Hello all,
The long-awaited study from the University of Alaska/Fairbanks was out a few days back, with appropriate media coverage. But if you missed it, here’s a heads up.
They seem to rule out NIST’s proposed collapse mechanism and their simulation of simultaneous failure of all columns is uncannily like the real-life collapse.
What do you make of it?
No, what do you make of it?
Link?
The last sentences from the draft report:
This is more of a “what happened” conclusion not a “why it happened” conclusion.
There does not appear to be a discussion of why there was a global failure. Me? I am going with aliens.
Dr Hulsey has been doing work for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who appear to have commissioned this study, for several years. While he claims to be a forensic structural engineer, it appears he has no specific training in that area. He is a well trained and respected civil engineer otherwise.
I don’t have the engineering chops to review the paper, I’ll let others do that. But at first glance I am suspect of a report commissioned by quacks that happens to support their primary thesis.
Those nutcases commissioned this paper?
(Bolding mine.) Which is to say, coverage from the university itself, a few scattered sources in Alaska, and sites with monikers involving “9/11truth” and such. Places like Reuters and CNN haven’t jumped on the study. I’m guessing that’s “appropriate.”
What brought this to your attention, and what do you think about it?
All I can find is from 2017. I can’t tell if this is newer than that.
The first thing that occurs to me is that if it was controlled demolition, why was it only in WTC7, and did the airliners crashing into the other towers cause those to collapse but not WTC7?
No idea how reputable Dr. Leroy Hulsey is among his peers.
Regards,
Shodan
Just to provide a link: Breaking: UAF study says government wrong on World Trade Center collapse.
Subtitled “ALASKA-LED TEAM VINDICATES 911 ‘TRUTHERS’”
Inspires confidence in the report, don’t it? :rolleyes:
Let’s sidestep the physics and math for a moment. One issue 9/11 Truthers have never answered is why the U.S. government (or whoever was nefarious enough to rig this thing) would ***want ***to knock down WTC7. What does knocking down the relatively-obscure, little-known building called WTC7 get them that knocking down the two big Twin Towers alone didn’t?
Wow, that summary is just dripping with 9/11 Truther talking points.
I would hope that the structural physics world would look into it and then see if it still stands. However, I don’t think any real working experts will actually waste their time with it.
I’ve never understood why this building fascinates the 9/11 Truther CT types, to be honest. There really aren’t any mysteries as to why the building collapsed. Basically, a ton of building material fell on it from the other WTC tower collapses (BURNING debris at that), and due to water main breaks and, kind of other priorities happening the building was left burning all day without fire fighters really doing much (read: anything).
I did look up a NIST FAQ page on WTC 7, for anyone interested. Been a while since I looked into this (since the last crazy 9/11 Truther came here to discuss it), but I recall seeing some of the models and it seems more than plausible that, along with the initial damage to structural supports facing the tower collapse damaged sections, the fire weakened the rest of the supports over hours of uncontrolled burning, leading to a collapse. Certainly there is zero evidence of explosives or anything like that, so seems a red herring to me to talk about simultaneous collapse in some sort of sinister tones.
Since the OP didn’t link to this great report, and since it seems, unsurprisingly to have come from 9/11 CTer types I don’t really think it’s worth looking at. If the OP felt there was something compelling in there I figure s/he would have linked to and quoted it. What do I make of it? Last gasp by the 9/11 Truther types to try and get some traction for their crazy theories would be my guess.
I suspect the people who “commissioned” this study are counting on the fact that no reputable authority will actually waste their time on debunking more of this bullshit.
Also, there is some comments on the linked site that says they will solicit public opinion prior to publishing the full results of the study later this year. Sounds completely legit to me.
The linked site says the report is not yet published. They wish to solicit public opinion first. Target date is end of 2019:
IOW: Submit your lunatic fringe conspiracy theories to us and we’ll try to include them in the report.
Well, you know, ALL peer reviewed papers are generally submitted to solicit public opinion first…right? Right?? Isn’t that how it works???
No. Must NOT read. Just due to the domain name. Life is too short.
Oh, you crazy dreamer you.
Here’s some numerical results for you:
There used to be 1 building called WTC7.
Now there are 0 buildings called WTC7.
