UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

Oh. If you want to go down the thermite road? AE claims the office fires were not “hot”? So I guess that rules out any substantial fires fueled by scores of thermite charges on each WTC 7 column floor by floor burning at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit? Flashing and sparking that should have been visible from the WTC 7 windows. Especially for the exterior columns right at WTC 7’s facade/ windows.

a reply to: neutronflux

Along with everything you listed...


911 is about the hardest, most expensive least secure way to start a war imaginable..


Look at gulf of Tonkin and other false flags...

All they had to do was fake a ship shooting at them..

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

False Hulsey talked about all these issues. The posters at international sceptic did not read the report. Sad bunch of people on there. Hulsey, the work he did, is fantastic.

I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work. There brainless comments.

Hulsey released finite element videos and his computer model was identical to real collapse. This is hard science.

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse”

I wonder how many scenarios they tested to prove that negative

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work.

This doesn't address his actual work? "Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling"

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work.

This doesn't address his actual work? "Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling"

He discussed it on page 86- Hulsey modelled thousands of connections in the building and modelled fire scenarios, to see if he could get the build to react like the other studies claimed it would. He debunked all them.

Obvious nobody on the Skeptic site has read more than a few lines of the report.
ine.uaf.edu...

a reply to: Jesushere

You

False Hulsey talked about all these issues. The posters at international sceptic did not read the report. Sad bunch of people on there. Hulsey, the work he did, is fantastic.

By all means, please quote Hulsey on:

How the study determined what temperatures to use.

Discussion on the contraction of deformed and cooling steel, and the resulting stress.

What would stop the collapse of the penthouse.

Discussion of all the objects that disappear below WTC 7’s roofline before the facade started to move.

What caused all the columns to fail at the same instance. And why that event did not cause any visible evidence in the windows, or physical effects in the facade. Or lack of any audible or overpressure evidence.

Looking forward to you quoting Hulsey / the report with supporting links.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

False Hulsey talked about all these issues. The posters at international sceptic did not read the report. Sad bunch of people on there. Hulsey, the work he did, is fantastic.

By all means, please quote Hulsey on:

How the study determined what temperatures to use.

Discussion on the contraction of deformed and cooling steel, and the resulting stress.

What would stop the collapse of the penthouse.

Discussion of all the objects that disappear below WTC 7’s roofline before the facade started to move.

What caused all the columns to fail at the same instance. And why that event did not cause any visible evidence in the windows, or physical effects in the facade. Or lack of any audible or overpressure evidence.

Looking forward to you quoting Hulsey / the report with supporting links.

Read the report and then present arguments. Until then, good luck.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

False Hulsey talked about all these issues. The posters at international sceptic did not read the report. Sad bunch of people on there. Hulsey, the work he did, is fantastic.

By all means, please quote Hulsey on:

How the study determined what temperatures to use.

Discussion on the contraction of deformed and cooling steel, and the resulting stress.

What would stop the collapse of the penthouse.

Discussion of all the objects that disappear below WTC 7’s roofline before the facade started to move.

What caused all the columns to fail at the same instance. And why that event did not cause any visible evidence in the windows, or physical effects in the facade. Or lack of any audible or overpressure evidence.

Looking forward to you quoting Hulsey / the report with supporting links.

Read the report and then present arguments. Until then, good luck.

Your arguments. Now back them up.

Again

By all means, please quote Hulsey on:

How the study determined what temperatures to use.

Discussion on the contraction of deformed and cooling steel, and the resulting stress.

What would stop the collapse of the penthouse.

Discussion of all the objects that disappear below WTC 7’s roofline before the facade started to move.

What caused all the columns to fail at the same instance. And why that event did not cause any visible evidence in the windows, or physical effects in the facade. Or lack of any audible or overpressure evidence.

Looking forward to you quoting Hulsey / the report with supporting links.

a reply to: Jesushere

So. Still no evidence of any event that physical cut columns to initiate collapse? Looking forward to you quoting the report/ Hulsey.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work.

This doesn't address his actual work? "Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling"

He discussed it on page 86- Hulsey modelled thousands of connections in the building and modelled fire scenarios, to see if he could get the build to react like the other studies claimed it would. He debunked all them.

Obvious nobody on the Skeptic site has read more than a few lines of the report.
ine.uaf.edu...

Can't see anything about that on page 86

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work.

This doesn't address his actual work? "Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling"

He discussed it on page 86- Hulsey modelled thousands of connections in the building and modelled fire scenarios, to see if he could get the build to react like the other studies claimed it would. He debunked all them.

Obvious nobody on the Skeptic site has read more than a few lines of the report.
ine.uaf.edu...

Can't see anything about that on page 86

3.3.1 Discussion of Arup and Nordenson’s Analysis - it discussed here in one section. Hulsey modelled their scenario and tested it. He went over every point they made and did analysis about it.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work.

This doesn't address his actual work? "Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling"

He discussed it on page 86- Hulsey modelled thousands of connections in the building and modelled fire scenarios, to see if he could get the build to react like the other studies claimed it would. He debunked all them.

Obvious nobody on the Skeptic site has read more than a few lines of the report.
ine.uaf.edu...

Can't see anything about that on page 86

3.3.1 Discussion of Arup and Nordenson’s Analysis - it discussed here in one section. Hulsey modelled their scenario and tested it. He went over every point they made and did analysis about it.

All I see there is "with a fire simulation"

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.

It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?

What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...

Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?

I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work.

This doesn't address his actual work? "Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling"

He discussed it on page 86- Hulsey modelled thousands of connections in the building and modelled fire scenarios, to see if he could get the build to react like the other studies claimed it would. He debunked all them.

Obvious nobody on the Skeptic site has read more than a few lines of the report.
ine.uaf.edu...

Can't see anything about that on page 86

3.3.1 Discussion of Arup and Nordenson’s Analysis - it discussed here in one section. Hulsey modelled their scenario and tested it. He went over every point they made and did analysis about it.

All I see there is "with a fire simulation"

Look above this section- page 86.

a reply to: Jesushere

Just quote the report?

a reply to: Jesushere

You

3.3.1 Discussion of Arup and Nordenson’s Analysis - it discussed here in one section. Hulsey modelled their scenario and tested it. He went over every point they made and did analysis about it.

Why was a different temperature profile used based on what analysis? Hulsey just didn’t like the temps used by Arup and Nordenson’s Analysis?

a reply to: Jesushere

So. Still no evidence of any event that physically cut columns to initiate collapse? Looking forward to you quoting the report/ Hulsey.

Hulsey modelling showed this- Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they
needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. He provided evidence for this in his report.

NIST theory is invalid, Penthouse stopped. NIST theory is column 79 caused a progressive collapse of lower floors first to allow the Penthouse to fall through. Hulsey debunked this scientifically.

Quote Hulsey
The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core
columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore,
the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column
79 would trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid.

The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by
the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the
behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various
floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.

a reply to: Jesushere

I think you missed the point. What floor connections were strong enough to stop the falling dynamic load of the falling penthouse. Can you cite the rated dynamic load capacity of the WTC 7 floors under the penthouse, and show they had the strength to stop the falling penthouse. Seems the study would give the dynamic load caused by the falling penthouse, and compare that to the rated dynamic load capacity of the WTC 7 floors.

Then did Hulsey use different temperature profiles vs other studies. Why would such a change be warranted.