Buildings 3,4,5, and 6 were NEVER on fire. All the damage to them came from towers 1 and 2 falling on top of them from the nano-thermite demolition. So this video is a falsehood when they say fire caused floors in building 5 to collapse.
if anything this footage proves fire can cause exstensive damage to sturcture with out a global collapse of the whole stucture, these guys feel the structre is safe enought to walk around on the inside even thoe portions of the structual integrity are damage, floors collapsed but why did'nt it pancake the building like what sugested to happen in the other 3, yes fire is very damaging and can weaken structures, but a global collapse is insainly unlikley as proved in this video
@trevpickering WTC 5 was only 9 stories high, WTC 7 was 47 stories high. F=MA. The downward force of 7 was 5 times the downward force. I know this means nothing to you because you're a fucking asshole with an 8th grade education but that's the big reason.
@tryithere dont pretend for a second i dont know how high each building at the WTC is. as a investigative firefighter based in the UK i have seen many building structures damaged by fire.
Fire right just never ever happened before in history yet all 3 collapsed that day lol what a big steaming pile of shit the 911 sheep need to wake up if were called 911 "truthtards" then you guys are 911 douchers
Terrific damage, just to see something like that... The aerial photos are almost surreal too, shame they're not shown.
I would say it's a miracle that the building stood despite such severe fires and such massive damage... But it's not. No steel-frame has ever collapsed to fire in history.
Except, of course, WTC1,2&7, buildings you'd think would be a good deal stronger than any average steel-frame. Funny, isn't it...
So Some of the Thermite from the possible Bombs on planes the "Highjackers" if not war games said they had on plane??If wargame the whole plane could of been filled with anything?Or the Laser Nose 747 mystery jet filmed on 911 shot it???I'll look into more.WTC5 I need to look more into as we all do.
At 0:26 notice the way the beams are interconnected. WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 were built like this. Its a lattice style that is very very strong but heavy. None of these buildings had a full structure collapse.
1, 2 and 7 had a tube within a tube, where all the supports were in the walls and a core, which were interconnected by the floors. This is much lighter but just barely strong enough for its job. weaken it and down it goes.
Of course not. Simple sarcasm. But, I do find it odd that fire, in addition to the plane crashes (except for WTC 7 which was not hit by anything), caused the COMPLETE, and eerily similar destruction of both buildings.
Denierbud, you are answering something you have not understood. He said: "both buildings" He is talking about tower 1 and tower 2... He is not talking about WTC 7 and its collapse.
Nearly identical construction and nearly identical damage tends to result in nearly identical results. There's nothing surprising in that 1 & 2 collapsed in nearly identical fashions. This is generally a text book case as to why studying the design is so essentially when making any comparisons between these and other buildings.
Near identical damage? The North Tower was hit in the center, very high up the building. The plane that hit the South Tower struck very far off of center, almost missing the entire structure, about 30 floors below the impact on the other tower. The plane that struck WTC 7 hit, oh, wait a sec, no plane hit it.
Missing the entire structure? Every one of those exterior columns that got taken out was a load bearing structural member. Hit off center yes, missed the structure no... Struck much lower than the north tower, means higher stresses on the remaining structural integrity in the impact region. Virtually every failure mode beyond those variables was nearly identical. It doesn't seem you've studied failure modes in structures before, perhaps you should in order to discuss this on more equal footing
@xAnacondax so you agree it hit off center, than why did the building fall straight down into the path of MOST resistance. Wouldnt it fall over to the side it was struck more towards
So much for the idiots who do not believe that an office fire alone can get hot enough to deform steel.
WTC5 had far more redundancy to prevent a cascading failure than had the towers or WTC7.
The three-storey panels of perimeter columns on the towers actually encouraged a cascading effect by the mechanical advantage gained by the falling dbris.
The lack of redundancy and greater static loading in WTC7 amplified the same effects shown here in WTC5.
