Why Didn't WTC #5 & #6 Collapse?

www.google.com...

And of course, they never mentioned their own blunder (why would they, anyway? ) bollocks!

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by mybigunit

 

WT7 housed the SEC... also FEMA happened to be stationed there for "terrorist drills" during that same time period.. SEC was investigating someone very very important.. and all docs\data pertaining to said investigation was obviously destroyed... many reasons why..

It's customary to have external backups of important data somewhere safe, isn't it ?

I'll try to lay this out one more time, very slowly and a little clearer hopefully, for the people who still can't seem to wrap thier brains around this one, or insist on arguing against us just for the sake of arguing.

I won't even get into the thermate evidence, the microspheres, the "exercises" going on that day, the videos of bombs going off at street level that day, the testimony of William Rodriguez that bombs went off in the sublevels of the towers, the BBC reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed while it was still standing, the lack of shanksville wreckage, the 16 foot hole in the pentagon, the wrong engines planted at the sites, the Silverstein comment, or any of the other many many smoking guns that tell us we're being lied to about 9/11. I'll simply stick to the buildings since that is what this thread is about, but consider the small mountain of evidence while thinking about this as well, maybe it'll finally give you that break through you need.

Here's the Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain.
It burned for roughly 24 hours and had massive damage.

This caused a couple of floors to partially collapse, which is expected if a building burns uncontrolably for 24 hours, this is it the next day.

Look at all that damage, to this "traditional" building like WTC 7.
This did not happen to it.

Here again is WTC #5 engulfed in fire.

This caused a couple of floors to partially collapse, given the massive fires and the debris falling on it I have to say I expected some damage.

Yet it did not do this.

I don't have a video of 6 burning, but I think we can all agree given the damage that it probably looked more like 5 while burning than 7, and this is how it looked after.

Notice that the center of this building is now missing. All that damage and it's still standing, like a steel framed building could be expected to do.

Yet like building 5 and the Windsor Tower, it did not do this.

Now let's look at building 7.
Here's 7 again with a couple little fires, on a couple floors.
Please refer to the videos of the Windsor Towers and building 5 engulfed in flames above for comparison.

See? As I stated, a couple little fires on a couple floors. Can we all agree the fires in this building were NOTHING like the fires WTC 5 and the Windsor Tower experienced?

WTC 7 even sustained damage from falling debris, yet was standing afterwards.

Then all of a sudden that changes. All of the supporting columns of the building suddenly stop holding the building up, all at the same time.
NIST even now admits (now that a highschool teacher caught them lying and confronted them about it) that WTC 7 came down with an acceleration of 9.81 for approximately 2.25 seconds which is almost perfect freefall speed.

Here's what those couple of fires on a couple floors did to this building.
Keep in mind the massive damage to 5 and 6 and the Windsor Tower.

That doesn't seem right now does it? The fires were much worse in 5, 6 and the Windsor Tower, yet 7 just collapsed like a house of cards straight down into it's footprint at near freefall speed. It didn't tip over due to the damage at the base of one side as has been shown, it came straight down.
As a matter of fact it looked just like this, a demolition implosion.

Isn't that one hell of a coincidence? What are the odds that would happen?
The Windsor Tower, building 5, and building 6 all had massive fires and damage. NIST says building 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system.
Yet 5 and 6 and the Windsor Tower being of 'typical design' and having severe damage, didn't collapse into their own footprints like demolition implosions.

Now let's look at a couple buildings that have been decribed as "a building within a building" due to their robust construction which includes 47 massive steel columns.
First of all here's Frank A. DeMartini the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center. This is for the people who say that the WTC is just some hollow tube, and that it should have been expected to fall if a jet hit it.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

For those who actually believe that jetfuel brought down the towers here you go. Here's most of that jetfuel going up into giant fireballs.


Once again here is them on fire.

Look at the large clouds of dark smoke, this means that is an oxygen deprived fire. If a fire is starved of oxygen it will not burn as hot. Notice that Just like WTC 7 these buildings do not have raging infernos like WTC 5 and the Windsor Tower.

Here's what those minor fires did to these buildings with large robust central supports, that have been referred to as "a building within a building"

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Wondering why it didn't look like WTC 7 or the other implosion video?
That's because It's not the same type of demolition, these were a "top-down demolition" This is a much smaller building but it gets the idea across. If anyone can find video or a larger building being brought down with this type of demolition please post it.

