eagleye13 Loc: Fl

More samples of buildings that did not go down:

http://youtu.be/-NrASZxGu_o

emarine

I have been working in a related field for 30 years, same math and science just different application ... the near free fall speed and the 100mph squibs correlate to a gravity induced event... if explosives were used the shockwaves from the explosions would have had a very visible effect on all the smoke around the Towers ... the speed of the "explosive squibs" in nothing but evidence proving your expert wrong... those buildings were mostly a huge volume of air filled with smoke... the buildings collapsed under their own weight from damage suffered by the 757's that stuck them... thermite is very slow inefficient and oblivious and mini nukes is plain nuts ... most of your conspiracy evidence is unsubstantiated at best and hearsay for the most part... The failure of the two towers is more than oblivious ... that's why nothing is being done about it except for the people who have to argue everything... there are better avenues to explore ... I provided a clear video in slow motion proving the moment of failure had nothing to do with explosives ...you and many others have good imaginations... had they tried to implode the towers it probably wouldn't have gone as well...

emarine

Your key evidence is pure bullshit at many levels

emarine

Pretty cool video... Now how many of those buildings were 110 story's and were hit by fully loaded 757's full of jet-A fuel?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

None; just as Building 7 wasn't.

Compiled footage of Building 7 collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p34XrI2Fm6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

emarine

I posted to Larry long ago to get off the main towers and concentrate on WTC 7... There is somewhat of a problem with this failure... but the problem lays in the original construction and the enforcement of NYC building codes... not a controlled demolition... unless you guys can prove to me that high explosives can be silent and produce no shock waves in heavy smoke I'm game...

payne1000

As is almost always the case, you don't provide sources to back up your erroneous claims. The only sources available to you are the same old cover-up sites you and other trolls always use. You know the ones--those written by John Ray who has no credentials in science or physics.

payne1000

eagleye supplied sources. Where are your sources to back up your claim that WTC7 had construction problems?

emarine

[quote=payne1000]eagleye supplied sources. Where are your sources to back up your claim that WTC7 had construction problems?[/qu

See if you can find something unusual in wtc 7... then think about it...

The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons, with a red granite facade. The building was 610 feet (190 m) tall, with a trapezoidal footprint that was 330 ft (100 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.[12][13] Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1983.[12] In May 1987, the building opened, becoming the seventh structure of the World Trade Center.[14]

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[15] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[16] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[17] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[7] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[16]





Transfer trusses used on the 5–7th floors to redistribute load to the foundation
A shipping and receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the eastern quarter of the 7 World Trade Center footprint. The building was open below the 3rd floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp.[16] The spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was gypsum-based Monokote which had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns.[6]

Mechanical equipment was installed on floors four through seven, including 12 transformers on the 5th floor. Several emergency generators installed in the building were used by the Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney, and other tenants.[6] In order to supply the generators, 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel were stored below ground level.[18] Diesel fuel distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor.[19] After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center. Although this decision was criticized in light of the events of 9/11, the fuel in the building is today not believed to have contributed to the collapse of the building.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] The roof of the building included a small west penthouse and a larger east mechanical penthouse.[15]

payne1000

I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article which would cause WTC7 to fall like a classic controlled demolition. This high rise architect explains why fire could not bring the Tower down that fast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3FQtZnk2A

emarine

so you could not find any unusual facts from my post... you obviously don't understand the lengths the engineers went to erect a building that was twice the size and weight of the intended foundation... I asked you to think about it... also good hint about the fire rating...

DASHY

We all have firm beliefs in the position we hold regarding the 911 disaster. We should encourage Congress to reopen a fully transparent investigation. We have nothing to fear....and a lot to gain.

emarine

I agree ... this investigation should start with the original intel about commercial Jets and high value targets ... I believe they had fair warning and plenty of time

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Gener

The government will NEVER reinvestigate this. It is not in their interests to do so, and emarine, you are not even making any sense. There is NO possible gravitational anomaly that could have brought those buildings down. As far as hearing the sound of the explosions, give us a break. The building wasn't that close in the video and the explosions took place inside the building. How many sounds do you hear in the video? You are either deluded or you are purposely trying to create confusion. A building CANNOT come straight down like that. It CANNOT happen. Period.