SHUT THE FUCK UP Jjinn1, apparently you dont live in the United States, this was a huge thing for americans and WTC's 1,2,5,7 collapsed thats good enough that we are suffering right now because of a fucked up george bush
Apparently you do live in the United States. Cause you perception is really messed up.
Do you know when building 7 collapsed? Well it's safe to say it collapsed before any investigation into any collapse took place. They blamed that collapse on "fire"...
So WHY would they be so amazed to see parts of building 5 collapse due to fire? When according to the official story building 7 already suffered a "global" collapse due to "fire"
yes and no... Try think for a second... if it's common sense that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire... Why would it be so mega incredible that a part of WTC 5 had collapsed due to fire?
Same thing, just less collapse, Why are they not going: "OMGZ WTC 7 collapsed due to fire"
Forget it dude... We both know it was thermite... Well you don't.. but you are also utterly stupid :/
HAHAHAHHA!! SEE?? SEEE??? I told you! I told you all! My thesis is complete! There is a connection between them! As for Jonny boy, another Mr. Garrison self hating homo who acts out like this. Poor closet homo.
Are you a Mr. Garrison type of person? Is this what you revert to when you have nothing legible to say? Or are you just insecure with your own homosexual tendencies and have to lash out like this against straight people?
IDK, 911TRUTHINATOR, maybe they're uncomfortable with their own homosexuality that they have 2 deflect it others. They seldom have legit arguments so they resort to profanity, demonizing, name calling, etc to make them feel superior to others. They don't realize it just makes them more inferior.
Truthers when shown this video:
"LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALA"
MazJax 4 months ago
HMM Iff this is a fact..Mayb it is a problem with the steal or assembling.
A lot off other things a suspicious around 911. But i must admit this support a fire induced collapse theory.
TheoriginalGrumphy 6 months ago
Poor comedy.
73849309378 6 months ago
Buildings 3,4,5, and 6 were NEVER on fire. All the damage to them came from towers 1 and 2 falling on top of them from the nano-thermite demolition. So this video is a falsehood when they say fire caused floors in building 5 to collapse.
Jeffroc421 8 months ago
@Jeffroc421 Awesome! When my day's been hard I love to login and read comments like this! It makes me feel all the more intelligent and logical.
NafffRespect 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeffroc421 Awesome! When my day's been hard I love to login and read comments like this! It makes me feel all the more intelligent and logical.
NafffRespect 5 months ago
if anything this footage proves fire can cause exstensive damage to sturcture with out a global collapse of the whole stucture, these guys feel the structre is safe enought to walk around on the inside even thoe portions of the structual integrity are damage, floors collapsed but why did'nt it pancake the building like what sugested to happen in the other 3, yes fire is very damaging and can weaken structures, but a global collapse is insainly unlikley as proved in this video
trevpickering 8 months ago
@trevpickering WTC 5 was only 9 stories high, WTC 7 was 47 stories high. F=MA. The downward force of 7 was 5 times the downward force. I know this means nothing to you because you're a fucking asshole with an 8th grade education but that's the big reason.
tryithere 8 months ago
@tryithere dont pretend for a second i dont know how high each building at the WTC is. as a investigative firefighter based in the UK i have seen many building structures damaged by fire.
trevpickering 8 months ago
Comment removed
tryithere 8 months ago
The conditions must have been just right on that day as this had never happened before or since. AMAZING!!!
infoseeker264 9 months ago
@infoseeker264
It's not.
Weirdo10o4 9 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
???
infoseeker264 9 months ago
Fire right just never ever happened before in history yet all 3 collapsed that day lol what a big steaming pile of shit the 911 sheep need to wake up if were called 911 "truthtards" then you guys are 911 douchers
shemsdawg1 10 months ago 3
other high rise fires are worse than this and they never collapsed
kawasakikx250ff 11 months ago
@kawasakikx250ff No there are not.
DanSVT03 10 months ago
wow.
So that makes the whole thing collapse at free fall and /or near free fall then?
