Architects and Engineers for Truth
(September 4, 2019)
On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction.
Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building’s debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.
Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The UAF WTC 7 report concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
Report on study via MustReadAlaska
ALASKA-LED TEAM VINDICATES 911 ‘TRUTHERS’
(Editor’s note: In response to reader comments, the photo illustrating this story was replaced to show Building 7. It’s an image from the ae911truth.org website.)
The leading program in Alaska for engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” have created a partnership in an investigative study of what brought down Building 7 of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
The release of the draft report on Sept. 3 triggered a two-month public comment process.
[Read the report at this UAF link]
The draft report concludes that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of the several national private engineering firms and the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The study concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 was instead a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” According to the study’s authors:
“The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.”
4 thought on “FIRE DID NOT CAUSE 3RD TOWER’S COLLAPSE ON 9/11, NEW STUDY FINDS”
For the awake crowd, this is old news. I expect nothing to come from this James. It will be ignored by the Propaganda Ministry or assailed with the CT label then dismissed. If it ever does get covered, I expect the NEWS to have their experts lined up to shoot holes in and say how much this dishonors the victims. It will compared to Holocaust Denial, like anyone that doubts Climate Change… Climate Change Deniers. They always try to frame the dialogue in a binary way. You either buy their explanation or you are as despicable as Holocaust Deniers. There’s no room for doubt about mass shootings, Climate Change, the Holocaust and 911. What did Schrub Junior say? you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories
Sounds similar to “The science is settled” argument used to curtail discussion and dissent by those wielding the CT cudgel. As you know, science is an human process ideally based on perpetual revelation and subsequent disagreement, fueling ongoing discussion and hence knowledge creation.
Let us hope at the very least that the study’s authors and their employer will not be subjected to the usual smear campaign etc. that typically precludes any discussion.
As for “holocaust denial,” it’s not simply considered historical dilettantism any longer. It’s now against the law.
Engineering by the Numbers By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Quote:
“Faculty The number of tenured and tenure-track faculty increased from the prior year to 26,839. The number of full professors reached 13,111 as of the fall of 2014, only slightly less than the combined total of associate and assistant professors – 7,459 and 6,269, respectively.”
These are some of the best and brightest in the profession of engineering. Yet observe the deafening silence from nearly all of them on the biggest scam of all time called 9/11/01 done by criminals in Israel, traitors Bush, Cheney, four star generals and other traitors in New York who aided in destroying and removing evidence from the crime scene to prevent it from being tested. These engineers may be the best and brightest but they do not have the courage to speak up to lies by a lying government in our country today. Shame on them. By the way the American Physical Society, also a group of cowards, has some 50,000 members who have also remained deafeningly silent too. This country is on the way DOWN quickly now. In 5 days it will be 18 years and counting. None of the real traitors have been brought to justice for the crimes of 9/11/01. Muslims were the patsies not the criminals. Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., Physics
One might contend, from experience, that many professional associations and the system of peer review are similarly censorial. On the whole academics are much like any other professional class. They are more concerned about career advancement, promotion, compensation, and so forth, than in taking principled stances that may risk any of the above. The fact that academics are so career-focused essentially obviates the need for tenure, which as we know from the classic case of Edward Ross was intended to allow faculty to delve into, comment on, and research potentially controversial topics without fear of reprisal.
Tenure was never intended be the equivalent of a sinecure, though that is how it is regarded today. Much as the First Amendment is undervalued or ignored by the US citizenry, so is tenure taken for granted and arguably “wasted on” the tenured.
At the same time, as you know, tenure is a reward for exhibiting competence in one’s field(s), one of the few ways professional and disciplinary autonomy is bestowed. At FAU the tenure process was becoming farcical; I witnessed one junior colleague being given promotion and tenure that didn’t deserve it, who had not done the requisite research, and whose record even failed peer evaluation/ratification. So much for taking the profession (and oneself) seriously.