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

Dr. Hulsey and his team released the final report last week, while the bulk of the world was focused on COVID-19. Bad timing for this important work, but nonetheless the report is in!

This is a study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) — a 47-story building that suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001, following the horrible events of that morning. The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. 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.

ine.uaf.edu...


While the timing is poor, this report has been planned for release for many months. You can download and read the report at the above link.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

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.

In other words, demolition charges. Just like many have been saying for years.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Jchristopher5

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.

In other words, demolition charges. Just like many have been saying for years.

And if WTC7 was a demolition, it speaks encyclopedias about the first two towers.

WE felt that the day it happened didn't we ATS?

The first words that fell out of my mouth when a friend turned on the TV that morning were "they did it to themselves".

I stand by that...whoever "they" are/were.

Big tall buildings that suffer structural failure fall over, not straight down.

Knew that as I watched the first one go down.

And that is apart from all of the other silliness that has been part of the official diatribe.

P

What we can say is that this is real scientific study, not someone’s opinion. The data was made available for peer review. You can disagree, but no longer can someone be called a “crazy conspiracy theorist” for having the opinion that the official story is a lie. In fact, this opinion is significantly bolstered by this UA Anchorage report.

Rise up “truthers”! Tell everyone you know.

a reply to: pheonix358

Big tall buildings that suffer structural failure fall over, not straight down.

yes they do, especially those with big wholes on both sides. plus no mater what anybody says they fell practically in their own foot prints. people want to say that they didn't because of some buildings that were damaged a couple blocks away and right around the towers. when you have two building 1368' and 1362 feet tall, no matter how well you plan to bring them down. with that much debris from them some is going to be ejected.

there is a reason when there is a legit building demolition the area is cleared around the building for ever how many blocks the engineers calculate how far the debris could travel.

did the planes hit them yes. were there terrorists in these planes? yes. did the terrorists plan it? no. somebody put them up to it, and or paid them to do it.

The only true surprise here is that an academic study is even required in order to confirm that a building can collapse into its own footprint through isolated areas of fire on one side, and it mysteriously waited 4/5 hours in order to do so

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: pheonix358

Big tall buildings that suffer structural failure fall over, not straight down.

yes they do, especially those with big wholes on both sides. plus no mater what anybody says they fell practically in their own foot prints. people want to say that they didn't because of some buildings that were damaged a couple blocks away and right around the towers. when you have two building 1368' and 1362 feet tall, no matter how well you plan to bring them down. with that much debris from them some is going to be ejected.

there is a reason when there is a legit building demolition the area is cleared around the building for ever how many blocks the engineers calculate how far the debris could travel.

did the planes hit them yes. were there terrorists in these planes? yes. did the terrorists plan it? no. somebody put them up to it, and or paid them to do it.

So you dont think that the building's collapse was possibly "helped" by some demolition tactics?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

sarcasm or what? if it is lol, if it's not.... i can see that maybe that the way i wrote the first sentence could confuse some. but the rest of the post is pretty clear i think.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You

What we can say is that this is real scientific study, not someone’s opinion.

Really?

Might want to look at this?

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

You

The data was made available for peer review.

Might look who “peer” reviewed the study and tell us who they are. They were individuals tied to the truth movement. With being biased. The paper was not peer reviewed by impartial individuals with experience in forensic engineering.

The are reports of the comments from the public questioning period being totally ignored and not addressed.

You

You can disagree, but no longer can someone be called a “crazy conspiracy theorist”

.

Richard Gauge at this point right out lies.

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

www.internationalskeptics.com...

By Oystein

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Nope, not really.
You might think different if you gullibly believed every word Richard Gage says, who recently flew to tropical Acapulco to spread his lies, where he was interviewed by some sycophant propagandist:

YT: NEW 911 Report By UAF DESTROYS Official Narrative On Collapse Of Building 7!!!
uploaded yesterday, 2020/02/19, it apparently took place between Feb 13 and 16

The title of the video is a lie, to start with: The report (final release) cannot "destroy" anything because it does not yet exist, and the draft isn't "new".

Gage fires of an incredibly fast scatter-shooting of lies, start at 1 min 33 seconds:

Originally Posted by Richard Gage lies
“If uh Building 7 could come down at freefall acceleration[1], straight down, uniformly[2], symmetrically[3], into its own footprint[4] in under seven seconds[5] just like the old hotels in Las Vegas, which are controlled demolitions, then we have a problem[6] with how these similarly designed, hundreds of them, buildings[7] could behave in an office fire. And these were not huge office fires[8]. They were relatively small[9], few and scattered[10] in this building.[2:00]“


10 lies in 27 seconds. WOW! I hilighted the lies. He speaks the truth about Vegas demolitions. That's it.

The study totally ignores:

The detectable shaking of WTC 7 before collapse.

The penthouse did not just stop a few floors down.

The WTC 7 underwent a total interior collapse before the facade began to move.

