WTC 3 Parts of Structure still Standing. No Complete Collapse Despite Severe Damage

How does a building that takes a beating like WTC 3 have columns still standing, if WTC 7 had much less
exterior damge from falling debris?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d0c36da5c42.png[/atsimg]

I guess if we really wanted to see it fall at near free fall speeds, we should have set it on fire?

reply to post by turbofan



Not to mention, that even after another 110 story building collapses on top of it(wtc1). Wtc3 was still standing, being reduced to a four story building, but still not completely collapsing. A great picture of it, after having two 110 story buildings collapse on it, here:en.wikipedia.org... (second pic from the top)The building had 18 floors literally flattened by the second collapse, yet still withstood full collapse. Saving 14 peoples lives, who believe it or not, were actually in that building while it was crushed down to a 4 story building.

I guess though, when you think about it, that day, the large buildings crumbled like cards while small buildings like wtc3 and wtc4 were able to stand strong.


*Maybe someone can embed the picture

Originally posted by PersonalChoice

*Maybe someone can embed the picture

Here ya go...



Funny how that pesky resistance worked just fine for every building but three huh?

reply to post by turbofan

I guess if we really wanted to see it fall at near free fall speeds, we should have set it on fire?

Nah, it just needed something that someone wanted to dissapear inside of it..
No fire required...

reply to post by backinblack


The reason why WTC 3 did not fall is because it was not a target on 911. It was not hit by a plane and it wasnt built wtc tough. You truthers are grasping at straws.

Wtc 3 was pulled (by cables) down.



Sorry for the sarcasm. I had to answer like an ats debunker and I will tell you, I used no intelligence to respond. Debunkers got it easy.

"severe damage" is a bit of understatement o.O . Is that one or 2 buildings? Looks like somebody went Salomon on it.

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by turbofan

 

Not to mention, that even after another 110 story building collapses on top of it(wtc1). Wtc3 was still standing, being reduced to a four story building, but still not completely collapsing. A great picture of it, after having two 110 story buildings collapse on it, here:en.wikipedia.org... (second pic from the top)The building had 18 floors literally flattened by the second collapse, yet still withstood full collapse. Saving 14 peoples lives, who believe it or not, were actually in that building while it was crushed down to a 4 story building.

I guess though, when you think about it, that day, the large buildings crumbled like cards while small buildings like wtc3 and wtc4 were able to stand strong.

You contradicted yourself, truther.

How can over 80% of a building be crushed, killing 40 people; still be called "standing strong?"

WTC 4 was damaged beyone reapir and was torn down... how exactly were they standing strong?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by turbofan

 

I guess though, when you think about it, that day, the large buildings crumbled like cards while small buildings like wtc3 and wtc4 were able to stand strong.

You contradicted yourself, truther.

How can over 80% of a building be crushed, killing 40 people; still be called "standing strong?"

WTC 4 was damaged beyone reapir and was torn down... how exactly were they standing strong?

edit on 26-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

I know your smarter than that SS, why is it you debunkers must always feel the need to counter with name calling and accusation, splitting hairs with facts.

WTC 3 and 4 were standing strong, especially 4, when you compare them to the rest of the complex. WTC 1,2, and 7 were completely flattened. Yes, wtc3 had 18 floors destroyed killing 40 people, but 4 stories of the building resisted and withstood the collapses of both Towers. Saving 14 of the 54 people that were in the building still. WTC4, suffered severely from falling debris and was literally a raging inferno, yet the entire 9 story building withstood all of that and still needed to be CD'd months later.

I think it's safe to say, those two buildings stood strong and performed a whole heck of a lot better than WTC7. Which suffered minimal damage from the collapse of the north tower, suffered a building fire that was not all that spectacular, and supposedly collapsed completely due to the loss of one column.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

The reason why WTC 3 did not fall is because it was not a target on 911. It was not hit by a plane and it wasnt built wtc tough. You truthers are grasping at straws.

Neither was WTC7 and it copped much less damage also..
Us truthers don't need straws, you believers give us enough air to tell the truth...

Originally posted by turbofan
How does a building that takes a beating like WTC 3 have columns still standing, if WTC 7 had much less
exterior damge from falling debris?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d0c36da5c42.png[/atsimg]

I guess if we really wanted to see it fall at near free fall speeds, we should have set it on fire?

Wow! You mean that different structures, under different circumstances and subject to different stresses may have different outcomes?????

