Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

When you look at the picture as a whole, what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all.
Of course it doesn't make any sense to you, cause you are Skyeagle. A man capable of leaping logic like superman can leap mountains.

Lets say I have a mansion which is a white elephant, costing me a fortune and not making me any money, I want to knock it down but I can't cause it's a listed building, which means it's protected by law from being knocked down. I try to find a buyer but no one initially interested, but then I find a buyer, it's a friend of mine, he buys the mansion from me and then takes out extra insurance in the event that there is gas explosion.

A few months later there is a gas explosions at the mansion, which causes the mansion to collapses.

My friend gets paid much more from the insurance than he paid for it. He gets to build a new state of the art mansion which might not be the white elephant that I once owned.

Would you think there is nothing suspicious about in this scenario at all??

And yet, WTC5 did in fact, suffer from partial collapse, but the question is: What prevented from the collapse from progressing further? On another note, I think you missed this from my earlier post.

I know exactly why WTC5 didn't collapse completely, because the building had plenty of strength in the undamaged parts of the structure which were not affected by the fire and more than capable of bearing any of the load which had been weakened.

As would be expected in almost any building except for maybe toy factories or an over pass....lol

Oh and WTC 1, 2 & 7 too. lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but much smaller than WTC 5 in comparison to the size of the building.

Probably, just like the fires in WTC 5 were high enough to weaken the steel structure, but yet it still stood.

Well, let's check it out.

FAILURE ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER 5 BUILDING

This project involves a failure analysis of the internal structural collapse that occurred in World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) due to fire exposure alone on September 11, 2001.

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-042907-214619/unrestricted/LaMalva.pdf

Of course it doesn't make any sense to you, cause you are Skyeagle. A man capable of leaping logic like superman can leap mountains.

That is an irrelevant comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, WTC5 did suffer from internal collapse due to fires and remember, WTC5 was not identical in construction as the other buildings.

WTC 1 & 2 was not identical in construction to WTC7 yet all 3 collapsed.

WTC1, 2 & 7 were not identical in construction to a toy factory in Thailand or an over pass but they all collapsed.

Its amazing how you will employ totally different structures which are not identical to WTC 1, 2 or 7 constructions to prove your point, but then reject WTC 5 which is much closer to design in construction with WTC 1,2 & 7 because it's a different construction. lol

Highlighting how weak your argument is and how you flip flop between points when they do not substantiate your bizarre logic...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's check it out.

What is there to check out?? :blink:

WTC5 suffered impact damaged from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and suffered fires.

Parts of the building collapsed and there was huge holes.....

5-wtc-photo.jpg

But the building still stood and didn't collapse entirely scattering steel beams all over the place like WTC 1 & 2, or in a nice neat pile like WTC7.

That is an irrelevant comment

No, it's very relevant...lol

Just like you can see the relevance in posting toy factories and an over pass to prove your point while rejecting closer comparisons.

It just highlights the double standard in your logic...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was, but I guess you overlooked the video presentations.

Not at all.

On the contrary, on the south side, which suffered from massive impact damage.

WTC7_Smoke.jpg

In that regard, it is logical to say that parts of its steel structure was exposed directly to fire, which was evident of buckling in one corner of WTC7, which clearly indicate that fire was weakening its steel structure.

wtc7swd.jpg

Let's take a look. What do you see missing?

So after all that, you ignore the question of whether there is evidence to support the fireproofing was removed from WTC 1, 2 & 7 by telling us that there was massive impact damage to WTC7?? :blink: hahahahahaha!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is there to check out?? :blink:

WTC5 suffered impact damaged from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and suffered fires.

Parts of the building collapsed and there was huge holes.....

5-wtc-photo.jpg

And as reported, the interior of WTC5 collapsed due to fire and remember, WTC5 was not constructed in the same manner as the other WTC buildings. And remember, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 suffered from side impacts.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after all that, you ignore the question of whether there is evidence to support the fireproofing was removed from WTC 1, 2 & 7 by telling us that there was massive impact damage to WTC7?? :blink: hahahahahaha!!

The photos proved my point that fires, not explosives, were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC 1 & 2 was not identical in construction to WTC7 yet all 3 collapsed.

Yes, they collapsed and investigators have said that all three buildings collapsed due to fire.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as reported, the interior of WTC5 collapsed due to fire and remember, WTC5 was not constructed in the same manner as the other WTC buildings. And remember, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 suffered from side impacts.

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzz........lol

Stating the obvious isn't helping your case...lol

So for the record...

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's are great to use and prove that fires brought down the WTC, even though none of them suffered impact damage and they are designed and constructed completely different from the WTC?

  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • An overpass - Collapsed - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7

Yet....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that had bigger fires are NOT great to use and prove that fires didn't bring down the WTC, even though one of them suffered much more impact damage than WTC7 and they are designed and constructed completely different from the WTC?

