WTC 7 Evaluation Misses Draft Release of Nov 2017?

I find it interesting the draft release date and the opening of the document to the public for scrutiny was missed.

There is no explanation on the website?

But they still will take your money?

Thought you should know?

WTC 7 EVALUATION

www.wtc7evaluation.org...

A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018.

a reply to: neutronflux

The comment period for the evaluation that is not available started on Dec 1.

You got 44 days to publicly comment on the non-available evaluation.

a reply to: neutronflux

The FINAL Say, has already been said time and again.

One more pound of rubble report to bury all the rest under. At least its on top. The search by date will result in this heading the list...

"Controlled Demo Free Fall Footy Prints"

Interesting that one of the largest buttons on the page is the "Support" button.
Just another money grab using 3000 dead people as the emotional tug.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: neutronflux

The comment period for the evaluation that is not available started on Dec 1.

You got 44 days to publicly comment on the non-available evaluation.

The wording on the site seems oddly specific?

It’s strange the website used the term “will be released”?

The report is supposedly written by academics who should know things do not always go as scheduled. Why pick “will be” over a tentative date. Then not follow up with an explanation?

originally posted by: samkentJust another money grab using 3000 dead people as the emotional tug.

the irony of that statement...

a reply to: neutronflux

their conclusion was, "WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire"
which is probably why the report is being suppressed, probably by the university itself to shield itself from criticism as universities do, especially nowadays.
at least they put up this video on you tube beforehand to explain the suppression.


ine.uaf.edu...

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Funny they say they concluded that, and will not release the draft for public scrutiny.

If you go to metabunk, there is greater detail how the WTC7 evaluation is flawed.

Who is suppressing the very public and noisy AE 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage, or the University of Alaska?

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

A conclusion based on a flawed model and innuendo is not evidence.

Actually, if you really read between the lines, the WTC 7 evaluation states they think fire did not move the beam that NIST think fell of its support to start the collapse.

It is fact fire weakens steel to cause failure during fires. Why do you think it’s code to fire insulate steel. Inspections before 9/11 showed that the fire insulation at the WTC was defective.

originally posted by: samkent
Interesting that one of the largest buttons on the page is the "Support" button.
Just another money grab using 3000 dead people as the emotional tug.

Same thing happened with Mark Basile’s supposed study.


$5000+ was collected to send off some dust to get a neutral third party confirmation of thermite.

This was years ago and nothing was ever produced.

I suspect that the money has been spent on blow, women, and whiskey.

The rest I’m sure will be wasted.. lol

a reply to: neutronflux

I find it interesting the draft release date was missed

perhaps because they didn't write a draft before they began the evaluation...

Zelikow and 9/11 Commission Consultant Complete Outline of Final Report before Staff Start Writing It

Philip Zelikow completed an outline of the commission’s final report, although the commission has barely began its work and will not report for another 16 months. The outline is detailed and contains chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings.

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Something you could have mentioned is that right below their "NO" conclusion was this.

This is based on our calculations.

That tells me they did not have access to physically examine any of the steel from the building.
So they looked at Youtube videos and made a computer model.

I'm not saying that NIST was right and column 79 started the final collapse.
But is was because of fire. The firemen knew it and watched it progress over the hours.

a reply to: samkent

With early reports the walls in WTC 7 was starting to bulge, and the building was showing signs it was failing.

I guess a person at Metabunk has researched some of the different research and modeling how the WTC 7 collapse could have been related to column 79.

By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

could-girder-a2001-possibly-have-got-past-the-side-plate-on-column-79.t9069/

www.metabunk.org...


We don't know how the failures on other floors affected column 79. We don't know how the uneven heating of A2001 itself affected the way it expanded (your posts treat that girder as if were a uniform temperature).

Break

In any case, Arup identified two cases in which A2001 would fail, and neither of them was the exact NIST scenario of being pushed to the west. In fact, both were essentially failures to the north/northeast, with the girder sagging and twisting away from the connection:

The truth hurts the truth movement?
The WTC 7 evaluation vs previous WTC 7 studies.

By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-31
www.metabunk.org...


Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science

There is only a single study (Hulsey's) that purports to reach a conclusion contrary to what the other studies have concluded re the vulnerability of WTC7 to progressive collapse from reasonable fire scenarios.

a reply to: neutronflux

Building 7 makes for a good conversation when you meet a truther that thinks he has the holy grail lol. 10 out of 10 times the truther is unaware that NY Fire Dept had a transit trained on the building and knew it's collapse was imminent.

I've taken to just smiling and nodding now when I hear a truther talking at a gathering. About as worthwhile debating as a flat earther.

Later this year, or possibly next year...

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.

www.wtc7evaluation.org...

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: neutronflux

Building 7 makes for a good conversation when you meet a truther that thinks he has the holy grail lol. 10 out of 10 times the truther is unaware that NY Fire Dept had a transit trained on the building and knew it's collapse was imminent.

I've taken to just smiling and nodding now when I hear a truther talking at a gathering. About as worthwhile debating as a flat earther.

Truther here. What is a Transit? Is it a person or thing? Do we have confirmation of it as in a video or is this just heresay from a govt entity? Why did one column collapsing allow for a symmetrical freefall? Why only the world trade centers and not other high rises around the world that have burned fiercer and longer?
What is that saying? Occam's Razor? Sometimes you can't fool all the people and no amount of repeated "statistics" is gonna make them true to us, even the constant insults to our intelligence. We are long past falling for that, pun intended!

originally posted by: SunnyDee

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: neutronflux

Building 7 makes for a good conversation when you meet a truther that thinks he has the holy grail lol. 10 out of 10 times the truther is unaware that NY Fire Dept had a transit trained on the building and knew it's collapse was imminent.

I've taken to just smiling and nodding now when I hear a truther talking at a gathering. About as worthwhile debating as a flat earther.

Truther here. What is a Transit? Is it a person or thing? Do we have confirmation of it as in a video or is this just heresay from a govt entity? Why did one column collapsing allow for a symmetrical freefall? Why only the world trade centers and not other high rises around the world that have burned fiercer and longer?
What is that saying? Occam's Razor? Sometimes you can't fool all the people and no amount of repeated "statistics" is gonna make them true to us, even the constant insults to our intelligence. We are long past falling for that, pun intended!

A few points:

It is theorised that there were multiple failures from thermal expansion and contraction as the fires moved through the building over several hours leading to the collapse

The collapse was not symmetrical, the east penthouse fell first

Other steel frames have collapsed from fire. eg the steel frame section of the Windsor Tower in Madrid

And Occams Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually correct

I guess the WTC 7 Evaluation is not going to live up to its original promises of transparency and peer review, but also miss a 2018 release?