Nope..
It didnt here despite it taking a terrific hammering from falling rubble and being engulfed in flame from head to toe.
Look up videos of this building and youll see its a mass of flame, totally unlike the buildings that collapsed.
Wtc7 was specially designed a lot stronger than normal.
Thats why it was a spook building and the mayor had his bunker there.
zenoist2 1 year ago
Terrific damage, just to see something like that... The aerial photos are almost surreal too, shame they're not shown.
I would say it's a miracle that the building stood despite such severe fires and such massive damage... But it's not. No steel-frame has ever collapsed to fire in history.
Except, of course, WTC1,2&7, buildings you'd think would be a good deal stronger than any average steel-frame. Funny, isn't it...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
So Some of the Thermite from the possible Bombs on planes the "Highjackers" if not war games said they had on plane??If wargame the whole plane could of been filled with anything?Or the Laser Nose 747 mystery jet filmed on 911 shot it???I'll look into more.WTC5 I need to look more into as we all do.
conspiracymedia 1 year ago
At 0:26 notice the way the beams are interconnected. WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 were built like this. Its a lattice style that is very very strong but heavy. None of these buildings had a full structure collapse.
1, 2 and 7 had a tube within a tube, where all the supports were in the walls and a core, which were interconnected by the floors. This is much lighter but just barely strong enough for its job. weaken it and down it goes.
nivarion 1 year ago
Religious down rating.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
I love it, a very simple principle been explained to truthers
steel loses its strength when heated
scientific fact
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Are you that stupid that you think the heat from your grill is comperable to an uncontrolled office fire?
You can't be that stupid, can you?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Of course not. Simple sarcasm. But, I do find it odd that fire, in addition to the plane crashes (except for WTC 7 which was not hit by anything), caused the COMPLETE, and eerily similar destruction of both buildings.
jfragghianti 2 years ago
"except for WTC 7 which was not hit by anything"
Did you miss the part of the WTC that fell on building 7? It was in fact hit and seriously damaged.
How are the destructions similar if both towers fell from the top down while WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Denierbud, you are answering something you have not understood. He said: "both buildings" He is talking about tower 1 and tower 2... He is not talking about WTC 7 and its collapse.
Jjinn1 2 years ago
Nearly identical construction and nearly identical damage tends to result in nearly identical results. There's nothing surprising in that 1 & 2 collapsed in nearly identical fashions. This is generally a text book case as to why studying the design is so essentially when making any comparisons between these and other buildings.
xAnacondax 2 years ago
Near identical damage? The North Tower was hit in the center, very high up the building. The plane that hit the South Tower struck very far off of center, almost missing the entire structure, about 30 floors below the impact on the other tower. The plane that struck WTC 7 hit, oh, wait a sec, no plane hit it.
jfragghianti 2 years ago 13
Missing the entire structure? Every one of those exterior columns that got taken out was a load bearing structural member. Hit off center yes, missed the structure no... Struck much lower than the north tower, means higher stresses on the remaining structural integrity in the impact region. Virtually every failure mode beyond those variables was nearly identical. It doesn't seem you've studied failure modes in structures before, perhaps you should in order to discuss this on more equal footing
xAnacondax 2 years ago
@xAnacondax so you agree it hit off center, than why did the building fall straight down into the path of MOST resistance. Wouldnt it fall over to the side it was struck more towards
drhatchback 2 years ago
lol!!
Renoexplainsitall 2 years ago
now this is a conspiracy of the ethiopian government
aidan5555 2 years ago
This video proves nothing.
bigcatz4455 3 years ago
So much for the idiots who do not believe that an office fire alone can get hot enough to deform steel.
WTC5 had far more redundancy to prevent a cascading failure than had the towers or WTC7.
The three-storey panels of perimeter columns on the towers actually encouraged a cascading effect by the mechanical advantage gained by the falling dbris.
