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

I have studied this for 15 years. Read tons of books (from both sides). Watched countless documentaries (from both sides) and watched an enormous amount of unbiased footage of all the events on my own. To me it's not a matter of conspiracy theories or truthers. To me, it's completely asinine that anyone could believe the official story. Open your eyes. Use your brain. Think.

It's funny to me, that us "truthers" are considered tin foil hat wearing idiots, when we have actually studied this topic. Looked at it from all angles. Listened to experts. Yes EXPERTS. Pilots, architecs, engineers, controled demolition experts, etc... Yet, others just watched Fox News and took their word for it. Who's the idiots?

Yep. I agree 100%. It's crazy that there are people on here that DON'T question the official story. It makes no sense.

So This:
beijing-cctv-building-fire-082.png


Turned to this:
Beijing_after_wikepedia_TVCC_building22.jpg


Yet this:
wtc7_fires_n7&12.jpg


Became this:
WTC-7_after_230806wtc2a.jpg


Totally makes sense!

Wanna know what else makes sense? That the 3 towers defied physics and was able to crush through 47 floors and 110 floors of steel and concrete at near free fall speeds.

For anyone that doesn't know, free fall speeds means the rate at which something falls without ANY resistance. Here's the definition:

"In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and moves along a geodesic."

So 110 floors (wtc 1&2) or 47 floors (wtc7) was able to fall where gravity is the only force acting upon it, not being slower down by steel, concrete, office furniture, etc... for the pancake effect? Ok.

The NIST report is so flawed and full of shit. They made the computer program that showed how WTC7 collapsed. . Let me repeat that so people can let that sink in for a second... NIST created the program that they showed how it happened. And when other scientists, architects and engineers wanted to see/use the program to test for themselves, NIST would not allow them to.

Imagine if Jon Jones made a computer program to show how he did not use steroids.

15 years of casually reading conspiracy websites and watching shitty YouTube videos, but not a single structural engineering course or book.

Educate yourself! Open your eyes! See the truth! Just don't actually read anything worth a shit like a college textbook or real resource on the subject!

- Entertheninja

What's funny is how you even admit it wasn't free fall speeds. It was near free fall. Which means it met resistance on the way down.

What's even more hilarious is that you absolutely cannot tell anyone what the rate of descent should be during a fire caused collapse according to your theory. Because you don't know physics and engineering and you're using shitty science. You're just parroting basic bullshit that's been debunked by more knowledgeable people.

You really showed your cards when you posted the worst angled photo possible to describe the WTC 7 fires. They were multistory and raged for 7 hours without any serious efforts to stop the fire. This is how disingenuous your comments are.
 
Last edited:
Windsor fire actually partially collapsed. You want to know which part? The only part that was steel framed in a manner that was steel framed in a similar manner to WTC 7. The rest of the reinforced section that was completely different structurally than WTC 7 stayed standing though.

And of course, every building is unique. These buildings all had vastly different designs and conditions under which the fire occurred. There was also vastly different responses by emergency services. It's just silly to pretend like something needs to happen every single time to be possible. Sometimes your car will break down due to a part gone bad. Does that mean that the part should fail for all similar cars under moderately similar conditions? Of course not. That's not how things work in the real world.
Right... so if the top floors of WTC 1&2 collapsed, I could possibly see that. That could make sense. However there were 90 floors below that was not hit by an airplane. 90 floors that did not have fires. Yet those 90 floors crumbled from " deteriorated and melted steel".

Your quote:
It's just silly to pretend like something needs to happen every single time to be possible. Sometimes your car will break down due to a part gone bad. Does that mean that the part should fail for all similar cars under moderately similar conditions?

Ever heard of science?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
 
Right... so if the top floors of WTC 1&2 collapsed, I could possibly see that. That could make sense. However there were 90 floors below that was not hit by an airplane. 90 floors that did not have fires. Yet those 90 floors crumbled from " deteriorated and melted steel".

Your quote:
It's just silly to pretend like something needs to happen every single time to be possible. Sometimes your car will break down due to a part gone bad. Does that mean that the part should fail for all similar cars under moderately similar conditions?

