Institute of Northern Engineering University of Alaska: Fires did not bring down WTC 7

First and foremost, thoughts and prayers to the victims of 9/11, those who needlessly perished on that day and those that needlessly perished in the lie based wars that followed.A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

This was the conclusion of a multi-year study by the Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Funded by Richard Gage and the super patriots over at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

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.

"A global near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building".

Thats some coincidence.

"Contrary to the conclusions of NIST".

NIST?

John Gross, lead engineer of the NIST report ie "The Official Story":


Danny Jowenko, high rise demolition expert watches the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time:

You know years ago, I was a pretty prolific 9/11 researcher.

I went massively in depth into this stuff, you can read the full thread if your interested:

Revisiting WTC7

Unfortunately some of the old links are daed but the content remains pretty much true as it is.

A&E for 9/11 Truth are quite honestly a joke and they funded this document.

But....fellaon the otherside....the British reporter announced it had fallen.....with it still in the background behind her ....so

Tell us more crap....you know.....skirt common sense.....ya have to now....

This flop by mainstream....then after ya lie to us awhile about that

We'll get to the other problems that the NORMALS have with Shanksville and the Pentagon.....and the air traffic routing to the East I found as a pilot.

Aa reply to: GBP/JPY

A Boeing hit the Pentagon with no pics......Lordy

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Again the issue of the reporter saying it had collapsed when it was in the background has been explained. Essentially it happened after a local news station picked up communication from the FDNY saying that WTC7 was about to collapse, this was picked up by the BBC who then incorrectly said it had collapsed. I don't know about you but I am old enough to remember the confusion of that day so its really kind of surprising more of this didn't happen. Its like at the time of the Boston Bombings a few years back I clearly recall hearing a report about another bomb that had gone off only for it to be retracted 5 minutes later.

Most 9/11 conspiracies have these kind of simple explanations.

What I personally find really interesting is how many "Truthers" will ignore the very serious questions that have to be asked about the Saudi cover up. But I guess thats a chat for another time....

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Again the issue of the reporter saying it had collapsed when it was in the background has been explained. Essentially it happened after a local news station picked up communication from the FDNY saying that WTC7 was about to collapse, this was picked up by the BBC who then incorrectly said it had collapsed. I don't know about you but I am old enough to remember the confusion of that day so its really kind of surprising more of this didn't happen. Its like at the time of the Boston Bombings a few years back I clearly recall hearing a report about another bomb that had gone off only for it to be retracted 5 minutes later.

Most 9/11 conspiracies have these kind of simple explanations.

What I personally find really interesting is how many "Truthers" will ignore the very serious questions that have to be asked about the Saudi cover up. But I guess thats a chat for another time....

Saudi Arabia still hasn't been blamed though they continue to grow, harbor and release Terrorists!

Also Building 7 always left me wondering what really happened.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Again the issue of the reporter saying it had collapsed when it was in the background has been explained. Essentially it happened after a local news station picked up communication from the FDNY saying that WTC7 was about to collapse, this was picked up by the BBC who then incorrectly said it had collapsed. I don't know about you but I am old enough to remember the confusion of that day so its really kind of surprising more of this didn't happen. Its like at the time of the Boston Bombings a few years back I clearly recall hearing a report about another bomb that had gone off only for it to be retracted 5 minutes later.

Most 9/11 conspiracies have these kind of simple explanations.

What I personally find really interesting is how many "Truthers" will ignore the very serious questions that have to be asked about the Saudi cover up. But I guess thats a chat for another time....

It was the #ing BBC in the UK, not some local news station: www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Nodrak

I know it was the bbc who reported it I was explaining why they reported it.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
A&E for 9/11 Truth are quite honestly a joke and they funded this document.

Licensed, accredited, experienced and degreed architects and engineers are a "joke".

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
You know years ago, I was a pretty prolific 9/11 researcher.

But some guy on a conspiracy website came up with all the correct answers which just happen to support the official lies.



I dont know about anyone else, but I'm convinced.

The only thing about 9/11 other than the Saudi's involvement, that left me wondering, is building 7.

They took great effort to clear the building before it collapsed and the tenants on the 25th floor gave me reason to pause.

Considering the DOD and CIA were on that floor with the IRS made me wonder if protecting documents from discovery after the fact, might have been a factor. I can't help but wonder if they did not have a way to destroy documents as a last resort on that floor, and they cleared the first responders and hit the button? I mean if the building was not salvageable, why not?

Beyond that, I find the Truther stuff to be hysterics and making the evidence fit the theory for the most part.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You might be tempted to Re-Revisit your thread and update it with the topic in mind.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You might be tempted to Re-Revisit your thread and update it with the topic in mind.

Honestly it’s not worth the effort I spent a long time on that thread. ATS is not what it was back then.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Then what the hell are commenting anything within the topic

Institute of Northern Engineering University of Alaska: Fires did not bring down WTC 7

a reply to: gladtobehere

Since 9-11 I've picked up a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering. In some of our classes we studied 9-11 pretty heavily and I haven't found anything that makes me question the official cause.

"Richard Gage and the super patriots over at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth." What a joke. They used to have a roster of their members until too many people started questioning their credentials.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Then what the hell are commenting anything within the topic

Institute of Northern Engineering University of Alaska: Fires did not bring down WTC 7

....sponsored by A&E for 9/11 truth.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Haha they had students and engineers from unrelated fields like marine engineers among there 3000ish members

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Who the **** would you like it to be sponsored by? What source would do it neutral for you? Take a look at the results and Revisit.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Who the **** would you like it to be sponsored by? What source would do it neutral for you? Take a look at the results and Revisit.

The study is very flawed.

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

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: Blaine91555

One reason is that they knew the building was coming down. It was a structure built on a structure and it was not going to withstand the fires from the impacts of the buildings falling.

The only thing about 9/11 I still do not believe is I think we shot down 93.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Nodrak

I know it was the bbc who reported it I was explaining why they reported it.

Yeap, news reporters never mess things up to be the first in reporting. To the point of being negligent

KTVU news anchor gets pranked by NTSB on Flight 214 pilot names.

m.youtube.com...

With reposts that WTC 7 was failing, and the perimeter cleared out of fear 7 would collapse. With how many other buildings destroyed by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Its easy to see how an over ambitious news team would mess up.