Please go and read the study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that was released recently, where they categorically state that no, building 7 could not have collapsed due to a few office fires. Impossible.
There weren't just a "few" office fires (these were all combustibles being involved, not just paper burning in a wastebasket). And there was no fire extinguishing in operation, due to a failed automatic system and the lack of water pressure. The main consensus was that the planes and the fires doomed all the buildings, but other studies contended that the fires alone would have caused the collapses, all from the same effects of diminished column strength and catastrophic collective failure at each floor. In the case of WTC 7, It was underway for some prolonged period of time. It was sagging and groaning before it was evacuated and ultimately collapsed. It happened. Ergo, it was possible. They had plenty of time to notice anything out of the ordinary. (They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse.)
But what is the epistemological method by which the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) is deemed superior to all the other bodies involved in all the prior analyses? They say it was "impossible" and the others say not only that it was possible (it happened), but that it was inevitable. You want to stick with the one that provides a fig leaf for paranoia...which is a personal bias.
"They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse"
But they didn't find that at all, perhaps you need to understand how these columns and supporting beams were fixed, they didn't simply slip off as they were designed not to be able to do that, but if even one of them did they would all have to fail at the same time for the building to fall at free fall speed.
Short summary from UAF
"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
It is not my bias nor paranoia that leads me to this point, when 1000's of engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report on how a few fires bought a structure down globally and at free fall speeds, it is merely common sense that there are two sides to the argument, and one of them sides is lying!
Silverstein admitted on TV that they decided to "pull the building". Anyone who has watched controlled demolition viral videos and TV series knows what that means .
Having multiple theories is possible, but from that you cannot draw a conclusion that anyone is lying. You have to find a specific mistruth made intentionally against reason, not some disagreement over scenario parameters.
But an environment of progressively weakened columns will indeed lead to a catastrophic "simultaneous" collapse for some key floor, as the load shifting from failed columns to other overloaded columns will take place milliseconds apart. That may even be overestimating the time it would take for a floor collapse to occur, since more than one column may fail simultaneously in that ~millisecond interval.
I didn't say "slip off," I said "displace the footing." Footing includes the interface between the column and the foundation. All of that may have been displaced for a key column.
So their conclusion is that WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed? But it did. Do they have an alternate theory...complete with sinister conspiracy? Don't you see that there is so little basis here to look for a sinister conspiracy?
Well when the architects asked NIST for specific information surrounding its conclusions, as they were the ones designing and building these structures, NIST said it couldn't let them have that information and kept it hidden. NIST specifically said that the column that failed did so because the load beam/column (73 or 78 I forget without looking it up) failed and slipped off, causing a global collapse is simply not true. These were designed intentionally so as that couldn't happen, dig deeper into the design and you will see what I mean.
IMO NIST were deliberately lying from the outset, and when caught they doubled down even further, and when pushed they then said it couldn't release the information which makes no sense, even their computer modelling was complete nonsense and didn't show a complete global collapse that would allow for what was witnessed and filmed, ie the whole structure falling to the ground in just over 10 secs.
This was before the UAF released their report. So yes, I believe that NIST lied from the outset.
The basis for the conspiracy is what data and who were housed in WTC7, just like the other 3 buildings that day. And why would some want that gone?
Much like the "Anthrax attacks" that happened shortly after, it was used to go into Iraq and to justify that action. Without question, the Anthrax came only from the US Military, and just so happened to be targeted at the two Senators that wouldn't vote for the Patriot Act, which after they received the alleged Anthrax, they then did.
Everything that happened, happened for a reason, and not the reasons we were told at the time imho.
Please go and read the study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that was released recently, where they categorically state that no, building 7 could not have collapsed due to a few office fires. Impossible.
There weren't just a "few" office fires (these were all combustibles being involved, not just paper burning in a wastebasket). And there was no fire extinguishing in operation, due to a failed automatic system and the lack of water pressure. The main consensus was that the planes and the fires doomed all the buildings, but other studies contended that the fires alone would have caused the collapses, all from the same effects of diminished column strength and catastrophic collective failure at each floor. In the case of WTC 7, It was underway for some prolonged period of time. It was sagging and groaning before it was evacuated and ultimately collapsed. It happened. Ergo, it was possible. They had plenty of time to notice anything out of the ordinary. (They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse.)
But what is the epistemological method by which the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) is deemed superior to all the other bodies involved in all the prior analyses? They say it was "impossible" and the others say not only that it was possible (it happened), but that it was inevitable. You want to stick with the one that provides a fig leaf for paranoia...which is a personal bias.
"They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse"
But they didn't find that at all, perhaps you need to understand how these columns and supporting beams were fixed, they didn't simply slip off as they were designed not to be able to do that, but if even one of them did they would all have to fail at the same time for the building to fall at free fall speed.
Short summary from UAF "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
Here's the link to the UAF report and download. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
It is not my bias nor paranoia that leads me to this point, when 1000's of engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report on how a few fires bought a structure down globally and at free fall speeds, it is merely common sense that there are two sides to the argument, and one of them sides is lying!
Silverstein admitted on TV that they decided to "pull the building". Anyone who has watched controlled demolition viral videos and TV series knows what that means .
Having multiple theories is possible, but from that you cannot draw a conclusion that anyone is lying. You have to find a specific mistruth made intentionally against reason, not some disagreement over scenario parameters.
But an environment of progressively weakened columns will indeed lead to a catastrophic "simultaneous" collapse for some key floor, as the load shifting from failed columns to other overloaded columns will take place milliseconds apart. That may even be overestimating the time it would take for a floor collapse to occur, since more than one column may fail simultaneously in that ~millisecond interval.
I didn't say "slip off," I said "displace the footing." Footing includes the interface between the column and the foundation. All of that may have been displaced for a key column.
So their conclusion is that WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed? But it did. Do they have an alternate theory...complete with sinister conspiracy? Don't you see that there is so little basis here to look for a sinister conspiracy?
Well when the architects asked NIST for specific information surrounding its conclusions, as they were the ones designing and building these structures, NIST said it couldn't let them have that information and kept it hidden. NIST specifically said that the column that failed did so because the load beam/column (73 or 78 I forget without looking it up) failed and slipped off, causing a global collapse is simply not true. These were designed intentionally so as that couldn't happen, dig deeper into the design and you will see what I mean.
IMO NIST were deliberately lying from the outset, and when caught they doubled down even further, and when pushed they then said it couldn't release the information which makes no sense, even their computer modelling was complete nonsense and didn't show a complete global collapse that would allow for what was witnessed and filmed, ie the whole structure falling to the ground in just over 10 secs.
This was before the UAF released their report. So yes, I believe that NIST lied from the outset.
The basis for the conspiracy is what data and who were housed in WTC7, just like the other 3 buildings that day. And why would some want that gone?
Much like the "Anthrax attacks" that happened shortly after, it was used to go into Iraq and to justify that action. Without question, the Anthrax came only from the US Military, and just so happened to be targeted at the two Senators that wouldn't vote for the Patriot Act, which after they received the alleged Anthrax, they then did.
Everything that happened, happened for a reason, and not the reasons we were told at the time imho.