9-11 was an inside job

[MaineShark]

Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?

Why do some buildings in an earthquake fall down, and others stay standing?  The simple answer is that they obviously had less structural damage.

The needlessly-complex answer would be that certain buildings were wired with explosives, and others were not, just to take down buildings that were going to be damaged/destroyed by the plane crashes, anyway.  Framing the guilty?

The question I always ask is: why?  Why would they use demolitions to bring down the Towers, etc, when the damage from the plane crash was sufficient?  Any competent engineer can tell you that it was.  I posted the failure mode earlier in this thread.  And if you had asked me on September 10, 2001, what would happen in those circumstances, I would have told you that the buildings were coming down.

As soon as I turned on the TV and saw the images of the buildings and the damage, I knew they were coming down.  This was not rocket science.  And there is simply no reason to invent a massive conspiracy to do the job.  If agents of the government were responsible (a question which, if you're sane, you realize we will never have a definitive answer to), it would have been worlds easier to just convince some kamikazes to fly planes into the buildings (which they had to do anyway, in that hypothetical).  Convincing them to crash the planes, and also having a massive conspiracy to "mine" the buildings for no reason at all, would just be silly.

I've read through this whole thread in the past and I can't recall anyone posting examples of other steel structures that have collapsed at free-fall speed due to fire damage.  I'll look again but if you have proof of that, please provide.

I expect Kevin will find that easier.  He seems to have a slew of things, ready to go.  I have to do a heating system design and get some cleaning done, so I'll be busy for the rest of the day, at least.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

keep the good info and events coming .... it is fun to see how many times the subject of 9/11 is talked about in Keene.
That Tea Party should be good.

[KBCraig]

Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?

Are you really comparing 5- and 7-story buildings with the 47-story WTC7, which was a completely different design?

Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".

[alohamonkey]

I haven't seen anything that shows visible and obvious buckling and sagging in WTC 7 except for the 2-3 seconds immediately before collapse.  If you have something that shows the contrary, please provide it.   

How about the words of the firefighters who were there (there's a photo, too)?

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#Collapses

The only relevant pictures that I saw at this link were the one showing the roof of WTC 7 sag about 1-2 seconds before collapse and the one showing a view of WTC 7 from the southwest with a lot of smoke in the foreground.  

#1 - The picture showing the roof sag could prove your point of view or my point of view.  Most controlled demolitions exhibit a similar kink or crease as support columns are destroyed.  

Exhibit A - http://youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM

Exhibit B - http://youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA

I'll provide more if you like.  

#2 - The picture that seemingly shows smoke billowing out of WTC 7 is, IMO, a little deceiving.  I think that picture is taken with WTC 6 in the foreground and WTC 7 in the background.  Although it looks like smoke is billowing out of WTC 7, I believe most of the smoke is coming from WTC 6 - which didn't collapse and is closer to the photographer.  And if you're going to listen to firefighter's testimony about WTC 7, then this one is worth a gander too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jNGN9jWBnXA

[alohamonkey]

Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?

Are you really comparing 5- and 7-story buildings with the 47-story WTC7, which was a completely different design?

Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".

Yes, I am.  You're right . . . there wasn't much left of those buildings but what remained of them was still standing after the dust settled.  WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more damage and had the Twin Towers collapse on top of them . . . but they didn't fall.  I understand that WTC 7 was much bigger than the other two but the damage to WTC 7 was minimal compared to the damage to WTC 5 and 6. 

[Russell Kanning]

I bet the guys from controlled demolitions were complaining about that ... or charged the government more for the trouble.

[KBCraig]

Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".

WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more damage and had the Twin Towers collapse on top of them . . . but they didn't fall. 

WTC 5 did collapse from fire damage.

[alohamonkey]

Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?

Why do some buildings in an earthquake fall down, and others stay standing?  The simple answer is that they obviously had less structural damage.

Once again, I go back to this picture:



Compare that picture of WTC 6 with this picture of WTC 7 shortly before it collapsed:

or this one:


I think it's apparent which one suffered more structural damage.

[alohamonkey]

Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".

WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more damage and had the Twin Towers collapse on top of them . . . but they didn't fall. 

WTC 5 did collapse from fire damage.

If I'm not mistaken, part of WTC 5 collapsed.  The rest was demolished in 2002.  FEMA has a picture on page 28 here:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
If the same thing happened to WTC 7, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you.  The way WTC 7 fell was way too suspicious for me.  A building with minimal damage does not collapse into it's own footprint at free-fall speed.  It just doesn't. 

[MaineShark]

I understand that WTC 7 was much bigger than the other two but the damage to WTC 7 was minimal compared to the damage to WTC 5 and 6.

How much weight was on top of the damage?

Joe

[alohamonkey]

I understand that WTC 7 was much bigger than the other two but the damage to WTC 7 was minimal compared to the damage to WTC 5 and 6.

How much weight was on top of the damage?

Joe

How many trusses would have had to fail at EXACTLY the same time for WTC 7 to collapse uniformly at free-fall speed?

Greg

[MaineShark]

How many trusses would have had to fail at EXACTLY the same time for WTC 7 to collapse uniformly at free-fall speed?

The direct damage and further "seismic" damage shears a lot of the trusses, leaving a few to do all the work.  The fire softens them, reducing their yield strength.  More trusses fail.  The remainder are under more load.  Even more trusses fail.  The remainder are under even more load.  By the time the straw breaks the camel's back, there aren't many left to fail, and they are severely weakened, while at the same time being under tremendous load.  The will domino rather quickly.

The reason it looks like the video of a demolition is because any building collapse of that magnitude will happen similarly, just like any massive release of energy at ground level will create a "mushroom cloud," whether or not a nuclear reaction is involved.  As I said, there's a very good reason you don't hear the scientific community calling this a demolition.  All this "obvious evidence of a demolition" is anything but, when looked-at in regard to physics.

Joe

[erisian]

There are a lot of red herrings in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that government agitators have deliberately disseminated them to cast doubt on the numerous legitimate concerns. The Air Force used the same technique back in the '40's and '50's. When someone spotted one of their secret aircraft, the Air Force would say it was a UFO. That took the heat off of them and made the witnesses look like wackos. Don't waste your time chasing smoke, go for the good stuff like the military exercises. That is way beyond coincidence, and can be argued on facts, not opinions.

[MaineShark]

There are a lot of red herrings in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that government agitators have deliberately disseminated them to cast doubt on the numerous legitimate concerns. The Air Force used the same technique back in the '40's and '50's. When someone spotted one of their secret aircraft, the Air Force would say it was a UFO. That took the heat off of them and made the witnesses look like wackos. Don't waste your time chasing smoke, go for the good stuff like the military exercises. That is way beyond coincidence, and can be argued on facts, not opinions.

Indeed.  Plus, if the planes weren't the weapons used to bring down the buildings, then armed passengers couldn't possibly have prevented the attack, so there's no need to debate removing those draconian restrictions...

The only purpose of the government-planted stories that the planes weren't the cause, are to oppose liberty.

Joe

[kola]

Why not read the governments OFFICIAL report entitled The Commisission Report?

Then ask yourself what was not addressed and then ask yourself why these very important aspects were not mentioned and/or avoided.

Kola