The lack of redundancy and greater static loading in WTC7 amplified the same effects shown here in WTC5.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Why were they so amazed of this collapse?
According to the official story, building 7 collapsed due to fire. So yesss.. very amazing collapse inside building 5...
911TRUTHINATOR, Why are they so stunned by a collapse within building 5.. If they already believed building 7 collapsed due to fire?
What you are seeing is a hit piece, designed to make building 7 look plausible.
They say it themselves "due to fire" To make it obvious that this can indeed happen..
Jjinn1 3 years ago
But it didnt happen to 5 nor did it happen to 6, and they were closer to wtc 1 and 2 than 7 so in that case 5 and 6 should have collapsed.
jdprice455 3 years ago
SHUT THE FUCK UP Jjinn1, apparently you dont live in the United States, this was a huge thing for americans and WTC's 1,2,5,7 collapsed thats good enough that we are suffering right now because of a fucked up george bush
AirRaider57 3 years ago
also #3 too
AirRaider57 3 years ago
AirRaider.. hold on a second..
Apparently you do live in the United States. Cause you perception is really messed up.
Do you know when building 7 collapsed? Well it's safe to say it collapsed before any investigation into any collapse took place. They blamed that collapse on "fire"...
So WHY would they be so amazed to see parts of building 5 collapse due to fire? When according to the official story building 7 already suffered a "global" collapse due to "fire"
Your IQ is low. Bye
Jjinn1 3 years ago
"So WHY would they be so amazed to see parts of building 5 collapse due to fire?"
So the fire investigators are part of the conspiracy in your world?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
yes and no... Try think for a second... if it's common sense that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire... Why would it be so mega incredible that a part of WTC 5 had collapsed due to fire?
Same thing, just less collapse, Why are they not going: "OMGZ WTC 7 collapsed due to fire"
Forget it dude... We both know it was thermite... Well you don't.. but you are also utterly stupid :/
Jjinn1 2 years ago
Arguments from incredulity are so worthless
Denierbud11 2 years ago
"Well you don't.. but you are also utterly stupid :/ "
Since I am not the person who believes in international conspiracies with no substantive evidence - I find this rather interesting, and commical
Denierbud11 2 years ago
HAHAHAH
WHAT PERP PROPAGANDA!
WTC 5 DIRECTLY UNDERNEAT 1 AND 2 REMAINED STANDING but with a slight collapase so that helps prove how WTC7 collapsed completely?!!
911TRUTHINATOR you are an absolute moron who should be ASHAMED FOR PUTTING UP SUCH TOTAL AND UTTER CRAP
GET CHENEY'S COCK FROM OUR MOUTH
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
why are truthers always talking about gay sex acts? never mind, i just saw your pic on your profile.
911TRUTHINATOR 3 years ago
HAHAHAHHA!! SEE?? SEEE??? I told you! I told you all! My thesis is complete! There is a connection between them! As for Jonny boy, another Mr. Garrison self hating homo who acts out like this. Poor closet homo.
Bundy133T 3 years ago
"If cheney doesnt have his cock up your ass"
there he goes again! he just can't help himself,lol.
911TRUTHINATOR 3 years ago
Its quite fun to watch a theory become fact, without any input from me, but from them! Its priceless!
Bundy133T 3 years ago
YAWN if my profile pic made you think of gay sex acts your the one projecting my friend
If cheney doesnt have his cock up your ass, you are a very naive shill for the man
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
Are you a Mr. Garrison type of person? Is this what you revert to when you have nothing legible to say? Or are you just insecure with your own homosexual tendencies and have to lash out like this against straight people?
Bundy133T 3 years ago
IDK, 911TRUTHINATOR, maybe they're uncomfortable with their own homosexuality that they have 2 deflect it others. They seldom have legit arguments so they resort to profanity, demonizing, name calling, etc to make them feel superior to others. They don't realize it just makes them more inferior.
sleonardelli 3 years ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Because they're fucking assholes.
tryithere 8 months ago