University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

[BADecker]

The whole 9/11 incident was an inside job. Probably all that Bush did directly, was to stand by. But then he caused the Iraq war, which was part of the plan all along. Now we are entrenched all over the Middle East. And the murderers of the people in the World Trade Center buildings are still free.


University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

On March 25, 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

The 47-story WTC 7 was the third skyscraper to be completely destroyed on September 11, 2001, collapsing rapidly and symmetrically into its footprint at 5:20 PM. Seven years later, investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.

Contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team finds that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was not caused by fires but instead was caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building [which means it was a controlled demolition].

The Final Report of the University of Alaska's engineering study of the collapse of WTC building 7 can be downloaded here or here.

[btcltcdigger]

Seriously, after 19 years still bringing that up?
Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?
Or that earth is round....

[franky1]

sky scrapers are actually built to collapse on themselves in any instance natural or man controlled.

its how they are allowed to be built so high and so close to other buildings. because the chance of a building leaning and falling over like a lumberjack hops a tree.. is SMALL
yep they can only make skyscrapers if the architect and construction company can prove that the risk to other building is low
so they are made to crumble in on themselves if the structure becomes weakened

please do your research badecker

also...
'researchers at university' translates to 'college kids'
also it took them 4 years.. dang
4 years to earn a doctorate in conspiracies.

[suchmoon]

'researchers at university' translates to 'college kids'
also it took them 4 years.. dang
4 years to earn a doctorate in conspiracies.

Calling it a "study" is a bit of a stretch too, it was a computer simulation funded by conspiratards (AE911Truth). Nice job finding a school in Alaska to do it for them.

[BADecker]

sky scrapers are actually built to collapse on themselves in any instance natural or man controlled.

Mwahahahahahahahahahaha

Yo are so good, franky1.

You might as well say that anything is made to happen any which way.

 

[BADecker]

'researchers at university' translates to 'college kids'
also it took them 4 years.. dang
4 years to earn a doctorate in conspiracies.

Calling it a "study" is a bit of a stretch too, it was a computer simulation funded by conspiratards (AE911Truth). Nice job finding a school in Alaska to do it for them.

Well, do you know for a fact that it wasn't a study? Probably way more study went into this than is going into Coronavirus research regarding the CV truth about pandemics.

[KingScorpio]

The whole 9/11 incident was an inside job. Probably all that Bush did directly, was to stand by. But then he caused the Iraq war, which was part of the plan all along. Now we are entrenched all over the Middle East. And the murderers of the people in the World Trade Center buildings are still free.


University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

On March 25, 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

The 47-story WTC 7 was the third skyscraper to be completely destroyed on September 11, 2001, collapsing rapidly and symmetrically into its footprint at 5:20 PM. Seven years later, investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.

Contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team finds that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was not caused by fires but instead was caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building [which means it was a controlled demolition].

The Final Report of the University of Alaska's engineering study of the collapse of WTC building 7 can be downloaded here or here.

and why did taliban and al qaida then claim it for itself in order to start jihad?

[franky1]

You might as well say that anything is made to happen any which way.

or we can go by your theory. that buildings are just random.. prop a stick up here.. put a brick there and hope it holds..
no
architects and building companies study this stuff at university t know about weight/balance. know about which building materials to use. they know about distance between pillars/columns and how thick the columns need to be to hold X weight
they know about what happens during earthquakes and high winds and their effects on a buildings sway.

yep sky scrapers and bridges are constructed to a certain standard and with safety in mind. its not just pick a plot of land and lay a brick and hope.

seriously. try to learn a few basics about the real world

[BADecker]

sky scrapers are actually built to collapse on themselves in any instance natural or man controlled.

Mwahahahahahahahahahaha

You might as well say that anything is made to happen any which way.

or we can go by your theory. that buildings are just random.. prop a stick up here.. put a brick there and hope it holds..
no
architects and building companies study this stuff at university t know about weight/balance. know about which building materials to use. they know about distance between pillars/columns and how thick the columns need to be to hold X weight
they know about what happens during earthquakes and high winds and their effects on a buildings sway.

yep sky scrapers and bridges are constructed to a certain standard and with safety in mind. its not just pick a plot of land and lay a brick and hope.

seriously. try to learn a few basics about the real world

Just remembering that you were the one who said your theory, is getting me to start laughing all over again. So, thanks. We need a good laugh now and again.

