Why didn't WTC 5 collapse, or WTC 6 for that matter

[newsmanbluesman]

Am I missing the commenter who explains not the lack of collapse but the presence of fire? In what way can either tower collapse cause full-spread fire next door, with kerosene long expended? Likewise, no debunker explains WTC7 fire-start. Nor collapse. Which is minus kerosene - which to DB is, with hi aircraft speed, the key to both tower collapse explanations. WTC7 is no plane, no kerosene. Ron Avery idea: where bldgs are hinged at a single column and lintle - dont go in. Insurers: counter-sue

[Stringyheads]

WTC had the most server fire out of any that day. Why wasn't it reported in the news? If it was it was very brief.

[sh9683]

you guy sthinking its because its built differently or it was not damage enough, you guys ARE IDIOTS! wtc5 was closer to the twins! it would have gotten MORE DAMAGE then 7, 5 is smaller less metal to melt had fires engulfing the entire building and being much hotter then 7, (7 had smouldering fires except for maybe an equivalent of one floor spread out unevenly only on the south side) if it was fire wtc5 would not have been standing,

[unclesamsnephew666]

@sh9683

"wtc5 was closer to the twins! it would have gotten MORE DAMAGE then 7"

specualtion. you are claiming certainty in a random event. ridiculous.

"5 is smaller less metal to melt had fires engulfing the entire building and being much hotter then 7"

if true (debatable), it still does not guarantee that it would collapse. you are attempting to make a certainty where you can't. it's not working. your appeal is emotional, not factual.

your description of 7's fire is laughable.

[unclesamsnephew666]

why did different buildings of different size and different shape constructed differently of different materials that suffered different damage not all react the same way?

what a stupid fucking question.

truthers are dumber than a bag of shit.

[wordgeezer]

@unclesamsnephew666 Well, i have to admit that i might, just, as a far fetched concept, might, be dumber than you..., you bag of shit, but i have to ask why, if you have any smarts at all, you would want to be a de-bunker...G%

[unclesamsnephew666]

@wordgeezer

why did different buildings of different size and different shape constructed differently of different materials that suffered different damage not all react the same way? that is what you are asking.

tell me why it isn't a stupid question. to help you along, I saw a 5 year old girl punch a man in the leg. then I saw mike tyson punch a guy in the face. the first guy barely felt it. the second guy was unconscious for a little while. should the first guy have been knocked out?

[wordgeezer]

@unclesamsnephew666 Because you are far dumber than I gave you credit for. Bldg. 5 and 6 were not ordinary office fires, where there were temperatures of 3000 degrees or more. There were melted beams and columns, and melted steel in the basements of both of them. The huge hole in Bldg. 6 where the concrete, steel,and whatever else was there was obliterated should be a wake up call for anyone who bothers to take a look at it..You have bizarre fantasies my debunker friend....G%

[unclesamsnephew666]

@wordgeezer

so you think different buildings of different size and different shape constructed differently of different materials that suffered different damage SHOULD all react the same way. wow.

like I said, dumber than a bag of shit. and only getting dumber by the day as reality is denied, bullshit is believed, and asswipe frauds like alex jones and the loose change turds are taken seriously.

[wordgeezer]

@unclesamsnephew666 "why did different buildings of different size and different shape constructed differently of different materials that suffered different damage not all react the same way?" That is your question...mine is "why didn't 5 & 6 collapse?" My other one is "why would a stupid bag of shit want to be a debunker?" If you are obsessed with fornication, I would suggest that you get some internet security. If you are obsessed by feces there is no help for ya...G:

[unclesamsnephew666]

@wordgeezer

"why didn't 5 & 6 collapse?"

OK, the answer is: they were not damaged enough, given their unique attributes, to collapse.

seems pretty obvious, but there's the answer. now, I hope you'll answer my question.

is it logical to think that if different buildings of different size and different shape that were constructed differently of different materials were to suffer different damage, they should all react the same way?

[wordgeezer]

@unclesamsnephew666  No, it isn't logical. Is that what you think? That they should all react the same way? lolmao Why don't you consider the evidence.? If you are depending on your logic, you better look closely at the evidence.

Your ignorance is pathetic and your weird questions are beyond anything I've ever heard, not to mention that they are irritating and a complete waste of valuable time that i could use for seeking, yet more evidence...buzz off...G%.

.

[unclesamsnephew666]

@wordgeezer

"No, it isn't logical. Is that what you think?"

no, not at all. but that is what your question about why 5 & 6 didn't collapse implies. that was your point.

well, it was until you realized how stupid it is. and instead of thanking me, you get all pissy like a teenage girl.

truthers: dumber than a bag of shit and totally ungrateful.

[sh9683]

@unclesamsnephew666 government sheeple (you) idiots dumber then "dumber then a bag of shit" i bet you cannot prove that it was al-queada (which was accused before investigations where complete) unless you turn to the commission report which is written by your lying government

[sh9683]

@unclesamsnephew666 no theya where all steel structures, maybe this one woud not come lie a CD like the others but surely it would have been burned t the ground

[sh9683]

@sh9683 *like

[DanSVT03]

This is a simple question to answer. The fire/damage to buildings 5 & 6 was concentraited towards the top of each building and were both much smaller in size. The fire/damage on building 7 occured near the ground, leaving the weakend structure below to support nearly the entire load of the building above. All you "truthers" come to the dumbest conclusions when more realistic answers can be found if you'd just apply a little bit of brain power. It's not a rubiks cube.

