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

reply to post by ashamedamerican


You have too much faith in demonstration videos. Cut a horizontally supported vertical column with a fairly thin kerf at ground level and tell me what happens.
Back to the topic. #5 didn't collapse because not a lot of debris struck it. #6 must have taken a good hit because the interior collapsed, leaving only the outer walls.
So the answer is, parts of the WTC didn't land too hard on top of them and mainly they were gutted by fire.

reply to post by tezzajw


Ok, I'll go with the NIST report and agree with you. The fires caused the collapse of #7. Thanks for settling that one.
Now we have to explain why #6 only partly collapsed [lesser fire] and why #5 didn't [lesser fire yet].

[edit on 12/15/2008 by pteridine]

[edit on 12/15/2008 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
Ok, I'll go with the NIST report and agree with you. The fires caused the collapse of #7. Thanks for settling that one.
Now we have to explain why #6 only partly collapsed [lesser fire] and why #5 didn't [lesser fire yet].

You don't understand the whole point of this thread, do you?

If the few fires that were in WTC 7 managed to collapse the building, then why didn't the fires that were in WTC 5 cause it to collapse as well?

Take a look at the pictures of WTC 5 and 7 and tell me which building is more engulfed in flames...

reply to post by tezzajw


I wouldn't waste my time if I were you tezzajw, he's obviously just trying to frustrate people.
He's making insulting comments, going over the same points after they have been layed to rest, making statements that are contradicted by evidence already provided, making baseless assumptions that are easily proven false by the basic laws of physics, etc.

Just ignore and enjoy your time on ATS.

Originally posted by pteridine
I say that unless another method can be shown to have done it, WTC#7 is your precedent. [Actually it looked a little skewed in the photos so we might have to wait a while longer for the precedent you ask for].

Yeah, let's use the building in question as the precedence.

And you think my logic is bad?

There was nothing unique about any of the WTC buildings that would allow them to defy physics. If you new Newton, like I said before, you wouldn't make such a silly argument, and you would understand what people here are saying.

Anyway that's the last I'll debate with ya mate, too many trolls who think they're educated because they read 911myths...
And I think we're off topic? I'm old I forget lol.

Wait a sec WTC 7 was called an "inferno"? what the hell? sorry but,those little fires are not exactly what anyone would call a inferno.It's clear to me that WTC#7 was used as a command post for the entire thing perhaps even for the Pentagon and Shanksville the fact that the building also had the offices of the SEC and the rest was an added bonus.

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

There's also the potassium. Are you now going to tell me that the potassium came from a vitamin factory inside the WTC towers? Or maybe that they had emptied all the gold from the sublevels and were now storing bananas?
The manganese and potassium found could be easily explained by the use of potassium permanganate as an oxidizer.

Manganese and potassium are not exclusively found in the form of Condy's Crystals (potassium permanganate). Potassium is an essential element in vegetable matter, especially timber and timber products like paper & cardboard of which there is an abundance in large office buildings. Manganese compounds (oxides) are the major ingredient in dry-cell batteries.

Would discovery of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen be a certain indication of nitro-glycerin?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that analysis of the individual elements in the remains of the buildings.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Low levels would be expected.
The levels found are what peaks my interest.

I also don't recall saying that the only explanation for this was potassium permanganate, but it is something that should raise an eyebrow or two given the circumstances.

The chemical signature of thermate is found in multiple places, then the chemical traces of what could be potassium permanganate, a known oxidizer show up?

It could be a very important piece of the puzzle, and I don't think it should be overlooked, given the situation, and the other "coincedences."

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Would discovery of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen be a certain indication of nitro-glycerin?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that analysis of the individual elements in the remains of the buildings.

I can totally agree with this. I wonder why they only reported the elements instead of the chemicals? Could it be so no one could put 2 and 2 together? Or in this case hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen?

Seems rather convenient to just report on the elements found eh?

Edit: Just by going with those 4 elements alone, I can come up with lots of chemicals off the top of my head:

Hydrogen + Oxygen = water (H2O)
Carbon + Oxygen = CO2 (carbon dioxide), CO1 (carbon monoxide)
Nitrogen + Oxygen = Nitrous oxide

Now start adding longer chains

C6H12O6 or common sugar

And just to add nitroglycerin in the mix since you brought it up.

Just reporting on the elements doesn't really tell us anything about what compounds were there.

Thanks for proving this gripe of mine.



