Quote:

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.

---

koods said:

I agree on the the near simultaneous failure of every column.

---

Quote:

It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.
(...)

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST(...)

This conclusion is based upon a number of findings from our different analyses.  Together, they show that fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.

---

Citizen X said:

the odds of every column failing at the exact same time are... fuckin impossible

---

koods said:

Citizen X said:

the odds of every column failing at the exact same time are... fuckin impossible

---

They didn’t. Even OP says it was NEARLY simultaneous. I think them all collapsing within 15 seconds is nearly simultaneous and that is what happened.

---

Is there anything exactly perfect in our imperfect world

The rule of thumb is "three to one," that any single beam must bear three times its specified application load. Two thirds of all vertical support beams could be randomly removed and the building would stand. The "official" story is that one beam, bent by heat, slipped off its foot, and the whole thing came down.

Statistically impossible

Citizen X said:

koods said:

Citizen X said:

the odds of every column failing at the exact same time are... fuckin impossible

---

They didn’t. Even OP says it was NEARLY simultaneous. I think them all collapsing within 15 seconds is nearly simultaneous and that is what happened.

---

Is there anything exactly perfect in our imperfect world

The rule of thumb is "three to one," that any single beam must bear three times its specified application load. Two thirds of all vertical support beams could be randomly removed and the building would stand. The "official" story is that one beam, bent by heat, slipped off its foot, and the whole thing came down.

Statistically impossible

---

koods said:

One story falling onto another is certainly more than 3x the rated force for a column

---

Quote:

They didn't even test for that.  Those buildings collapsed as a picture perfect controlled demolition and they said they had no reason to suspect explosives/incendiaries.

---

Psilynut2 said:

Quote:

They didn't even test for that.  Those buildings collapsed as a picture perfect controlled demolition and they said they had no reason to suspect explosives/incendiaries.

---

  Why would you need too ? The building burned for 7 hrs it was total inferno . Explosives have a very low melting point, a little over 200f . . They are made that way in case the truck or plane transporting them crashes and catches on fire the shit won’t explode . Fire renders explosives , and everything you need to detonate it useless .  Thermite won’t survive a fire either . Some of the components used to make it will melt .

  It didn’t look or sound like a demolition at all , the amount of pressure you need to cut through a large piece of steel fast enough to drop a building makes allot of noise , it’s very loud ,  extremely fucking loud regardless of what you use .

---

JohnRainy said:

Why would they need to?  How about standard procedure?

Are you telling me that something like that, one of the biggest crimes of all time, right there in New York City on television for the whole world to see.  Nothing like that had ever happened before.  No building of that type had ever collapsed like that due to fire, ever, with all the hysteria and rumours and the public in an frenzy, they just brazenly declare they dont need to test for all possible clues they might find.

You think that's how a real investigation into a crime of this magnitude gets done?



Do you at least think it's fishy that the supposed solution to the collapse of building 7 was never made public?  No peer review possible there.  But they figured it out.  The guys who didn't think they should test for demolition agents after a skyscraper comes down in the most suspicious fashion imaginable.  During a terrorist attack.

Oh well, at least Ol' Bushy invaded a couple wrong countries after that.  That probably makes sense too to a lot of people.

---