Ever heard of science?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Want to know what else you should learn the definition of?

Structural engineering.

You clearly don't know anything about it. You should learn how loads are distributed in the building. Seriously this it's such a stupid fucking comment from you. The floors below weren't on fire so they shouldn't have collapsed too? When the fuck did you make that up? those floors below collapsed from unsustainable loads from the damage above them causing pancaking.

Can you even tell me how they were designed to carry the load and why they were designed that way without going to Google? Seriously, please enlighten me on how the designed the structure to bear to loads without cheating and looking it up.

If you can't answer that without cheating, you have no business saying what should or should not happen in a fire.

Says the pot to the kettle.

I guess when you have nothing to say, you resort to pathetic comebacks instead of something with some actual substance. You're pathetic.

Come on man. Tell us the rate of collapse that we would have seen if the building had fell from fire damage. You're clearly an expert on free fall conditions. What should it have been? Don't ignore my question twice. Back up your fucking bullshit.
 
15 years of casually reading conspiracy websites and watching shitty YouTube videos, but not a single structural engineering course or book.

Educate yourself! Open your eyes! See the truth! Just don't actually read anything worth a shit like a college textbook or real resource on the subject!

- Entertheninja

What's funny is how you even admit it wasn't free fall speeds. It was near free fall. Which means it met resistance on the way down.

What's even more hilarious is that you absolutely cannot tell anyone what the rate of descent should be during a fire caused collapse according to your theory. Because you don't know physics and engineering and you're using shitty science. You're just parroting basic bullshit that's been debunked by more knowledgeable people.
See the funny thing is I'm not pointing any fingers. Am I? Did I say "CGI was used, there were no planes!!!" Or "Bush is the mastermind behind all of this!!!" No. No I didn't. All I'm saying is the official story is bullshit and should be questioned. Do you believe everything you're told? If you're driving 35mph down a 35mph road and a cop pulls you over and says you were going 50, do you just say "ok... I guess I was"? For every crime there is a defense and a prosecution. Except this one. This one we just had one side say - this is the way it happened. End of story. Do not question it.

And.... for anyone questioning it - "were just uneducated idiots".

What I mean by open your eyes is - LOOK at the video of WTC 7 collapse. That's not trick photography buddy. It's no CGI. It's not from some crazy documentary. It's the footage. And it falls at NEAR FREE FALL SPEED.

And how point out how it's "funny" that I admit that it wasn't free fall speeds. . We're talking the difference of about 3 seconds. Not minutes. If you can't at least admit that it's strange that a building collapsed in its own foot print AT NEAR free fall speeds from a fire, I can't talk to you. Whether you adamantly stand by the official story or not, you have to at least have basic elementary understanding of how physics work.

And please don't assume that from reading a sentence in an MMA fighting forum that you know anything about by educational background. It makes you sound ignorant and immediately destroys your credibility. You want to talk about 911? Fine. You want to have a different opinion than me? Great! But when you start making stupid comments about something that you have no clue about, it makes you come across as an idiot. I love debating 911 with PEOPLE, not idiots.
 
Says the pot to the kettle, again.

DJd6-gcXcAIPpAc.jpg:large

So you're telling me you are resorting to deleting half of my post in your quotes so you don't have to address my points and can just post retarded memes since you're incapable of debating anyone on an intelligent and reasonable level?

And yes, the crash knocked a passport out. I guess if we hadn't have found that, we never would have known who did it. The whole case relied on a random passport that was blown out of the building during impact.
 
Last edited:
See the funny thing is I'm not pointing any fingers. Am I? Did I say "CGI was used, there were no planes!!!" Or "Bush is the mastermind behind all of this!!!" No. No I didn't. All I'm saying is the official story is bullshit and should be questioned. Do you believe everything you're told? If you're driving 35mph down a 35mph road and a cop pulls you over and says you were going 50, do you just say "ok... I guess I was"? For every crime there is a defense and a prosecution. Except this one. This one we just had one side say - this is the way it happened. End of story. Do not question it.

