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

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?

So simple to debunk Hulsey.

a reply to: neutronflux

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

Yes it is.

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

Yes it is.

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

It wasn't.

Building 7 was pulled down. We even have a senior fireman advising everyone to retreat because it was coming down by design.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

You

We even have a senior fireman advising everyone to retreat because it was coming down by design.

Then my all means quote, cite, and link to the actual quote.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am getting sick and tired of your obvious betrayal.

You link to these two. Prove your statements!

There are reports WTC 7 was becoming weaker and failing before collapse

There are reports WTC 7 was becoming weaker and failing before collapse

Wild statements ... no proof ... nothing. Then you take everyone to task while you continue to make these wild assertions.

You first!

P

a reply to: pheonix358

You stated

We even have a senior fireman advising everyone to retreat because it was coming down by design.

I asked you:

Then by all means quote, cite, and link to the actual quote.

Put up or shut up.

a reply to: pheonix358

This the quote?

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

Peter Hayden was a participant or observer in the following events:
(After 10:28 a.m.) September 11, 2001: World Trade Center Building 7 Appears Damaged

www.historycommons.org...


Firefighters notice significant damage to World Trade Center Building 7 at some point after the Twin Towers collapsed. Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into WTC 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 9/9/2002] According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 9/2/2002] Battalion Chief John Norman will later recall, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.” [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 9/2/2002] Deputy Chief Nick Visconti will recall, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 9/9/2002] Captain Chris Boyle will say, “On the south side of [WTC] 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 9/9/2002] One witness will describe looking at the south face of the building and seeing “broken windows, damage to the building, I-beams sticking out.” Another witness will describe seeing 10 to 15 floors where “the corner I-beam was missing,” and add that “there were more floors that had damage throughout the front facade of the building and several floors were completely exposed.” [AEGIS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. V. 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPANY, LP, 12/4/2013 pdf file] Richard Rotanz, the deputy director of New York’s Office of Emergency Management, assesses the condition of WTC 7 at around 12:30 p.m. “We’re looking at the upper floors of Tower 7,” he will recall. “The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,” he will say. “You could see columns gone, floors collapsed, heavy smoke coming out, and fire.”

neutronflux You’ve claimed false things already, yet you keep coming back posting the same nonsense. No one in this thread supports your silly views. 

You haven’t made any serious genuine attempt to seek proper information about the event.

Why are you not interested in knowing about the 9/11 conspiracy?

This statement by NIST supports the truther version of event

quote
Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST’s WTC 7 report responded, “A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it….” But, “there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case, and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place, and everything was not instantaneous

We already reached a conclusion NIST findings are flawed and not worthy of further consideration.

No structural components below equates, a controlled demolition underneath, took out the resistance below.
Structural components in the way ( freefall impossible)

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

So simple to debunk Hulsey.

Why are you trying to create confusion where there is none?
You are clearly obsessed with denial and try to distort facts.
On this subject, you have not demonstrated you read the Hulsey report.
You post fuzzy Youtube videos and dump Metabunk quotes.

originally posted by: Salander
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.

It's very concerning he doesn't understand the collapse of building seven could not have happened the way NIST said it did.
Debunkers will never admit, they got decieved, by an agency hired by the Bush adminstration.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Where did we leave off. Oh yeah...

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.

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.

To you then.

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: Hulseyreport

What does your ranting have to do with my original post in this thread?

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.

a reply to: neutronflux

Floor 5 it is by FEMA:



www.fema.gov...
Not bad then, matches well with the reevaluation:

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 reply to: democracydemo

Except one. There is no indication the piece was worked on by pyrotechnics, thermite, explosives.

Two. That piece is at least two to three stories tall. The Hulsey report supposedly claims eight floors were cut floor by floor.

Now. Do you have evidence of columns actually cut by planted pyrotechnics?

And care to address the Hulsey report is crap unethically peered reviewed and meaningless. Totally ignores the progressive interior collapse. With nothing supporting its conclusion from the actual video, photographic, audio, seismic, physical evidence.

a reply to: democracydemo

Any who. The Hulsey model claims all columns failed over eight floors simultaneously. Is that correct? To match the truth movement lie WTC 7 fell in its own foot print? Then what is part of WTC 7 doing across the street in the Verizon building?

Maybe Hulsey should have modeled to match the video / physical evidence. Not to match truth movement lies?

a reply to: neutronflux

Except one. There is no indication the piece was worked on by pyrotechnics, thermite, explosives.

Observe the burn marks:

Two. That piece is at least two to three stories tall. The Hulsey report supposedly claims eight floors were cut floor by floor.

What "piece"?

a reply to: neutronflux

Then what is part of WTC 7 doing across the street in the Verizon building?

How many feet/meters is that then? 10m/33ft?

Pile a 47-story building more neatly and i'll give you cookie neutron.

a reply to: pheonix358

He thinks pictures are proof.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Floor 5 it is by FEMA:

www.fema.gov...
Not bad then, matches well with the reevaluation:

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.

This picture ring a bell?

a reply to: democracydemo

There is no indication the piece in question was acted upon by pyrotechnic cutting charges.



Specially indicated by the unburnt crap still hanging off the column.

The more we learn about how the REAL U.S. government works, the easier it is to believe they were complicit in the 911 attacks.