I admit I should have layed it out more clearly like this to begin with.
Faced with this how can anyone say that everything happened as NIST said it did, and keep a straight face? There are too many holes in NIST's "official story" and they have even been forced to revise their report due to it's false information.
Regardless of the architects, engineers, and scientists who can all give mathematical and scientific evidence that these claims are not true, logic and common sense alone should be enough to tell you that you are being lied to.
If people insist on backing up the official story let them.
The rest of us know that it's all a lie.

reply to post by ashamedamerican

You said "Regardless of the architects, engineers, and scientists who can all give mathematical and scientific evidence that these claims are not true, logic and common sense alone should be enough to tell you that you are being lied to."
As soon as you apply some of that logic and common sense, more than the few fringe believers will pay attention to your arguments. WTC #6 did collapse. The center of the building was gone. WTC #7 was struck by the debris from 1 & 2 and about 4 stories of the front of the building was scooped out and main supports damaged, which is why it was leaning. The firefighters saw it and heard it start to fail, which is why the team was pulled. There is no evidence of demolitions on the scale that would be needed to bring down an undamaged building. The so-called thermite spilling from the tower was melted airplane. Yes it was orange and hot. Aluminum a few hundred degrees above its melting point looks like that. There is no evidence or logic to using thermal methods to bring down the #7 or any of the other buildings.
This complete lack of logic and common sense and the fact that the "inside job" myths have been debunked so many times by people who actually know the subject area, show that it is hardly worth the effort to try to explain it further too those that need to believe in a grand conspiracy hatched by people brilliant enough to plan such an event but too careless not to remove evidence found by amateur sleuths in video clips and website rants.
You have no evidence. You have no method. The motives claimed change by the post. You have nothing but an empty opinion and a baseless argument that will collapse on its own, much like WTC#7.

posted by pteridine
WTC #7 was struck by the debris from 1 & 2 and about 4 stories of the front of the building was scooped out and main supports damaged, which is why it was leaning.

WTC6 sat between WTC1 and WTC7 to the north. WTC7 is over 600 feet away from WTC2, and WTC1, WTC5, and WTC6 stood between them.





If the 47 story WTC7 was leaning, why didn't it keep leaning and lean some more, and topple over on top of WTC6? What made it lean backwards and sever the remainder of the 25 core columns and 58 perimeter columns and fall straight down? Why did it not visually lean until the roofline was over halfway to the ground? And why is the WTC7 debris pile essentially inside its own footprint, and not across the street towards WTC6 where you claim it was leaning towards?

What besides demolition explosives, cut all those core and perimeter columns so WTC7 could fall straight down, instead of falling to its alleged weak side? Yet WTC6 withstood all that massive damage and remained standing.








[edit on 12/15/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by pteridine

WTC #6 did collapse. The center of the building was gone.

The center of the building was gone, probably due to debris falling on it. Yet as the pictures I provided clearly show the building remained standing.

WTC #7 was struck by the debris from 1 & 2 and about 4 stories of the front of the building was scooped out and main supports damaged, which is why it was leaning.

If the building was leaning, that is all the more reason why you wouldn't have seen it fall straight down into it's footprint like a classic demolition implosion. As for it's "main supports damaged" can you provide any evidence for this claim?

The firefighters saw it and heard it start to fail, which is why the team was pulled.

That same team that FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini say wasn't there? Can you provide any evidence for this claim?

There is no evidence of demolitions on the scale that would be needed to bring down an undamaged building.

Well according to the wreckage and microspheres with the chemical fingerprint of thermate on them yes there is.
There is also this:

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

If the 1.3 DPP had been from computers, why had the EPA "never observed it in any sampling we've ever done"?
1.3 Diphenylpropane is found in 'sol-gels' used to hold thermite or thermate

There's also the potassium. Are you now going to tell me that the potassium came from a vitamin factory inside the WTC towers? Or maybe that they had emptied all the gold from the sublevels and were now storing bananas?
The manganese and potassium found could be easily explained by the use of potassium permanganate as an oxidizer.

The so-called thermite spilling from the tower was melted airplane. Yes it was orange and hot. Aluminum a few hundred degrees above its melting point looks like that.

