I was surprised not to find a thread about this. If there is one and I missed it, I apologize in advance.

Here is a video of WTC building #5 on fire.
If people call WTC building #7 a 'raging inferno' as I have heard some call it, then what would they call this?

YouTube Link

Here is a photo of it after the fire.
Full Size Image here.

WTC building #6 was also standing after fires.
There is a duscussion about how it was demolished here:
How was the WTC 6 pulled?
Surprisingly, I can't find any photos or videos of it burning so please post one if you can.

As a matter of fact the center of the building was missing, yet it did not collapse, eventhough it was clearly damaged way worse than any other building that day.

These next photos and videos are just for referrence.

Here are a couple photos of WTC building #7 on fire.


This was the result of those fires.

YouTube Link

Here is a picture of the towers burning.

Here is what happened to the south tower.

Google Video Link

Here is what happened to the north tower.

Google Video Link

What's wrong with this picture?

I like it. Star and flag for you. Great presentation.

This has been discussed here many times, but the debunkers just ignore it or hand wave it away.

But still it's good to revive this and good thread, you put it in perspective nice and simply, hard to deny with a straight face. Shows what a fallacy the idea that WTC7 was a raging inferno, and suffered catastrophic damage is.

But of course WTC7 was a 'unique design' lol, and the debunkers will just refuse to see the connection, claiming different designed buildings, or some other rubbish.

But of course it couldn't have been explosives that did it, cause cause cause...it would take too much explosives to cause a collapse...
It just has to have been that unverified catastrophic damage and those huge raging fires, yeah that's it, and if we say it often enough it might come true...

WTC 7 took the major blunder of the callaspes of the twin towers if u examine the videos taken from sky view u will see most of the debris landing on it.

There was a big hole in the WTC7 before it callaspe. A fireman on seen at the time said they evacuated people from WTC7 because the building was leaning and is going to callaspe because of the damage.

This is so old and been talked about million of times.





[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

Well im a nut so im just gunna say..

They was demolished and that one wasnt..

Simple!

To much odd stuff happend on that day way to many ifs and buts.. and some very clear evidence..

"pull it"
"No plane hit the pentigon"
"Floors being renivated befor the attacks"
"No one in the command center" WTC7
"Head qauters for the cia in NYC" Held enron papers "apperntly"
"BBC reports it fell 5 or 10mins befor it infact did"
"War games held on the same day"
"Cheny takes the shoot down order away from the pres" and uses it to tell the command not to shoot down the planes "this is automatic and done by genrals incase of an attack"

Just to name afew - nothing odd about what you show here just the truth

It didnt fall down becouse it didnt get DEMOLISHED simple is simple as!!

flagged!

Please quantify exactly what you mean with the word 'major'?


Please quantify what you mean by the word 'most'?

You do realise that the NIST report stated that WTC 7 suffered only seven severed columns, from the WTC 1 impact damage?

You do realise that the NIST report stated that even without the structural damage, that WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires alone?


I guess it's worth discussing one more time until people get it right, huh?

Yes we can all see from the pictures that WTC building #7

Looked like it had taken alot more damage than this building.


Can you point me to the thread that is about why WTC buildings #5 & #6 didn't collapse?
I searched and didn't find anything.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

I also find it odd that these buildings didn't collapse. It is a well known fact that buildings 5, 6, and 7 were structurally identical and recieved exactly the same amount of damage. lol.

I think its because Larry could not get through to the fire chief to tell him to 'pull' buildings 5 and 6. As an aside, i went to the store yesterday and there was a sign on the door that said 'pull'. Why did the government put a sign there telling me to blow up the building ??? This is a conspiracy worth talking about !!!

=p

I've always thought about this but never bothered to look it up. Ye! a compilation.

Sure WTC 7 took a hit from some debris, but to say it absorbed most of the dmg from the tower collapse is stretching it. 5 & 6 were more or less built in the shadows of 1 & 2, the towers fell ON TOP of them.

WTC 7 on the other hand was across the street from 1 & 2 and somehow managed to fall into its footprint while the buildings immediately adjacent to it were spared the "catastrophic damage" and "raging fires" and remained nearly untouched.

I find it odd that you debunkers continue to attribute the collapse of 7 mostly to splash damage, forever parroting the " big hole in the corner" line (iirc the "hole" used to be a "buldge"). If there was that much damage on one side, and it was already leaning then dont you think it would have fallen more um, naturally should I say.

So whose the culprit, the debris that reportedly damaged 7 of 25 core columns or the seemingly invisible multi floor inferno and "thermal expansion"



[edit on 12/14/2008 by JKersteJr]

starred and flagged lets see what the "debunkers" have to say ... if anything at all...

Let me give my post in the form of a question. Why would they take down WTC 1,2,7 but then not blow up the 5 & 6? If this was planned then why were the others not taken out?

reply to post by mybigunit

---

Thats simple, 1 & 2 were both required for maximum shock value and 7 was the speculated HQ for some of the events on 9/11, it also housed offices for FBI, CIA, Secret Service, as well as information regarding the Enron scandal, the list goes on.

Ok so did they want to cover up things that were done by Enron and the FBI and CIA? I mean isnt all the stuff stored on computers anyways? What was in 5 & 6? Any major arm of government? I actually heard there was a ton of gold under one of the WTC.

Not to mention they really didn't need to did they, as I pointed out 5 and 6 are RIGHT next to 1 & 2 and suffered tremendous damage.

reply to post by mybigunit

---

Well yes, thats the point, there was incriminating evidence in WTC 7 and it was all conveniently destroyed, also take into account insurance policies, not sure offhand if 7 was re-insured shortly before 9/11 like 1 & 2 were.

Yes there was hundreds of millions of dollars in silver/gold in basements vaults of WTC 4, and they also never found that. I do not know what what was in 5 and 6, why does it matter?

WTC 7 Insurance Details

Silverstein was awarded 861 million off an 386 million investment on 7, need I say more?

[edit on 12/14/2008 by JKersteJr]

Your right, this is an old topic. One thing I will ask from you is to PLEASE show me how WTC 7 took more damage. The real fact is that 5 and 6 both sustained more damage than 7 and still remained standing.

Just look at THIS PHOTO and you can clearly see WTC 5 with a HUGE hole in the roof, 6 does not look too bad from the top and 7 is so nicely planted as one rubble between the 2 and yet did not damage the sides of the building.

Better praise Jesus.... clearly it's another miracle and act of God /sarcasm

Yes all that stuff was stored on computers, and they were kept with the paper trail... and surprise surprise..... both the computers and paper files were all stored in WTC 7..... but that's just one coinicedence in a long line of coinicedences's