And.... for anyone questioning it - "were just uneducated idiots".

What I mean by open your eyes is - LOOK at the video of WTC 7 collapse. That's not trick photography buddy. It's no CGI. It's not from some crazy documentary. It's the footage. And it falls at NEAR FREE FALL SPEED.

And how point out how it's "funny" that I admit that it wasn't free fall speeds. . We're talking the difference of about 3 seconds. Not minutes. If you can't at least admit that it's strange that a building collapsed in its own foot print AT NEAR free fall speeds from a fire, I can't talk to you. Whether you adamantly stand by the official story or not, you have to at least have basic elementary understanding of how physics work.

And please don't assume that from reading a sentence in an MMA fighting forum that you know anything about by educational background. It makes you sound ignorant and immediately destroys your credibility. You want to talk about 911? Fine. You want to have a different opinion than me? Great! But when you start making stupid comments about something that you have no clue about, it makes you come across as an idiot. I love debating 911 with PEOPLE, not idiots.

If you don't understand how the building is held up, you can't have any idea how fast it should fall. The building fell exactly as fast as it should have under those conditions, and you can calculate it. This is basic conspiracy bullshit from ten years ago that's been thoroughly debunked.

And don't talk about basic physics when you're too retarded to understand that gravity makes a building collapse into its own footprint. If it collapsed any other way, it would be breaking the laws of physics that you love to talk about.

And recognising that you clearly have no educational/professional experience in structural engineering and that you've probably never read a single book on either subject doesn't destroy but credibility. It just means I have credibility and I can recognise how little you have by the dumb shit that you mash into the keyboard.

I have a college level education and years of professional experience in high rise construction and renovation. It's literally my job to know this shit. This is like if I argued with a zookeeper on biology because I spent 15 years reading Zoobooks and watching YouTube documentaries. He would also recognize that I've never done any real biology in my life pretty quick.

So now is your chance. Can you name a single real book on structural engineering that you've ever read? I have a stack of them in my library right now.
 
Last edited:
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?

Not that I know of.

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.

Well if the people in power are not cooperating and are being intentionally evasive, then you have to question the usefulness of the commission's conclusions. Sure, maybe they did the best they could with what they had to work with, but that doesn't mean they were able to uncover all the facts.

I'm not talking about the collapse of the building's here. I'm talking more generally about there being something to 9/11 that has not come to light.

Considering how shifty Bush and Cheney were about the whole thing, I can only come to two conclusions:

1. They were just paranoid because the spotlight was on them.

2. They knew something that they didn't want to reveal.

If it's #2, then what did they know and how would it change the narrative surrounding the events of that day?

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.

What is it about the Israelis that you find suspicious?

Well if they were Israeli intelligence--and according to the article even the FBI thinks they may have been--is it somehow purely coincidental that they were onsite for the attack? Or did they know the attack was coming and were there to document it?

Israel is one of the US's greatest allies. And so if they DID know, then is this information that they failed to share with us? If so, why? Or did they share it with us and the people in charge decided to let the attack go forward anyway?
 
And yes, the crash knocked a passport out. I guess if we hadn't have found that, we never would have known who did it. The whole case relied on a random passport that was blown out of the building during impact.
Hahahahaha. Priceless.
 
And it falls at NEAR FREE FALL SPEED.

And how point out how it's "funny" that I admit that it wasn't free fall speeds.
Just to be really clear here. You can watch any controlled demolition and see how the collapse starts with a hesitation, then falls at free fall acceleration (9.8 m/s/s which is the acceleration of gravity) after about a second, and then slows near the end of the collapse where the rubble has been piling up.

The NIST themselves ADMITTED a few years ago that the middle of that collapse was in fact occurring at free fall acceleration. They never elaborated or even pointed out what that meant, but for anyone with even a reasonable mind, it is clear that the roof of a building that is crashing through steel and cement floors will never... and I mean ever... fall at that rate of speed, let alone anywhere even near a speed that a roof falling from the sole influence of gravity would fall at.



