Univ of Alaska findings on WTC 7

a reply to: MrBig2430

I'm quite sure he did see a video of the fire dept regarding molten metal in the pit, well after the initial collapse..I and probably a million's more others have seen the video..(the towers of course)

I'm not going to argue the mechanics of it.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: MrBig2430

According to what I can see from your profile you've been a member on ATS since late 2015. In all that time you have a total of 208 posts. All but one of those posts seem to be about 911 and are bolstering the official narrative regarding 911. This leads me to believe your agenda is more than fact based. If it is solely fact based then why don't you author your first OP on this site and explain to us why we are all wrong about 911?

originally posted by: CreationBro
a reply to: MrBig2430

So if jet fuel was not the main fire fuel, what was fueling the fires to heat that specific steel to fail the way that it did?

From what I can remember, the steel in those buildings needed to be heated to something like 1800+ degrees to fail. Ill fact check this, but that is very high temp.

Wasnt thermitic material found too?

How would it be jet fuel when 7 wasn't even hit by a plane?

a reply to: mrthumpy

Most are referring to the twin towers obviously..I realise the subject is building 7, that one stinks to high heaven.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: mrthumpy

Most are referring to the twin towers obviously..I realise the subject is building 7, that one stinks to high heaven.

What's so smelly about it?

Is this the study that already broke promises. The whole world was invited to peer review the study, it was going to be published in journals for peer review, and now it's down to being "reviewed" by a hand full panel of hacks. I think one persons is a previous member of congress?

metabunk
Thread: ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-5

www.metabunk.org...

By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

This is incorrect. As I've already noted in this thread, NIST's WTC7 report was independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering, which is the flagship journal of the ASCE and one of the most highly respected and cited engineering journals in the world.

Also, I note that you have yet to respond to my specific criticisms of Hulsey. This forum's focus is on specific claims. Instead of speculating about what Hulsey may or may not be thinking, we can analyze his words and actions to date, which is what I have done. You seem to be avoiding specific analysis. Here again is a link to my analysis in this thread as to why Hulsey's claims to date do not add up. Mick has also noted several times how the original study design explicitly stated its bias.

a reply to: vonclod

The WTC 7 evaluation already announced fire could not have brought down WTC 7. So the study was model to prove NIST wrong. Not find the cause of collapse.

On the WTC 7 evaluation site, the finished report is no going to be released until a vague 2018?

I bet this is going to more about asking for money than anything?

originally posted by: ParkerCramer
Can you help me out Mr. big ?

If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, I doubt that anyone could.

What exactly caused the steel beams to fail on THREE buildings in the same day?

you prolly have no idea what the NIST report says. Study it first and tell us all where it's wrong.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: MrBig2430

According to what I can see from your profile you've been a member on ATS since late 2015. In all that time you have a total of 208 posts. All but one of those posts seem to be about 911 and are bolstering the official narrative regarding 911. This leads me to believe your agenda is more than fact based. If it is solely fact based then why don't you author your first OP on this site and explain to us why we are all wrong about 911?

Lol

So your delusions have led you to believe that myself and others are guv paid shills.

Nope.

This is a conspiracy site. We're here to talk about conspiracies.

You are pro inside job and are here to discuss how the ebil goobermint is responsible

I am here to point out how delusional you all are.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Regardless of how often people change accounts, the usual suspects are always easy to spot. Good luck! 9/11 debunkers often post ONLY on 9/11 threads. That seems telling.


ETA: I've been here a while and used to try and partake in 9/11 threads because I was interested and felt that something was wrong with the OS. I can't be bothered any more due to the spamming that some of the debunkers use but is quite apparent that some members (I am unfortunately not allowed to name) spend ALL their time in 9/11. Don't you have any other "hobbies"?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

If it is true that 9/11was allowed or whatever and cover2d up... considering the lengths some would have to go to see this remained covered up the last 16 years... they are just suddenly going to give up and let someone drop a bomb on the whole OS?

That makes no sense.

Nothing is going to come out about 911. The 911 OS is a part of history now. That's it.

Good point. I would say that today any person who still faithfully believes the official story WANTS to faithfully believe the official story.

Any curious person with an open mind, and has studied the material available, has understood for years now that the official story is impossible. Yet again, the government and media have deceived.

a reply to: MrBig2430

You are wrong on so many levels.

So your delusions have led you to believe that myself and others are guv paid shills.

First, by calling someone delusional you are not trying to engage in discussion. You are making personal attacks which are juvenile and not based upon anything that has transpired in this OP. Second, don't presume to tell me what I believe. No where have I called you a government shill or a paid shill. Those are your own conclusions. There are many more agendas that people can have other than being shills. Lastly, you not only say that I think you are a shill but others as well. Can you point to one scrap of evidence where I've stated anything about others being shills? Others at all?

