University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

A special day......when this happened....the prof. has mighty moxy to go after this.
just common sense dictates disgust at the official story so quickly surmised with pop-up expert observers. Common sense, .....and that day logic just went out the window.....you know who has steel balls.....the one's that put forth the fairy tale and thought anyone would buy that crap .

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eisegesis

The steel was NOT examined, not improperly examined as you suggest.

If it wasn't properly examined, how do we know anything was "missed"?

Argument fallacy, like other wtc 7 arguments that insinuate some realm of hidden evidence tells more truth.

Reopening the investigation on these grounds negates the investigation that was done (conveniently) as well.

So now that the investigation is dismissed and the missing evidence is 'unavailable' the mystery of the rubble can go on ad infinitum.

New investigation should take its head out of the rubble pile and look to the endless wars, profit from armaments and whose behind all that. Thats what will kill more people eventually, not some missing rubble or steel.

911 'truthers' get your heads out of the debris.

That was very satisfying to read. Could not agree more.

People need to see beyond the arguments about what brought the towers down. Take a step back and look it the bigger picture.

a reply to: sg1642

All roads lead to Rome.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: angryhulk

No, that compilation video does not exhibit entire floors on fire, only pockets of fire. Yes, large fires however the building is bloody huge.

Entire floors weren't on fire, entire floors were burned, one office at a time… all_day_long. Yah gravity pushing down on the damaged floors was 'huge'.

Where's the proof? Your video is not proof. Gravity pushing down on damaged floors?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: angryhulk

No, that compilation video does not exhibit entire floors on fire, only pockets of fire. Yes, large fires however the building is bloody huge.

Did you notice that all the windows across entire floors were broken ?
What do you think caused that ?
Black op's with sledges or fire ?

I don't know, maybe the clouds of concrete from a neighbouring collapsing megatower or two? Without videos of fire burning those windows out I would be reluctant to say it was so, plus it is still not entire floors.

a reply to: angryhulk

plus it is still not entire floors.

True But did you look at the basic design of the building ?

They used what they call 'transfer trusses' to carry the center load of the building to the outside foundation.
The reason is because there was a power substation under 7 that could not be removed.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.

So the majority of the center mass was not supported in the center.
If you or I tried to do this on our homes we would be called red necks.
But if you have a degree it's call innovation.

So if the famous column 79 (in the center) fails due to heat . . .

a reply to: angryhulk

Where's the proof? Your video is not proof. Gravity pushing down on damaged floors?

Well for one, gravity doesn't pull up.

And two, you didn't read the reports of firefighters hearing the building creaking, seeing the bulge growing on one side, becoming afraid it might come down… its in that link I brought for you.

Like I said, you overlook the whole chain of events, settling on mantras from other people who also refuse to see.

The only question left is what do you see and why?

Another Professor agrees. Building 7 could not of fallen for any other reason but controlled demolition. It went straight down in its own foot print at free fall speed. Watch the results of science and weep payed shills.

If there was dirt on 911 in regards to the GOP, would it not serve the Democrat's interest to expose the GOP. You have Hiliary wanting to get to the bottom of UFOs? And a government big enough and secretive enough to pull off the supposed building 7 job is going to be exposed by a hand full off academics. A study from what physical evidence? Amazing how there is money to be had from truthers. Wonder who is using who?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: angryhulk

No, that compilation video does not exhibit entire floors on fire, only pockets of fire. Yes, large fires however the building is bloody huge.

Did you notice that all the windows across entire floors were broken ?
What do you think caused that ?
Black op's with sledges or fire ?

Do you think it was the glass windows that held up the building. LOL.

It was solid steel that held up the 100 plus story building. Even if for the first time in history a steel frame building was to collapse, it would fall over. It never would collapse in its foot print.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

One, why would anyone risk there lives to plant explosives in building 7 to what end? The two towers falling was not a big enough event?

Two, you need to study steel pipe bursting pressure vs tempature. It shows that as steel heats up, it becomes more susceptible to failure. Pipe that is rated for 655 pounds at 300 degrees Fahrenheit is only good for 350 pounds at 800.