[wordgeezer]

@DanSVT03 Simple answers for simple minds. Why not find out the truth, instead of defending an impossible hypothesis?

[DanSVT03]

@wordgeezer Dude, you need to stop smoking that shit. That's all I have to say.

[unclesamsnephew666]

@wordgeezer

ha! truthers interested in the truth. that's a hot one! truthers only want to be told they are right. about every thing. think about it, is there a single truther talking point that has even been discarded? ask yourself, was there ever a popular truther talking point that you no longer believe? probably not, since no truther can let anything go. it's like religion. once one bullshit factoid is discarded, the rest are vulnerable and truthers can't let that happen.

[RBAWilcox]

because building 6 and 5 were built entirely different than the 1, 2, and 7

[wordgeezer]

@RBAWilcox Obviously, but the heat energy and damage was far greater than the small fires in bldg, 7. In the case of bldg. 6 the center of the building was virtually melted clear to ground level. There was molten metal in all of the buildings at the WTC. Can you explain this with a simple answer?

[AccessDenied55]

@wordgeezer WTC5 and WTC6 which are 9 story buildings have the exact same load to hold up as a 110 story building or a 47 story building?

[wordgeezer]

@AccessDenied55 In the case of the two towers the load was only in the upper floors. If you watch the collapse , you will note that the walls are not falling downward, The only thing falling is the debris and exploded material. as the building is demolished from the top down. WTC 7 was a different story, it was destroyed from the bottom up, so you can see the whole building falling. The fires in bldg. 5 and bldg. 6 made the fire in bldg. 7 look like a camp fire.

Have you ever looked at bldg. 6?

[wordgeezer]

Seems to me that the NIST would be curious about this as well as the melted gun, from bldg. 6, that had concrete melted around it.

Ryan Mackey , aka "rocket scientist", comes to mind. He is conspicuous in his absence from You tube, along with such pukes as Ronald Wieck and Mark Roberts...G:

Google this to read the truth...

The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey journal of 911 studies

[JosephWillcocks]

@wordgeezer

Is JREF (forums of randi.org) that hard to find?

[wordgeezer]

@JosephWillcocks  Nope G:......zzzzzzZZZZZZ*

[ewingsco]

It's strange to me, too

[MarchOnTyranny]

That's true, How did WTC 7 collapse due to a few office fires yet these building didn't collapse at all? That's just strange to me.

[marvelfannumber1]

@MarchOnTyranny

Few office fires? You're joking right?

[MarchOnTyranny]

@marvelfannumber1

No I'm not joking. It was a small number of office fires. Especially in comparrison to other past events of buildings burning where the buildings had been engulfed by flames, and yet still they never collapsed.

And yet me and everyone else are told that such little fires brought this building down? I don't buy that for a bit.

[marvelfannumber1]

@MarchOnTyranny

"small number of office fires" The entire south side if the building was on fire. It had a 20 story gash on it's south face aswell.

[nehorlavazapalka]

@marvelfannumber1 you're lying

[marvelfannumber1]

@nehorlavazapalka

Lying? Take a look at the evidence mah boi.

[nehorlavazapalka]

@marvelfannumber1 only isolated pockets of fire, no big gash (only 6 perimeter columns missing out of 81).. the whole south face stuff is just a pure lie

[marvelfannumber1]

@nehorlavazapalka

I do not know how to respond to that just........ "isolated pockets of fire" Just WTF man ROFL.

[nehorlavazapalka]

@marvelfannumber1 ur an asshole

[nehorlavazapalka]

@marvelfannumber1 oj yeah show me some photos b*i*t*c*h

[nehorlavazapalka]

@nehorlavazapalka talking about u being an asshole

[marvelfannumber1]

@nehorlavazapalka

/watch?v=v6Dl2IorISE

/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Of course these are much earlier than when 7 WTC collapsed since it was evacuated later to north so then we were not able to see the damaged side so let's take a look at some witnesses shall we? "numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them"

"all 47 stories were on fire, It was wild!"

[blite13]

@marvelfannumber1 Go back to your cartoons, leave the discussion to those who don't still wear batman pajamas

[marvelfannumber1]

@nehorlavazapalka

Now we also have numerous firefighters saying it was leaning to the south. The new york times also said wtc 7 was burning like a giant torch.

However no matter how big the fires were there would not take too many uncontrolled fires to cause a progressive collapse.

[nehorlavazapalka]

@marvelfannumber1 ah, the best you can do is quotes... if all 47 stories of the south wall were burning how come the fires didn't spread to the north? You're full of shit.

[marvelfannumber1]

@nehorlavazapalka

It did spread to the north you saw it in one of the videos i sent and that was an hour/s before it collapsed.

Since you clearly will ignore it what do you think caused it to collapse then?

[nehorlavazapalka]

@marvelfannumber1 no, it spread to the north only at a few floors, if all 47 stories were burning than we would have seen fires on the upper floors, too - didn't happen

the collapse was a result of progressive core weakening

[marvelfannumber1]

@nehorlavazapalka

Ok so you're not a truther. Well then i apologise. I thought you were one of those truthers who only show the north face fire ignoring the south face fire. Well this converesation has been intresting. Well i guess i will go back to troll the loose change forum for a few minutes and get some resh air.

[nehorlavazapalka]

@marvelfannumber1 again, no big south face fire existed