WTC 7 - University of Alaska Fairbanks report.

[husaberg]

Do you understand what a draft report is?

it wasn't 2017 two weeks ago.
Do you realise being a slow drip doesn't make you an ex-spurt.
By your own insistence you said the report was done over a year ago.

[Katman]

it wasn't 2017 two weeks ago.

Go back to post #1 and open the link.

On page 1 it quite clearly says September 2019.

That is when the draft report was released.

[husaberg]

Go back to post #1 and open the link.

On page 1 it quite clearly says September 2019.

That is when the draft report was released.

yeah because the report is gospel. Does it redefine what 2017 is or when it was?
Because i hope it does as so far you failed thus far on on Full independent and transparent.

The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.
The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged.

September 17
new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire
This week a team of experts said that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7
This week, eminent Alaska University engineers dismissed [the NIST] explanation. Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, said: ‘Fire did not and could not have caused the failure of this building.’

https://www.mintpressnews.com/world-...-false/231780/
September 11th, 2017
Last Wednesday, Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks presented the findings and conclusion of his team’s two-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001

[Viking01]

http://thesaker.is/stand-for-the-tru...ence-and-nist/

[ Edit ]

I posted the above video clip earlier (32 minutes long), but was pressed for
time to also list some salient points from throughout the video clip.

If nothing else, just watch the clip from 18 min 30 secs to 23 min 30 secs.
And ponder those words of the presenter as you watch.


1 min 20 secs: Former NIST employee introducing himself and his background

3 min : His rationale for doing his own investigation a number of years later

4 min 30 sec: NIST Director Shyan Sunder presenting a summary and making
some assertions (most notable that "there was no evidence of explosives").

Even though NIST did not model or test a "controlled demolition" scenario,
and their own testing of a small number of samples was contradicted by
material testing subsequently performed at the University of Copenhagen:

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf.../TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

5 min 30 sec : Presenters own initial conclusion

5 min 50 secs : NIST Director Syhan Sunder stating that "uncontrolled
fires had caused an extraordinary event"

Do the limited fires within WTC 7 look "wide scale and uncontrolled"?

6 min : The most feasible scenario (a "controlled demolition") was not even
investigated and modelled by NIST

8 min : Collapse of WTC 7 due to "modest fires", and "emergency personnel
waiting for a longe period for an impending collapse"

9 min 50 secs to 10 min 30 secs: NIST was struggling to "get a handle
on modelling the collapse"

10 min 30 secs : NIST put forward their preferred model, stating that
this collapse represented a "completely new phenomenon"

If this represented a "never before experienced event", would one not
have expected 911 to have been followed up by multiple investigations,
reviews and revisions of building codes for steel frame skyscrapers ?

Surely, architects and structural engineers would have been in favour
of such action ? Instead of organising themselves into an action group
to call out the NIST report as a sham.

13 mins to 15 mins 40 secs : Partial execution of NIST graphical model,
which does not align with video of observed building collapse behaviour.

So why should a reader believe the conclusion of the NIST report ?

18:30 mins to 23 mins 30 secs: Collapse of WTC2 (South Tower). Listen to
the questions being asked, as you watch the building collapse.

Q: How do huge horizontal steel beams get ejected laterally some considerable
distance from the building ? Where does all the energy needed come from ?

Because it sure is not jet fuel (which would have "flashed off" during and
immediately after aircraft collision with the buildings) ?

Q: How does such large volumes of structural concrete get pulverised into
such fine dust ?

Q: How does internal office equipment get blown apart into such small pieces
(instead of just being crushed - and being found in plenty - in the rubble pile) ?

Q: Why do we see a "ripple proceeding down the building", well in advance of
the floors collapsing ?

Q: If it was a structural failure and outer walls "bow" (as NIST purports within
their model), then why do corner beams still stay intact and in place when the
upper floors start to collapse ?

23 mins 30 secs: Why did NIST not model a "controlled demolition" scenario ?


You don't have to answer those questions, but any investigation worth its
salt would have. You have every reason to be sceptical of the official story.

[Katman]

yeah because the report is gospel. Does it redefine what 2017 is or when it was?

I'm well aware that the UAF study has been on the radar for a few years.

But the draft report was released in September 2019.

What can't you understand about that?

[husaberg]

I'm well aware that the UAF study has been on the radar for a few years.
?

