Today, the Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, a PhD in structural engineering and one of the nation’s top experts in the cause of building collapses (Leroy Hulsey) publicly announced that – contrary to the government’s explanation – fire did NOT bring down World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11:
He joins scores of other structural engineers, civil engineers, high-rise architects, and fire experts who say that the government’s story is false … Building 7 was NOT brought down by fire.
It will be interesting to see who will be a part of the peer reviews of Dr. Hulsey's study.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
Official investigators say that after the South Tower fell at 9.59am and the North Tower at 10.28am, the pieces of the rubble did irreparable damage to Building 7, causing it to burn by floor by floor, getting progressively weaker along the way. The investigation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said that the collapse was caused by a combination of the damage from the debris - and not the impact of the debris itself- and lacking water in the fire sprinklers throughout the building. The largest tenant of the 47-story building was the bank Salomon Smith Barney, but there were also offices of the CIA, the Department of Defence, utility company ConEd, and the Internal Revenue Service.
“new phenomenon” “extraordinary event” “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building” “jeopardize public safety.”
The last quote is what they said when asked when requested to release the input data that THEY created for there investigation. No evidence or witness of explosions? Well that's been shown to be a false statement over and over again. You know I dont claim to know exactly what happened, but I do know NIST's theory is flawed on so many levels As I said before, anyone with coding experience can build a computer program to simulate what ever they want. And thats exactly how they came to there conclusion
"we constructed computer models grounded in principles of physics and using detailed data on every aspect of the building’s construction, detailed information on its contents, videos and photos of the event, and witness accounts". Lots of witnesses accounts, however they only used the witness accounts that suited there agenda
Lets think about this for just a second. Does anyone actually believe there going to release a report that states they found evidence that building was deliberately brought down? Yeah right. Not in a million years.
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Sep 17th, 2016, 12:24 pm
by Fancy
vinnied wrote:...No evidence or witness of explosions?,,,
There were many witnesses that used descriptive words that were not interpreted as fact. Hearing what sounded like explosions does not mean explosives were used.
vinnied wrote:...Lots of witnesses accounts, however they only used the witness accounts that suited there agenda...
I would think police officers and firemen that were at the scene would be the first accounts taken into consideration.
vinnied wrote:... Lets think about this for just a second. Does anyone actually believe there going to release a report that states they found evidence that building was deliberately brought down? Yeah right. Not in a million years.
Considering there was no loss of life, what would be the point to refrain from releasing such information?
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Sep 17th, 2016, 2:55 pm
by vinnied
Fancy wrote:There were many witnesses that used descriptive words that were not interpreted as fact. Hearing what sounded like explosions does not mean explosives were used.
And just how does one make it a fact? with material evidence most likely, however that never happened because it was all whisked away to quickly, however, If a witness says "there was an explosion and the floor fell out from beneath us. I was hanging from a hand rail" I'm going to assume it was an explosion. If theres three firemen using a phone and theres a loud enough sound to scare them, and they say theres another explosion. I'm gonna assume there was explosions. Plenty of witnesses to explosions. NIST just refused to use them
I would think police officers and firemen that were at the scene would be the first accounts taken into consideration.
There were in fact firemen who claimed of explosions, these videos have been posted over and over. again NIST didnt take that into consideration, Why? because as you say they are just sounds. Could have been someones surround sound up to loud I suppose. 'sarcasm off'
Considering there was no loss of life, what would be the point to refrain from releasing such information?
They were working for the govt, which just in case your not aware, a lot of people believe did 911. I'm sure your familiar with the term Pandora's box
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Sep 17th, 2016, 4:18 pm
by Fancy
vinnied wrote:And just how does one make it a fact? with material evidence most likely, however that never happened because it was all whisked away to quickly, however, If a witness says "there was an explosion and the floor fell out from beneath us. I was hanging from a hand rail" I'm going to assume it was an explosion.
There was zero evidence "whisked away" from WTC7 but cleaning up debris was a priority to reach people. First responders that were there noted the raging fires and gaping hole in the building. Again, I've read many stories that use the word "explosions" that were not related to explosives being used.
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Sep 17th, 2016, 6:03 pm
by vinnied
well this is interesting. Bob McIlvaine whos son was killed on that day got a chance to speak to the doctor that examined his sons body which was removed before any collapse
According to McIlvaine, the wounds described by the doctor indicated that his son had been hit by flying glass from some kind of massive blast. Bobby’s face was damaged beyond recognition, he had lacerations all over his chest from flying glass, and he had post-mortem burns. In fact, the blast was strong enough to literally blow Bobby out of his laced shoes
"Post mortem", he was already dead before any fire reached him
crap. your right. That was actually an incident from the north tower. my bad. I got a little carried away while reading stuff. Ill post the link in the 911 thread for anyone who wants to read it
Regardless though, according to the official story, there were no explosives in any of the towers that day.
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Sep 17th, 2016, 8:33 pm
by Nasturtium
*bleep*!
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Sep 17th, 2016, 8:34 pm
by Fancy
vinnied wrote: Regardless though, according to the official story, there were no explosives in any of the towers that day.
And no evidence was found. WTC#7 was badly damaged and was vacant before it collapsed.
8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone? The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9). Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Jul 26th, 2017, 9:00 pm
by maryjane48
none of that expains near freefall speeds which nist admited was observed . you might as well of posted a dr seuess boom
Re: WTC Building #7
Posted: Jul 26th, 2017, 9:47 pm
by Passion4Truth
NIST's new magical thermal expansion hypothesis is plagued by a plethora of problems. We will list only some of the most obvious ones here. NIST based its work entirely on a computer simulation that was supposed to simulate the design of WTC 7 and its condition on that fateful day. But the alleged simulation was instead based on numerous false premises that were either not backed by any evidence or contradicted available evidence. In other words, NIST had once again inverted the scientific method in order to arrive at its preconceived conclusion
![[icon_lol2.gif]](./images/smilies/icon_lol2.gif ":haha:"){kind=icon}