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

according to this video, NIST said that about 25% of the 'depth' of the bottom of WTC7 was 'scooped out'. IF true, it would of course be top-heavy and likely to fail.


www.youtube.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.youtube.com...

that quote is at 1:30

Because only Towers 1 & 2 were planned to be demolish.

I still maintain that our own government orchestrated 911 to manipulate the American People into the Iraq War.

and the sheeple faithfully listened to FOX and CNN and bought it.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


More evidence towards bombs in the buildings. I wonder if our evidence will ever be officially supported by the United States Government?

reply to post by eniac


doesn't explain free fall...... Nist just got cornered and they were forced to admit freefall.. which is really impossible in a normal collapse.. NIST is not to be trusted here is one NIST presentation with students... notice how the student points out the super high temps to the NIST employee.. then notice reaction from employee... anyone with a half a brain can see he got nervous and was lying lol .. Who do you trust.. the firemen who risked there lives or this bozo???? lol



[edit on 14-12-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Star and flags, there is some good videos in here some are very sad, however by looking at building six, I am convince there was no bomb, but it completely burn up every floor and it still stood. Isn’t it odd how building seven had just a few small fires and only on a few floors and every support column (just fell) All by itself, without any fires at all four corners of the building, it is “amazing”.

\


Ex bush admin member states wtc7 is smoking gun excellent speech

[edit on 14-12-2008 by thefreepatriot]

reply to post by thefreepatriot


Wow! Great video some how I miss this one. Ya! They did underestimate the internet. He is so right about building seven, it is a classic demolition, I thought it was when I started watching all the videos on building seven. I knew my eyes where not deceiving me, only the debunkers where trying to deceiving me.

This is why I came to this site originally, this is why I joined. Thank you for this thread.

I believe this will come out, and thankfully I feel it will be within my lifetime. The good part is now that Obama will be "taking over" people will have a much smaller problem with admitting it to themselves that we've been duped. It's much easier to say "my ex-husband is a child molester" than it is to say "my current husband is a child molester". As long as the people who know the truth stop calling those who aren't sure "sheeple" we might get some unity.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by TylerKing]

all ingeniers are saying that the collapse
theory is impossible...

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

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?

Once again *SNIP* - different buildings with different construction

WTC 5/6 were 9 story conventional buildings using standard internal
steel structure

WTC 1/2 used totally different construction methods - using tube
structure with outer shell of lattice columns and inner core columns.

WTC 7 had large span cantilever transfer beams (almost like a bridge) to
support the structure over the Con Ed substation on the lower floors

WTC 5 construction

5 WTC was a steel-framed office building, with 9 stories. The structure was "L"-shaped and occupied the northeast corner of the WTC site. Overall dimensions were 330 by 420 ft (100 by 130 m), with an average area of 120,000 square feet (11,000 m²) per floor.

Floors 4 through 9 suffered partial collapse and/or fire damage. Floors 1-3 were undamaged. Some of the collapse was due to impact from steel and debris from World Trade Center 1 (North Tower). Other collapsed sections were due to fire damage. Portions of internal collapse and burnout were found on upper floors, mainly floors 6-8. The exterior facade suffered severe fire damage. The upper floors (5-9) were on fire after the second tower collapse. A section of the fuselage from United 175 landed on the top of the tower.

The FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail.[1]

Also parts of WTC 5 collapsed from fire damage - so much with the chant
"No steel frame building collapsed from fire damage...."

WTC 6

Debris from the North tower covered the area near 6 WTC digging a deep crater into the building's basement. The building's ruins were demolished to make way for reconstruction. AMEC Construction handled the demolition,[1] in which the building was weakened and then pulled down with cables.

Now there's that "Pull" thing...





Can see center of building was crushed - almost like a donut

WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) suffered simialr damage where most of building was
crushed by debris impact yet one corner stood intact



As for WTC 7 - the picture is of the undamaged (By debris) North face

here is video of South face - notice heavy smoke pushing out from most
of the south face


Clips 4 to 8 are of south face - count how many floors can see smoke pouring from



Black building in right foreground is WTC 6, gray concrete building to left
is Verizon (140 West St)


Mod edit: Insult removed.

