UA Anchorage releases the final report on WTC-7: Fires DID NOT cause the collapse

As the OP so rightly reminded us, this is bad timing to release.

Its actually kind of stupid to release it now and one can't help being suspicious about it. This report will be buried alive and no one will see it of any consequences.

This report should have been saved for a slow Newsday, of course, now, sometimes in the future they should have released this.

originally posted by: Phage

It took less than 20 seconds of burning? Weird.
Seemed that it took longer than that. Of course, I was only watching on TV.

I think they are talking about where gravity took over...lol

a reply to: mrthumpy

You realise you've posted that on the internet where everyone can see it right?

Yup That's where I got too. lol

originally posted by: Willtell
As the OP so rightly reminded us, this is bad timing to release.

Its actually kind of stupid to release it now and one can't help being suspicious about it. This report will be buried alive and no one will see it of any consequences.

This report should have been saved for a slow Newsday, of course, now, sometimes in the future they should have released this.

That's a fact.
In the light of what is going on now... they could say aliens did it and we could turn the page and say "Next".

a reply to: democracydemo

Sigh.

The whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Quote where I ever made such a claim I had such pictures.

Now post one picture or video of a pyrotechnic actively cutting a WTC 7 column.

Here are some pictures of WTC Debris

Now circular cuts made by burning 3000 degree Fahrenheit thermite?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Sorry logic eludes you.

There were floor connection failures and structural failures in WTC5 caused by fire / thermal stress. Is that a false statement.

WTC 5 was hit by falling tower debris. Is that a false statement.

Why would such failures be impossible in WTC7 floor connections and floor spans as claimed by Hulsey?

Here are the pictures again from WTC 5.







Now. Explain again why it’s impossible for steel structure buildings to be susceptible to fire / thermal stress related failures?

That is the heart of the Hulsey report, right? That it was impossible for any type of floor connection failure? But WTC 5 shows that is crap.

Again. The vertical columns in WTC 7 got their lateral support from the floor system. If enough of the floor connection failures and floor collapses seen in WTC 5 repeated enough along the length of a single vertical column in WTC 7, that column would buckle.

This is were you explain the difference between the WTC 5 floor connections and WTC 7 floor connections. And why WTC 7 being hit with flaming debris like WTC 5 wouldn’t have the same floor connection failures. And would not have collapsed floors like WTC 5.

originally posted by: Willtell
As the OP so rightly reminded us, this is bad timing to release.

Its actually kind of stupid to release it now and one can't help being suspicious about it. This report will be buried alive and no one will see it of any consequences.

This report should have been saved for a slow Newsday, of course, now, sometimes in the future they should have released this.

Maybe that was the point. To give false hope to those that will support Architects and Engineers no matter how many lies and falsehoods AE uses. The release was for those that will follow AE no matter what. While the study stays under the radar for the major of people. Purposely escaping attention the study might have gotten otherwise.

a reply to: neutronflux

What should do is contrast damage suffered by WTC 7 with that of 90 West Street on opposite end of Trade Center complex

Like WTC 7, 90 West, was struck by flaming debris by collapse of one of the towers, in this case WTC 2 (South Tower) and suffered major damage from impact and fire. Yet is survived and has been renovated into an apartment complex

Question is WHY ??

90 West was designed by noted architect Cass Gilbert . It was built in 1905-1907 At 23 stories was 1/2 size of WTC 7
It was noted for it copper mansard roof

en.wikipedia.org...

How did a building nearly 100 years old survive while newer buildings collapsed in heap of rubble

Answer is old school building techniques versus modern lightweight aka cheap aka cheap and nasty

90 West was built using traditional series of rivet steel columns - no fancy engineering using long span cantilever
truss and other engineering tricks

Most important was the fire proofing - 90 West consisted of some 4 to 6 inches of terra cotta (that's brick to you people hiding out in Mom;s basement) around each steel member none of the fragile spray on fire proofing used in WTC complex

The floors were foot thick terra cotta flat arch between steel I beams

Building had a heavy terra cotta masonry outer shell, not a thin curtain wall designed to keep the weather out

The collapse of the South Tower showered the building with burning debris

www.nytimes.com...

Out-of-control fires raged in the building for days, gutting five floors and major portions of four others. A plummeting javelin of steel demolished the kitchen at the Morton's of Chicago steakhouse on the ground floor of the building, at the corner of Albany and West Streets, which once had the highest revenues of any of the chain's restaurants.

The battered copper sheets of the sloping mansard roof -- pierced, pitted and dented by hurtling projectile debris -- were peeled back as if by a giant with a can opener. On the rooftop, the decorative copper balustrade was melted and twisted .

An executive secretary died in the building when she was trapped in an elevator there after the attack, and another office worker is believed to have perished with her. Recovery crews searching the roof, scaffolding and gutter pipes discovered large sections of one of the hijacked airplanes, and fragments of remains believed to have been those of people in the planes and the towers

Multiple floors burned out, yet no internal collapses or structural damage

A more compete account of 90 West can be found in

CITY IN THE SKY: The Raise and Fall of the World Trade Center by Eric Lipton and James Glanz of the New York Times

A study in contrast One old building surviving while the newer "modern" buildings collapsed

a reply to: Grenade

It is impossible to have an honest or adult conversation with a person in denial of facts.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Grenade

It is impossible to have an honest or adult conversation with a person in denial of facts.