  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • WTC 5 - Survived - Suffered impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7

Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical or even remotely moronic about your arguments and points that you have brought up........lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they collapsed and investigators have said that all three buildings collapsed due to fire.

Cherry picking my quotes just show us all, just how weak your argument is and how you will flip flop like a fish out of water between points when they do not substantiate your bizarre logic...lol

Investigators are never wrong or can never be wrong...... :w00t:

Its a bit like arguing that the investigative theologians have shown us that life on earth was created by god...lol A point you will miss entirely...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherry picking my quotes just show us all,...

For the record, are you denying that investigators concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzz........lol

Stating the obvious isn't helping your case...lol

So for the record...

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's are great to use and prove that fires brought down the WTC, even though none of them suffered impact damage and they are designed and constructed completely different from the WTC?

  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • An overpass - Collapsed - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7

All due to fires. How many were those struck by a B-767? I might add that the steel structure of the Windsor building did in fact, collapse, which left only the concrete core standing, otherwise, the building would have suffered a complete collapse.

Yet....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that had bigger fires are NOT great to use and prove that fires didn't bring down the WTC, even though one of them suffered much more impact damage than WTC7 and they are designed and constructed completely different from the WTC?

  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived - No impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7
  • WTC 5 - Survived - Suffered impact damage - Construction different to WTC 1, 2 & 7

Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical or even remotely moronic about your arguments and points that you have brought up........lol

How many were struck by a B-767? How many had intact fire protection?

WTC5 suffered an internal collapse due to fire as noted in the reports and WTC1 and WTC2 were struck by B-767s. How many of those other buildings were struck by a large aircraft? In regards to WTC7, it suffered from massive impact damage as well. BIG differences!!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC5 suffered an internal collapse due to fire as noted in the reports and WTC1 and WTC2 were struck by B-767s. How many of those other buildings were struck by a large aircraft? In regards, WTC7 suffered from massive impact damage as well. BIG differences!!

WTC 5 suffered from massive impact damage as well and fires....lol

Much more than those of WTC7 in comparison to the size of WTC5 and because it was much closer to the collapse zones of WTC 1 & 2.

And as for your BIG differences, why didn't you point out your big differences when you posted the toy factory which you somehow thinks validates your argument?? :blink:

Nothing hypocritical at all about you is there Skyeagle?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC 5 suffered from massive impact damage as well and fires....

I guess you didn't read the report, but then again, what else is new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, are you denying that investigators concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

:blink:

I am pretty sure that investigators (NIST and FEMA) concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?? lol

Now where did I ever argue that the NIST or FEMA concluded something different?? lol Oh that's right, I didn't, you imagined it again.......lol

You and your imagination Skyeagle, it's as magical as the land of Oz...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WTC 5 suffered from massive impact damage as well and fires....

I guess you didn't read the report, but then again, what else is new?

Why didn't the WTC5 suffer from massive impact damage and fires?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

I am pretty sure that investigators (NIST and FEMA) concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings??

And, go on because there are many others as well. Don't forget the American Institute of Architects and the Society of Civl Engineers who have confirmed that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Don't forget the demolition experts who were in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't the WTC5 suffer from massive impact damage and fires?? lol

I guess you missed the video relating to the internal collapse of WTC5, which was attributed to fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, go on because there are many others as well. Don't forget the American Institute of Architects and the Society of Civl Engineers who have confirmed that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Don't forget the demolition experts who were in the area.

There may well be many others who I am sure think they thought that fires brought down the WTC.

I do not recall ever arguing that they thought it was for some other reason, but you have no doubt deluded yourself that I think they thought it was for some other reason...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you missed the video relating to the internal collapse of WTC5, which was attributed to fire.

So didn't the WTC5 suffer from massive impact damage and fires then?? lol

Or are suggesting that WTC5, which was much closer than WTC7 to the collapse zones of WTC 1& 2, didn't suffer any impact damage at all and it was just fires?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may well be many others who I am sure think they thought that fires brought down the WTC.

They KNEW that fires brought down the WTC buildings. That fact can be ascertained by the fact the WTC buildings began to buckle before they collapsed. That was an indication that fire was weakening their steel structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They KNEW that fires brought down the WTC buildings. That fact can be ascertained by the fact the WTC buildings began to buckle before they collapsed. That was an indication that fire was weakening their steel structure.

They knew is not really an argument....lol

The fact that they knew WTC7 collapse from fires without examining a piece of steel doesn't make a very good case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, you haven't been paying any attention to what has been posted in regards to WTC5.

Oh I have, but I'm not sure what your point is??

If you can't make it without making logical overhand knots, then maybe you don't really have a point.......lol

However, maybe you have fooled yourself you have a made a point!! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They knew is not really an argument...

The fact that they knew WTC7 collapse from fires without examining a piece of steel doesn't make a very good case.

Of course they examined the steel, but I guess you overlooked other videos relating to that effect as well.

Oh I have, but I'm not sure what your point is??

That WTC5 did in fact, suffer serious localized impact damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.