So you're telling me you are resorting to deleting half of my posts in your quotes so you don't have to address my points and can just post retarded memes since you're incapable of debating anyone on an intelligent and reasonable level?

And yes, the crash knocked a passport out. I guess if we hadn't have found that, we never would have known who did it. The whole case relied on a random passport that was blown out of the building during impact.
That simple meme was a perfect response to your idiocy. And if you really believe what you just wrote about that passport, then I have this awesome bridge in Brooklyn, NY that I think you would be interested in and I have it at a very fair price... just for you today... lemme know.
 
I don't think Cheney had any say at that time. It was lower level commanders in NORAD and the FAA who really dropped the ball. Flight 77 which flew into the Pentagon was only in the air for 1 hour and 17 minutes of which nearly half of it was it's normal flight path. By the time this was happening, they were already scrambling jets to track other possibly hijacked aircraft and there was a lot of confusion going on. NEADS wasn't even informed to be looking for Flight 77 until literally 3 minutes before it hit the Pentagon. At that point, they had jets about 150 miles out.

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

I think a lot of it was just getting caught off guard. Until 9/11, most hijackings were political and nobody got hurt. NORAD wad focused on external threats and the idea of planes being used like that was seen as highly unlikely. There were some critical shortcomings from the FAA and NORAD that were exposed that day, but I find it hard to really place blame on anyone too badly for the response.

At that moment too, they were falsely trying to intercept what's now known as "phantom flight 11", where they thought 11 was coming down to hit somewhere in Washington when in fact it had impacted one of the towers.

Here's a good summary of the response that day.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

My problem with the accusations like that regarding Cheney is that the military and FAA independently kept meticulous records of the timelines that day. We know who called who, at what times, and what the messages were. There's no record of anything to suggest a stand down order. In fact, I don't think the military would even have to lie if they had shot down a plane, like it's suggested with flight 93. I think it they had actually shot it down, then they would have been completely justified I'm doing so.

People always vastly overstate our military readiness, especially when trying to state our readiness pre-9/11. It really was a different America back then. People were much more complacent with security because terrorism was so rare and minor back then.

Thanks man, appreciate the response. Your explanation definitely seems to be more rational than some of the wild CT theories that float around regarding this kind of thing.
 
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.

Well the impression I've gotten is that you feel qualified to speak on these matters and argue them because of your own engineering background, which isn't even a structural engineering background but mechanical engineering. You also said that you are able to understand the causes behind the collapse and that they are fairly "mundane."

You've also mentioned that you have friends who are engineers of various types. Are any of them high-rise engineers, and if so, are those the only opinions that you value from these friends?

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 guess we'll see what happens with this review process.

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?

So let's get away from the collapse of the buildings.

Is there anything about 9/11 that makes you think SOMETHING shady went on that day? Perhaps at the last foreknowledge of the attack or something along those lines?
 
Hahahahaha. Priceless.

Do you think everything vaporised on impact? Do you think there wasn't a plane that impacted now?

It was found on the street before the collapse by a passerby. Are you going to claim now that he's a secret collaborator despite the fact that he has friends and family and a regular job and life? Or are you going to say that someone in the government dropped it on the ground for someone to hopefully find in the chaos?

I just don't understand the implication. He was a passenger on the plane. His passport being found doesn't implicate him on anything on its own. It just means he was on the plane. So why would the shadow government feel the need to fake that finding?

Whatever you think happened to put that passport on the ground is definitely way more far-fetched than the idea that it was just blown out of the building on impact and fell to the ground with other debris.

And I like the tactic. Can't back up your bullshit opinions, so you're resorting to shit posting. Typical conspiracy theorist behavior. When you can't handle the questions you deflect and retreat.
 
While I absolutely agree with you that an orchestrated conspiracy on the scale of 9/11 is pretty batshit crazy, I would like to point out that conspiracies (men colluding in secret for nefarious reasons) do not need the participation of a vast network of people to be pulled off. While it's not quite on the scale of 9/11, the first thing that comes to mind was a couple books I read years ago about Larry King and the Franklin Credit Union/Boys Town child abuse scandal, which reached into Washington.

