The destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to the
much-anticipated final report issued today by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
The UAF team's findings,
which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower's collapse, contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire."Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse," said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study's principal investigator. "The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column."
The four-year study was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization
representing more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed the organization's petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11.
"We are proud to have supported the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Professor Leroy Hulsey in conducting a genuinely scientific study into the reasons for this building's collapse," said Richard Gage, president and founder of AE911Truth.
"It is now incumbent upon the building community, the media, and government officials to reckon with the implications of these findings and launch a new full-scale investigation."AE911Truth and its allies among the 9/11 victims' families will now use the findings in the report as part of a formal "request for correction" that the group plans to submit to NIST in the coming days. "The indisputable errors documented in our request for correction will give NIST no way out of correcting its deeply flawed report and reversing its conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse," said Gage.
The final report, entitled
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Final Report, includes clarifications and supplemental text based on public comments submitted in response to a draft report released by UAF and AE911Truth on September 3, 2019.
The UAF team's final report is the result of an extensive four-year computer modeling effort that was followed by a robust peer review process. The peer review included dozens of public comments as well as external review by two independent experts, Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski of Analytical Service Company, a leading expert in structural mechanics and finite element modeling, and Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
"I am grateful to everyone who supported or participated in this study in any way," said Professor Hulsey. "We hope that our findings will be carefully looked at by the building community and spur further investigation into how this building came down on that tragic day."
The Hulsey report and supporting materials can be found on UAF's Institute of Northern Engineering website at
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7 and on the AE911Truth website at
https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.
Richard Gage and civil engineer Roland Angle will hold a live virtual presentation on March 26, 2020, at 4:00 PM EDT to outline the findings contained in the final report. Please tune in or watch the archived presentation at
https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.
Reader Comments
I think it was used in context, but it’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
In the future, you ought to try to get informed before expressing ill-informed opinions.
R.C.
I'm sorry draw you away from your busy schedule of... commenting on SOTT articles way, way more than seems healthy.
By calling me "ill-informed" I suppose you mean I have an opinion different from yours. I detect no reasoned opinion in your comment. I see an occlusion, certainly. But an actual position? What is it?
Now then:
The BBC video proves nothing. Sorry if that makes your head explode.
If it actually aired, it quite easily could have been the result of a green-screened live presenter in front of a pre-recorded video loop background. Every network on earth was running such loops constantly during those days and weeks, behind supers (type, graphics), with voice-over, and/or as a background behind keyed footage.
In any case, no one can provide a definitive explanation for this BBC video anomaly. I recommend looking into William of Occam for more on how to grapple with this sort of thing, but for now, let's see what we can say.
- Whether "someone" captured the footage (or created it);
- Whether that was unusual or troublesome home technology at the time;
- Whether the BBC owned up to it when questioned;
- Or explained it adequately, or poorly, or not at all;
- Or lied about it;
- Or lost the tape:
These conditional assumptions of facts / factoids / fallacies, etc., prove nothing about origin the BBC video itself.
Nothing can be proven. Whatever you want to believe or disbelieve is entirely your business.
Now before your toupee slides into your porridge, take a deep breath and bear in mind:
This use of this still image, and the faux "A-ha!" sort of "controversy" it represents, discredit and subvert the content of the current SOTT article. It's a very poor image to float, editorially speaking.
Again: triggered much?
It's an embarrassment to have to point this out, but your weird reaction does rather illustrate my second point about disinfo and distraction. It is embarrassing to see someone so attached to cloudy, illogical contentions, and all in support of ... well, of what exactly?
Are you saying: "It clearly COULD HAVE been a case of prior knowledge!"
Well, okay. Who can argue with that? But who would bother?
The bbc analyst also states Osama was funded by the CIA when they were chatting. Something tells me he wasn’t used again haha.
Your falsely proclaiming the video ‘controversial’ doesn’t make it so. You never even reply to this yet again repeated point: Those who created that video, the BBC, could have denied its authenticity; they did not. For that video to become ‘controversial’ would require, at a minimum, that the party that made the video, the BBC, rationally and timely disclaim its authenticity when when that opportunity arose. The BBC had that opportunity in spades, but have never so claimed, instead running with their inane CYA ‘excuse’ “the dog ate our homework - and all of our videotapes from 9/11/2001, too.”) Right. (Sarcasm.)
Most importantly, my reply provided numerous points of fact and issues which remain unresponded to by you. Rather, you simply repeat your factually baseless and irrelevant claims, (granted with more verbiage) and have not even attempted to respond to my points, almost certainly because you have nada legit to say. Those failures speak volumes.
Just as illogical is your overt listing of non-issues. (Hint: You forgot to also 'list’ the 'issue' (sic) of whether the video (not ‘image’) might have been a forgery created by the sentient mold spores which emanate from the green cheese on the moon. (¿Comprende?) Same liapplies to your misuse of ‘Occam’s razor’; i.e., you attempt to explain an unknown by invoking yet other unknowns - which is the most common failing (by ill-informed sorts ) who, in either a misguided or purposely deceptive effort, routinely trot out O.R. and claim that they know what it is and how to use it. (Do some research.)
