911
See other 911 Articles
Title: “Preliminary Results of WTC7 Study Show Fire Could Not Have Caused Collapse” Could’ve Brought Down World Trade Center Building 7
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... -not-have-caused-collapse.html
Published: Sep 17, 2016
Author: Derrick Broze
Post Date: 2016-11-24 10:55:56 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 23103
Comments: 54
Preliminary results of a two-year study looking into the destruction of World Trade Center 7 indicates that fire could not have caused the collapse. To mark the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the collective 9/11 Truth movement gathered in New York City for two days of street actions, outreach, and the “Justice In Focus” 9/11 Symposium. At the symposium, organized by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, and other co-sponsors, there was a heavy emphasis on the possibility of a civil or criminal trial as a means of exposing the truth about the 9/11 attacks. Many 9/11 researchers now focus on the mysterious collapse of building 7. A number of 9/11 family members point to the collapse of WTC7 as a possible crack in the official story that could spark a new national conversation on the events of that day. WTC7 was not hit by a plane that day; however, it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official cause for the collapse was office fires. A growing number of family members, activists, architects and engineers question the official theory for collapse and are seeking a new investigation into WTC7. In May 2015, a team of researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks began a two-year investigation of the collapse of WTC7. Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and two Ph.D. research assistants are partnering with the non-profit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for a two-year engineering study known as “World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation.” The researchers are using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. “We will investigate the collapse. We probably will not be able to tell them what caused it, but I could tell them what did not,” Hulsey told MintPress. I am approaching it like most forensic engineers would. We’re looking at the structure itself, trying to put together all of the details of what was available, and in this case very little was available. Because most of it has been destroyed or it’s locked in vaults somewhere. So I have very little to work with. Hulsey explained that he addresses issues raised by NIST, but will not be reading anything about NIST or other previous studies. “I have to maintain an open scientific mind. I don’t want to be led down a path that others have gone down,” he said. “I will read about it once we reach our final conclusions and then cross-check to make sure we don’t have any issues with respect to the science.” During an interview at the Justice In Focus Symposium, Hulsey said that the team has already investigated the theory that fire caused the building’s collapse. “It is our preliminary conclusions, based upon our work to date, that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.” When their study concludes in April 2017, Hulsey and his team will allow a panel of experts to analyze the data and submit the study to peer-reviewed journals. The researchers are promising a “completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse,” and will post every step of their scientific process on WTC7Evaluation.org. The WTC7 Evaluation project will also include a review by a committee of technical experts who will vet the research being conducted by Dr. Hulsey and his students. Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for A&E 9/11 Truth, is in charge of working with the professor and raising money to fund the WTC7 Evaluation. Walter told Activist Post that the project began in May 2015 and should should wrap up in April of next year. “They are coming up with different scenarios of how hot the fires could have been in different parts of the building, and then for the next 6 months they will be running tests and scenarios,” Walter told Activist Post. “The last few months, early next year, will be all about putting the findings into a final report.” Stay tuned to Activist Post for updates on Dr. Hulsey’s study. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
I see. So what DID cause the collapse and, more importantly, where's the proof?
Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down? While I've seen fire cause at least one partial collapse of a steel building (and a relatively small percentage of the building at that), the thought of an uncontrolled fire causing WTC7 collapse so uniformly with all 4 upper corners dropping at the same time is quite peculiar. Was it a controlled demolition? I don't know, but it is peculiar that a fire could have made WTC7 fall the way it did.
Yes, according to the NIST report. There is zero proof that explosives were involved.
Yes, according to the NIST report. Really - The NIST Report? NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud NIST's pattern of omissions and distortions: In its 2004 preliminary report, NIST fabricated the myth that debris from World Trade Center Building 1 (the North Tower) created a 10-story hole at a specific location at the base of WTC 7's south face. The following year it propagated that myth in Popular Mechanics, which defended NIST's work. It turns out that NIST "needed" the 10-story hole to exist at this specific location to back up its explanation for the collapse of Building 7. This is an example of reverse engineering, where supposed evidence is constructed to fit a prearranged conclusion. NIST also used its Popular Mechanics (PM) platform to launch a second myth — namely, that Building 7 had a peculiar design, which purportedly made it vulnerable to collapse. The PM article also helped NIST generate two more myths — namely, that diesel fuel tanks stored inside WTC 7 supposedly fueled an imaginary fire on the fifth floor, ostensibly helping to weaken the building at a strategic location, and that certain trusses helped to facilitate the collapse of the entire building by transferring stresses from supposedly damaged columns on the south side of the building. NIST's final 2008 report discarded these self-constructed myths and introduced a new collapse initiation hypothesis that blames WTC 7's destruction on normal office fires. The final report is premised on the same shoddy investigative practices that the agency displayed in its 2004 report and in the 2005 PM article. Indeed, NIST's omissions and distortions are gross enough to discredit both its entire WTC 7 investigation and the agency itself as a viable 9/11 investigator. NIST has consistently ignored evidence that would refute its preconceived conclusion. All the hard evidence demonstrates that Building 7 was brought down by classic controlled demolition. Why the BBC Reported WTC7 Collapse Before it Actually Happened
Unless you have an official report that factually documents explosives brought the building down.
