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

I have reservations about NIST's report's on all those three towers, but to be sure, all those collapses involved asymmetry.
That is not to say that what the NIST'S report say's is a given...they had to review WTC7's report to accomodate the freefall aspect, and for the twin towers, failed to explain the molten metal, firemen and others, talked about incessantly.
In essence, those things are still in the air, why should they be? the vacuum leaves all kinds of speculation, NIST took their money and ran, apart from the WTC7 review, while the scrap metal from the twin towers, mostly disappeared...as if by magic on a slow boat to China.
Many questions!

a reply to: Nodrak

It was the #ing BBC in the UK, not some local news station:

No the BBC got it from Reuters, who in turn picked it up from local NY station …….

The report was that the FDNY was anticipating WTC 7 might collapse . They began clearing the area around WTC 7
at around 3 pm . In fact I was in my firehouse in NJ listening to radio transmissions from the WTC ( neighboring city who had sent the entire day shift to scene - we were covering their city)

In being passed from organization to another get garbled

a reply to: Blaine91555

Sure

I know people wo worked in that building It was cleared before 930

The collapse of the towers had damaged the water mains in the area, cutting off water supplies to the building sprinklers and standpipes

The FDNY made a run at saving WTC 7 - reports from the crews searching the building reported heavy damage
from impacts of debris from WTC 1

Most important was that the standpipes had no water No fire chief is going to put his men in a damaged building
(no elevators have to hoof it) No water to fight fires . Again no fire chief will put his men in such a situation

To easy to get cut off Shortly after noon Incident command ordered all personnel out of the building

Collapse unit from Rescue 3 had arrived on scene , a transit was set and locked on one corner of the building
BY 230 spotted a 3 story bulge in the SW corner and transit showed building shifting out of plumb

It was this that caused the incident command to order collapse zone around WTC 7 and all personnel cleared from area

I know this because 6 months after 911 attended a seminar featuring the incident command officers of the FDNY who
explained in detail what was done that day

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.

Getting A&E for 9/11 to sponsor a report into wtc7 is like getting Lamborghini to sponsor a report into the words best sports car.....it’s gonna be more than just a little bias. Even more so if they’re paying over $300k for it.

Cool, I see your point there

But a Pilot knows better, after all the evidence ....that mixing ring on the engine on the street.....epic fail.....

It sure was cool how 12 minutes after the two towers fell a lineup.....a roster of batters was placed in batting order to speel expertness explaining

Why did they know they would a bunch of sidewalk experts explaining for tv......

One after the other adressing the different aspects

The cleanup batter....number 4 spot......the best lookin one.....

Home run....cleared the bases

Turn our hats backwards....it's RALLY TIME

The smoke rising from Shanksville.....a barbeque .......the witness at the hilltop when the drone went over.....

The first helicopter crew there.....not enough debris to fill a suitcase

ABC reporter at the Pentagon....

You guys know the Pentagon......no scrape marks on the edge of the slab at the column line on the exterior.
No marks in my pic of the scene looking from the inside out......after it was cleared. No concrete repair needed at the entry on the perimeter strip of the slab foundation...

Hey, boys....shoulda been damage at the perimeter strip.......

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....

I'm a structures guy.....a Commercial heavy weight structures person

In the weekly meetings at big jobsites....I'm the one that takes over the meeting

a reply to: GBP/JPY

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
I'm a structures guy.....a Commercial heavy weight structures person

In the weekly meetings at big jobsites....I'm the one that takes over the meeting

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Do all the others workers have the same name as the person talking? As you in that you replied to yourself?

Structures guy then?

From another thread.. for the twin towers

The vertical beams in one of the bottom corners got missed for some reason. I don't know why. Did not take long for it to fall apart with all the other damage going on.

for Richard Gages statements, what happened to the rest of the building? Looks true to me.

Sorry. Evidence shows the core fell from loss of lateral support after the floor system failed.


The whole truth movement is based on created mythology, not the actual photographic, audio, video, seismic evidence, physical evidence.

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

After the Hulsey report failure, AE is no dumbing down their campaign.