[edit on 12/16/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by ashamedamerican


How do you know what levels would "be expected." This is a unique event and established its own precedents. The finding of Potassium and Manganese in a complex mixture is not evidence of permanganate or manganate ion.
In all of these threads, the conspirator theorists assume that all events of the day have a precedence in the past and act on gut feelings that "something is wrong." Yes the existing images of #5 and #6 show fire. Does anyone have a time-temperature log for all spaces of all the buildings in question to determine what was happening when no images were taken? No one does. No one knows the real extent of fire damage. Now we are arguing about whose fire was more infernal based on what? Video images.
We have people claiming super-thermite who have never used thermite and have no real evidence...but they think they do. They read somewhere about nano-particulate, oxygen boosted thermites so that goes on the list, too. They watch a video of thermite cutting through a bit of steel, but this is a chemical reaction and no matter how super, there is only a finite amount of energy that will come out. Very large quantities would be needed to drop a 40 story office building. Shearing a horizontally supported vertical without displacing it won't do what you think it will. "Blowing it up" when discussing a large structure is not correct. What is done is really "blowing it sideways" a bit and letting gravity do the work.
Then, potassium and manganese levels are mentioned for no apparent reason other than potassium permanganate is an oxidizer. So are many other potassium salts. Look at the chloride levels and call out chlorate or perchlorate; those are far more likely than permanganate to be in a device.
It seems that the more videos that are watched, the more gut feelings there are, and the more grasping at straws there is. These threads were a lot more interesting when optical anomalies in the impact videos were thought to be particle beams. If we analyze for Aluminum it will probably show to be really high due to the big supply of foil hats.

posted by SPreston
Next time, learn to read before you accuse me of lying. It seems your favorite tactic is to deliberately take your enemies out of context and accuse them of lying. The post was not even directed at you.

posted by thedman
You engaged in common conspiracy tactic of deliberately misstating the facts - While the South Tower (WTC 2) was 600 ft from WTC 7 you
left out that the North Tower (WTC 1) was only 350 ft from WTC 7.

Wrong again. I provided a map/diagram with dimensions on that very post to show that WTC1 was much closer to WTC7. If actually reading the posts you reply to is much too difficult for you, then why are you here on ATS if not solely for trolling?

ive read most of the info in this thread....


most of the evidence seems to have been taken from video and what the eye has witnessed and the mind perceived...



does anyone have a set of structural plans for this/these buildings? is anyone commenting on this thread a structural engineer?


for a building to collapse because of a fire really has NOTHING to do with the ammount of fire. if a girder truss is carrying a huge load and that single girder truss is structurally damaged, a building could collapse with minimal visual damage.


without a set of structural plans, these theories are nonsense.


edit:


also, when comparing the building fires in spain and other places... all those fires seem to be englufing the permiter of the building and then travel inwards.


in the cases of the WTC buildings, all fires seem to have started from the interior and then spread to the extrior.

the planes flew to the middle of the buildings, and would therefore weaken the interior 1st, causing the exterior to collapse into the center.


same as building 5-7. the debrit from buildings 1 & 2 has fallen into the interior of the building, causing massive structural failures in the interior of the building 1st. then the exterior collapses into the weaker interior


you need to compare similar buildings with similar damage. just because they are both on fire, doesnt make them similar





[edit on 16-12-2008 by wheazy]

Originally posted by wheazy
does anyone have a set of structural plans for this/these buildings?

Never released to the public. An article I read said that Giuliani's office seized them shortly after the buildings came down and after that I suppose they were turned over to FEMA and NIST (or at least something was), but they never released to the public. We have what diagrams and etc. are in the reports but not complete or reliable pictures.

is anyone commenting on this thread a structural engineer?

Griff is.

for a building to collapse because of a fire really has NOTHING to do with the ammount of fire. if a girder truss is carrying a huge load and that single girder truss is structurally damaged, a building could collapse with minimal visual damage.

If you're talking about WTC7, you have no evidence of such damage. Your case rests on an "if" ?

without a set of structural plans, these theories are nonsense.

The OP isn't about any theories, just comparisons and trying to encourage critical thinking.

same as building 5-7. the debrit from buildings 1 & 2 has fallen into the interior of the building, causing massive structural failures in the interior of the building 1st. then the exterior collapses into the weaker interior

The exterior structures of WTC5 and 6 never collapsed.

Someone has probably already posted it as I have the seen what I am about to share on a YouTube video: The WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 are aligned in the same exact fashion as the 3 pyramids at Giza (we wont go into who built them and when). The 3 pyramids are the original wonder of the "Old World" and the WTC is symbolic of the current world (especially as relates to "world trade" and commerce). They were destroyed as both a satanic sacrifice and symbolic proxy for the "old world order" which has to go before introducing the "new world order"....and did I mention we got the People of America Terrorist Reaction Instigation of Order Today (P.A.T.R.I.O.T.) Act as a bonus? (I just made that up but we'll go w/ it.