Why do people never mention WTC 5

[technoextreme]

Every time I read a CT nonsense they always mention WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The problem is that there is plenty of documentation that WTC 5 experienced failure by extreme fires. IT just didn't completely collapse.

[Unsecured Coins]

because there was nothing special about it. Romance is what sells a conspiracy theory

[Gravy]

Because WTC 5 had so much impact damage, it's probably very hard to determine what was caused by fires. There was no forensic investigation into the fate of WTC 5, AFAIK. Chapter 4 (http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_ch4.pdf) of the FEMA report discusses its damage, but doesn't go into great depth.

I often use this photo as an example of what an office fire can do to large steel columns. It's from the 8th floor (of 9) of WTC 5.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790473fd447d5c0a.jpg

[technoextreme]

Because WTC 5 had so much impact damage, it's probably very hard to determine what was caused by fires. There was no forensic investigation into the fate of WTC 5, AFAIK. Chapter 4 of the FEMA report discusses its damage, but doesn't go into great depth.
Gotcha. This makes sense. And looking at the pictures that building got obliterated.

[Unsecured Coins]

what I meant by the romance thing was... where's the intrigue? WTC 1 and 2 were the tallest buildings, WTC 7 had all those agencies...

spooky.


wtc 5 collapsed with nothing special inside? get the f outta here...

[leftysergeant]

Actually, I have seen a lot of NDEW supporters claiming that the patterns of damage support whacky Judy's discombobulator ray theory. She even shows some pictures of them on her website, and I think Shafquat mentions them as well.

Supposedly the holes through the roofs are round and suggestive of a direct hit by an energy weapon.

That's how certain extreme twoofers see them.

It only takes a casual observation to see that the edges of all the holes are a bunch of straight lines and that there are big slabs of still-joined perimeter columns in the holes. That has to be an extreme reach even for a twoofer. to call that NDEW damage.

[technoextreme]

what I meant by the romance thing was... where's the intrigue? WTC 1 and 2 were the tallest buildings, WTC 7 had all those agencies...

spooky.


wtc 5 collapsed with nothing special inside? get the f outta here...
True it just makes less sense. The logical outcome is that WTC 5 had to have caught on fire in the same manner as WTC 7. Someone should call them out on it.Actually, I have seen a lot of NDEW supporters claiming that the patterns of damage support whacky Judy's discombobulator ray theory. She even shows some pictures of them on her website, and I think Shafquat mentions them as well.
One minute into reading her website I found five different errors. The Verizon building had huge gaping holes in it's structure. That wasn't minimal damage at all.
I often use this photo as an example of what an office fire can do to large steel columns. It's from the 8th floor (of 9) of WTC 5.
Yowser. That thing is twisted around like a pretzel.

[CptColumbo]

Once NIST is done with it's investigation of WTC7, then the cry will be "What about building 5?"

[twinstead]

I wonder why no CT'ers EVER post to threads like this.

[Myriad]

Every time I read a CT nonsense they always mention WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The problem is that there is plenty of documentation that WTC 5 experienced failure by extreme fires. IT just didn't completely collapse.


We never mention it beecause if anyone looked too closely at WTC5, it would blow the whole official story wide open! Five (as in the five sides of the Pentagon) is the key, the hub, the common link. Once you understand the how and the why of WTC5, all the rest falls into place. It was all about five. All the rest was just distraction and collateral damage.

They never mention it because... well, most of them never see the real pattern. They're too dazzled by nonsense about CD and PNAC and Stand-Downs. Every once in a while someone does figure it out, and then regrettable but necessary measures must be taken.

So, stop mentioning it please!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[realitybites]

We never mention it beecause if anyone looked too closely at WTC5, it would blow the whole official story wide open! Five (as in the five sides of the Pentagon) is the key, the hub, the common link. Once you understand the how and the why of WTC5, all the rest falls into place. It was all about five. All the rest was just distraction and collateral damage.

They never mention it because... well, most of them never see the real pattern. They're too dazzled by nonsense about CD and PNAC and Stand-Downs. Every once in a while someone does figure it out, and then regrettable but necessary measures must be taken.

So, stop mentioning it please!

Respectfully,
Myriad

5 is the roman numeral V.

V is for vendetta.

[LashL]

5 is the roman numeral V.

V is for vendetta.

Shhhhh!

All memories of this thread's existence have to be erased before NWO Kitty sees it, or boy, are you in trouble!

(Damn. Where's my shiny-flashy-memory-erasing thingie when I need it?)

[~enigma~]

5 is the roman numeral V.

V is for vendetta.
Remember, remember the...oh damn...it's the 18th. There is always next year :)

[bonkey]

5 is the roman numeral V.

V is for vendetta.

No....

V is for lizard aliens.

Lizardaliens! Icke was right all along!!111eleventy!1!1oneoneone!

[qarnos]

I wonder why no CT'ers EVER post to threads like this.

Probably because their leaders haven't told them what to think about it, yet.

[hellaeon]

Because WTC 5 had so much impact damage, it's probably very hard to determine what was caused by fires. There was no forensic investigation into the fate of WTC 5, AFAIK. Chapter 4 (http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_ch4.pdf) of the FEMA report discusses its damage, but doesn't go into great depth.

I often use this photo as an example of what an office fire can do to large steel columns. It's from the 8th floor (of 9) of WTC 5.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790473fd447d5c0a.jpg


Despite the lack of investigation, twoofies dont scream up and down about this one...why not?

[WildCat]

Despite the lack of investigation, twoofies dont scream up and down about this one...why not?
There's no video of it.

[CptColumbo]

Despite the lack of investigation, twoofies dont scream up and down about this one...why not?There's no video of it.

ETA:Wildcat beat me to it.

In that case, 5 isn't as sexy as 7.

[Diagoras]

Why would they even bother looking at it? There's nothing in the WTC5 story to support the conspiracy theory, and as an ex-Truther I can tell you that I would have been wholly uninterested in talking about that building had I known about it when I still believed in the conspiracy. Truthers only care about the things that support their view. Everything else is irrelevant. Even the lives of the people who died that day; they are valuable to the Truther movement only insomuch as their testimony validates the conspiracy theory and their deaths charge people emotionally into becoming Truthers.

The case of WTC5 is of no value to the Truther movement. If anything, it has negative value, because it appears to be similar to the official story of what happened inside WTC7, just not as extensively. Had the damage been more severe, that building might have collapsed too. As a Truther, I might have even recognized that consciously and still tried to keep people from investigating it, because it doesn't disprove the WTC7 controlled demolition theory, and it can only serve to draw people away from the theory. Seriously. I was so convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition that that wouldn't have convinced me otherwise, and I would try to not bring it up for the good of the movement.

[gumboot]

Despite the lack of investigation, twoofies dont scream up and down about this one...why not?


WTC5 is proof that buildings that are hit by large amounts of debris and suffer extensive fires do not globally collapse!

Or something. :rolleyes:

-Gumboot