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

a reply to: neutronflux

There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.

There was no weld at that exterior column location and you know that.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.

There was no weld at that exterior column location and you know that.

Ok?

That’s why this was posted.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

Stange seems like this was posted.

That
Or the columns sat butt to butt and the plates holding the columns inline sheared.



originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting idea, but we are still short on WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data yes?

No. It’s right there in the pictures you posted with zero evidence of columns being worked on by planted pyrotechnics.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I would think parts of an actual truth movement argument would outline what connections were in the columns, what charges were specifically used, how many, and how the supposed changes interacted with actual connections.

It’s like the truth movement doesn’t wasn’t to model an actual specific CD theory that is easily proven to be BS. It’s like they want to stick to the shadows of shady innuendo of CD.

————————-

Now cite a source that shows either way.

But you still ain’t got crap. Just your fantasy.


This applies to you also....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

No. You explain how over supposedly six hundreds charges were planted undiscovered. How over supposedly six hundred charges survived and a large sophisticated ignition survived being hit by WTC debris, failures that distorted WTC 7, caused detectable movement before building collapse, and wide spread fires to instantaneously actuate. Please show video and audience evidence where over six hundred charges actuated in the same instance. Please explain how the facade had acceleration faster than free fall by the most accurate measurements.

Please explain all the items not covered by the Hulsey model..

Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis

www.metabunk.org...

By Oystein

www.metabunk.org...

His Section 4.6 simulation conjures up a totally unexplained disappearance of columns - and manages to replicate only one feature of the collapse - the FFA. Which is entirely trivial: If you make something fall freely, it will fall freely.
But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

Hulsey’s model is a joke. Based on junk science. And unethically peer reviewed...

a reply to: democracydemo

Do you suffer from memory loss? It seems most conspiracists do. Conspiracists using the same discredited arguments, same old lies, and arguing the same debunked crap.

a reply to: democracydemo

Again. The columns had to have some sort of connections. They didn’t arrive on site 47 stores long.

a reply to: neutronflux

Exactly what i asked moons ago:

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data. Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

You can't call out wolf, or broken weld, without actual data... You did.

Hulsey’s model is a joke. Based on junk science.

Based on Oystein and Mick from metabunk. At some point you need acknowledge Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey as a Structural Engineer.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

You can't call out wolf, or broken weld, without actual data... You did.

Can you read??????

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.

There was no weld at that exterior column location and you know that.

Ok?

That’s why this was posted.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

Stange seems like this was posted.

That
Or the columns sat butt to butt and the plates holding the columns inline sheared.



originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting idea, but we are still short on WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data yes?

No. It’s right there in the pictures you posted with zero evidence of columns being worked on by planted pyrotechnics.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I would think parts of an actual truth movement argument would outline what connections were in the columns, what charges were specifically used, how many, and how the supposed changes interacted with actual connections.

It’s like the truth movement doesn’t wasn’t to model an actual specific CD theory that is easily proven to be BS. It’s like they want to stick to the shadows of shady innuendo of CD.

_______________________
Again

The columns had to have some sort of connections. They didn’t arrive on site 47 stores long.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

Based on Oystein and Mick from metabunk. At some point you need acknowledge Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey as a Structural Engineer.

The argument is the report is crap made for a target audience and bolstered by unethical peer review

a reply to: neutronflux

You never did read the report?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

You never did read the report?

Stop.

Think you owe me some answers before you try to change the subject.

It’s been documented the paper was unethically peer reviewed.

It’s been documented the study modeling is fraudulent and crap.

All well documented in this thread.

The columns had to have some sort of connections. They didn’t arrive on site 47 stores long. Is that false.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

You can't call out wolf, or broken weld, without actual data... You did.

Can you read??????

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.

There was no weld at that exterior column location and you know that.

Ok?

That’s why this was posted.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

Stange seems like this was posted.

That
Or the columns sat butt to butt and the plates holding the columns inline sheared.



originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting idea, but we are still short on WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data yes?

No. It’s right there in the pictures you posted with zero evidence of columns being worked on by planted pyrotechnics.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I would think parts of an actual truth movement argument would outline what connections were in the columns, what charges were specifically used, how many, and how the supposed changes interacted with actual connections.

It’s like the truth movement doesn’t wasn’t to model an actual specific CD theory that is easily proven to be BS. It’s like they want to stick to the shadows of shady innuendo of CD.

You explain how over supposedly six hundreds charges were planted undiscovered. How over supposedly six hundred charges survived and a large sophisticated ignition system survived being hit by WTC debris, failures that distorted WTC 7, caused detectable movement before building collapse, and wide spread fires to instantaneously actuate. Please show video and audience evidence where over six hundred charges actuated in the same instance. Please explain how the facade had acceleration faster than free fall by the most accurate measurements.

Apropos, here's a 5 minute version of the upcoming documentary SEVEN on PBS:



Someone with can-do "WATS"-points, make a new thread.

originally posted by: democracydemo
Apropos, here's a 5 minute version of the upcoming documentary SEVEN on PBS:

Someone with can-do "WATS"-points, make a new thread.

So. Still zero evidence that planted pyrotechnics brought down WTC7. Just the same old AE 9/11 truth movement lies. Anything new to argue. Anything new and not brought up in the 188 pages of listed threads that make up ATS’s 9/11 forum?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
Apropos, here's a 5 minute version of the upcoming documentary SEVEN on PBS:

Someone with can-do "WATS"-points, make a new thread.