Anybody who thinks about it for a moment, knows that the building collapses were demolition. Now the universities are starting to prove it.

[franky1]

ok well try to do a bit of research

try some research on the topics of
building regulations
construction
architecture
physics

i bet you think that bridges can break in earthquakes or a small gust of wind because no understanding of physics has been done when making them.

if you truly think that if a building collapses for any reason apart from controlled demolition that it should lean over and fall like a tree being cut down. then the only person you should be laughing at is yourself

they are build to fall down on themselves. not fall over and hit other buildings..
you might learn something if you try

[BADecker]

ok well try to do a bit of research

try some research on the topics of
building regulations
construction
architecture
physics

i bet you think that bridges can break in earthquakes or a small gust of wind because no understanding of physics has been done when making them.

if you truly think that if a building collapses for any reason apart from controlled demolition that it should lean over and fall like a tree being cut down. then the only person you should be laughing at is yourself

they are build to fall down on themselves. not fall over and hit other buildings..
you might learn something if you try

They aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition. Do some research.

[franky1]

They aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition. Do some research.

anyone can make a computer model and then say 'we think its explosives'
but architects, not conspiracy geeks who make up their own narrative. . actual architects who actually know how buildings are made know how skyscrapers and tall buildings fall

here is an example for you.
you can make a 3d virtual girlfriend. but it will never make you an expert on women.
so try to learn about the building. learn about women. and dont think you have learned all that needs to be learned from a computer model

i know that if the code for the computer model was 'la la la' youd instantly think its detailed factual science just because you been told 'the code is detailed, even when other people tell you that there should be something behind the 'lalala' but you will continually avoid to research what should be behind things
(you have been proven this is the case)

also knowing you, you will ofcourse find lame excuses to avoid learning common sense life skills.
with your lame narrative of 'ill do the opposite of whats been told'
thats just your style. and its getting boring. your not helping yourself or anyone else with your lack of ability to research

...
screw it. i wont wait around for you to do some research and realise the flaw in your opinion.. ill just ask u to watch this 23second video a few times

https://youtu.be/zRpCwKRnL1M
now pause it between 0sec and 3 seconds.

the smoke to the left. that left/back side is where the twin towers were and where damage would have hit WTC7
i then want you to. without pushing play yet.. ask yourself to watch the 3d model that only shows 'near perfect collapse'
right.. thats what the model shows. which can onlyhappen if it was a perfect collapse..with no previous structural damage
but just fire.. right? thats your opinion

but now watch from 4sec to 10seconds,..

oh wait. is that.. hmm. yes it is. structural collapse of the side where the twin towers was.. meaning WTC7 must have got hit by something.

hmm but i know you badecker, still thinking the building was 100% structurally sound and just fell all in one go perfectly..
hmm


i wonder.. was the side on the left that was billowing out smoke just smoke or could there have been structural damage...
oh wait there was actually a gaping hole on that side even before the video.. and then it finally gave out and then seconds later the rest of the building fell to...
using physics and very well known building regulation standards of construction

so it wasnt ever about 'just fire damage' as you seem to think

so dont just skip to 11seconds and scream  what happened after 11seconds is all that happened. actually understand what happened before the 11th second.

the 3d model you salivate over only represents something after the 11th second detail as if the first 10 seconds didnt happen.
yep the 3d model excludes the first 10 seconds part. thus tainting the results by ignoring the first 10 seconds and the fact that there was a gaping hole in the side of the building before even 0 seconds  taint results further
if you think it was just an office fire. and no physical structural damage before the 11 second. then you really are stuck believing in la la land

[BADecker]

They aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition. Do some research.

anyone can make a computer model and then say 'we think its explosives'
but architects, not conspiracy geeks who make up their own narrative. . actual architects who actually know how buildings are made know how skyscrapers and tall buildings fall

here is an example for you.
you can make a 3d virtual girlfriend. but it will never make you an expert on women.
so try to learn about the building. learn about women. and dont think you have learned all that needs to be learned from a computer model

i know that if the code for the computer model was 'la la la' youd instantly think its detailed factual science just because you been told 'the code is detailed, even when other people tell you that there should be something behind the 'lalala' but you will continually avoid to research what should be behind things
(you have been proven this is the case)

also knowing you, you will ofcourse find lame excuses to avoid learning common sense life skills.
with your lame narrative of 'ill do the opposite of whats been told'
thats just your style. and its getting boring. your not helping yourself or anyone else with your lack of ability to research

