[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
911 Title: “Preliminary Results of WTC7 Study Show Fire Could Not Have Caused Collapse” Could’ve Brought Down World Trade Center Building 7 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.
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.” googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1470694951173-5'); }); 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. (1 image) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26. "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." I see. So what DID cause the collapse and, more importantly, where's the proof?
#3. To: misterwhite (#2) 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.
#5. To: Pinguinite (#3) "Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down?" Yes, according to the NIST report. There is zero proof that explosives were involved.
#6. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#5) (Edited) "Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down?" Really - The NIST Report? NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud NIST's pattern of omissions and distortions:
Why the BBC Reported WTC7 Collapse Before it Actually Happened
#7. To: Deckard (#6) Really - The NIST Report?Yea….REALLY! Unless you have an official report that factually documents explosives brought the building down.
#15. To: Gatlin (#7) an official report An official report doesn't make it true. Just like the false unemployment report that we have all heard for the last several years from the "officials".
#17. To: U don't know me (#15) An official report doesn't make it true. More true than the shit filled Yellow Journalism articles and bogus testimonies from the quack self-qualified experts Deckard continually posts lying info from …
#21. To: Gatlin (#17) (Edited) bogus testimonies from the quack self-qualified experts Why is it that you normally worship cops, yet in this case they are liars? Click here for an MP3 audio clip of NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer's statements. Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD... I'd say this veteran firefighter has more credibility in his little finger than you have ever possessed in your entire lifetime. 9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. [Workday Minnesota] Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. [Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible." [Arctic Beacon] As for the Architects and Engineers whose testimony I have posted in the past - your mindless denial of their expertise makes you intellectually dishonest.
#23. To: Deckard (#21) (Edited) Why is it that you normally worship cops, yet in this case they are liars? Why is it that you mistakenly suggest that I “normally worship cops” when all I ever do is point out the truth? Furthermore, I dislike anyone who is proven to be liar….that will of course include cops.
#24. To: Gatlin (#23) Why is it that you mistakenly suggest that I “normally worship cops” Not a mistake - your reputation is that of LF's leading badge-licker. You and paulsen. I dislike anyone who is proven to be liar….that will of course include cops. I've provided the audio testimony of a NYPD cops - yet you call him a liar. You don't like what he says - so you call him a liar. Same shit - different day.
#26. To: Deckard (#24) Not a mistake - your reputation is that of LF's leading badge-licker. My reputation here is firmly established as a professionally successful debunker of your Yellow Journalism articles,
Replies to Comment # 26. My reputation here is firmly established as a professionally successful debunker.... Your delusions have gotten the better of you - seek help old timer.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 26. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|