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

originally posted by: UnearthlyEarthling
...Thermite. The colour of the liquid indicates its burning at over 1000 degrees celcius. A higher temperature than what just fire can achieve.

How did ancient civilizations melt iron, bronze, and copper at temperatures of 1300 degrees Celcius with just fire?

The answer is they used bellows to blow air into the fire. The oxygen in the blown air would enhance the fire, making it burn hotter.

I can image the higher winds the are present as you go higher up a building could produce a bellows effect on the inside of a burning building (especially via air rushing into broken windows and other openings), stoking the fires in the building with oxygen to make them hot enough to melt metal -- like an ancient metal smelter.

a reply to: waypastvne



Oh look a blurry pic of an airplane I guess that settles it!

I only ever see people arguing over the cause and the effect...

Lets say it was explosives, I have a few questions about that.

1: How did they get the explosives on the load bearing structure, connect them and detonate them all at the same time?

2: If it was wired how did they hide it?

3: If it was wireless how do you insulate it, so the wrong radio signal doesn't set one off early?

4: Where do you find the number of specialists for something like this that would be willing to blow up buildings with citizens inside it, cause anyone smart enough to handle high end explosives has to know the moment you are done you are expendable and a loose end.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

It was obvious to many right out of the gate that fires absolutely didnt take down any WTC buildings that day.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

The towers just happened to collapse in the way that anyone can
see looks exactly like controlled demolition but it wasn't.

Hokey

The towers collapsed because of a failure of the truss seat connections.

This is a truss seat. It has a structual capacity of 94.000 pounds. If that is exceeded.....it fails.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: waypastvne

Oh look a blurry pic of an airplane I guess that settles it!

You told us the plane wasn't there at all.

Why are you spreading lies.

originally posted by: HelloboysImbackguy
a reply to: Jchristopher5

It was obvious to many right out of the gate that fires absolutely didnt take down any WTC buildings that day.

Did you happen to notice the 2 Boing 767 that crashed into them.

It is pointless arguing with some about this...

Flat earth, Scientology, 9/11... Same trick, smarter dog.

"The Truth is heavy, therefore few care to carry it" ~ Winston Churchill

• People who are pretending to be asleep will resist being awakened because they have something to lose by ending the charade.

• People who pretend to be asleep can often lose track of what is real and what is pretend and thus cannot respond normally to situations.

• People will act as if nothing is happening when they don’t want to face the reality of the situation by pretending to be unaware or unsure despite being presented with the evidence.

You Can’t Wake A Person Who Is Pretending To Be Asleep

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I only ever see people arguing over the cause and the effect...

Lets say it was explosives, I have a few questions about that.

1: How did they get the explosives on the load bearing structure, connect them and detonate them all at the same time?

2: If it was wired how did they hide it?

3: If it was wireless how do you insulate it, so the wrong radio signal doesn't set one off early?

4: Where do you find the number of specialists for something like this that would be willing to blow up buildings with citizens inside it, cause anyone smart enough to handle high end explosives has to know the moment you are done you are expendable and a loose end.

Three words for four questions: Bin Laden Construction.

a reply to: neutronflux

Ok, please explain how

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.

I repeat, "simultaneous failure of every column in the building", please neutronflux explain that?

which was their conclusion, and you have avoided so far?

Soon! REAL computer simulations will take place, and it will be proven beyond a doubt that your fantasy collapse is a fairytale!

Even if it was a huge impact in the bottom of WTC7, from WTC1(2) collapse, then it would have toppled... not crash into its own footprint. Physics will prove that the collapse "theory" is 90% impossible. Thats why you should fear AI ?

Another thing about your fuel-impact theory, is that the first plane hit the WTC north tower center on, jettison all its fuel into the building. The other plane 17 mins later hit the south tower a little to the right, creatin a HUGE fireball OUTSIDE the building, seen on numerous footage. So which building collapsed first?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

The towers just happened to collapse in the way that anyone can
see looks exactly like controlled demolition but it wasn't.

Hokey

I have repeatedly posted why I think the towers fell in other 9/11 threads with supporting evidence. Do you really want be to post that explanation again? Do you have an actual rebuttal to what I have repeatedly posted.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Three words for four questions: Bin Laden Construction.

Yes the Bin Laden family owns a construction company. This is common knowledge.

How does that answer the 4 questions asked.

a reply to: kloejen

You

I repeat, "simultaneous failure of every column in the building", please neutronflux explain that?

which was their conclusion, and you have avoided so far?

I addressed it in my first post and other posts...


originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

———————-

It’s a bad conclusion based from fraudulent modeling, with no evidence of such a mechanism.

a reply to: kloejen

This is where you show evidence that over six hundred charges was doing the below..


All burning over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. And that is not including kicker charges to misalign columns.

a reply to: waypastvne

The towers collapsed because of a failure of the truss seat connections.

When did the story change from fire weakening the beams causing the towers to collapse?

And that's 24,000 load bearing lbs per connection as rated. In reality each
connection is capable of far more than it's rating. How many connections per
floor? IDK but it's a lot.

a reply to: waypastvne

Why are you spreading lies.

Why are you protecting obvious lies?

First fire weakened the towers now it's the truss connections.

Who's lying and who just wants truth here?

Obviously not you!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: waypastvne

Why are you spreading lies.

Why are you protecting obvious lies?

First fire weakened the towers now it's the truss connections.

Who's lying and who just wants truth here?

Obviously not you!

Thermal stress, expansion, and contraction cause failures. Ever think it might be a combination of loss of load bearing due to heat and thermal stress failures?

Oh wow! Blast from the past!

I was accused of being a government disinfo agent and a member of the BBC on a WTC7 thread 13 years ago; I can't believe this is still a conspiracy.

Anyway...what was learned on that thread 13 years ago was they had Transits and Laser Doppler Vibrometers to watch the motion of the buildings that day, so knew WTC 7 was moving, bulging, and collapsing over a period of hours.

originally posted by: carsforkids

And that's 24,000 load bearing lbs per connection as rated. In reality each
connection is capable of far more than it's rating. How many connections per
floor? IDK but it's a lot.

The truss seats is what caused the cascade failure not collapse initiation.

94,000 lbs not 24,000 lbs. That is ultimate strength of the connection.



They are located here.



The evidence that this is the failure point is easy to find.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thermal stress, expansion, and contraction cause failures. Ever think it might be a combination of loss of load bearing due to heat and thermal stress failures?

Don't have to think about it not enough heat. At all not even close.