Of course you were Steve i am surprised anyone would ever even doubt you at all thats why you have not posted anything about it at all prior to last week i guess.................
So this NEW FULL TRANSPARENT and INDEPENDENT report is neither new transparent of independent or full. WOW..........
Welcome back 2017 Stevo missed you

[Katman]

Of course you were Steve i am surprised anyone would ever even doubt you at all thats why you have not posted anything about it at all prior to last week i guess.................

Really?

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131103967

[husaberg]

Of course you were Steve i am surprised anyone would ever even doubt you at all thats why you have not posted anything about it at all prior to last week i guess.................
So this NEW FULL TRANSPARENT and INDEPENDENT report is neither new transparent of independent or full. WOW..........
Welcome back 2017 Stevo missed you

Really?

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131103967

No mention of this report at all
but if it was you were talking in past tense so it was done then over a year ago......

there's been a two year technical study done

so if i give you the benefit of the doubt when was it done prior to to 2018 maybe 2017 perhaps


So when you said done prior to 19th July 2018, you thought it wasn't done until years later.

you know the one you claim now is new transparent independent and full. yet it is clearly not one of these things at all.
So which is it was it done years ago? or did you not know about it?
here is 2017 for you, welcome back.

[Katman]

but if it was you were talking in past tense so it was done then over a year ago......

As I asked earlier - do you understand the meaning of 'Draft Report'?

[husaberg]

But but new conspiracy not goberminta

Oh so there we go, back to 2017 to a report, you said was done then.

[Katman]

Oh so there we o back to 2017 to a report you said was done then.

What the fuck does that even mean?

[husaberg]

UAF study challenges theories on why third World Trade Center building collapsed on Sept. 11
Author: Dermot Cole September 9, 2017 calendar Published September 9, 2017
On Monday, a dissident "truther" group that claims there was a 9/11 cover-up, plans to use a study by the University of Alaska Fairbanks engineering department to announce its latest effort to show that a federal report about the "building collapses is false and that it is incumbent upon Congress to launch its own investigation."
The group is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded by Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect who has traveled the world for years saying the government has hidden "evidence of controlled demolition, particularly with the third high rise that collapsed on that day in the afternoon of 9/11, World Trade Center 7."
His group funded a two-year, $316,000 study led by UAF engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, who used computer modeling to examine No. 7 and how its steel and concrete elements would respond to fires
He now claims that because the UAF study offers good reason to doubt the official story about the collapse of No. 7 (the third building), there is plenty of reason to doubt the official story about the fall of the Twin Towers.

I would suggest that the insurance claim on the buildings was simply an added bonus.

The never-ending 'War on Terror' was the real objective.

really because you have state many times that the building owner demo'd the building to get insurance you even posted how he used demo terms.
You also calimed he did this as he was "jewish"

So now that a far more comprehensive and transparent study than NIST's attempt has been completed on the collapse of WTC 7,]

So explain how a small cheap study funded by an organisation that wants only one outcome be either comprehensive or transparent.

If it was a full investigation done by an independent body, with absolute transparency, then yes.

Yet you claim the UAF study completely funded by a Conspiracy site is independent. EGG

The 'exact manner' in which the buildings collapsed is what should be the subject of a thorough and independent investigation.
.

How about you call the study exactly what the study is the 911 truth movement funded study.
You try to talk a good game but the game you talk is poultry farming egg.

[Katman]

UAF study challenges theories on why third World Trade Center building collapsed on Sept. 11
Author: Dermot Cole September 9, 2017 calendar Published September 9, 2017






really because you have state many times that the building owner demo'd the building to get insurance you even posted how he used demo terms.
You also calimed he did this as he was "jewish"


So explain how a small cheap study funded by an organisation that wants only one outcome be either comprehensive or transparent.


Yet you claim the UAF study completely funded by a Conspiracy site is independent. EGG



How about you call the study exactly what the study is the 911 truth movement funded study.
You try to talk a good game but the game you talk is poultry farming egg.

Have you not been taking your medication again?

[husaberg]

Have you not been taking your medication again?

I have never been prescribed medication for psychiatric issues or any behavioral issues, can you sincerely say the same thing steve?
How many people have defined you as being paranoid or narcissistic or detached form reality?
Why also stevo, in your mind does, not taking medication, make someone question why, you actually keep contradicting yourself, Over and over again?
Like your insistence that the report is independent or full or transparent or why the building collasped r the reason it did and you dd it.

[Katman]

Why also stevo, in your mind does, not taking medication, make someone question why, you actually keep contradicting yourself, Over and over again?

You should edit your post again.....and add some more commas.....again.