This is a conspiracy site. We're here to talk about conspiracies.

This is somewhat inaccurate. Many more subjects are discussed here other than conspiracies. It seems, however, that you are not here to speak about conspiracies but only one particular conspiracy. The only time you rear your ugly head is when someone posts something about 911.

You are pro inside job and are here to discuss how the ebil goobermint is responsible

Can you stop trying to read my mind as you are not very good at it. Not believing the official narrative does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was an inside job. I'm not sure if you think it is humorous to intentionally misspell words but it goes to your level of maturity.

I am here to point out how delusional you all are.

Please do that. Please take the time to generate your own thread explaining how we are all so delusional. The world would be a far better place if we were all as smart and well adjusted as you profess to be.

a reply to: mrthumpy

What dropped that building? and so perfectly..just seems like there was no good reason for such a near perfect collapse, or collapse period..perfect or not.

a reply to: CreationBro

So if jet fuel was not the main fire fuel, what was fueling the fires to heat that specific steel to fail the way that it did?

From what I can remember, the steel in those buildings needed to be heated to something like 1800+ degrees to fail. Ill fact check this, but that is very high temp.

It sounds like you are coming up short in the physics area as well as the true facts of 911.

Try this at home:
Use a paper match to heat up a needle or straight pin.
It will glow orange.
You can bend it like nothing like nothing when glowing.
All with burning paper.

Then look at the size of the floor trusses used and how thin the steel in them was.

After that the collapsing towers should not be some big mystery anymore.

a reply to: vonclod

What dropped that building? and so perfectly..just seems like there was no good reason for such a near perfect collapse, or collapse period..perfect or not.

Did you bother to read any of the official documents surrounding the collapse of 7?
I didn't think so.

The building was held up by many vertical columns all suspended over a power substation by horizontal beams.
Many of the verticals were exposed to hours of fire.
One of them finally gave way which overloaded the ones on each side of it.
They too gave way and so on.
The building collapsed from the center out.

All because on unfought fires due to lack of water.

It ain't rocket science folks.
There just seems to be a few people who can't accept the truth.

a reply to: samkent

There just seems to be a few people who can't accept the truth.

Like all those irrational and idiotic Architects and Engineers who donated money to help fund the study and that foolish PhD who agreed to spend so much time studying it, right? It is not as straightforward as you propose at all.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: CreationBro

So if jet fuel was not the main fire fuel, what was fueling the fires to heat that specific steel to fail the way that it did?

From what I can remember, the steel in those buildings needed to be heated to something like 1800+ degrees to fail. Ill fact check this, but that is very high temp.

It sounds like you are coming up short in the physics area as well as the true facts of 911.

Try this at home:
Use a paper match to heat up a needle or straight pin.
It will glow orange.
You can bend it like nothing like nothing when glowing.
All with burning paper.

Then look at the size of the floor trusses used and how thin the steel in them was.

After that the collapsing towers should not be some big mystery anymore.

So you're saying: If one finds themselves in a 3+ story building, and someone lights a paper match; head for the exit?

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: MrBig2430


ETA: I've been here a while and used to try and partake in 9/11 threads because I was interested and felt that something was wrong with the OS"?

So do I.

The thing is, I don't see it as an inside job.

I see the Commission Report as a whitewash of intelligence failures.

I see the NIST report as a whitewash of structural and/or fire proofing inadequecies.

Both for political reasons.

Never happen before equals impossible. False logic.

I love the firsts the conspiracists ignore.

For the Towers, the first successful CD using demolitions for a high rise building over 47 stories.

The towers, the first ever top down CD using charges for high rise buildings.

Gage pushing fizzle no flash explosives, and no sound of audible explosions, the truth movement must cling to the false thermite narrative.

The towers were the first successful CD using charges for high rise buildings over 47 stories, and the first top down CD of high rise buildings, and the first CD of a high rise building using thermite.

For conspiracists to be right, three never happen befores occurred twice on the same day! By truth movement logic, making it impossible. WTC 7 makes three firsts in one day for thermite.

And the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed. So, the complex and sophisticated floor to floor demolition systems survived jet impacts that cut fire water mains and elevator cables? And survived raging fires?

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: MrBig2430

You are wrong on so many levels.

So your delusions have led you to believe that myself and others are guv paid shills.

Not believing the official narrative does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was an inside job.

Indeed, for that's where I sit.

Please do that. Please take the time to generate your own thread explaining how we are all so delusional.

The 9/11 was an inside jobbity job believers are indeed delusional.

That discussion is long over and proven.

The world would be a far better place if we were all as smart and well adjusted as you profess to be.

Yep.