Actually if you look at the research done by Dr. Steven Jones it proves that wrong. They have done multiple experiments with molten aluminum adding other things to it, in an attempt to make it appear this way and all of their experiments failed. Can you provide any evidence for this claim?

There is no evidence or logic to using thermal methods to bring down the #7 or any of the other buildings.

There IS evidence of "using thermal methods to bring down the #7 or any of the other buildings" the pools of molten metal under those three sites IS evidence. The logic for using "thermal methods" is because thermate cutting charges cut through steel columns "like a knife through butter." Can you provide any evidence for this claim?

You have no evidence. You have no method.

As a matter of fact we have the evidence, method, and many possible motives.

Do you have any evidence or proof you can provide us that backs up your claims? Or is this just your "empty opinion and a baseless argument that will collapse on its own"?

It's nice to damn others and attempt to make them look stupid with rhetoric, but you may find that when you can't provide evidence for your claims, and others provide evidence to refute your claims, it is not those who provided evidence for their claims that come out with egg on their face.

With all due respect, this is coming from the person who damned me for my ignorance and told me I should be ashamed because I didn't know how to spell thermite, when I was clearly talking about thermate instead.

I would do my homework before you pick up stones to throw if I were you.


[edit on 15-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

nice post ashamedamerican i gave you a star!

the debunkers almost had me on there side but your post is just to good and spells everything out in a perfect fashion.

I am not sure who planned this catastrophe out for sure.... but it was definitely planned.

Also keep in mind our government may not have planned it.... our government could be covering it up because we dont know who did it?? I would cover it up if I didnt know who did it as well... people would go insane pointing the finger at different governments and groups.

Originally posted by sciencenewby
Also keep in mind our government may not have planned it.... our government could be covering it up because we dont know who did it??

Our biggest problem here is the misleading language we use. I say misleading because it does not accurately portray how social order is maintained in this country.

When someone says "the government," I think of the whole government entity as it applies to me, from my local governments, to state, to federal. There is no way in hell all of those people would have known or had to have been involved.

Even if you just say "the federal government," that still encompasses all sorts of bureaucratic offices and etc. that were completely unrelated to 9/11.

So you think, what part of "the government" has the means, the motives, etc.?

The first and most obvious thing to come to mind is our military industrial complex, and it's close friends, our intelligence agencies. "The military" is not just the government. Our government has contracted out private companies for trillions of dollars of their spending. These private companies make a killing -- but only as long as we are killing each other. When there is no need, when our military is reduced, damn! You won't hear the end of it on TV and radio (and soon enough your redneck neighbors). That's because some of those same companies (GE, for exmaple) both manufacture bombs for our military and own majority stock in major media (GE, in our example, owns NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC).

These are massive corporations that get fat from military spending, and own our media, creating a massive conflict of interest for the American people.

These same corporations lobby your politicians. And which has a closer link to "the military," after all?

The picture that emerges is more complex to analyze than just saying "the government." We can be confident that the details of the actual execution of it, things like that, were on a strictly need-to-know basis. Standard military procedure, for example, is to misinform about everything except what needs to be known to do the job properly. Whoever knew or didn't know, we obviously don't know exactly who it was.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by bsbray11]

I think it is more complex than the amount of damage that the pictures project. Whether or not you believe there was any sort of controlled demolition, you must admit that this is not a video game where buildings have hit points and the building comes down after so many hit points. It also is not enough to say that it is "common sense" that a tower that sustains what you percieve as little damage cannot collapse in the manner it did. Common sense is a way too overused phrase.

The factors that go into the destruction of buildings in a chaotic event are too complex for amateur picture and video analyst no matter how damning a video may seem to a viewer. You do not have to believe the NIST reports but you also must accept that you may not ever be able to understand or comprehend the whole situation. It is easy to make assumptions and it is also easy to be suspicious of coincidences. Happens every day to all sorts of ordinary people in all sorts of non-conspiracy (and occasionally conspiracy) situations. Just cause something looks like it should collapse to you does not mean it will and just because something looks structurally sound to you does not mean it is not about to collapse in a manner that you can not understand.

Question: why demolish the WTC towers so that they fell straight down to ebb collateral damge and then place high explosives to cause large chunks to go flying to increase collateral damage? Seems counterproductive. How should a tower behave when it collapses in a non-demolition situation? If a large plane hit a tower that was meant to stop planes (albiet smaller jets), and if that tower went critical, what would you expect the damage to look like?

