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

a reply to: Grenade

You mean the video that has no sounds indicative of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns. Much less the six hundred that would have to be planted and detonated as Hulsey suggests?

With no indication of a shockwave and no indication of on over pressure event with the force to cut steel columns. Much less over six hundred instances?

With no ejection of shrapnel or splintered steel before downward movement of the building? From a building not readied to contain shrapnel in anyway as a tradition CD would. With no windows removed.

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...

The public's attendance was encouraged by the then ACT Liberal Government. Katie was standing more than 400m away from the explosion but killed instantly when she was hit by a piece of flying steel.

Snip

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997

m.youtube.com...

For thermite...

No indication of six hundred charges doing the below.


With AE even claiming the fires were no hotter than normal office fires. So that rules out over six hundred fires started by thermite charges burning at 4000 degree Fahrenheit on every column for eight floors. Then you still would need kicker charges to misalign the columns.


So you cannot actually cite evidence of columns being actively cut.

So you cannot show evidence of charges setting off before building movement.

And you cannot cite evidence of a real world mechanism that fits Hulsey’s flawed conclusion that every column for a length of eight floors had a section magical wink out of existence.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neutronflux

You could use your own eyes, a little physics and logic.

If you can watch footage of building 7 collapse and attribute the cause to fire then you're either dumb or purposely misleading people.

I tend to plump for option number 2.

This is where you cite evidence of pyrotechnics charges actively setting off and actively cutting steel columns.


Then you might want to explain the most accurate measurements of the facade acceleration shows for a brief time the facade accelerated faster than free fall?

a reply to: neutronflux

Here you posted a photo of grounds crew cutting steel after the collapse.
www.apimages.com...

Here we have molten metal pour from the sides of the building.
www.ae911truth.org...

Collapse at almost free fall speed is not possible:

www.ae911truth.org...

www.ae911truth.org...

Witnesses can help further prove that explosions were hapoening after the plane hit.

www.ae911truth.org...

Where was norad?
911research.wtc7.net...

Here is a nice list for you to debunk.
www.collective-evolution.com...

Boxcutters and knives. Lmao.
pilotsfor911truth.org...


If after 19 years you still believe a bunch of men commited the worst terror attack on a first world country using boxcutters and knives then you really have a narrow mind. Completely closed. Who do you work for troll?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

We knew this info the day it happened. WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition. It took this guy 20 years to state the obvious. WTF is wrong with people.

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

Here we have molten metal pour from the sides of the building.

How would there be pure metal? You mean lead and copper mixed with molten and burning plastic from a battery backup room?

Metal does not automatically equal structural steel.

originally posted by: carsforkids

We might even have a couple tires from the jet.

The tires you requested are in the top 4 photos.

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

Collapse at almost free fall speed is not possible:

Well good thing the twin towers didn’t fall at free fall speed.

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

www.skeptic.com...

For WTC 7? What was the collapse time from the first signs of building shake? From the time of the first movement of the penthouse to total collapse. From the first penthouse movement, the time the penthouse disappears below the roof line until facade movement?

Then the first and last stages of the facade collapse was slower than free fall. The lease the period of time the facade moved with negligible resistance? Or more importantly. With the most accurate measurements of this period of facade movement may have accelerated faster than free fall, giving a good indication the facade was under tension from the preceding interior collapse?

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

Witnesses can help further prove that explosions were hapoening after the plane hit.

It’s well known refrigerators, air conditioning units, and other close systems exploded during fires. Or like the batteries used in power backup systems and emergency lighting. No post evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns, and evidence of columns being cut. Not innuendo.

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

Here is a nice list for you to debunk

Nothing to debunk. Evidently you cannot make a logical argument with cited evidence.

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

Boxcutters and knives. Lmao

You referring to before 9/11 the training for airlines was to comply with hijackers?

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

So you have no proof of explosives cutting steel columns. And only truth movement lies and falsehoods?

originally posted by: neutronflux

With AE even claiming the fires were no hotter than normal office fires. So that rules out over six hundred fires started by thermite charges burning at 4000 degree Fahrenheit on every column for eight floors. Then you still would need kicker charges to misalign the columns.


So you cannot actually cite evidence of columns being actively cut.

So you cannot show evidence of charges setting off before building movement.

I think we need to add that thermite at the amount suggested to do the job would leave behind a huge signature that any fire investigation team would see very quickly. The chemicals would be all over everything.

originally posted by: UnearthlyEarthling

Here is a nice list for you to debunk.
www.collective-evolution.com...

You go through the list, pick out the one you like best, the one you think can't be debunked and give it to us.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Jchristopher5

We knew this info the day it happened. WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition. It took this guy 20 years to state the obvious. WTF is wrong with people.

I was a fool. I didn’t know it the day it happened. I believed what I was told for about 12 years. When I woke up to this reality, I was amazed I was so foolish, for so long. I was also angry about it, and I wanted to tell the world. Now, seven years later, I am more convinced than ever that the official story (OS)was a huge lie.

Some (I say most) of these posters on here who feel compelled to bellow out the OS, and it’s talking points, in a thread like this, know that they are shilling. They are pretty easy to spot. I don’t respond to them any more. Its senseless. It’s my opinion that anyone who has really looked into this, in any detail, KNOWS that the OS is a lie. The problem is the “average person” has never really investigated this.

It’s just sad that people are willing to try to mislead people for a few dollars, about something so important. It makes me lose a little more faith in the human race.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
It’s my opinion that anyone who has really looked into this, in any detail, KNOWS that the OS is a lie.

I have looked into 9/11 in great detail. What I found is: It is the truth movement that is telling lies. One after another after another. Even after they find out it is not true, they still keep telling it anyway.

This includes you.

This was a well-conducted scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC7 by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering College of Engineering and Mines Institute of Northern Engineering University of Alaska.

The conclusion was scientifically founded through rigorous scientific analyses by highly qualified individuals, and their work was peer-reviewed.

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

Their findings coincide with the evidentiary proofs and analyses. If anyone has a problem with understanding the paper or the conclusion, I suggest you take it up with who the paper recommends:

For additional information, write to:
Publications – David Barnes, Project Manager Institute of Northern Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
P.O. Box 755860
Fairbanks, AK 99775-5860

WTC7 did not collapse from fire, but from man-induced interventions that caused global failure and near-simultaneous collapse of every single column of building—collapsing into its own footprint.

Glad this is finally resolved...again.


files.wtc7report.org...

originally posted by: M4ngo

near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

This is a lie. There was 6.5 seconds in between the failure of column 79 and the failure of the remaining columns.

That is not near-simultaineous by any stretch of the imagination.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

Here we have molten metal pour from the sides of the building.

How would there be pure metal? You mean lead and copper mixed with molten and burning plastic from a battery backup room?

Metal does not automatically equal structural steel.

How do groundscrew cut thick steel? Thermite. The colour of the liquid indicates its burning at over 1000 degrees celcius. A higher temperature than what just fire can achieve. You are really trying hard to make sense of it all because your brain can't handle the truth.

Try to debunk some of the other information i posted. You can't. In the end the evidence is clear and making up false conclusions on how and why is just blowing air.

Why were there numerous witnesses sharing their experience of feeling and hearing explosions after the initial attacks? Why? What's your "logical" explanation?

a reply to: waypastvne

The tires you requested are in the top 4 photos.

Yes there are pictures, but nothing to suggest the tires came from a 757
that should've been captured on video tape. But that's not even the point
I was making. The whole story of that day is shot full of holes from hell
to breakfast. And you know what? It shouldn't be.

The whole story is just hokey.