It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Didn't WTC 5 Collapse ?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
We have all seen the few fires burning in WTC7 , and yet this building collapsed

into its own footprint.

WTC5 was a 9 story building , had the hull of the airplane from the South Tower

crash fall on its roof, according to FEMA.

When OS posters talk of building 7 , they use terms like Engulfing fire.

Check out the video to SEE A ENGULFING FIRE. NO COLLAPSE

It was severely damaged from the collapse of both WTC1 and WTC2 , and had

fires MORE engulfing than 1,2 or 7 .
IT DIDN'T COLLAPSE

It was brought down in the clean up of the site.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by Sean48]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Sean48]




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Because it wasn't rigged with explosives.

WTC 6 is the same story.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It didn't collapse because TPTB didn't want it to collapse. I have never heard of building 5, so this is freash and quite compelling information for me. Star and Flag for bringing this to our attention.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
Because it wasn't rigged with explosives.

WTC 6 is the same story.


I'm not to sure of that, it did end up with a big hole in it, I never could understand that. It looked like it had the @#$% blown out of it. I'll try and find a photo.

Ok found one but don't know how to post it.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by 22-250]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 22-250
 


Maybe it was the piece of plane that hit it, or there was explosives, they just didn't work correctly. I think its the former, but who knows.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 22-250
 


The hull of the plane was reported to have landed on the roof,

Also it was fallout from the towers 1, 2 that landed , on the building ,

damaging the roof. You can see where WTC 5 was , in a fallout zone

Edit; (not familiar with loading links, sorry, i tryed)

Had a map of WTC Site

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Sean48]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Short answer - different building, different construction

Wtc 5 was 9 story building using conventional steel framing as opposed
to tube frame in WTC 1 & 2 or the long span trusses of WTC 7 built over
Con Ed substation

WTC 5 suffered extensive damage from debris of WTC 1 collapse
causing many floors to separate from connections

WTC 5 experienced local collapse from fire in one wing of the building

Here is long analysis of damage to WTC 5 with many photos showing
extent of damage from debris and fire

911research.wtc7.net...

read it over.....



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Because there was no damning evidence in Building 5 which needed to be destroyed, it acted like every other steel structure building subjected to fire (except WTC 1,2,&7 of course).



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Short answer - different building, different construction

Wtc 5 was 9 story building using conventional steel framing as opposed
to tube frame in WTC 1 & 2 or the long span trusses of WTC 7 built over
Con Ed substation

WTC 5 suffered extensive damage from debris of WTC 1 collapse
causing many floors to separate from connections




Im looking it over , and the fire rating of the steel is ACTUALLY LESS

than WTC1 and 2 , if memory serves , gonna look for fire ratings charts



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Short answer - different building, different construction


That isn't an explanation, it's an excuse.

If you actually explained how the differences made such a big freaking difference, then that would be an explanation.

Just saying "different building" and moving along, proves nothing.


The building had smaller, thinner columns yet was exposed to the exact same kind of fire, and more of the building was engulfed by it proportionally.


WTC1 and 2 were not "tube" designs. The hollow tube stuff comes from the same days when structural engineers were saying the columns melted from the fires and is a proposition of "pancake theory," also long refuted, even by NIST.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Did you read the damage analysis ?

911research.wtc7.net...

Goes into construction details and materials used



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Sean48
 


Did you read the damage analysis ?

911research.wtc7.net...

Goes into construction details and materials used


I read the damage report ans I'm not sure if we are argueing the

the same position, lol,

This building had been engulfed by fire, suffered extensive collapsing

damage from falling debris , and didn't fall



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I think this is a HUGE find, as it shows a real ENGULFING FIRE

from the same group of buildings .........


That DID NOT Collapse



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Have problem understanding this - WTC 5 was 9 story, WTC 110 story

WTC 5 was built using conventional steel framework, WTC used tublar
frame of interior core linked to exterior wall panels - no internal colums
unlike most other buildings

Also WTC 5 did not have to support 20-30 floors of dead load above them
with damaged support structure

In WTC 5 there were only a few floors to support and when collapsed did
not have the weight necessary to crush the structure below them.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Sean48
 


Have problem understanding this - WTC 5 was 9 story, WTC 110 story

WTC 5 was built using conventional steel framework, WTC used tublar
frame of interior core linked to exterior wall panels - no internal colums
unlike most other buildings

Also WTC 5 did not have to support 20-30 floors of dead load above them
with damaged support structure

In WTC 5 there were only a few floors to support and when collapsed did
not have the weight necessary to crush the structure below them.


No problem understanding here at ALL

The twin towers also didn't have ..... well the TWIN TOWERS fall on

them, or the HULL of the plane.

Or neither were fully engulfed... But yet WTC5 stood .HMM



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
WTC 5 was built using conventional steel framework, WTC used tublar
frame of interior core linked to exterior wall panels - no internal colums
unlike most other buildings


The entire core structure WAS internal columns -- 47 very large box columns.

The WTC Towers were NOT hollow tubes, and there WAS no pancake collapse. Even the government tells you as much!


Also WTC 5 did not have to support 20-30 floors of dead load above them
with damaged support structure


Nor was it designed to. The towers were. WTC5 was a much smaller structure and not nearly as strong, and had smaller sections of steel exposed to the same or worse fire.



In WTC 5 there were only a few floors to support and when collapsed did
not have the weight necessary to crush the structure below them.


How do you think structural engineers decide how large to make columns, and how many columns to use, etc? Do you think they just stick the same size columns in every building?

[edit on 31-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Because thats where the gold bullion was moved to after it was stolen from the WTC.

All those covert operators, airliners, payoffs, suicide bomber school flunkees, 911 commission members, politicians to go along with the OS, spooks to carry on the OS script, Mossad cameramen, OBL's kidney treatments, MSM figures just don't come as cheap as they did in the 1980's

OR...

Maybe in 2010 someone will all of a sudden "find" that missing 2 trillion bucks that can't be accounted for.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I've been asking myself this question for the longest time. It makes no sense that WTC 7, which was across the street from the WTC complex, would collapse (despite sustaining only minimal damage from small fires), but WTC 5, which was right next to the Twin Towers, would not be completely destroyed.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic Twelve
 


Not meaning to just give an "answer drive by" but, thats why they call it "controlled" demolition.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


More CT crazy website foolishness...(just one example of many...)


Because thats where the gold bullion was moved to after it was stolen from the WTC.


Instead of believing EVERYTHING you read from the CT sites, try doing some looking up on the Google machine.

And, in case you didn't know this already, the first page that comes up in a Google search isn't the only one...sites are "stickied" because people pay for the privilege, then after that they're in order of "hits".

You see, sometimes ONLY the CT sites show firstly, because of the foolishness of so many believers constantly 'hitting' them. REAL research requires more in depth digging.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join