Originally posted by newagent89
Question: why demolish the WTC towers so that they fell straight down to ebb collateral damge and then place high explosives to cause large chunks to go flying to increase collateral damage? Seems counterproductive. How should a tower behave when it collapses in a non-demolition situation? If a large plane hit a tower that was meant to stop planes (albiet smaller jets), and if that tower went critical, what would you expect the damage to look like?

The towers could not be demolished in a conventional manner, because of their size and proximity to other buildings. No building that tall had ever been demolished before. So they probably decided not to worry too much about 'collateral damage'.

..."It's $2.6 Billion just to erect the two scaffolds to surround both buildings, that's only the beginning. They literally have to re-build them, then un-build them, twice! -Now it's obvious, bottom-line is that the developer will have to sell soon, or take a serious bath; ...Total?- You tell me, $4.5 Billion, or so!" (I forgot his figures.)

-"Why now?" I asked. "They still seem really stable, -architecturally."

"They are much too big. It's come down to a piece-by-piece problem. They simply can't be imploded, we know of no other way. Why do you think they hired me for 10 years to find other solutions? I'm not a structural specialist, just an architect, and a pretty damn good one at that! "...

Source

In a non-demolition situation the towers should not have collapsed at all, period. But if they did happen to collapse it would not have been a total global, symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speed. No indication of resistance of any kind. How do you explain the lack of resistance from undamaged structural element? Don't say the weight of the floors, that's ridiculous. First you have to explain how the collapse initiated, which NIST failed to do. NIST wants you to think the global collapse was inevitable. Nonsense, nothing is inevitable, and there is NO precedence to refute that fact.

The towers were too tall and too skinny to allow for a conventional, 'in its footprint' collapse. The way they normally do it is to collapse the center of the building first (see WTC7 collapse) so that the outer walls fall to the center. Using conventional method on such a tall building would have more likely caused the outer walls to just fall outwards, causing more damage than what it did.

For a floor to totally collapse asymmetrically onto another, all the structure holding that floor would have to fail equally, at the same time. How did that happen? How could fire evenly heat up all the columns to cause them all to fail? Even if one column remained standing you would not see an symmetrical collapse. Even if that one column stands for seconds longer than any other, the collapse would not have been symmetrical. Any resistance would be obvious.

In a professional controlled demolition that goes wrong, it's usually because the explosives fired out of sequence, causing the building to fall asymmetrically.

Good morning guys. It's almost 2009.

WTC7 is over 600 feet away from WTC2, and WTC1, WTC5, and WTC6 stood between them.

Why are you lying ?

WTC 7 was just over 300 feet from WTC1 which when collapsed showered
South face with debris .

WTC 5 and 6 were 9 stories, WTC 1 was 110 story, WTC 7 was 47

WTC 1 was over 1300 ft tall and had a 360 ft tv tower on its roof

If you look at the map notice that WTC 5 is not in line between WTC 1
and WTC 7 and would not have shielded WTC 7 from the debris


The top section of WTC 1 as it collapsed fell onto WTC 7 which because
of the height easily cleared WTC 6 and hit the south face of WTC 7

