whole2th

September 3, 2019
A four-year engineering study already published for peer review concludes that the NIST and 9-11 Commission CLAIM OF FIRES CAUSING catastrophic collapse of Building 7 IS FALSE.

For those of lesser intelligence, this means that the official story of 9-11 is a lie. This means we must revisit how the Building was actually destroyed and who could have accomplished the deception.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org

Telling is the fact that mainstream (f**e news) media have ignored reporting on the study and its conclusions. Guess who controls the mainstream media.

Radiance3

===============
Thank you. But I am tired of this. Another Conspiracy Theory. I have been debating on this since 2017, and now I am tired repeating the same obstacles of conspiracies.

Good night...!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The Joker is back.

That "study" was commissioned and funded by A&E for 911t***h. It cannot be considered a legitimate engineering study because it was done entirely through computer modeling. And we know how those can be manipulated to produce desired results. The UAF engineers had no physical evidence with which to conduct forensic analyses or any sort of metallurgical experiments.

WTC7 had a unique foundational support structure. It was designed and built directly over a ConEd substation. This required the use of t***sverse trusses and cantilever beams to add support to the vertical columns. Like all high rise buildings, the entire foundational support structure was capable of bearing a static load.

On 9/11, WTC was struck in five different locations by debris from high up on the North Tower when it first began to collapse. One such strike by a hot and heavy section of perimeter wall from the upper floors of the North Tower cut a deep gash down through about 18 of the lower floors of the WTC7 south face and started the fires on ten floors. This damage and subsequent fire was directly beneath the rooftop penthouse which can be seen in any video as the first portion of the building to collapse.

The earlier collapse of the South Tower severely damaged the water mains in the WTC complex which disabled the building's internal sprinkler system and rendered all FDNY suppression efforts in WTC7 ineffective. This allowed the fires to burn out of control over a period of seven hours.

At around 4:30 pm, firefighters reported a bulge developing in the south face from the 9th to the 12th floors. The fire commander on the scene, Chief Peter Hayden, had his engineer take a t***sit sighting on the developing bulge. Within minutes the sighting confirmed that a collapse was imminent. Chief Hadyen then ordered his crews out of the building and established a collapse perimeter around WTC7.

At 5:20 pm, the support structure beneath the rooftop penthouse failed and the collapse began. The failure of the vertical columns in this area severed t***sverse beams and cantilevers and initiated structural failure throughout the entire foundational support system.

There was never any report or video and audio recordings of any explosions occurring either before or during the buildings collapse. And, no evidence of any explosive devices were found in the rubble. (The detonation of conventional explosive devices, either in a single bomb or in a demolition matrix, do not destroy all components of such devices.)

Fire and structural damage were the cause of WTC7's collapse.

Radiance3

=================
I believe that was the real science. Thanks Blade.


Ilhan Omar was trying to blame on "some people". to cover the evil works of Islam.
She was planted to multiply here in the US, so the whole world belong to their god.

whole2th

WTC7EVALUATION.org establishes that the official narrative of fires causing Building 7 destruction cannot be true.

What does that say about the "Sabbateans" here who defend the official lies?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The "official narrative" is irrelevant. The science of physics and fire progression is relevant.

There are numerous problems with the claim that the UAF study shows that WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire:

The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.

The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged.

The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.

The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements.

The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation.

The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly.

The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not.

The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model.

The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and t***sparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow.

The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse.

whole2th

The study is now open and published online for peer review. http://wtc7evaluation.org

Mounds of verbiage don't rebut the science.

Perhaps Blade should publish an article--or reveal his source for the verbiage?

On 9-11, THREE steel buildings were destroyed--coming down at near free-fall speed. The third wasn't hit by a plane. There are no examples of steel-framed buildings coming down at near free-fall speed either before or after 9-11.

WTC7 was a classic controlled (explosive) demolition.

http://www.ReThink911.org

In over 700 pages of the 9-11 Commission Report, WTC7 isn't mentioned.

Enough Jews are implicated in the 9-11 false f**gs attacks + cover-up that ALL JEWS have a stake in whether the big lies of 9-11 are concealed or exposed. Where are your loyalties, Blade?

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

Why has this cretin not been suspended?