|
We can clearly see the
fire crews dousing building 5 and putting out the
fires, thus causing a great deal of smoke to be
emitted as the flames are deprived of oxygen.
We have previously shown photos of
WTC Building 7, provided to us by an anonymous rescue worker
who was at ground zero on 9/11, in comparison with buildings
closer to the towers that sustained significantly more fire
and debris damage yet did not collapse. Here are those photos
once more.
CLICK ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
IMAGES FOR HIGH DEFINITION ENLARGEMENTS.
Building 7 to the right of the picture
as Building 5 burns in the left background. From
this image, which building seems the more likely
to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited
fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely
engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom?
Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on
the afternoon of September 11.
The burned out husk of Building 5
two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive
damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited
fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse
of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but
its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.
Here is a separate image revealing
the extent of the fires in WTC
5. Despite raging infernos and debris
gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative
size significantly more severe fires than the twin
towers or Building 7 - the building stood while
the other three all collapsed.
In addition, Building
6, which was even closer to the north
tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned
demolition months later), suffered even more extreme
fire and debris damage, but the building did not
fall down implosion style like the towers and Building
7.
A wider perspective shot of the rubble
of Building 7. The Fiterman Hall
building and the U.S. Post Office building across
the street show little damage. Building 5 in the
background is completely charred but still stands.
The rubble of WTC Building 7 lies
in front of the Fiterman Hall building. The building
has fallen in its own footprint - another sign of
controlled demolition.
As can be seen in the photo below
(from Knoxville News Sentinel Sept. 11 photo gallery,
this particular photo reportedly from the New York
City Office of Emergency Management), WTC 6, which
was immediately adjacent to WTC 1, has a large hole
in the middle from falling debris, yet did not collapse.
Above is a map showing the relative
position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though
Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it
was not significantly effected by the collapse of
the towers due to it being shielded by buildings
5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers
and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse.
Remember that firefighters were at
no point engaged in tackling the fires inside building
7. The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter
five, stating "...the firefighters made
the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight
the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from
the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed
throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic
or manual suppression activities."
Incidentally this is exactly the reason
why Silverstein's explanation of his "pull
it" remark doesn't hold water. He said
late in the afternoon that the decision was made
to "pull it", by which he then later explained
that he meant evacuate the firefighting operation.
The problem is, according to FEMA, there was no
building 7 firefighting operation.
The photograph below (click
for slightly bigger enlargement) was taken at
around 3PM on 9/11, approximately 2 hours 20 minutes
before the collapse of WTC 7 (or around 1 hour 54
minutes if
you're the BBC). It shows small fires confined
to just two floors of the building. Later images
from news reports (such as the afore mentioned BBC
one) show no signs that the fires had worsened significantly
enough to collapse such a huge building.
Officially eight floors of the building were subject
to sporadic fires before its collapse. The official
NIST report concluded that it could not therefore
comprehensively identify how the building could
have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint
given the damage that it had sustained.
Remember also that experts
stated about building 7:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and
the structural damage might have been able to bring
the building down, some engineers said. But that
would not explain steel members in the debris pile
that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily
high temperatures" .
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid
to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were
subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and
evaporate them. Do these fires look like they could
do that?
In the most infamous debunking piece to date,
Popular
mechanics relied on a combination of all kinds
of theories to explain away the collapse of building
7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor
the falling debris could explain the collapse of
7:
According to NIST, there was one primary reason
for the building's failure: In an unusual design,
the columns near the visible kinks were carrying
exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft.
of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary
analysis has shown is that if you take out just
one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder
notes, "it could cause a vertical progression
of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
However as we have previously
reported, building 7 was specifically designed
to have floors removed without collapsing. It was
essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York
Times put it. To suggest building 7 would have been weakened
as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it
is TOTALLY untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would
design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one
column would cause the entire thing to collapse? This is total
harebrain logic.
Building 7 has become the key to unlocking the
fraud that is the official story behind 9/11.
RELATED:
9/11: WTC Building 7
RELATED:
Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges
RELATED:
Silverstein, FDNY Decided to 'Pull WTC 7': An In-Depth Analysis
RELATED:
After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us
About 9/11?
RELATED:
Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