The most accurate measurements of the facade collapse has it accelerating for a shot time at a rate faster than free fall, which would be only possible if it was placed under tension due to an interior collapse.

The study ignored actual fire loading and fires on other floors.

There is no physical evidence of a namable event that matches the studies conclusion that every column over an eight floor span had an event that made the columns spontaneously and instantaneously lose support. Something along the lines of 600 devices if the study is to believed. And that is not taking into account kicker charges to misalign the columns.

Hulsey’s model also is missing key components of the WTC 7 collapse as recorded/seen on video.

The Hulsey paper is based on false assumptions, ignoring video evidence before and during collapse, with no observable event that matches/explains what triggered the paper’s conclusion, and solely a biased AE paid for piece of propaganda.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Then Hulsey ignored the very real fire related floor connection failures in WTC 5.









If enough of this type of failures happened along a single column in WTC 7, then that column would lose support and buckle.

To say fire related floor connection and fire related collapse is impossible is ridiculous.

Then fire related structural steel buckling and collapse was witnessed in the Madrid Windsor.

With two high rise buildings totally collapsing due to fire since 9/11.

Looks like the 9/11, in-house government A.I. machine hasn't been updated, it's still using the same database as last year

a reply to: Zcustosmorum
Like moths to a flame.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Looks like the 9/11, in-house government A.I. machine hasn't been updated, it's still using the same database as last year

If you have actual evidence of columns cut by explosives, by all means cite it.

If you can refute my post, by all means do it.

The head of Architects and Engineers Richard Gauge pushes known lies, and the Hulsey report is a hack piece that ignored public criticism and went to a biased review board.

Just a little reminder

m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: Zcustosmorum
Like moths to a flame.

From a person blindly following a group that creates 9/11 fan fiction.

Again...

There is no physical evidence of a namable event that matches the Hulsey’s conclusion that every column over an eight floor span had an event that made the columns spontaneously and instantaneously lose support. Something along the lines of 600 devices if the study is to believed. And that is not taking into account kicker charges to misalign the columns.


Give you a hint...

No evidence of over six hundred charges doing the below with no evidence of kicker charges to misalign columns.



What temp does thermite/thermate burn. Didn’t AE say the fires were never hotter than normal office fires. I guess that rules out thermite fueled fires on every column for a span of eight floors.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Looks like the 9/11, in-house government A.I. machine hasn't been updated, it's still using the same database as last year

So you have no actual response to neutronflux's posts?

Predictable in these threads.

You guys always cry that he comes in and ruins your threads, but you never have any response to what he says. This is why no one listens to you guys and why your "movement" is a joke.

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! He's just a government shill!!!!" Okay, but where is he wrong?

a reply to: face23785

So you have no actual response to neutronflux's posts?

I tried once and just got programmed responses

You guys always cry that he comes in and ruins your threads, but you never have any response to what he says. This is why no one listens to you guys and why your "movement" is a joke.

Outwith the NIST report, where are these myths coming from? I am not part of a movement and nor did I mention anything about cut columns as the computer has now started muttering about.

I have never claimed to know how the WTC acts were carried out, it's just that you and your programmed buddy and the official narrative is whack.

Additionally, the thread is hardly ruined, however if that was truly the aim, then constantly bombarding it with programmed replies might just do it

a reply to: neutronflux

Hahahahahahahahaaaaaa. yea terrorists with exacto knives. All passports found at ground zero. NORAD could not respond because of training. Thermite pouring out of sides of building. People reporting explosions underground after the planes hit. Free fall speed of WTC collapsing which was debunked by the structural engineer who designed the buildings. Owner of both WTC towers applying for terrorst insurance 3 months prior. Bush innocently reading a book for kds at a school when he heard the news. Floors being periodically closed for construction months prior to the event. Wtc 7 not even being covered in the media.

All this was an excuse to gain public support to rage havoc in the middle east.

I have seen all this # that you shared and investigated this tragic false flag event for years. I am tired of it. I have all the proof and articles but for me to convince one person to believe it was a false flag is just a waste of time. Your opinion supported by paid off evidence from private organisation and NIST is ammusing. You wasted a lotnof time posting all that # on ATS.

This being a false flag is old news.

Melted steel evidence and 45 degree angle cut.

duckduckgo.com...

Forgot to mention the flight that supposedly crashed into the pentagon...lol no cctv cam footage and the plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania was covered up by dirt or gravel. No big parts of a plane were found.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

"Programmed replies" is a cute way of saying "stuff I can't refute."

Pathetic.

There was probably design figured in the buildings to make it easier to demolish the buildings if they needed to be replaced. That way charges could be placed in various places that would make it fall straight down like it did. Now a plane crashing into it could have delivered enough energy to trigger those points to fail. It could be that engineering of the building for future demolition caused it to collapse that way.

I am sure an architect designing something like that would design them for possible future demolition.