Huge Amounts Of Smoke Came From WTC 5 & 6 NOT WTC 7
Photos aid debunking of WTC 7 "raging fires" claims
Steve Watson

Tuesday, March 20, 2007  

Photographs taken on the afternoon of 9/11 have recently emerged on the web showing that huge amounts of smoke poured forth primarily from the buildings closest to the collapsed towers, not from the further away building 7 which mysteriously collapsed later the same afternoon.

Despite the fact that the official NIST report cannot officially explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continue to cite "raging infernos" inside the building.

The following set of images highlights the fact that the majority of smoke emanating from the complex was coming from the smaller buildings 5 and 6, which WERE engulfed by fire after suffering major structural damage from falling debris.

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!

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.


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.net          Copyright 2001-2007 Alex Jones          All rights reserved.