With 9/11 you'd need an incredible amount of people to do anything. It really depends on the theory too. But ultimately you have to account for the fact that you have real planes at real airports being controlled by real people with families and friends, taking passengers with friends and families, on a flight that was tracked by the FAA to the crash sites. Just to make those planes vanish would require serious concerted effort.

Then you have to account for the private plane lessons the hijackers all took at various schools. Are the schools part of the conspiracy? If not, why are the hijackers all learning to fly these planes?

There was a conspiracy on 9/11. It was a couple dozen Arabs who pulled conspired. But if you want to cast blame on a shadow government, you quickly get into serious territory.

Thanks man, appreciate the response. Your explanation definitely seems to be more rational than some of the wild CT theories that float around regarding this kind of thing.

I've just found that the conspiracies quickly get into more irrational territory than the truth. There's so many factors and people involved in this, that they'd all have to be in on the conspiracy to make it work. And most of them are rather average people with no incentive to participate or lie for the government.
 
With 9/11 you'd need an incredible amount of people to do anything. It really depends on the theory too.
And yet you insist we must believe that 19 idiots led by a man on a dialysis machine, in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan could have pulled this off.

You are both hypocritical and also, obviously not real bright.
 
With 9/11 you'd need an incredible amount of people to do anything. It really depends on the theory too. But ultimately you have to account for the fact that you have real planes at real airports being controlled by real people with families and friends, taking passengers with friends and families, on a flight that was tracked by the FAA to the crash sites. Just to make those planes vanish would require serious concerted effort.

Then you have to account for the private plane lessons the hijackers all took at various schools. Are the schools part of the conspiracy? If not, why are the hijackers all learning to fly these planes?

There was a conspiracy on 9/11. It was a couple dozen Arabs who pulled conspired. But if you want to cast blame on a shadow government, you quickly get into serious territory.



I've just found that the conspiracies quickly get into more irrational territory than the truth. There's so many factors and people involved in this, that they'd all have to be in on the conspiracy to make it work. And most of them are rather average people with no incentive to participate or lie for the government.

Not disagreeing with you - was just saying that conspiracies on a lesser scale, that seem improbable or far-fetched on the surface, have occurred throughout history.

As far as 9/11, the CT theories smell like bullshit to me. I think it is probable that the 9/11 commission tried to hide some governmental incompetencies because the public would inevitably want to point fingers, but too many people extrapolate that into wild "inside job" nonsense.
 
Well the impression I've gotten is that you feel qualified to speak on these matters and argue them because of your own engineering background, which isn't even a structural engineering background but mechanical engineering. You also said that you are able to understand the causes behind the collapse and that they are fairly "mundane."

Yes, my field is in mechanical engineering, but my professional experience is directly related to structural engineering. And of course I've followed my education up with countless CE courses, seminars, and books on structural engineering as related to high rise construction. As I said, it's literally my job. I'll take the Pepsi challenge with anyone on this subject.

You've also mentioned that you have friends who are engineers of various types. Are any of them high-rise engineers, and if so, are those the only opinions that you value from these friends?

My entire company is full of them. That's our specialty. I value their professional opinion on high rises because it's our job. I wouldn't trust their opinions on climate science as much as I would on structural engineering.

I guess we'll see what happens with this review process.

Yeah, but I'm going to guess that his peer review process is going to be complete dog shit. When people won't submit research for peer review in a respected journal, there's usually something wrong with their research.

So let's get away from the collapse of the buildings.

Is there anything about 9/11 that makes you think SOMETHING shady went on that day? Perhaps at the last foreknowledge of the attack or something along those lines?

Well I can think of a few things. I think they are better attributed to laziness, complacency or ignorance though.

1. The FBI was warned of an imminent terror plot but didn't take the warnings seriously.

2. The money trail supporting the terrorists. I think that leads up to higher ups in the Saudi government or royal family members and the United States won't fully look into it because of possibly damaging revelations.
 
Back
Top