University of Fairbanks Disprove Official Story on 9/11. More In The Works. (FBI, military)

[geofra]

A 110 story building falling on it might be significant.

The UAF WTC 7 report concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

[workingclasshero]

[quote=ray34iyf;56100576]This study was looking at WTC Building #7, which was never hit by a plane, but fell at free fall neatly into it's own footprint. Video of the collapse is here:
/QUOTE]

your statement is not true

bldg7 was hit by a falling tower
bldg7 did NOT fall at freefall speed (close but not quite there)
and it did not fall within its own footprint...infact its falling damaged other buildings...

and quit spamming the boards with youtube

[ray34iyf]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

As a emergency responder on that day, I dont believe any thing the garbage site of ae911 says
oh please of those 1500 A+E...NONE of them have experience with skyscrapers, demolition, or structural engineering...one of the 'engineers' is a DENTAL engineer

it was not a controlled explosive demolition, not one milligram of explosive residue was ever found


and it did NOT fall within its own footprint, and the city did not dispose of the debris, all was maintained at the sifting site

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 furniture)

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.PDF

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

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

All of what you say here would led credence to the fact that a symmetrical collapse at free fall speed would be impossible. If there was that much asymmetrical damage to Building 7, there certainly wouldn't be a free fall collapse into a neat rubble pile exactly like a controlled demolition. The science that was released on the topic yesterday confirms this. A simultaneous severing of all of the core columns is what would have had to happen to see what we saw that day.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by ray34iyf

This study was looking at WTC Building #7, which was never hit by a plane, but fell at free fall neatly into it's own footprint. Video of the collapse is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hycank4AxBo

It collapsed due to the massive damage of the WTC site.

[ray34iyf]

[quote=workingclasshero;56100596]

Originally Posted by ray34iyf

This study was looking at WTC Building #7, which was never hit by a plane, but fell at free fall neatly into it's own footprint. Video of the collapse is here:
/QUOTE]

your statement is not true

bldg7 was hit by a falling tower
bldg7 did NOT fall at freefall speed (close but not quite there)
and it did not fall within its own footprint...infact its falling damaged other buildings...

and quit spamming the boards with youtube

Research 9/11 further. NIST even admits that Building 7 fell at free fall for "2.5" seconds... as far as a building hitting it, again, like I said before... that would led more credence to an asymmetrical collapse and certainly not one at "free fall speed". Watch Building 7 collapse. Believe what your eyes tell you... and what science just proved yesterday. A simultaneous severing of all of the core columns would have been necessary to have happen what happened. Anyways, I encourage all to read the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth website, https://www.ae911truth.org/, read the paper that was released yesterday (that is in the original post), and educate yourself.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by ray34iyf

All of what you say here would led credence to the fact that a symmetrical collapse at free fall speed would be impossible. If there was that much asymmetrical damage to Building 7, there certainly wouldn't be a free fall collapse into a neat rubble pile exactly like a controlled demolition. The science that was released on the topic yesterday confirms this. A simultaneous severing of all of the core columns is what would have had to happen to see what we saw that day.

dude..I was there, I worked the pile looking for survivors.... it was NOT in "a neat rubble pile"

a neat pile doesn't damage other buildings

you are falling for the "loose change" garbage

[workingclasshero]

[quote=ray34iyf;56100619]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

Research 9/11 further. NIST even admits that Building 7 fell at free fall for "2.5" seconds... as far as a building hitting it, again, like I said before... that would led more credence to an asymmetrical collapse and certainly not one at "free fall speed". Watch Building 7 collapse. Believe what your eyes tell you... and what science just proved yesterday. A simultaneous severing of all of the core columns would have been necessary to have happen what happened. Anyways, I encourage all to read the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth website, https://www.ae911truth.org/, read the paper that was released yesterday (that is in the original post), and educate yourself.

research further...I have for 18 years....I was THERE


and ae911truth...is garbage.....they have been debunked 1000's of times

everything from s.jone's paint chips..to dental engineer judy wood(?) saying it was a space ray beam.... so much for your engineers

[LauraC]

What does Fairbanks Alaska know of skyscrapers? Do people actually go to school there to study them?

[Absolom]

Originally Posted by Camaro5

Gee, how much money did they spend to come to that conclusion?

No, the collapse wasn't caused directly by fire. The collapse was caused by having a 747 ram into the side of it. That is not what you would call a "normal" situation. I'm sure the codes have changed now, but at the time buildings were not made to withstand that kind of impact.

Um...............

[Mathguy]

OP, anytime someone skips a direct link to the study and instead sends us to a website that pushes conspiracy for financial gain it makes me suspicious.

Try again, link directly to the study and let's see.