Good video on Mick West explaining why the truth movement is full of crap.

At about the 10 minute mark, it is explained the collapse of the twin towers was not through the cores with video evidence. The floors were torn from around the tube in tube design.

The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

m.youtube.com...

Again supported by the actual physical evidence

Except when the upper potion of the building above the Jet impact fell into the building below it broke floor connections. The core failing fist does not explain proven floor connections failures.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

The below is supported by the video, audio, seismic evidence.

The destruction of the Twin Towers has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[6] They began with the local failure of a few structural components and progressed to encompass the whole of the structure.[22] Such collapses are characterized by "the separation of structural components (including non-load bearing elements), the release of gravitational energy, and the occurrence of impact forces." The vertical impact force supplies the propagating action, the principal forces are parallel, and the primary load transfer is serial.[23] The key element in the structure that failed was constituted by the combined "vertical load-bearing members of one entire storey." Excepting the top floors of the building, which would not have released sufficient gravitational energy to bring about a total collapse, the collapses could have begun with the failure of any story.[24]

Under these conditions, the towers collapsed symmetrically and more or less straight down, though there was some tilting of the tops of the towers and a significant amount of fallout to the sides. In both cases, the section of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the floors above the impact zone to fall onto the undamaged structure below. As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction, caused by the sudden rush of air from the upper levels.

During each collapse, large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside, pushed by the increasing pile of rubble. The result was that the walls peeled off and separated away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings, and starting fires that would later lead to the collapse of Building 7. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[25] The first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 11 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.[13]

Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[26] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[27]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: firerescue

One thing I find troubling is people who won't accept the eyewitness accounts and think wild theories are more credible.

I believe we got most of the story.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JIMC5499

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

They had Interior Designers, Artists, Secretaries, Drafters and Interns as members.

originally posted by: matafuchs

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

That is actually one of the easiest to disprove. All the responding F-16's had was ammo for their 20 mm cannon. If they would have shot down Flight 93, several things would have happened.

One, there would have been an expenditure of 20 mm cannon rounds, leaving a paper trail, accounting for the use of the ammo.

Two, the cannon would have to have been serviced, leaving another paper trail.

Three, the airframe around the gun port would have to have been cleaned and possibly repainted, leaving, yet again, another paper trail.

Fourth, there would be gun camera footage, leaving another trail.

Last you have the pilots. I just finished reading a story where the pilots had discussed ramming Flight 93 if necessary. Why ram, when you could have shot it down.

And back to topic:

Technical Activity Committee formed to investigate steel framed building safety

“We expect to complete our work by Summer 2021.

a reply to: democracydemo

Loaded or unloaded?

In March 2020 the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) published a report following a detailed four year investigation into the WTC7 collapse. The UAF study ran a multitude of static and dynamic analysis simulation cases to find a scenario that best matched the observed collapse, including those proposed by NIST. Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain – a scenario and conclusion that is very different from the official narrative. In the interests of public safety we need to understand the true cause of this event, so appropriate action and evacuation philosophies can be implemented in similar buildings.

a reply to: democracydemo

Your source

The UAF study ran a multitude of static and dynamic analysis simulation cases to find a scenario that best matched the observed collapse

Only on two floors of WTC 7. Ignoring the global damage from falling debris of the twin towers, and ignoring fires and thermal stress / cycles through WTC 7.

As far as the simulation. It was rigged. From the hand forced animation of the penthouse, to turning of reality in the simulator.

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

m.youtube.com...

———-
Your source

Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain

Which is a blatant lie.

From
Metabunk thread: Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis

Post 31, www.metabunk.org...

By Oystein

His Section 4.6 simulation conjures up a totally unexplained disappearance of columns - and manages to replicate only one feature of the collapse - the FFA. Which is entirely trivial: If you make something fall freely, it will fall freely.
But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

Plus, our criticism is that the models behave in unreal ways (no deformation; falling through the ground). This shows that the simulations he presents cannot possibly represent a realistic collapse. So even if they result in features that resemble features of the real collapse, this is contrived. The simulations do not offer an explanation for WHYT the building would fall like that. NIST's simulations do.

