University of Alaska study on WTC Building 7 concludes it could not have come down due to fires

[Guestx]

Of course not as long as you are willing to be open to the fact that you might be wrong. I wouldn't pretend to know more than a biologist because I saw a YouTube video once. You shouldn't pretend to know more than an engineer because you watched a conspiracy theory video. I think if you aren't an expert and you see something that doesn't make sense you should be asking questions instead of insinuating it's a conspiracy. All of the major issues people bring up have rather mundane explanations, but they don't bother to search them out because it's easier to by hysterical.

If you have a question about something that doesn't sound possible to you, feel free to ask and I'll try to explain. But you should also realise that you should be open to explanations due to your inherent ignorance of the subject matter.

Well I'm open to anything and haven't come to any firm conclusions on the matter of 9/11.

The reason I ask though is because people who are dead-set against the idea of there being anymore to 9/11 than what the commission has stated seem to think that no one--not even a qualified engineer--can be trusted on the matter unless they're specifically a high-rise engineer.

And if they're a high-rise engineer and they disagree with the commission's finding, then they're a hack.

So that's why I ask. For instance, the professor who's leading this study has a PhD in structural engineering, but there have already been people ITT who have written off his conclusions because, ah ha, he's not a specialist in high-rise engineering! So nothing he could say could possibly be of value.

I mean, there have been plenty of people with legitimate professional and academic credentials who have questioned the 9/11 narrative. We're not just talking about dudes like me on their computer, we're talking about people who who have real qualifications in relevant fields, but for the ultra-skeptical there is always a reason to immediately discount whatever they have to say.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I'm not an expert on structural high rise engineering but I am an expert on A-36 structural steel. Will provide proof privately if needed but plenty of posters can vouch for me. The answer is undoubtedly yes jet fuel can "melt" steel beams (by melt I mean failure of the structural strength of the metal itself as it's melting point is over 2600° ). As a matter of fact, sustained office fires alone are hot enough to compromise the structural integrity of the metal itself. A-36 steel BEGINS to lose its structural integrity at around approximately 7-800° F at and that increases EXPONENTIALLY as the temp gets higher or temps at and around 900+ are held. A36 has a maximum strain measurement of more than 154 lbs per square inch at 400° F. However, at 1100° F (jet fuel can burn as hot as 1500° for sustained periods), still far below the melting point, the maximum stress in the steel is about 50 psi. Yield strength and overall strength of A36 follows a similar pattern of sharp degradation at higher temperatures.

And no, I don't care what your YouTube video says. It's not only my job to know this but I literally see hundreds of tons of it every single day.

On another note, anybody need some steel beams? I got the hook up.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Well I'm open to anything and haven't come to any firm conclusions on the matter of 9/11.

The reason I ask though is because people who are dead-set against the idea of there being anymore to 9/11 than what the commission has stated seem to think that no one--not even a qualified engineer--can be trusted on the matter unless they're specifically a high-rise engineer.

And if they're a high-rise engineer and they disagree with the commission's finding, then they're a hack.

Well in all fairness, using your engineering degree as credentials for high rise construction if you don't work on high rise construction is highly dishonest. I'm no more qualified to talk about electrical systems than the layman. The engineering principals behind these structures are extremely complicated and it does take an specific knowledge base to understand what's happening.

Also, it's not just the 9/11 commission that accepts the WTC7 explanation. Every major structural engineering organisation and university has the same conclusions. There's really no dissent among the professionals. The small percentage who speak out are usually speaking out without any real evidence or experiments to verify their claims or refuse to submit their their data for peer review.

So that's why I ask. For instance, the professor who's leading this study has a PhD in structural engineering, but there have already been people ITT who have written off his conclusions because, ah ha, he's not a specialist in high-rise engineering! So nothing he could say could possibly be of value.