Finally, a building designed for static load just is not going to hold up well to any shock load caused by a building twice it's size falling near by.

The true conspiracy is the money made by individuals selling the truth people want to hear about 9/11. Face it, there are violent groups that wish to do great harm to Western Civilization? Was the events in France a conspiracy created by Bush?

a reply to: neutronflux

One, why would anyone risk there lives to plant explosives in building 7 to what end? The two towers falling was not a big enough event?

Obviously the explosives were there before the event. Perhaps one of the planes were suppose to strike building 7 ? They didn't want any investigators finding explosives. Building 7 was reported to have several bombs going off inside it before the the final demolition. So they had to finish the job and destroy evidence. You can speculate forever.

Two, you need to study steel pipe bursting pressure vs tempature. It shows that as steel heats up, it becomes more susceptible to failure. Pipe that is rated for 655 pounds at 300 degrees Fahrenheit is only good for 350 pounds at 800.

You show us an example of a steel frame building collapsing from fire. It just doesn't happen. Their are numerous examples of buildings burning 10 times hotter and longer with no collapse. None fall in their own foot print or collapse in any way.

The true conspiracy is the money made by individuals selling the truth people want to hear about 9/11. Face it, there are violent groups that wish to do great harm to Western Civilization? Was the events in France a conspiracy created by Bush?

It's their politically correct tolerance policies that have caused all the attacks in France. And Obama has done nothing but fan the flames of Bush's screw ups. The government of France are even more to blame by selling their own people down the river.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

So steel presure vessels in a chemical process have never failed due to exceeding there designed temperature rating. On the other end, ships have never cracked in half due to brittle fracture. Maybe your definition is to narrow for structure, or your understanding of steel to small. And name the witnesses that iditified the detonation of explosives during a building colapse. And the source of buildings that where ten times hotter without collapsing? Did they have a simular design to building 7. Insulated steel vs not insulated. How did they drill and wire the build for detination unnoticed? Or were there just huge creates of explosives sitting around. Did the other stated buildings have damage before their fires. And you are blaming the victims in France for there own deaths.


Why rig the building to explode in the first place? A little logic and your arguments become improbable.....

originally posted by: sg1642
I looked this gentleman up and from what I can tell, he’s clean. His education seems solid and he is well respected amongst his peers

He was. One character assassination coming right up!

What makes you think the perps will settle for a "character" assassination?

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You show us an example of a steel frame building collapsing from fire. It just doesn't happen. Their are numerous examples of buildings burning 10 times hotter and longer with no collapse. None fall in their own foot print or collapse in any way.

Which one of your numerous examples was struck by any airplane let alone a 767?

a reply to: neutronflux

On the other end, ships have never cracked in half due to brittle fracture.

Uhhh you are totally wrong.

Early Liberty ships suffered hull and deck cracks, and a few were lost to such structural defects. During World War II, there were nearly 1,500 instances of significant brittle fractures. Twelve ships, including three of the 2,710 Liberties built, broke in half without warning, including the SS John P. Gaines,[

She discovered that the ships in the North Atlantic were exposed to temperatures that could fall below a critical point when the mechanism of failure changed from ductile to brittle, and thus the hull could fracture rather easily.

a reply to: samkent

You don't know sarcasim? The statement was to show how little people know about the different modes of failure of metal. Look at the context in which I was pointing out the different failures of structures.

a reply to: samkent

So the world trade towers were not hit by jets? They were beyong argument hit by jet passenger liners which resulted in there structural failure. I give facts and you never answered my questions? Like the victims in France were responsible for their own deaths?

a reply to: samkent

But thanks for doing the research to show how under the right conditions a metal structure can fail. I wonder what kind of pressure was was created when the towers failed? An event that would cause a three pound shock wave would crush most homes. At 10 pounds, most buildings are flattened.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Planes strike WTC 7...??

WTC 7 was ringed by buildings of over 40-50 stories tall - WTC 7 was 47 stories. Explain how one slips a plane in there?

Explosives planted in building? Explain how one plant explosives in occupied building without anyone noticing?

Explosives also deteriorate with age becoming either unreliable or unstable.