So, this kind of puts away the old "first time in history" argument. Thanks for clearing that up.

First time? If I'm not mistaken, buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not suffer a total collapse but in comparison #7
which had a few chips and bruises in comparison came down in a handful of seconds.

"Good" observation Hoop! It's fine though, I don't expect you to change your mind, or think it through logically.

That's why I gave up debating 9/11. I'm just here to spread the news.

Originally posted by turbofan
First time? If I'm not mistaken, buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not suffer a total collapse but in comparison #7
which had a few chips and bruises in comparison came down in a handful of seconds.

You're calling 10 floors of the southwest corner being gouged away "a few chips and bruises"?

reply to post by turbofan

"Good" observation Hoop! It's fine though, I don't expect you to change your mind, or think it through logically.

So what exactly is your "logic"? That whatever happens to one building, the same must happen for all buildings that you think look like first building?

reply to post by hooper


No the logic is, according to that pesky physics stuff, that resistance should resist collapse, unless all resistance is removed at the same time, and in the correct sequence, to cause a building to completely collapse into its footprint.

As you can see WTC 3 (etc.) managed to resist its own complete collapse into its footprint, even though it was heavily damaged.

Yet WTC 7, a much taller building, which had far less damage, and only to one side, managed to completely collapse into its footprint with absolutely no resistance from its own structure...

Would you believe it, a "debunker" brought this one up to me while failing to debunk something. Always makes me pity the poor saps when their own arguments go ass backwards.

Very good points, which tend to provide the results you have seen.

A lack of debunkers//

They run when they cant prove something wrong with versions of the official lie.

Even tho it has been proven with the findings of thermite in the dust alone that the official story is bull.... They still quote it like as some Christians use the bible as historical fact.

reply to post by 007Polytoks


No, its a matter of having already been pointed out that different style buildings, different damage suffered, different outcome. No need for the rest of us debunkers to pile in to point out the realities of the day. Of course, if you want us to.......

reply to post by ANOK

No the logic is, according to that pesky physics stuff, that resistance should resist collapse,

Huh? "Resistance should resist"? And exactly how did you establish that NO resistance was offered? Your Mickey Mouse watch and Youtube videos? As far I know there were no accelormeters in those buildings so how was it that you determined that the resistance was a perfect zero?

unless all resistance is removed at the same time, and in the correct sequence, to cause a building to completely collapse into its footprint.

At the same time AND in the correct sequence?? Well if its at the same time then the correct sequence must be 0.

As you can see WTC 3 (etc.) managed to resist its own complete collapse into its footprint, even though it was heavily damaged.

Yet WTC 7, a much taller building, which had far less damage, and only to one side, managed to completely collapse into its footprint with absolutely no resistance from its own structure...

As you can see from the quote above "footprint" is an ever changing definition.

reply to post by vipertech0596


So you are stating that WTC7 was build to withstand less damage than WTC3,4,5,6, The Verizon Building, and the U.S post office?

A building that housed CIA, and DOD headquarters not able to withstand long term fires. Built with less ability to resist fires/structural damage than WTC3? A hotel?

Strange how the 32 story building in Spain burnt for more than 24 hours with way more damage than WTC7 visible, you mean to tell me this hotel was built better than DOD headquarters?

Do "American" engineers always build their most important buildings crappier than they make hotels in Spain? Maybe you should have taken some tips from them before you built that new one..... Or at least used some of their steel, this stuff seems not to bend like the steel they use in "America".

Don't bother using logic and physics there 007,

These guys are not here to understand; they are here to spin and twist facts.

You know, if WTC 3 was painted green, it would have collapsed faster...straight down even.

Originally posted by 007Polytoks
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Strange how the 32 story building in Spain burnt for more than 24 hours with way more damage than WTC7 visible, you mean to tell me this hotel was built better than DOD headquarters?

Do "American" engineers always build their most important buildings crappier than they make hotels in Spain? Maybe you should have taken some tips from them before you built that new one..... Or at least used some of their steel, this stuff seems not to bend like the steel they use in "America".

edit on 2-2-2011 by 007Polytoks because: (no reason given)

Yes, you would be suprised at the difference in engineering and construction in Spanish buildings. The average US home is a cardboard box compared to the average house in Spain. Everything is brick, mortar, and steel construction. Things don't fall down or blow away here.