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

WTC7 was demolished for the purpose of making WTC 1&2 look like they were demolished also. The more questions and confusion the better, for the perps & coverup planners.


WTC1&2 were intrinstically flawed, bound to collapse exactly as they did...
the quick minded intel mobilized at the opportunity to coverup the massive info on frauds in gold & equities housed in WTC7, & to bring a consensus of thinking that WTC1&2 were also pre-sabotaged to collapse.
A False-Flag of a False-Flag operation as it were

WTC Tenant List

There is a list of tenants, no list of CIA/FBI but then again I wouldn't expect them to be =)

Just browse over the list for every building and try telling me your not fighting the obvious feeling of a coverup.

Viewing the buildings in question from above

WTC6 with huge hole in center

WTC5 with large hole

WTC6 - top WTC5 - bottom WTC7 - right

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..

I think you should have added in the video of the Madrid skyscraper on fire. It was like a 40 story giant torch... a true inferno. And it never collapsed. By looking at sizes of the buildings fires, and then what the results, it is a very serious piece of evidence of what really happened that day.

In the Madrid case, the top 11 stories eventually collapsed after a very large number of hours, but the rest remained intact. However the building was under construction and one would expect the top stories to be incomplete.



[edit on 14-12-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest


Here's your video.

This is another very good point to be made
The Windsor Tower in Madrid burned uncontrollably for 24 hours.
It did not collapse.

reply to post by truthquest


While the Madrid fire is a very key reference point for our arguement, bringing it up anymore just results in no acknowledgement or claims that it is not comparable to WTC 1 & 2 because it wasn't struck by aircraft or doused w/ jet fuel, and doesn't work w/ WTC 7 either because 7, had a "massive hole" in the S face which, btw nobody has ever seen proof of.

Of course we know thats just maneuvering and splitting hairs though, common sense should dictate your thinking here.

It would be safe to assume that both world trade center buildings, and building number seven, had offices and documents that were blocking, or were seen as an obstacle, of the New American Century plans.

Seems logical to me.

The interesting thing about all of this... why are Americans allowing digital television to proceed?

All this rant about microchips, the Patriot Act, wireless taps, ufo's with no proof, aliens with no proof, the Disclosure Project b.s.....

Where in the hell is the proof PEOPLE????


WHERE IS THE PROOF???????

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

Because they were rigged with the Fourth/Fifth generation pure fusion NDEWs with tailor-made yield effects and not with the accompanying thermite/thermate type charges like at WTC 1, 2, and 7.

The design-manipulated, directed, upward, cylindrical linear plasma/blast effects initially started at the base of these towers it seems possible to me from the photos.

Given some other circumstantial evidence (pre-collapse, seemingly ground originated tremor(s), peculiarly burnt/melted vehicles, power-outage), I consider the possibility that the DEW effects believed witnessed by some may not have originated from above.

Just my 'moon-bat' opinion.

That was indeed some great pics and presentation.
The reason #5 & #6 didn't collapse like #7 is because
it was not a controlled demolition like the others.

reply to post by JKersteJr


Still a valid point, we all saw most of the jetfuel burn up in that huge fireball, and it did burn for 24 hours with collapses on the top floors, yet it did not do this.

Originally posted by amfirst
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.

I will examine the videos if you provide the one I am to watch.

Originally posted by amfirst
There was a big hole in the WTC7 before it callaspe.

What side of the building (N,S,W,E) was the hole on? How big is the whole?!

Originally posted by amfirst
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.

Who is the fireman? Where was his statement made? If the building was leaning, which direction was it leaning?! When it collapsed why was there
a level collapse? The collapse did not seem to angle towards some hole
which caused the building to lean? It went straight down.

Originally posted by amfirst
This is so old and been talked about million of times.

You are right it is old. About 7 years old.
Does that mean people should stop questioning what they saw.
It was the first time in history that a building was brought down
by a structure fire. And it happened 3 times in one day.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

video.google.com...

this is a video that should be added to this thread. Sometimes the man who delivers the information is as important than the knowledge itself when it comes to convincing the masses.

Originally posted by SPreston
Viewing the buildings in question from above

WTC6 with huge hole in center

WTC5 with large hole

WTC6 - top WTC5 - bottom WTC7 - right

I have always thought those pictures of 5&6 look as if they were bombed with planted explosives. Those "holes" look exactly like bomb craters and it is odd how 5&6 have similar craters????

I was watching the video and something interesting happened. I clicked to move forward some and it popped up a screen that said "This video is not available. Please check back later."

here is another one to add to your list AA:

TMonday is the 25th anniversary of the Nov. 21, 1980, fire which caused the deaths of 87 people. For want of sprinklers.

Where the sprinklers had been installed, they clearly worked. But sprinklers weren't anywhere near where the fire broke out behind a wall near a serving station at The Deli that Friday morning about 7:10 a.m. The Deli had received an exemption for sprinklers because it was supposed to be a 24-hour restaurant. It was assumed someone would always be there to put out a fire.

But then the hours changed and The Deli wasn't open all the time. It was closed when the fire erupted.

The fire, caused by an electrical ground-fault, smoldered for hours before breaking through the wall.

Sprinklers could have put it out then. Instead, the fire fed off flammable plastic and paper, even the pictures of movie stars encased in plastic, all fodder for the state's deadliest fire, which was also the nation's second-deadliest hotel fire at that time.

(emphasis mine.)

OTher articles I've read about this fire indicated that the blaze was fueled by the glue used to affix wallpaper and ceiling tiles. The building was virtually saturated with this acetone-based glue.

For comparason purposes, acetone ignites at 465 °C (869 °F) while jet fuel ignites at about : 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).

So theoretically this fire in the bottom floors of the hotel would have burned much hotter than the WTC fires... yet no collapses.

It would be interesting to see a full comparison between these two fires.

BTW does anyone know what happened to buildings 3 &4? I rarely hear them mentioned, I wonder if the kind of damage they took could shed any clues?

[edit on 14-12-2008 by asmeone2]

Originally posted by amfirst
There was a big hole in the WTC7 before it callaspe.

Oh, and there weren't holes in WTC5 and 6? Hell, half of WTC4 was just gone!


Look what WTC4 looked like before the collapses:




Now look at all that was left of it:






Here's an aerial showing WTC5's impact damages:




WTC5 burning:

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Oh I totally agree, it should be obvious to most the amount of jet fuel cosumed in the initial fireball. To think that a steel framed building like that burned for that long without suffering a total collapse, but WTC 1 & 2 fell into themselves after a little over an hour and a little less than an hour of isolated carbon fires is silly.

reply to post by asmeone2


Buildings 3 and 4 much like 5 and 6 were located more or less in the shadows of the towers, so they were enveloped and pulverised w/ debris. Not much more than 1 wall section left of 3 and 4 was smashed down the middle.

Originally posted by JKersteJr
reply to post by asmeone2

 

Buildings 3 and 4 much like 5 and 6 were located more or less in the shadows of the towers, so they were enveloped and pulverised w/ debris. Not much more than 1 wall section left of 3 and 4 was smashed down the middle.

Guess no one had to bother to pull them :/