Who supports a new 9/11 investigation and why or why not? (lawyer, gasoline)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by DifferentDrum

Explain what happened to WTC7.
Thanks.

Why is it when the twoofers talk about bld7, people never:

1. Admit that the building got BADLY damaged when the towers fell:

a) the entire front fascia was sheared off

b) a 12-16 story gash(hole) in the corner(main supports)(Proves the FACT that there was MASSIVE structural damage)

2. Admit that there was an entire ConED substation(electric plant) below the building. (this article PROVES the substation and the new one rebuilt in May04,, It also gives a good description of the transformers)

Lower Manhattan Development Corporation - GOVERNOR PATAKI JOINS CON EDISON TO MARK OPENING OF ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AT 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER

3. Admit that the building had 20 or more back up generators (4 on the 23rd floor, 3 on the 7th floor, 14 on the 5th floor, 1 on the 8th floor w/fuel tank, 4 on the 46th floor, 1 on the 9th floor)(Proves the FACT of many things that could have BLOWN up within the building supporting the statements of "heard explosions")

4. Admit that the building had 22 main Transformers(which can explode if heated(full of oil))(some of them 2 stories tall) and 2 dry transformers (10 1st floor, 12 5th floor, 2 7th floor)(proves the FACT of more things that could have blown up)

5. Admit that the Fuel source for those generators was stored in the building and equaled 18 tankers (18,000 gallons on the 2nd floor, and 48,000 in the lower level, 300 gallons on the 23rd floor, 300 gallons on the 5th floor, 100 gallons on the 9th floor, 300 gallons on the 7th floor)(proves the FACT of a major fuel source, along with all the office furnature)

6. Admit the there was LP gas lines running throughout the building

7. Admit that the Penthouse fell FIRST

8. Admit that the building did NOT fall symmetrically it collapsed from the center(the north wall even covered the debris

9. Admit that it did NOT fall with in its footprint, it covered "barkley street" and caused SIGNIFICANT DAMAGED(fell onto) another building (30 west broadway) and the Verizon building( just some logic here cant be in its "own footprint if it went OUTSIDE of its footprint)(ABSOLUTELY proves that it was not a PERFECT symmetrical fall)

10. Admit that the FIREMEN, said the fire could not be CONTROLLED

A) I will give just two,,,,"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors." –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...HIC/9110081.PD (broken link)

b). The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110217.PDF (broken link)

11. Admit that there was a problem with the water supply(NO WATER)

12 the only mention "3 buildings" but not the other 10 buildings were destroyed that day in NYC

13. Admit that to wire a building.:

.......a) would take months.

.......b) beams would HAVE to be cut ,making the building NOT safe to go into for months prior to the collapse(proves that there is not way the building could have been imploded since monday sept 10 was a WORK DAY)

.......c) explosives don't like fire and heat

........d) that the term "pull" is NOT used in Explosive demos

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by DifferentDrum

Explain what happened to WTC7.
Thanks.

real archetects and engineers have

Structure Magazine explains cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

[DifferentDrum]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

real archetects and engineers have

Structure Magazine explains cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

A column- a SINGLE column failure? And you believe it? The WTCs were built with a very substantial central core- you need to look at the history and bluprints.

And what about asking yourself some common sense questions like "If one column in a building fails is the whole building going to fall at near free fall speed into a pulverized pile?"- EVEN if it's a wood framed building, is that likely to happen? Is that what, based on your life experience and observations, you would EXPECT to happen?!!

Then go from there to see what can be learned about the construction of the towers and what has to happen to allow for nearly free fall destruction and pulverization. Oh, and go look at some controlled demolitions on youtube as well as the vids of the WTCs coming down. See if they look anything alike.

If you still have no question at all about the official story.....I have this bridge........Seriously, be careful out there, you are easily duped.

[workingclasshero]

do you even understand that wtc7 was built OVER a ConEd substation????

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by DifferentDrum

. Oh, and go look at some controlled demolitions on youtube as well as the vids of the WTCs coming down. See if they look anything alike.

If you still have no question at all about the official story.....I have this bridge........Seriously, be careful out there, you are easily duped.

and then you go look at some natural collapses...

what do you think a collapse is going to do

they are designed to come straight down as not to dammage other property too much


I built bridges just to blow them up as a combat engineer

[mistygrl092]

Ok, we now have a sample size of 104 and, as we all know, n=100. So albeit however skewed, and irrespective of how many sock puppets, the numbers have remained consistent. If three out of 10 want another investigation, we should have another investigation.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

Ok, we now have a sample size of 104 and, as we all know, n=100. So albeit however skewed, and irrespective of how many sock puppets, the numbers have remained consistent. If three out of 10 want another investigation, we should have another investigation.

and 6.7 out of 10 say enough already

we should NOT do what has already been done

the numbers dont lie

[mistygrl092]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

and 6.7 out of 10 say enough already

we should NOT do what has already been done

the numbers dont lie

Well, sorry, that is just not good enough. When you take into account that CD heavily leans towards the right, the numbers would even be more towards an investigation.

[DifferentDrum]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

do you even understand that wtc7 was built OVER a ConEd substation????

So?

Here's a good article to read and see what you think:

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

[DifferentDrum]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

and then you go look at some natural collapses...

what do you think a collapse is going to do

they are designed to come straight down as not to dammage other property too much


I built bridges just to blow them up as a combat engineer

You built bridges just to blow them up? Our tax dollars at work...........


A natural collapse doesn't happen at free fall speed.

"(If you have not seen the collapse of Building 7, find it on YouTube and watch for yourself. For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said.

If you have never seen the collapse of Building 7 you might also stop and ask yourself why the mainstream media did not repeatedly show you this most bizarre event as it did the Twin Towers.)"

Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist