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

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

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!

Really. Why is fire insulation used to cover steel structures.

Its not fire alone. It’s fire weakening the steel under load so it becomes over loaded.

Or thermal stress. Expanding and contracting.

Then what cause this buckling in WTC 5


What caused the collapse of the steel structure above the 17 floor at the Madrid Windsor?





Your statement is a blatant lie.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

If your referring to the Hulsey report. It’s modeling is fraudulent.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

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!

Really. Why is fire insulation used to cover steel structures.

Its not fire alone. It’s fire weakening the steel under load so it becomes over loaded.

Or thermal stress. Expanding and contracting.

Buckling wouldn't cause the observed collapse. Because there would be no "hammer effect" if the steel merely buckled.

The floors near the event would compress like an accordion, but slowly enough not to trigger the floors below to pancake on downwards.

Then what cause this buckling in WTC 5

What caused the collapse of the steel structure above the 17 floor at the Madrid Windsor?

Your statement is a blatant lie.

Why do even cite the Madrid Windsor? It didn't collapse with a hammer effect. It collapsed with no hammer effect (like a fire initiated collapse usually should do.)


Madrid Windsor is a fine example of what should have happened if the WTC collapse had indeed been merely the result of fire and nothing else.

Most of the buildings would still be standing.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You

Why do even cite the Madrid Windsor? It didn't collapse with a hammer effect. It collapsed with no hammer effect (like a fire initiated collapse usually should do.)

Yeap. The WTC buildings didn’t have the concrete columns / structure that stopped the complete collapse of the Madrid Windsor.

If the towers were not built cheap and light as possible. Didn’t have unusually long floor spans with no mid length concrete support columns to maximize open rental space. And didn’t use less concrete than common practice, and if they incorporated concrete columns/structures like the Madrid Windsor, they would not have collapsed.

Than you for highlighting the dangers of a steel structures built cheap as possible, with concrete usage minimized beyond common practice, and didn’t have concrete load bearing columns outside the core. As in not along the length of the unusually long floor spans, and not at the other wall.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah, that sounds like it was almost set up for failure of some sort from the get go huh?
Something as easy as a fire perhaps.
🤔

a reply to: Gravelbone

When the port authority was able to choose what building codes they wanted to follow from a 1968 building code draft, and the last building code overhauled was 1938, over profit.....

a reply to: neutronflux

Somehow, I'm not surprised.
None of this ever lined up for me.
I'm still not sure what I think of all of it.
Was just adding a few cents.

a reply to: neutronflux

Then what cause this buckling in WTC 5

Whatever it was, it sure didn't manifest in WTC 7:

a reply to: democracydemo

I don’t see any floor connections? With debris still hanging of the column stripped of its floor connections?

Please by all means point and explain how your random picture with no link and no context supports over six hundred of the below charges supposedly setting off at WTC7

a reply to: democracydemo

Now....

originally posted by: neutronflux

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?


5098994]neutronflux[/post]
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?

a reply to: neutronflux

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.

Fascinating. I wonder, which floors specifically.

Finding that NIST’s scenario of horizontal progressive core column collapse was not feasible,and would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories.

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 page 105.
....

It should be noted that we conducted two separate simulations involving the failure of the core columns and exterior columns over 8 stories: One was the failure of all columns from Floor 12 to Floor 19; the second was the failure of all columns from Floor 6 to Floor 13. The two simulations were identical in terms of the downward velocity and acceleration of the northwest corner at the top of building. We therefore found that the collapse could have started at various floors.

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 page 108.

Now, on what floor was this row of severed exterior columns at?

a reply to: democracydemo

Nice pictures with columns that broke at the welds. Stripped of the weaker floor connections.

Question. I thought the truth movement claimed the steel was not cataloged in anyway? So was that a lie? Or Did Hulsey just make false claims of what was pictured.

I wish the truth movement would get its argument straight.

Any who.

Again..

You are citing the Hulsey Report? Fraudulently modeled. And fraudulently reviewed. The report had no credibility. And did not model the WTC 7 fires globally. Ignored the extent of the fires.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I don’t see any floor connections? With debris still hanging of the column stripped of its floor connections?

Please by all means point and explain how your random picture with no link and no context supports over six hundred of the below charges supposedly setting off at WTC7



And there is no way a controlled demolition system would have survived the fires and damage from the twin towers to intimate the collapse WTC 7 as captured on video.

And there is zero evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns before building movement.

a reply to: democracydemo

Sigh.

Finding that NIST’s scenario of horizontal progressive core column collapse was not feasible,and would not result in the observed straight-down collapse,

The way items disappeared below the roof line of WTC 7, and the way the building distorted during collapse, WTC 7 did undergo a East to West progressive collapse before facade movement. That placed the Facade in a bind. Which explains why the facade for a short time accelerated faster than free fall once it stated to move downward by the most accurate analysis available.

And the Hulsey report modeling is missing key elements of the collapse as seen on the video evidence.

And then you have zero evidence that pyrotechnics actively cut columns. With no chance a controlled demolition system survive the fire and being hit by the debris from the twin towers. With no evidence that over six hundred charges were installed in WTC 7. On all the columns for an eight floor span.

Sorry. The Hulsey report is garbage, and unethically reviewed. Which makes your post garbage. Garbage in garbage out.

a reply to: democracydemo

There are reports of WTC 7 distorting as the afternoon progressed. Is that false.

There are reports WTC 7 was becoming weaker and failing before collapse. Is that false.

If fire related failures are impossible. Then what was causing WTC 7 to become more structural distorted and weaker as the afternoon went on?

a reply to: neutronflux

The truth movement is too subtle for you to understand. That's why you can't.

But really, the truth movement is based upon a very simple thing--knowing that the official story is bankrupt, it is not supported by any facts.

That's all there is to it for most people, understanding that they were deceived for some number of years. They know they were deceived, and are curious as to how it was REALLY carried out.

a reply to: Salander

Precisely so, wayyy ahead of the curve.

a reply to: Salander

The truth movement is too subtle for you to understand. That's why you can't.

I think that is the most ignorant statement I have seen all day.

I would think one would want to make a valid argument, based on the video/audio/seismic evidence. Not be subtle.

What does that have to do with the truth movement failed because there is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

And there is nothing subtle about an an actual controlled demolition.

Still waiting on you to post evidence of your pet fantasy of nukes at the WTC. Which would no be subtle in anyway.

But really, the truth movement is based upon a very simple thing--knowing that the official story is bankrupt, it is not supported by any facts.

Not concerning the WTC, the truth movement fantasy is based on lies. Like the truth movement lie the twins towers fell at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance. When in reality the cores fell last. Over several seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems.


Why does the truth movement lie about what is right in the video evidence? Why do people like Richard Gage lie to exploit 9/11 for personal gain?

a reply to: democracydemo

I asked you a question.

There are reports of WTC 7 distorting as the afternoon progressed. Is that false.

There are reports WTC 7 was becoming weaker and failing before collapse. Is that false.

If fire related failures are impossible. Then what was causing WTC 7 to become more structural distorted and weaker as the afternoon went on?

a reply to: democracydemo

Let me guess. Your going to post more pictures of columns with broken welds, and use innuendo to imply there are something different.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Let me guess. Your going to post more pictures of columns with broken welds, and use innuendo to imply there are something different.

Broken welds is what YOU need to prove at this point.