Courtesy Is Mandatory: Read this link

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Hal9000]

reply to post by ashamedamerican


It appears that the center section of WTC #6 did collapse and the outer walls did not. Perhaps the underlying structure was not as damaged as WTC #7.

reply to post by amfirst


Your statement has even been debunked by the official NIST report. NIST, the propaganda source of record has debunked the gash in the side story.

You should at least get on the same page with NIST if you are trying to debunk the reality of controlled demolition. It was a classic controlled demolition. Ask Larry Silverstein.

www.youtube.com...

Here is the video to prove WTC7 took a big impact from the twin towers. This is the last time I'm going to post this. U guys claim to know it all, than I'm sure u've seen this video.

There's a better video of a helicopter view showing a bunch of debris hitting sraight into WTC7, but I don't remember how to find it, but I bet u guys can if u only look.

There is another video of a fireman on seen before WTC7 callaspe speaking to a reported that they've evacuated people from WTC7 because it was leaning from the impact of the towers, but I'm not going to waste my time and post it, when u guys are too one sided to look at anything else other than what of bunch of kooks tell u.




[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

Originally posted by amfirst
www.youtube.com...

Here is the video to prove WTC7 took a big impact from the twin towers. This is the last time I'm going to post this. U guys claim to know it all, than I'm sure u've seen this video.

There is another video of a fireman on seen before WTC7 callaspe speaking to a reported that they've evacuated people from WTC7 because it was leaning from the impact of the towers, but I'm not going to waste my time and post it, when u guys are too one sided to look at anything else other than what of bunch of kooks tell u.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

Hey I can put smilies in my post too!

See? And keep the name calling up too, your explanations need that to make them a bit more believable.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


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

That's not a trick question is it?

The very simple answer is,
because they didn't have any explosives in them like the other ones that fell.

reply to post by thedman


the BBC must have been privy to that information since they predicted that 7 would collapse and not 5 and 6~

it all makes sense now~

what a joke.

ALL of the evidence weighs significantly in favor of controlled demolitions, and NONE of the evidence entertains any notions that they went down another way. I don't see why there's even a debate over it.

I can't stomach reading thru most of the posts, so let me try to explain why WTC #5 & #6 didn't collapse. I think George W. Bush, Santa Claus, and the Devil were getting a little distracted by planning Katrina - because they caused that too, you know - and they just messed up. It's all a conspiracy, our government did all this and then blamed it on those poor Muslim extremists. So I'm going to go write a book about WHO REALLY did all this, so you conspiracy theorists will buy it up and make me rich. I mean, after all, if you read it in a book, it must be true. Right?

Originally posted by Tippys Dad
I can't stomach reading thru most of the posts, so let me try to explain why WTC #5 & #6 didn't collapse. I think George W. Bush, Santa Claus, and the Devil were getting a little distracted by planning Katrina - because they caused that too, you know - and they just messed up. It's all a conspiracy, our government did all this and then blamed it on those poor Muslim extremists. So I'm going to go write a book about WHO REALLY did all this, so you conspiracy theorists will buy it up and make me rich. I mean, after all, if you read it in a book, it must be true. Right?

I know!! Some people are just suckers for those books full of lies!

reply to post by thedman


Thedmen, do you think you have just convinced someone that the Government is telling the “truth”. You know it is hard to look at “your” truth especially when it is base on all lies. You cannot prove that a “lie” is true, when it never happened they way the Government said it did.
You are trying to prove a lie is true (no one is buying it.)



[edit on 12/15/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 12/15/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 12/15/2008 by cashlink]

I don't think you can determine just from the pictures what the structural damage was inside the buildings. One may appear to be as damaged but you don't know if the internal structure was intact. If they were exact copies and suffered the exact same damage and only one fell then you might have something.

Each building was unique and suffered unique damage, its impossible to compare them.