Fantastic thread and I take my hat of to you for sticking it to the debunkers. But I also feel total frustration that after seven years the debate is still raging over wether this is an inside job or not, instead of who were they and how can we bring them to justice. Coming from a country that is looking from the outside in, do Americans realize how #$%@ rediculous they are looking right now, the rest of the world can see what is going on in the US, why cant US citizens? Your government has been hijacked for a long time now and 911 should have shown all Americans just how far they are willing to go to push there agendas, but no, you all sit around arguing over wether they did it or not. I bet in another seven years, when your all pennyless, you will still be debating who stole all the countries money. Your parents should be ashamed of you all, why arent you out in mass on the streets marching on washington and bringing the criminal thieving barstads to justice, tell me have you ever seen an American president have shoes thrown at them before, this is the type of sentiment growing towards America from around the world. Your country has caused the deaths of millions in phony wars, ripped of the rest of the world with your phony economy and totally shamed yourselves with your phony justice system that allows people to be president that were not elected, people to be detained for years with no charges, investigations into things like 911 be totally manipulated, places like chicago to be ruled by criminals and now let someone be elected without a simple thing like a bith certificate, I used to love America, even looked up to you guys, but you cant respect something that has no respect for its self. Your government was involved in the 911 attacks!!! that is fact to most of the world, and the longer the American people dance around this fact the less and less you are respected, face up to the truth and do something about it before it is to late, 911 was just the start, look at what is happening to your economy at the hands of the same criminals, this is redirection of wealth on a massive scale and if you sit around debating wether someone ripped you of or not instead of who is ripping you of, then its goodbye America.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Rather than go through your points one by one, I will refer you to two sites that address the issues in great detail. Allowing the readers to read through the detailed explanations on these sites will be better than providing short summaries. They may select from a menu and look at those they think are most important. They seem complete as to the topics covered but I don't know if they have answers to all the questions that were asked. Perhaps this will help kill the repetitious threads on the same topics that pop up reguarly and force some new thinking...or realization that the motives and evidence for conspiracy is sparse, at best.
One big issue that many might not have considered is the money to be made by perpetuating the 911 conspiracy theories by people with no interest but that money. The "Loose Change" makers started the movie as a fiction and then decided to make some cash by faking a documentary. As I was searching for these sites, I found a you tube clip showing them facing off against Popular Mechanics editors. The Loose Change team showed up as the empty heads that they are, no surprise.

www.debunking911.com...

www.popularmechanics.com...

reply to post by pteridine


Both of those sites have already been proven to give false information.
Since you don't provide evidence of your claims when asked to, I will not either.

Nice try though.

posted by pteridine
WTC #7 was struck by the debris from 1 & 2 and about 4 stories of the front of the building was scooped out and main supports damaged, which is why it was leaning.

posted by SPreston
WTC7 is over 600 feet away from WTC2, and WTC1, WTC5, and WTC6 stood between them.

posted by thedman
Why are you lying ?

WTC 7 was just over 300 feet from WTC1 which when collapsed showered
South face with debris .

WTC 5 and 6 were 9 stories, WTC 1 was 110 story, WTC 7 was 47

WTC 1 was over 1300 ft tall and had a 360 ft tv tower on its roof

If you look at the map notice that WTC 5 is not in line between WTC 1
and WTC 7 and would not have shielded WTC 7 from the debris

The top section of WTC 1 as it collapsed fell onto WTC 7 which because
of the height easily cleared WTC 6 and hit the south face of WTC 7

Next time, learn to read before you accuse me of lying. It seems your favorite tactic is to deliberately take your enemies out of context and accuse them of lying. The post was not even directed at you.

You people claim WTC7 was leaning towards WTC6, but it certainly did not lean into the street between WTC7 and WTC6 did it? And that is exactly what you are; our enemy.



Original image

reply to post by ashamedamerican

What information is false? Do all sites that do not agree with you give false information? Would you believe the delusional Professor Jones before you would believe the rest of his university? Do you have a monetary interest in perpetuating these conspiracies?

You mentioned something about 1,3 -diphenylpropane. It's a thermolysis product of polystyrene. Does it need to be something more sinister? Are you finished with the thermite idea yet or do you still think tons of thermite with coffer dams could have been prepositioned around support columns without anyone noticing? I told you why it isn't used to cut verticals and why it can't be timed for a sumultaneous drop. The amount of explosive needed to drop #7 without precuts and boreholes would be enormous. Have you figured out an explanation yet?

If you can't get enough false information on the debunking sites, go onto the 911 conspiracy sites. They have cornered the market on false information, technical ignorance, and fear mongering.

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston,
My, your panties are certainly in a twist. When you are done frothing, sign me up on your enemy list and I'll just learn to live with it.
Meanwhile, you can take heart that most people know that there was no conspiracy, other than the nutjobs that flew airplanes into our buildings and killed our people. If you really need an enemy, that might be a good place to start.

reply to post by pteridine


With all due respect, you provide lots of rhetoric with no evidence, proof, or sources.
You're very good at slandering people based on assumptions.

Until you can provide sources for your baseless assumptions, there is no point in replying to you.
I have addressed most if not all the points you just made, yet you insist on rehashing them as if they had not been layed to rest.
I will not go over these things again and again, just because you either do not read the sources I supply, or refuse to accept reality.

Read over this thread and the other 9/11 threads I have posted in and you will see all of your questions answered.