Inside Edition posted an article titled: Rosie's 9/11 Claims - How Do They Stack Up?
Well, we thought it was only fair that we should ask the same question of their information. Taken from their Article:
What Rosie and other conspiracy theorists don't say is that building 7, since rebuilt, suffered a 10-story gash from huge columns which fell from the twin towers.
Oh my, a 10-story "gash." -sounds devastating. Meanwhile, the North Tower literally fell on top of Building 6, crushing a GIANT round hole out of the center of the building.
Diagram of WTC complex: Note in this picture 1 WTC (The North Tower) is almost directly against building 6 (6 WTC) whereas building 7 (7 WTC) is the farthest building away from both the North and South towers.
Despite having a huge chunk ripped from its core and despite fires that far exceeded those of building 7, the sections of WTC 6 that weren't crushed by falling debris remained standing and had to be brought down with explosives. Here is a picture of Building 6 after having the North Tower fall directly on it. (Note the giant hole in the center of the building.)
Let's not forget Building 5 suffered major damage to its south side from falling debris. (Not to mention the chunk ripped out of the west side and the big hole in the north west wing of the building.) However, as one would expect, the unaffected sections of the building remained standing. Here is a picture of the extensive damage done to WTC 5.
To provide some perspective, here is a picture of the entire WTC complex after all the smoke had cleared:
The article goes on to state (about building 7)
It was also weakened by fires that burned for 10 hours.
As already noted, WTC 6 and WTC 5 sustained greater damage and suffered intense fires...no collapse.
Quoting Popular Mechanics editor James Meigs, the article goes on to say about building 7:
Meigs said as much as 25% of the building was scooped out by the falling debris. He added, "There were intense fires that burned inside the building that weakend the steel frame. Rosie O'Donnell said this was the first time in history fire melted steel, but fire doesn't have to melt steel to weaken it enough to fail."
Wait a minute, I thought it was a "10-story gash." The last time I checked, 25% of a 47 story building (the height of building 7) equals over 11 stories. In other words, if you tried to remove "25% of WTC 7" over a "10-story gash" you'd literally have to remove all 10 floors, plus nearly 2 more floors for good measure. -I can hardly imagine a more ridiculous exaggeration. Please share with us Mr. Meigs how you came up with this "25%" figure. Nearly every picture I've seen of WTC 7 shows no damage at all, save a couple pictures of the south west face. And the "damage" in those pictures are dwarfed by that of buildings 6 and 5.
Regarding the "fire doesn't have to melt steel to weaken it" comment; this is a complete misrepresentation of what MOST people are talking about when they mention "melted steel." What we're talking about is: The actual physical SAMPLES of previously molten metal taken from the WTC wreckage and analyzed by Dr. Steven Jones.
The fires could have burned for 1000 hours and they could NEVER have gotten hot enough to create the molten metal found in the basement of WTC 7. This is SCIENCE, not opinion. It is physically impossible for burning diesel fuel and office materials to account for the molten metal samples that have been taken from the WTC site; PERIOD. In a logical world, we can't even begin discussing what caused the collapse of the buildings until we've identified what burned hot enough to create the molten metal. Why? Because whatever burned hot enough to create the molten metal also burned hot enough to destroy the steel support columns and, as such, provides the most logical cause of collapse!
...By all means Inside Edition, PLEASE keep avoiding the evidence and trying to confuse people. Every time this topic comes up, it only makes people start digging. And when they get the "other half of the story" it works to our advantage every time.
For a more complete refutation of the "Fire Initiated Collapse" theory, click here:http://stopthelie.com/fire_initiated_collapse.html#FireInitiatedCollapse