Leroy Husley is a Civil Engineer. His focus for his entire career though has been centered around roads and bridges. His real world experience with high rise structures to my knowledge is jack shit. I've read his theory, and he's got several fundamental flaws with his claims regarding WTC7. Again, if he had something valid he should publish it for peer review. I've read his update with his finite element model. There's several potential problems, mainly that a single model based on the limited information we have isn't going to prove anything. Too many variables in the real world including different conditions than expected and possible structural conditions that were different than on the drawings. So you have to remember that even if he models it and there's no collapse in the model, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the real world.

Pretty much any professional you talk to, they'll agree that extensive fires can bring down the building. It was under conditions that no other building like it was under.

The vast majority of professionals in the industry find these theories so absurd that they don't bother to entertain them.

Again, if Dr Hulsey wants peers to entertain his theories, then he needs to submit his findings for peer review in a legitimate journal. He claims to be "opening them up for review" for few weeks, but if he's controlling the review process then it's not very legitimate.

I mean, there have been plenty of people with legitimate professional and academic credentials who have questioned the 9/11 narrative. We're not just talking about dudes like me on their computer, we're talking about people who who have real qualifications in relevant fields, but for the ultra-skeptical there is always a reason to immediately discount whatever they have to say.

The problem is when you decide that because we don't fully understand something that it must mean conspiracy. People look at facts out of context and make assumptions that aren't correct.

I have no interest in being a sheep for the government. I fully believe they'll do fucked up things to their people and that they'll lie. I would be 100% willing to believe in a conspiracy on 9/11, but I simply haven't seen any facts that truly contradict the explanations.

Simply put, I haven't spoken to a single person that actually knows what the fuck they are talking about that promotes these theories. I'm open to them if they can produce the evidence to back it up, but they always seem to fail on that account.

Is there something specific you don't understand about the collapse that I could possibly elaborate on?

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not an expert on structural high rise engineering but I am an expert on A-36 structural steel. Will provide proof privately if needed but plenty of posters can vouch for me. The answer is undoubtedly yes jet fuel can "melt" steel beams (by melt I mean failure of the structural strength of the metal itself as it's melting point is over 2600° ). As a matter of fact, sustained office fires alone are hot enough to compromise the structural integrity of the metal itself. A-36 steel BEGINS to lose its structural integrity at around approximately 7-800° F at and that increases EXPONENTIALLY as the temp gets higher or temps at and around 900+ are held. A36 has a maximum strain measurement of more than 154 lbs per square inch at 400° F. However, at 1100° F (jet fuel can burn as hot as 1500° for sustained periods), still far below the melting point, the maximum stress in the steel is about 50 psi. Yield strength and overall strength of A36 follows a similar pattern of sharp degradation at higher temperatures.

And no, I don't care what your YouTube video says. It's not only my job to know this but I literally see hundreds of tons of it every single day.

On another note, anybody need some steel beams? I got the hook up.

You can tell this guy ^^^ is full of shit because he knows a lot and make verifiable claims that directly address the subject. He has no idea what it's like to sit around for dozens of hours hearing every point of view about structural steel, and forming his technical opinions from a wide range of sources from a wide range of disciplines. If this guy really wanted to know what he was talking about, he'd also want to learn about steel from mathematicians, biologists, security firms, toy makers, and the guy who puts the Y2K thingy on our zippers. Narrow-minded thinking like this can only get us so far. We just have questions, that's all.

 

[unimackpass]

Yes, stay on the ground, please stay on the ground. It's over.

 

[Rico]

You can tell this guy ^^^ is full of shit because he knows a lot and make verifiable claims that directly address the subject. He has no idea what it's like to sit around for dozens of hours hearing every point of view about structural steel, and forming his technical opinions from a wide range of sources from a wide range of disciplines. If this guy really wanted to know what he was talking about, he'd also want to learn about steel from mathematicians, biologists, security firms, toy makers, and the guy who puts the Y2K thingy on our zippers. Narrow-minded thinking like this can only get us so far. We just have questions, that's all.

Maybe we should get the dashing mod fireman in here to elaborate on how hot exactly a fire of that caliber would burn.

I mean, Eddie Bravo told me to look into it after all...

 

[VivaRevolution]

 

[VivaRevolution]

 

[unimackpass]

Maybe we should get the dashing mod fireman in here to elaborate on how hot exactly a fire of that caliber would burn.