Why do you keep posting about yourself. Like to explain that fantasy of yours where you think nukes brought down the WTC?

I think nukes theory was put out there just as a joke.

But people who just want answers, and a polorized one at that, and don't know any better, will believe any "answer" that fits their paradigm, and seems mildly plausible.


There's an answer in the middle somewhere:

NIST's report that 3 stories of completely unimpeded collapse was enough to initiate a "hammer effect" is pretty convincing, and I believe it.

They're very careful in that report never to ask how three stories of structure could go from "strong enough to hold" to "perfect zero resistance", with no states in between those two (such as "strong enough to offer resistance, but still yield")

Then Dr. Jones publishes a paper suggesting nano-thermite, and people immediately assume the whole structure had to be hit with thermite all at once............... rather than just those three floors.



And, conveniently enough, both planes happened to hit in the middle of multifloor tenancies. (Meaning only one tenant in each building owned the sites of impact, going up 2 floors, down 2 floors, and the planes hit both in the dead center.)

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Willtell
As the OP so rightly reminded us, this is bad timing to release.

Its actually kind of stupid to release it now and one can't help being suspicious about it. This report will be buried alive and no one will see it of any consequences.

This report should have been saved for a slow Newsday, of course, now, sometimes in the future they should have released this.

Maybe that was the point. To give false hope to those that will support Architects and Engineers no matter how many lies and falsehoods AE uses. The release was for those that will follow AE no matter what. While the study stays under the radar for the major of people. Purposely escaping attention the study might have gotten otherwise.

Quite possibly the only reason it was ever allowed to see the light of day. Editors/superiors/etc would be too busy with corona to read it carefully.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Hulsey paper was never offered to a group outside the truth movement for an independent peer reviewed. The individuals that conducted the review had ties to, or were knowN by Architects and Engineers in regards that their review would not be critical.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Hulsey paper was never offered to a group outside the truth movement for an independent peer reviewed. The individuals that conducted the review had ties to, or were knowN by Architects and Engineers in regards that their review would not be critical.

Is it so? Awaiting proof for these allegations.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Hulsey paper was never offered to a group outside the truth movement for an independent peer reviewed. The individuals that conducted the review had ties to, or were knowN by Architects and Engineers in regards that their review would not be critical.

You are as full of it as a Christmas turkey! You make unsupported and false claims in so many posts.

originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Hulsey paper was never offered to a group outside the truth movement for an independent peer reviewed. The individuals that conducted the review had ties to, or were knowN by Architects and Engineers in regards that their review would not be critical.

Is it so? Awaiting proof for these allegations.

Then it should be easy for you to cite where it was reviewed and published in something other than truth movement rags.

In fact. Quote the names of people actually reviewing the report for a release? It was proof read? Was that all that happen. Can you show that is was independently peer reviewed in a manner that was credible or ethical?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Hulsey paper was never offered to a group outside the truth movement for an independent peer reviewed. The individuals that conducted the review had ties to, or were knowN by Architects and Engineers in regards that their review would not be critical.

You are as full of it as a Christmas turkey! You make unsupported and false claims in so many posts.

Coming from a person claiming nukes at the WTC. Aw, Jesus bless you. Your so cute when you project your flaws on other individuals.


Now. Show where the Hulsey report is independently and ethically peer reviewed as a study.

Or you calling individuals liar with no proof?

So. Present proof I am “lying” about the Review of the “ A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7”. Or just go away.

a reply to: democracydemo

a reply to: Salander

Please cite a more credible review of the “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” than the one linked to in this post.....

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Please cite a more credible review of the “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” than the one linked to in this post.....

Get off your lazy ass and go look for it yourself.

If you think your constant replies along these lines ...

Now. Show where the Hulsey report is independently and ethically peer reviewed as a study.

In fact. Quote the names of people actually reviewing the report for a release? It was proof read? Was that all that happen. Can you show that is was independently peer reviewed in a manner that was credible or ethical?

are a valid way of conducting yourself ... then I would like you to know that it is just pathetic.

Go and do your own research, find these things out and get back to us.

Thanks mate!

P

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

a reply to: Salander

Please cite a more credible review of the “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” than the one linked to in this post.....

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

I don't think conventional scholars are eager to comment.

If it is accurate, and they say it isn't, then they hurt their credibility one way.

If it is accurate and they say it is, then they hurt their credibility on a professional "will we get funding?" level.

If it were glaringly inaccurate, it wouldn't even get released on the University of Alaska website. And it is currently available there.

ine.uaf.edu...




Interestingly, Dr. Jones' paper on nanothermite has been drawing increasing academic support.

www.globalresearch.ca...

a reply to: pheonix358

Are you saying I am lying? Are you claiming I am lying with no proof? How about you get off your lazy ass and stop using innuendo to make false allegations. How about using evidence to prove one way or another.

I might just be miss guided? Or have bad information.

If I am wrong. In the context of this sites motto, fight ignorance. How about you provide actual evidence if I am wrong?

How is posting:

Get off your lazy ass and go look for it yourself.

If you think your constant replies along these lines

Then running away anything like a fact filled debate based on intellectual merit.

Wasn’t the original goal to have the Hulsey report peer reviewed and published in an acknowledge scholarly engineering journal? What happen to that goal. Did people donate to the Hulsey report under a false pretext?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Interestingly, Dr. Jones' paper on nanothermite has been drawing increasing academic support.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Then how many times as the work been cited in other individuals academic work and research?