So. Still zero evidence that planted pyrotechnics brought down WTC7. Just the same old AE 9/11 truth movement lies. Anything new to argue. Anything new and not brought up in the 188 pages of listed threads that make up ATS’s 9/11 forum?

No, just the basic evidence given; freefall to a footprint with actual engineering degrees.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

No, just the basic evidence given; freefall to a footprint with actual engineering degrees.

The twin towers never experienced free fall.

Reposting just for you...

originally posted by: neutronflux
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: democracydemo

What you have is building movement before free fall with no evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns.

What you have is the penthouse totally collapsing into WTC 7 below the roof line before the facade started to move downward. With no evidence of columns cut by pyrotechnics.

You have an internal progressive collapse before the facade downward movement.

The facade initially downward movement was slower than the acceleration of gravity, so there is zero evidence over six hundred charges simultaneously and instantly removed the facade’s resistance.

The final stage of the facade downward movement was slower than the acceleration of free fall.

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Sorry. There is zero evidence planted pyrotechnics brought down the WTC. ZERO.

a reply to: neutronflux

The building acted like a spring. This is cause for freefall?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

The building acted like a spring. This is cause for freefall?

Whole argument...

The facade initial downward movement was slower than the acceleration of gravity, so there is zero evidence over six hundred charges simultaneously and instantly removed the facade’s resistance.

The final stage of the facade downward movement was slower than the acceleration of free fall.

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Sad conspiracists try to lie what the actual argument is. Cannot beat the logic, so lie and misrepresent the stated facts and arguments.

————-

Which is actually a moot point to an extent.

“Free fall” can be as simple as the exterior columns misalign and / or buckling from being overloaded by static and dynamic loads which caused them to offer negligible resistance.

So free fall is not really a smoking gun of controlled demolition. The smoking gun part is a lie pushed by the truth movement.

Proof of pyrotechnics cutting columns is proof of columns being cut by pyrotechnics.

“Free fall” can be from bucking columns offering negligible resistance from loads transferring to them from other parts of the building collapse. Or dynamic loading of sections of the building falling which were still attached to the facade. Like a 200 pound person can lift 200 pounds. But you place a person on a tall bridge. Something like 30 feet off the ground. To that person, tie a 15 foot rope around their waist with A 200 pound weight tied to the other end of the rope. If you throw the 200 pound weight off the bridge. The weight and rope will cause rapid acceleration of the person they are tied to once all the slack is gone out of the rope.

Now you have more context. Again...

The facade initially downward movement was slower than the acceleration of gravity, so there is zero evidence over six hundred charges simultaneously and instantly removed the facade’s resistance.

The final stage of the facade downward movement was slower than the acceleration of free fall.

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Sad conspiracists try to lie what the actual argument is. Cannot best the logic, lie and misrepresent the stated facts and arguments.

Db post

a reply to: democracydemo

Wrong video posted i have.

Here's the real one from PBS:

a reply to: democracydemo

And what does your video actually have to do with the actual argument?

Again:

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

The building acted like a spring. This is cause for freefall?

Whole argument...

The facade initial downward movement was slower than the acceleration of gravity, so there is zero evidence over six hundred charges simultaneously and instantly removed the facade’s resistance.

The final stage of the facade downward movement was slower than the acceleration of free fall.

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Sad conspiracists try to lie what the actual argument is. Cannot beat the logic, so lie and misrepresent the stated facts and arguments.

————-

Which is actually a moot point to an extent.

“Free fall” can be as simple as the exterior columns misalign and / or buckling from being overloaded by static and dynamic loads which caused them to offer negligible resistance.

So free fall is not really a smoking gun of controlled demolition. The smoking gun part is a lie pushed by the truth movement.

Proof of pyrotechnics cutting columns is proof of columns being cut by pyrotechnics.

“Free fall” can be from bucking columns offering negligible resistance from loads transferring to them from other parts of the building collapse. Or dynamic loading of sections of the building falling which were still attached to the facade. Like a 200 pound person can lift 200 pounds. But you place a person on a tall bridge. Something like 30 feet off the ground. To that person, tie a 15 foot rope around their waist with A 200 pound weight tied to the other end of the rope. If you throw the 200 pound weight off the bridge. The weight and rope will cause rapid acceleration of the person they are tied to once all the slack is gone out of the rope.

Now you have more context. Again...

The facade initially downward movement was slower than the acceleration of gravity, so there is zero evidence over six hundred charges simultaneously and instantly removed the facade’s resistance.

The final stage of the facade downward movement was slower than the acceleration of free fall.

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Sad conspiracists try to lie what the actual argument is. Cannot best the logic, lie and misrepresent the stated facts and arguments.

————-
Now. Looking forward to your well developed arguments based on logic and actual collapse speeds and actual facts concerning WTC 7.

Not arguments based on truth movement lies and innuendo.

a reply to: neutronflux

If the collapse happened as you said then those building contractors should never be employed anywhere ever again.

Buildings are designed to withstand forces and loads way beyond what was exerted on building 7 that day.

It fell like a deck of cards in the wind. Not like a steel framed building with fires that had weakened some columns.

Do you guys have building regulations in the US?