...
screw it. i wont wait around for you to do some research and realise the flaw in your opinion.. ill just ask u to watch thif 15 second video a few times

https://youtu.be/zRpCwKRnL1M
now pause it between 0sec and 3 seconds.

the smoke to the left. that left/back side is where the twin towers were and where damage would have hit WTC7
i then want you to. without pausing play ask yourself to watch the 3d model that only shows 'near perfect collapse'
right.. thats what the model shows. which can onlyhappen if it was a perfect collapse..
but now watch from 4sec to 10seconds,..

oh wait. is that.. hmm. yes it is. structural collapse of the side where the twin towers was.. meaning WTC7 must have got hit by something.

hmm but badecker things the building was 100% and just fell all in one go perfectly..

hmm
i wonder.. was the side on the left that was billowing out smoke just smoke or could there have been structural damage...
oh wait there was actually a gaping hole on that side and then it finally gave out and then seconds later the rest of the building fell to...
using physics and very well known building regulation standards of construction

so dont just skip to 11seconds and scream thats all that happened. actually understand what happened before the 11th second.
the 3d model you salivate over is just the after 11th second detail as if the first 10 seconds didnt happen. thus tainting the results by ignoring the first 10 seconds and the fact that there was a gaping hole in the side of the building before the 11th second.
if you think it was just an office fire. and no physical structural damage before the 11 second. then you really are stuck believing in la la land

We're in agreement, then. Buildings aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition.

[franky1]

you utter ignorant dumb moron

your stuck in la la land of only what happened after 11th second. not the cause of the structural weakness.

when a buildings structural weakness is compromised then a building does collapse on itself.. thats what they are built to do.
your still trying to ignore the structural weakness to pretend the only way to collapse was human placed explosive charges.

you really are deluded

[BADecker]

you utter ignorant dumb moron

your stuck in la la land of only what happened after 11th second. not the cause of the structural weakness.

when a buildings structural weakness is compromised then a building does collapse on itself.. thats what they are built to do.
your still trying to ignore the structural weakness to pretend the only way to collapse was human placed explosive charges.

you really are deluded

Hey! Thank you, franky1. Any less from you and lots of us would have been disappointed. Keep up the resoundingly good work.

[franky1]

well ofcourse you will stay ignorant about the first 10 seconds and before the collapse..
and ofcourse you will only salivate at the 11+second final collapse..
stay in your dream world. as many others can see where you first fail to grasp the real situation. then fear admitting how wrong you are, and instead just continue your ignorant path of only thinking the 11+second footage occured

[BADecker]

well ofcourse you will stay ignorant about the first 10 seconds and before the collapse..
and ofcourse you will only salivate at the 11+second final collapse..
stay in your dream world. as many others can see where you first fail to grasp the real situation. then fear admitting how wrong you are, and instead just continue your ignorant path of only thinking the 11+second footage occured

But mostly, we all will stay ignorant of what in the world you are going on about.

It's not ignorance about the facts of 9/11. It's ignorance of how your mind works.

Somehow people don't generally think like you do. If you can't explain how you think, so that somebody can figure out what you mean by what you say, of course people will remain ignorant. But it's ignorant of what you mean... not ignorance about what happened on 9/11.

And, also, I don't know if I really want to learn how you think. I have enough work to do simply programming in common programming languages.

[TECSHARE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

[BADecker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Thanks, TECSHARE.

I don't know what franky1 will say, but he might say that this proves that construction is powerful stuff to have made buildings that can do this by non-demolition collapse.

I am on the other end. My crazy-conspiracy-theorist theory is that the charges were built into the buildings at the time of their construction, so that they could easily be demolished whenever any proper authority wanted. And that's the nice part of my theory. The rest of my theory is that the remaining buildings still have the explosives in them, just waiting for a time when they need to be demolished.

Has anybody gone out there and taken samples from the remaining World Trade Center buildings to ascertain this? I mean, many people died because of Twin Tower collapses, both during, and from exposure to dust during cleanup. I'd be scared to work in any of those buildings until I found out for a fact that they were clean from explosives.

[Spendulus]

....
University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11[/b]

On March 25, 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
.....

"A study". Looks like it's actually "a study" by one guy, who is a doddering old 80+ year old who has not published in 20 years..... and two "students" .... Chinese .... ?

A Chinese disinformation scheme?