I mean, Eddie Bravo told me to look into it after all...

Eddie Bravo, there ya go, trump card that shuts down all descent.
Should literally be the poster child of 9-11 Truthers.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

The physical collapse of the buildings (as much as they did indeed look like controlled demolitions) is not something I've really criticised because I know less than nothing about structural engineering, and there is no similar event in history to compare the collapse to.

However, I have always found it unusual that the American military/intelligence services could be so incompetent as to allow it to happen. I mean, a lot of Americans like to go on and on and on about the effectiveness and deadliness of their invincible military and their ridiculously extensive intelligence network.
But despite the near-infinite resources at America's disposal, a caveman from the other side of the world managed to kill 3000 civilians, destroy four planes, knock down three incredibly important buildings and smash a fourth - all in one day and all on American soil.

Has the American military ever launched a single strike that was as damaging and successful in all its history?

 

[JosephDredd]

First off, how do we know that? After all, if they did and they successfully concealed it, then wouldn't we be unaware of it?

Is there an example of something somewhere that is comparable in logistical complexity that has never been revealed to be an inside job and might hypothetically be a successful cover-up?

Second, there's a first time for everything.

Third, like I said, I think we have to consider a lot of possibilities beyond simply "the government did it" or "the government didn't do it." You said yourself earlier that you think the 9/11 commission report is bullshit, or at least flawed. Okay, so then you don't believe the official story. That means you must have questions about exactly what happened that day as well.

I'm generally satisfied with the explanations offered in the official story. What bothers me is how deliberately poorly Dubya handled the most significant event in our lifetimes and how supportive the American people were of his actions. Beyond the substandard investigation is the disregard Dubya had for actually tracking down the people who perpetrated the attack.

Honestly, I'm fine with the investigation's findings, but it's the activities of the people in power after the attack that would make me question the official story.

Also, what do you make of the story about the Israelis?

They were investigated much more thoroughly than I thought they would have been. Before I read the story, I thought they would be popping up in truther lore because they'd been flown out of the country before they could be investigated, like that group of Saudis.

The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally. Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported. But sources told ABCNEWS that FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case.

The five men were held in detention for more than two months. Some of them were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days, and some of them were given as many as seven lie-detector tests.

Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted.

What is it about the Israelis that you find suspicious?

 

[91 seconds]

Of course it wasn't. You don't need Alex Jones and Lazer beam lady to muddy the waters. Just use your damn eyeballs.

 

[JosephDredd]

The physical collapse of the buildings (as much as they did indeed look like controlled demolitions) is not something I've really criticised because I know less than nothing about structural engineering, and there is no similar event in history to compare the collapse to.

However, I have always found it unusual that the American military/intelligence services could be so incompetent as to allow it to happen. I mean, a lot of Americans like to go on and on and on about the effectiveness and deadliness of their invincible military and their ridiculously extensive intelligence network.
But despite the near-infinite resources at America's disposal, a caveman from the other side of the world managed to kill 3000 civilians, destroy four planes, knock down three incredibly important buildings and smash a fourth - all in one day and all on American soil.

Has the American military ever launched a single strike that was as damaging and successful in all its history?

There's an amazing book called Legacy of Ashes about the incompetince of America's intelligence services and how the KGB ran rings around them during the Cold War. The basic premise is that America's intelligence services were born during WWII and had a decade of experience, but were going up against Russia's secret police, who had been around for over 200 years.

It's a truly shocking and amazing read as the author reveals countless incidents of sheer incompetence and lunacy. My favourite is when the CIA wanted to blackmail a female American diplomat in South America, to shut her up because she was openly criticizing America's support of rebel attacks, and finally they got their hands on a recording of her having a lesbian love affair with her secretary. They played back the tape for her, where she says, "Barbera, you naughty girl. I'm going to have to spank you." only to have her collapse in hysterical laughter because they had quite obviously recorded her talking to her dog.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

There's an amazing book called Legacy of Ashes about the incompetince of America's intelligence services and how the KGB ran rings around them during the Cold War. The basic premise is that America's intelligence services were born during WWII and had a decade of experience, but were going up against Russia's secret police, who had been around for over 200 years.