Yea….REALLY! The NIST Report is filled with as many lies as the "Official" 9/11 Commission Report. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.
Bullshit. Just because some of the quacks who call themselves scientists say so....I shouuld believe them. Never gonna happen ...
Any honest person would admit that building 7 fell under very suspicious circumstances. Trump should open a new investigation.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
I think an honest person would admit 7's collapse by fire was peculiar and unprecedented, even if they still think that was the cause of the collapse. Even burning wooden homes, when they collapse, usually don't do it quite so uniformly. Yes it all usually happens at the same moment, but it's usually one corner or side that gives way first which then triggers the rest. WTC7 did not follow that pattern, and of course it was steel constructed, and much bigger. Edit: If it did fall down due solely to fire, I think it's construction would warrant review for safety reasons.
It seems impossible to explain the 7WTC collapse by gravitational collapse when it was recorded and observed in free fall for over two seconds. I have seen no theory for the collapse of any of the towers which is totally satisfactory. Below is from one of my old posts. I don't get the hold this theory has on people. The amount of people needed to pull off these demolitions with such a domino like precision all while firefighters and cops are swarming the area makes little sense to me. I have not said what did it. I am unable to explain what I observe happen to the two towers, even theoretically. Buildings in gravitational collapse cannot enter free fall. As Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST put it, "a free fall would be an object that has no structural components below it." Of course, that was about WTC 7 when they still denied any period of free-fall, before the Final Report. The Preliminary Report said: 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles. That was shattered by the video analysis of David Chandler. Chander went to the end of the collapse event described above, backed the film up 5.4 seconds, and clearly showed that for the first second and a half, the building simply did not collapse. That made the collapse time for 18 stories 3.9s, and the NIST scientific method appeared to be dry labbing. The period of free fall acceleration documented by David Chandler could not be denied existence. Dr. Sunder had correctly stated earlier, "a free fall would be an object that has no structural components below it." Any structure means no free fall. Any structure includes columns, buckled or otherwise. Crushing a column requires energy. Any energy expended for any reason other than downward vertical acceleration rules out free fall. When an illusionist takes the stage and performs an act described as magic, I do not believe I am watching magic. I do not believe he repeals the laws of physics, no matter how good his showmanship, deception or misdirection. Just because I have no compelling explanation other than that it is magic, does not make it magic, nor does it indicate that I should accept that it is magic, or that he levitates, flies, or cuts his assistant in half and puts her back together. I do not believe in magic bullets, even when the government declares one to have performed magical deeds. I do not believe in buildings that achieve free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds in defiance of physical principles. I do not believe the laws of physics were different at ground zero, any more than they were with the guy's grits in My Cousin Vinny. The assertion from the Draft Report that the finding was "consistent with physical properties," does not appear in the Final Report. The conclusion is that the (yet another) official version is wrong. After so many wrong official versions, I don't get why yet another wrong version has such a hold on people, or why anyone acts upset when someone states that yet another very faulty explanation is wrong. There are many examples of problems with the investigation and its report. Here is just one more, from a follow up fact sheet of September 2010 where NIST posed, then answered it's own questions. Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics. Any normal human is likely to read that there were no identified, or identifiable, samples to be looked at. Is that what it clearly says? If the steel did not contain such identifying characteristics as those alluded to, does that mean it contained no other identifying characteristics? Does it mean a metallurgist could not distinguish the steel used in WTC 7 from the steel used in WTC 1&2? This appears to be a case of deceptive writing. Appendix C of the FEMA Report was 13 pages of a Limited Metalurgical Examination. Excerpts C.1 Introduction Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted. C2. Sample 1 (From WTC 7) Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-l and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent flres. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. [...] C.3 Summary for Sample 1 1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfdation. 2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 ºF) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen. and sulfur that liquefied the steel. 3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. [...] C.6 Suggestions for Future Research The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/biederman/biederman-0112.html An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. JOM, 53 (12), 2001, pp. 18 [Excerpt]
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Preliminary results of a two-year study looking into the destruction of World Trade Center 7 indicates that fire could not have caused the collapse."
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
So what DID cause the collapse and, more importantly, where's the proof?
#5. To: Pinguinite (#3)
"Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down?"
#6. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#5)
(Edited)
"Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down?"
#7. To: Deckard (#6)
Really - The NIST Report?
Yea….REALLY!
#9. To: Gatlin (#7)
Really - The NIST Report?
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening.
#10. To: Deckard (#9)
The NIST Report is filled with as many lies as the "Official" 9/11 Commission Report.
#11. To: Gatlin (#10)
Replies to Comment # 11. Any honest person would admit that building 7 fell under very suspicious circumstances.
#20. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#11)
Any honest person would admit that building 7 fell under very suspicious circumstances.
Upon substitution of h = 242 ft. in the above equation, the estimated free fall time for the top of the north face to fall 18 stories was approximately 3.9 s. The uncertainty in this value was also less than 0.1 s.
In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]