always does; wouldn't that be a great distraction from the utterly bizarre, impossible and inexplicable collapses of the two towers? Something to think about.