If you missed it

“ But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.”

a reply to: neutronflux

A-ha
Mick, username Oystein and the rest of Metabunk's experienced experts can join the investigation, i am absolutely sure they qualify, member or non member:

We already have seven members in the TAC, including one each from from ICE and IStructE. If there are other members interested in joining with experience in either structures, fire engineering, or construction please get in touch with Frank Mills, Chair, Construction and Building Services Division, email [email protected].

a reply to: democracydemo

What does that have to do with the blatant lies of your source, and the analysis/statement by Kostack Studio.

Is that statement by Oystein or Kostack Studio false.

a reply to: democracydemo

Investigate what? Watching video that clearly shows no planted pyrotechnics brought down the WTC.


That the debate of WTC 7 was already argued in signed depositions involving a lawsuit over the responsibilities why WTC 7 collapsed?

And you still have ... again...

One. The controlled demolition fantasy is dead on arrival. The controlled demolition systems would not have survived the jet impacts for WTC 1 and 2. For WTC7, being hit by debris from the collapse of the twin towers. For all WTC buildings, the fires. For WTC 7, the hours of unchecked fires.

Two. For the twin towers. The core columns collapsed after the floor systems were completely sheared away. Whole lengths of core columns stood whole seconds before tumbling down. The floor connections were either sheared by over loading, or bent down wards. Not cut. Supporting the floor system was sheared from the vertical columns while they still stood. What structural members did the fantasy explosives work on?


If fire brought down the twin towers, then it proves its not impossible WTC 7 could collapse due to fire.

And WTC 5 proves fire initiated structural failures are possible.









Enough of this failures along a vertical columns in WTC 7 would result in loss of lateral support, result in buckling that could lead to global collapse.

Is that statement by Oystein or Kostack Studio false.

a reply to: neutronflux

Let's ask the relevant question.
Who is username Oystein or Kostack Studio? Are they qualified in the field at hand to give a statement?

These sources you rely on and keep reposting, but on what credentials?

There are none.

a reply to: democracydemo

The comment by Oystein is about the actual video evidence anyone can watch.

Is this false:


———-
Your source

Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain

Which is a blatant lie.

From
Metabunk thread: Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis

Post 31, www.metabunk.org...

By Oystein

His Section 4.6 simulation conjures up a totally unexplained disappearance of columns - and manages to replicate only one feature of the collapse - the FFA. Which is entirely trivial: If you make something fall freely, it will fall freely.
But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

The statement by Kostack Studio?


The basic statement is the Hulsey programmed the simulation for the structure not to collide, or not to interact with itself. The Hulsey modeling was made public, can you prove otherwise from the released data.

Which gives credibility to Oystein‘s comment.

Plus, our criticism is that the models behave in unreal ways (no deformation; falling through the ground). This shows that the simulations he presents cannot possibly represent a realistic collapse. So even if they result in features that resemble features of the real collapse, this is contrived. The simulations do not offer an explanation for WHYT the building would fall like that. NIST's simulations do.

———————
Then you total ignore this if you want professional depositions.

That the debate of WTC 7 was already argued in signed depositions involving a lawsuit over the responsibilities why WTC 7 collapsed?


———

But it’s all pointlessly. Because.

One. The controlled demolition fantasy is dead on arrival. The controlled demolition systems would not have survived the jet impacts for WTC 1 and 2. For WTC7, being hit by debris from the collapse of the twin towers. For all WTC buildings, the fires. For WTC 7, the hours of unchecked fires.

Two. For the twin towers. The core columns collapsed after the floor systems were completely sheared away. Whole lengths of core columns stood whole seconds before tumbling down. The floor connections were either sheared by over loading, or bent down wards. Not cut. Supporting the floor system was sheared from the vertical columns while they still stood. What structural members did the fantasy explosives work on?


If fire brought down the twin towers, then it proves its not impossible WTC 7 could collapse due to fire

a reply to: democracydemo

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

The debris field of almost null for WTC 7 is hard to simulate.

And concerning other buildings lets take a look shall we: