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

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: samkent

Be specific

He's had 19 years to tell us what caused the failure and this is what he came up with???

A reason to call for a new investigation on 9/11, as a whole. This is the goal. WTC7 UAF report is just one driver to make it a reality.
Even lawyers are involved, with some smole grand jury investigation. Fits perfectly with the business model yes?

What do you plan to investigate? Who will do the investigating?
The investigators have to be neutral and unbiased. If those investigators conclude that the collapse occurred as the NIST report stated, will the case be closed or will A&E clamor for more because that was not their desired outcome?
I asked this question several times over the years and all the answers boiled down to "keep investigating until we get the answer we want."
Gage is using A&E as an income source and he needs to stir the pot occasionally when his cash flow wanes. His plan requires new paying customers to buy into his story. This is going nowhere and, given what the world is dealing with now, is so far down on the investigation to-do list that it is unlikely that a group like A&E can induce Congress to investigate again. The case is closed. There is no evidence of anything but two airplanes hitting the towers and the falling towers damaging other buildings, starting fires, and those fires causing structural collapse.

a reply to: pteridine

will the case be closed or will A&E clamor for more because that was not their desired outcome?

Their desired outcome is no conclusion.
The reason is as you stated, Gage needs his income source until his retirement.

Who want s to bet that once Gage decides to retire he shuts down ae911 cold?

a reply to: pteridine

If those investigators conclude that the collapse occurred as the NIST report stated

That's the problem, the NIST report didn't state how it collapsed, it went on an assumption of how they think it collapsed, and there are also numerous flaws contained regarding WTC 1 & 2, specifically with the elevator shafts

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Interestingly, Dr. Jones' paper on nanothermite has been drawing increasing academic support.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Then how many times as the work been cited in other individuals academic work and research?

It would only be useful to cite it when investigating 9/11, right?

The paper doesn't really have much to say about any other topics.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

a reply to: Salander

Please cite a more credible review of the “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” than the one linked to in this post.....

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

m.youtube.com...

I don't think conventional scholars are eager to comment.

If it is accurate, and they say it isn't, then they hurt their credibility one way.

If it is accurate and they say it is, then they hurt their credibility on a professional "will we get funding?" level.

If it were glaringly inaccurate, it wouldn't even get released on the University of Alaska website. And it is currently available there.

ine.uaf.edu...

Because you say so?

Obviously I never studied at that particular University, but at the University where I studied physics, the department had a big project working on micronuclear reactors for small scale power plants.

An amazing project. Not quite sure who was funding it, but I don't think they would be willing to put that project in jepaordy by offending the investor just so they could comment on a conspiracy theory.

Now consider how many big engineering projects get their funding from the Department of defense.


Professors have a lot more to think about than just their academic integrity.

Sometimes the easiest way to address both problems is just to stay quiet.

So that's a Yes

a reply to: neutronflux

So can you honestly say none of Gregory Szuladzinski work concerning “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ made it into the Hulsey report?

I can't. Someone needs to ask Hulsey and/or Szuladzinski for comments on this matter.

I thought the whole point of the Hulsey paper was to get people outside the truth movement involved. And the first listed reviewer is part of the truth movement, worked with Anthony Szamboti on a paper, and Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey.

Anything on the second reviewer Robert Korol? I know this one: europhysicsnews.org

I can't really see anything wrong with Anthony Szamboti giving his 2 cents to the report just because Metabunk members hate him. He is still a mechanical engineer with deep knowledge on the subject.

Bottom line however is whether the report is accurate in its findings. The data is open for anyone, unlike NIST.

a reply to: neutronflux

files.abovetopsecret.com...

I swear i've seen close-ups of these exterior columnheads years ago. They looked nothing like those WTC 5 ones.

a reply to: democracydemo

The only people they could get to review the Hulsey report paid for by Architects and Engineers were individuals tied to Architects and Engineers?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

files.abovetopsecret.com...

I swear i've seen close-ups of these exterior columnheads years ago. They looked nothing like those WTC 5 ones.

Sigh.

Again the whole argument...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Quote where I ever made such a claim I had such pictures.

Now post one picture or video of a pyrotechnic actively cutting a WTC 7 column.

Here are some pictures of WTC Debris

Now circular cuts made by burning 3000 degree Fahrenheit thermite?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Sorry logic eludes you.

There were floor connection failures and structural failures in WTC5 caused by fire / thermal stress. Is that a false statement.

WTC 5 was hit by falling tower debris. Is that a false statement.

Why would such failures be impossible in WTC7 floor connections and floor spans as claimed by Hulsey?

Here are the pictures again from WTC 5.







Now. Explain again why it’s impossible for steel structure buildings to be susceptible to fire / thermal stress related failures?

That is the heart of the Hulsey report, right? That it was impossible for any type of floor connection failure? But WTC 5 shows that is crap.

Again. The vertical columns in WTC 7 got their lateral support from the floor system. If enough of the floor connection failures and floor collapses seen in WTC 5 repeated enough along the length of a single vertical column in WTC 7, that column would buckle.

This is were you explain the difference between the WTC 5 floor connections and WTC 7 floor connections. And why WTC 7 being hit with flaming debris like WTC 5 wouldn’t have the same floor connection failures. And would not have collapsed floors like WTC 5.

a reply to: pteridine


"The Terror Conspiracy Revisited" by Jim Marrs

Read this book please, everyone. I never thought possible that it was a conspiracy til I read this book.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So can you honestly say none of Gregory Szuladzinski work concerning “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ made it into the Hulsey report?

I can't. Someone needs to ask Hulsey and/or Szuladzinski for comments on this matter.

I thought the whole point of the Hulsey paper was to get people outside the truth movement involved. And the first listed reviewer is part of the truth movement, worked with Anthony Szamboti on a paper, and Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey.

Anything on the second reviewer Robert Korol? I know this one: europhysicsnews.org

I can't really see anything wrong with Anthony Szamboti giving his 2 cents to the report just because Metabunk members hate him. He is still a mechanical engineer with deep knowledge on the subject.

Bottom line however is whether the report is accurate in its findings. The data is open for anyone, unlike NIST.

Szamboti wasn’t the argument.

The actual argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Where are you going with this? Anthony Szamboti is a Mechanical Engineer as i googled him, what gives?

The whole argument....

You
originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Hulsey paper was never offered to a group outside the truth movement for an independent peer reviewed. The individuals that conducted the review had ties to, or were knowN by Architects and Engineers in regards that their review would not be critical.

Is it so? Awaiting proof for these allegations.

—————————————————-

The proof.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

First name on the list Gregory Szuladzinski:

Is this the same Gregory Szuladzinski?

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...


Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, Some Misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis, International Journal of Protective Structures, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2013
Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports www.ae911truth.org...

See the Anthony Szamboti tie.

Szamboti worked with Hulsey?

By Mick West

WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave

www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...

Oystein said:
Not sure that's true. I remember this only as claimed by @econ41, but haven't seen any evidence.
Which bit? The first bit Tony has confirmed here:
Tony Szamboti said:
As shown here, I have explained several times that there was no need to set charges on the exterior columns to produce the observed collapse of WTC 7.
The working with Hulsey comes from a couple of things, in my podcast debate with him he said:

38:44
I am in contact with them, most of it, most of you guys probably know that
Content from external source
(I did not know, other than him being a member of AE911, but it was not surprising)

The second, unfortunately I forget where I saw it, but I remember Tony discussing the removal of 8 floors in the context of what to expect from the Hulsey study. Perhaps on Facebook in one of the 9/11 groups. I could be wrong.

So Gregory Szuladzinski is the only “ Chartered Consulting Engineer Analytical Service Company” engineer Hulsey could find for hire?

Or Gregory Szuladzinski being “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ a paper written with Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey because he was part of the good old boy Richard Gage network?

I thought the whole point of the Hulsey paper was to get people outside the truth movement involved. And the first listed reviewer is part of the truth movement, worked with Anthony Szamboti on a paper, and Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey.


The paper was not ethically reviewed by impartial individuals.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Care to address

And the report will not be peer reviewed by impartial individuals via a referee for publication in an engineering journal. So, the report will never accomplish one of its goals used to solicit donations.

———————————————————————

You

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Who is Anthony Szamboti and how do you tie this man to a James Bond villain character? You're building a conspiracy theory neutron.

———————————————————

That’s the kind of naïveté the truth movement counts on.

Shrugs.


Now.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, Some Misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis, International Journal of Protective Structures, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2013
Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports www.ae911truth.org...


So can you honestly say none of G

So can you honestly say none of Gregory Szuladzinski work concerning “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ made it into the Hulsey report?

a reply to: neutronflux

Found them finally:

originally posted by: samkent
This report follows the A&E911 theme to a T.

They state it couldn't have happened as the OS states.
But they NEVER take a position as to what did happen.

That allows them to keep this dog and pony show going indefinitely.

I realise this is incorrect and am here to straighten it out for you.

Hulsey ran the simulation, with the east corner collapsing, and since this is where all mainstream studies claim the collapse event began, he pulled out all those steel columns on the eastside side of the structure first ( Columns- 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81) 

Instead of the collapse advancing to the west (horizontally) the east corner leaned and titled to the southeast and started toppling over and breaking apart at that side! 

It worth noting, none of the mainstream studies assert this occurred.  Next, how would you go about demonstrating which study correct? We'll need the NIST FEA data for starters!

Hulsey asserts the only way building seven can come down like they show it on video, is by removing columns on 8 floors (east corner to west corner)
The likely removal was done  somehere in the middle or below part of the building.  How we know this?  The building came down at freefall for about 2.25 to 2.50 seconds. 

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: pteridine

If those investigators conclude that the collapse occurred as the NIST report stated

That's the problem, the NIST report didn't state how it collapsed, it went on an assumption of how they think it collapsed, and there are also numerous flaws contained regarding WTC 1 & 2, specifically with the elevator shafts

Failure of one girder leading to a total collapse of the building is nonsense. How does one girder break a steel column? It can’t.  Even it did happen, the girder would be hitting the concrete slap not breaking the steel column. 

There be a big thud, but the concrete would nevertheless will be there still. 

NIST theory doesn’t make any sense anyhow if you study the 1984 construction drawings for buiilding seven and discover and see the elements NIST removed, and left off from the east corner section. Leaving off construction elements does not valid their theory.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Failure of one girder leading to a total collapse of the building is nonsense. How does one girder break a steel column?

More false arguments by you

It doesn’t. It just has to buckle.

And the Hulsey modeling is crap. And the review of the report was rigged and unethical.

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)
m.youtube.com...

And Hulsey rigid the modeling of only a few floors. Hulsey did not model the entire extent of the fires throughout all of WTC 7.

And there is zero evidence of an initiating even that caused all the columns for a height of eight floors to instantly and simultaneously fail.

There is no evidence of over six hundred charges doing the below. With kicker charges to misalign columns.


When the official stance of Architects and Engineers is the fires of WTC 7 were never hotter than normal office fires. I guess that rules out over six hundred thermite charges burning over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit causing over six hundred thermite fires on every column for eight floors.

originally posted by: Granto222
a reply to: pteridine


"The Terror Conspiracy Revisited" by Jim Marrs

Read this book please, everyone. I never thought possible that it was a conspiracy til I read this book.

Many americans prefer the official conspiracy theory. By accepting it they don't have to worry about doing any independent thinking.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: Granto222
a reply to: pteridine


"The Terror Conspiracy Revisited" by Jim Marrs

Read this book please, everyone. I never thought possible that it was a conspiracy til I read this book.

Many americans prefer the official conspiracy theory. By accepting it they don't have to worry about doing any independent thinking.

Again. Please tell us about your pet fantasy of nukes at the WTC?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Failure of one girder leading to a total collapse of the building is nonsense. How does one girder break a steel column?

More false arguments by you

It doesn’t. It just has to buckle.

And the Hulsey modeling is crap. And the review of the report was rigged and unethical.

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)
m.youtube.com...

And Hulsey rigid the modeling of only a few floors. Hulsey did not model the entire extent of the fires throughout all of WTC 7.

And there is zero evidence of an initiating even that caused all the columns for a height of eight floors to instantly and simultaneously fail.

There is no evidence of over six hundred charges doing the below. With kicker charges to misalign columns.

When the official stance of Architects and Engineers is the fires of WTC 7 were never hotter than normal office fires. I guess that rules out over six hundred thermite charges burning over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit causing over six hundred thermite fires on every column for eight floors.

Kind of obvious the 9/11 debunkers have not read the Hulsey study.
 
It is totally accepted and common knowledge building seven will only come down after the steel core columns and exterior columns are taken out! (keep that in mind!)

Lets try to get you open up and reveal you thinking about this? 

What would Hulsey learn from rerunning the same collision failures at column 79?  Hulsey showed those breakdowns could not have occurred anyway!

The steel columns had been removed by controlled demolition- therefore the  Hulsey collapse is not natural occuring event. 

What motions and collisons do debunkers feel like needs to be shown?

You repeatedly fail to grasp the physics. The building experienced freefall for 2.25 to 2.50 seconds of its fall that was calculated. With building coming down at freefall that literally means 8 floors are no longer there to provide support. Thats very strong evidence there was no column support underneath. 

I don’t see how this result was caused by fire? The buckling in the NIST scenario has already been shown to not have materialized at column 79 to 44. 

Where did the buckling begin to start the collapse? 

 Girder is welded to the column, and it would not take an entire steel column with it if it did  twist, buckle and collape 

AE911 truth holds the fires inside building seven were not hot enough. You forgetting again the nanothermite samples found belong to the towers collapse. I suspect nanothermite was not utilized to bring down building seven? The samples were not found near building seven collapse.  

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Can you address the real issues with the Hulsey report

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.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

I’m not certain you can read? For the most part, I answered your first question.
A controlled demolition is not a natural development. There’s no buckling,  twisting, variation, or crushing of columns caused by fire!

 If you concede the columns were removed by controlled demolition, again there no need to show a “dynamic response” There are a multitude of reasons to why that is., the main one is)- the path to elimination is entirely different! 

To claim resistance was ignored is again false. The controlled demolition removed that resistance underneath!

I don’t think Sap2000 program can reproduce a controlled demolition inside the building! What Hulsey can do is remove columns one by one by DSR and see how the FEA building reacts to that! 

Debunkers are still restrained by their own thinking, that this was a natural collapse due to fire. 

Hulsey did not overlook the NIST explantation for the collapse, he reviewed it and found it could not have taken place. By the way Nordenson Investigation also concluded the girder would be trapped by the sideplate at column 79.  There strong evidence there truthers have a point that NIST step by step collapse at column 79 is not correct. 

Explantation Hulsey found is problematic for the official narrative, so better described as denial and it is just one reason you never see ASCE reviewing their finds to see if their explantation is true or not .
Detectable shaking? Clarify what you mean by that.
I don’t think you understand freefall. Freefall occurs when a object is falling freely with no force acting upon (zero resistance  “Placed under tension”  meaningless? Your description is nonsense. 

Your own pictures are showing the enviroment after a collapse in WTC5. What you seemly missed the columns are still supporting the structure and have not collapsed. Yet you want me to believe all columns inside building seven, got taken out by one girder falling off its seat? Did you miss the red primer girders still support the floors in your second picture?