You likewise maintain that ‘nothing can be proven.’ Well, then, why the hell did you post anything in the first place? If you were interested in discussing and resolving issues rather than obfuscating the, you would NEVER have written that.
Your ‘triggered’ claims are belied by the sheer volume and redundancy of your prolixity. Your ad hominems likewise shows the shallowness (if not complete evaporation) of your ‘points’, and likewise makes such unworthy of reply.
You end with, “I detect no reasoned opinion in your comment.” That’s known as a conclusory statement or 'begging the question.” In reply, I shall paraphrase your proudly revealed arrogant ignorance: “Are you stupid much? Or always?”
R.C.
Here me One and All: What I lack, and what I lack so obviously, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely that which the Rt. Hon. Rowland Cocoon possesses in such contrasting super-abundance.
The charge, (and again I have to apologize for the unnecesary strain made upon his enormous vocabulary), is "stupid."
I am guilty as charged.
Exhibit A: The Still Image
At the top of this article — that same to which I here add another digressive, inconsequential comment, a feeble response to the profoundly well-spoken, super-competent, extra-articulate and obviously not-at-all imbecilic, sedentary, dim, over-the-hill cranky-fuss we all know as Roman Cloaca — I dared to state, imply or other convey that I see A STILL IMAGE. Pure insolence, I realize now, and there is simply no excusing it.
Forget, all of you listening at home, and those in the courtroom here with us, that it is a jpeg, aka a still image. Forget that it is even more than that, as it resides at the url [Link]
See? SEE? It doesn't move. Or does it?
Ah, yes! Wingéd gentlemen of the jury, it moves when one scrolls the page, or when one moves one's head. It certainly moves along with one's computer screen, or (again) if one's toupee has slipped due to profuse cranial perspiration. Any number of valid issues may be at the core of Rectum Correctum's perceptual … um, uniqueness. But he is absolutley right!
In any case, again, again, and forever I say, it is my Error, my Stain.
I am prostrate.
Ninety-nine (99) times do I bend to apologize for having referred to it, as he notes "at least twice" (can't someone, anyone, please give Cumin Racoonin an abacus so as to help him right these egregious, ungraspable and tortuous numerical wrongs?) as "a still image."
I bend, I slaver. I am chained!
Wetly, pusillanimously do I thus cringe, cowering before the immense, pulsating, steaming and life-oozing intellect that is Rowan-n-Martin's Coco-Nun. Here, now, before this august court of my betters do I confess my overbearing conclusoriosity, as regards the assertion that it is a still image (which appears, persists, thrives in stasis, there, at the top of this very page, for all to see).
My Lords, I beseech thee! Show me your limitless mercy! Grant me at least a sixteenth, a thirty-second of that ephemeral quality of The Non-Stupid, like he has (or her or they). I refer of course to the most intelligent person imaginable in this, or in any medium to large size room: His Holiness, the incomparable, the uninventable, the infinite HMS Rubin Cuckoonin.
I now descend to the Abode of the Damned.
No response to any points.
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise, after all, you're the one who claims ‘nothing can be proven.’
As to your self deprecatory 'humor', it might be funny if it weren't so true.
Addio!
[Link]
Unclear on your maybe/maybe not position. Using this image is irresponsible, in this or in any other context, if taken at face value, for reasons given (greenscreen over pre-recorded vid loop).
Whatever the SOTT editors' rationale or intent, the value and effectiveness of a serious, responsible inquiry into a corrupt and specious "offical story" (the point of this rather significant article) is undermined by bringing in this off-the-point, faux-controversial image. Bad editing, at best; standard, intentional muddying of the waters at worst. SOTT needs to be called on this, if they value free expression.
The 911 Truth movement -- and honest investigative journalism in general -- is peopled by a number of intentional disinformers, bad-faith gatekeepers, and hacks. It takes so little staffing to keep things stupid and pointless. Misleading headlines (so often at odds with an article's content), and diversionary photos are their stock in trade. Journalists do not write headlines, nor do they edit photos.
As I pointed out to VWbug, above (and which I now see that Isjarvi separately pointed out o you, here) :
"Make an effort to become knowledgeable about WTC 7 before commenting, OK?"
R.C.
Imagine if it were possible to start an infestation to China (so they can be blamed for starting it) then Italy (we don't want them buying S400s) and Iran ( we have to keep the screws in so they will come to the table). Yes it might affect other countries (just normal collateral damage) and even infect our own citizens ( but we are the best, our health care is the best, and what is a bit more collateral damage). We know the MSM will do what we want (even though Trump tells everyone it's fake news) and we know there are scientists all over the world who like to promote themselves for funding ( it's good when the info comes from other sources). After three years of Trump bashing (with the Mueller thing then the impeachment thing - both nothing burgers) he will be under so much pressure to shut down and he will be seen as the one who pushed the button on this. We can't lose because if he doesn't shut up shop, they will likely impeach him for that - either way we win.