It's a truly shocking and amazing read as the author reveals countless incidents of sheer incompetence and lunacy. My favourite is when the CIA wanted to blackmail a female American diplomat in South America, to shut her up because she was openly criticizing America's support of rebel attacks, and finally they got their hands on a recording of her having a lesbian love affair with her secretary. They played back the tape for her, where she says, "Barbera, you naughty girl. I'm going to have to spank you." only to have her collapse in hysterical laughter because they had quite obviously recorded her talking to her dog.

Hahahahahaha!!
I'm going to have to find that book. Sounds like it puts things into a bit of context. Thanks.

 

[DoomPatrol]

The physical collapse of the buildings (as much as they did indeed look like controlled demolitions) is not something I've really criticised because I know less than nothing about structural engineering, and there is no similar event in history to compare the collapse to.

However, I have always found it unusual that the American military/intelligence services could be so incompetent as to allow it to happen. I mean, a lot of Americans like to go on and on and on about the effectiveness and deadliness of their invincible military and their ridiculously extensive intelligence network.
But despite the near-infinite resources at America's disposal, a caveman from the other side of the world managed to kill 3000 civilians, destroy four planes, knock down three incredibly important buildings and smash a fourth - all in one day and all on American soil.

Has the American military ever launched a single strike that was as damaging and successful in all its history?

What does a collapse that isn't a controlled demolition supposed to look like? Just entertain me. Do you have any idea what you're looking at?

The American military isn't usually conducting suicide hijackings against unaware civilian targets.

And there's this myth that intelligence agencies have better infinite resources. That's simply not true. The agencies responsible for the had to devote resources to several different things, and there's too many potential enemies to track them all at once. There's always been attacks that slip through the safety net.

It takes serious resources to follow someone 24/7. I've seen estimates of around 30 people. Do you know how many persons of interest the FBI would like to track? It's insane when you look at the reality. Our federal government wasn't nearly as dedicated to counter terrorism back before 9/11 as it is today, and even today there's tons of soft targets they could and do hit.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

What does a collapse that isn't a controlled demolition supposed to look like? Just entertain me. Do you have any idea what you're looking at?

The American military isn't usually conducting suicide hijackings against unaware civilian targets.

And there's this myth that intelligence agencies have better infinite resources. That's simply not true. The agencies responsible for the had to devote resources to several different things, and there's too many potential enemies to track them all at once. There's always been attacks that slip through the safety net.

It takes serious resources to follow someone 24/7. I've seen estimates of around 30 people. Do you know how many persons of interest the FBI would like to track? It's insane when you look at the reality. Our federal government wasn't nearly as dedicated to counter terrorism back before 9/11 as it is today, and even today there's tons of soft targets they could and do hit.

I can tell from your first paragraph that you did not even bother to read my first paragraph before replying.
So, you're insane if you think i'm going to bother to read further than that.

Try again, sunshine.

 

[jefferz]

Has the American military ever launched a single strike that was as damaging and successful in all its history?

Fat Man or Little Boy.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Fat Man or Little Boy.

Dammit!
I lose

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

What does a collapse that isn't a controlled demolition supposed to look like? Just entertain me. Do you have any idea what you're looking at?

The Plasco building in Tehran collapsed due to fires, it was only 17 stories and I'm guessing very different structurally. Here's the video, collapse starts at around .38

 

[DoomPatrol]

The Plasco building in Tehran collapsed due to fires, it was only 17 stories and I'm guessing very different structurally. Here's the video, collapse starts at around .38

Main differences are the scale and exterior facade.

As far as the mode of collapse, they are both extremely similar. Both had progressive collapses straight into their footprint (because duh gravity). Both times the exterior collapse occurred after the interior failed. The only difference is the Plasco Building had a hard exterior and the WTC7 had a mostly glass exterior, so the facade of the Plasco was a little more rigid and resistant to crumbling.