Chair of University Engineering Dept: Fire Did NOT Cause Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Sep 12, 2016.

  1. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This goes back to who we should trust. Should we listen to experts in the field? Should we listen to anonymous posters on the internet? Decide for yourselves, but check this out:

    Today, the Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, a PhD in structural engineering and one of the nation’s top experts in the cause of building collapses (Leroy Hulsey) publicly announced that – contrary to the government’s explanation – fire did NOT bring down World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11:

    More here to view PRIOR to responding: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/09/61026.html
     
  2. juanvaldez

    juanvaldez Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They don't have any skyscrapers in Alaska. Notice it wasn't MIT.
     
  3. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,037
    Likes Received:
    9,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we can only assume that this guy does not fully understand the official explenation for WTC 7's collapse, or has failed to even look into it.

    why? cause the official explenation is not that "fire alone" caused the collapse.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We can only assume that YOU don't understand the issues at all or even watched the videos, otherwise you wouldn't be making these silly claims.

    Edit: Sorry you probably would anyway.
     
  5. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,970
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Half of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing building 7 was ripped off...no (*)(*)(*)(*) it wasn't fire alone.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Was it the Elders of Zion or the Lizard people? Or a Cabal of the two?
     
  6. MRogersNhood

    MRogersNhood Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps it was the plane wing,cutting a notch into the building like a tree pie.
    That's what I saw,anyways.That was a bad day.I think all Muslims coming to America should be vetted thoroughly.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Half? Really? Can you substantiate that with anything credible? Even NIST doesn't make that claim, in fact no one credible I know of does.

    Shows where you're coming from.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet another silly and irrelevant theory that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, no one credible claims any plane hit WTC7.
     
  9. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,970
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    [video=youtube;nEgPNNcdtu4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgPNNcdtu4[/video]

    here ya go boy
     
  10. MRogersNhood

    MRogersNhood Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    7? When did this happen?
    I saw the twin towers.What is the topic of this?
    Something else happen?
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, you're way behind in your knowledge of 9/11. This issue is about the destruction of WTC7 on 9/11, not the twin towers. Come back after you've actually done some research. You don't need to go too far, this section of the forum is loaded with information about 9/11, just follow the links.
     
  12. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,037
    Likes Received:
    9,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers or the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). The lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse
     
  13. juanvaldez

    juanvaldez Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't confuse us with facts!
     
  14. MRogersNhood

    MRogersNhood Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    9/11 what year?
     
  15. PARTIZAN1

    PARTIZAN1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2015
    Messages:
    32,331
    Likes Received:
    9,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This clown from Alaska has an article in a blog and we are supposed to take this conspiracy wog seriously.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah thanks for the regurgitation of the NIST mythology in summary form. Why don't you just copy and paste the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7? It's even more detailed than your NIST collapse of WTC7 summary for dummies version. Let me help you:

    http://spin1-www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610&_ga=1.70351312.1991264546.1473719122

    - - - Updated - - -

    602 BC.
     
  17. MRogersNhood

    MRogersNhood Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right 9/11 didn't happen in the US and I don't know why I'm responding to this drivel, must be a slow day.
     
  19. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,037
    Likes Received:
    9,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what's with the hostility?

    go ahead and debunk NIST's analysis of the WTC 7 collapse.

    show us what you can.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok I thought I was helping. If you're going to post NIST's theory in summary form, you should at least provide a link to the real thing. That way, readers in this forum can determine for themselves if what you're posting is accurate or not and not just take your word for it. Or simply for further research.

    I can only create a thread and post expert opinion and fact based research as well as insert my personal opinions. NIST's analysis falls apart even without that, it just requires common sense. But that's not enough for many, so I post what experts have uncovered since 9/11. That way no one has to take my word for anything.

    Thanks but I already did without your permission. If I come across more that's worthy of posting, I'll be sure to add it.

    This thread is about Leroy Hulsey's findings, which directly contradict NIST's findings. Leroy Hulsey's findings are being peer reviewed, NIST's findings never were because NIST made it impossible to do so. Hulsey claims he cannot ascertain that WTC7 was CD'd and he cannot ascertain that it wasn't CD'd simply based on what he researched. His findings strictly indicates that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC7, that it's impossible. Unlike NIST, his research is open in full detail to anyone. So it might help for those who are expert and interested to compare NIST's findings with Hulsey's, don't you think? He is currently into another phase of his research, to try to determine what could have caused the total collapse of WTC7.

    You said:

    But that makes no sense. All his research is based on NIST's findings. So why would you post something like that? What would make you want to post something that ridiculous?
     
  21. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,037
    Likes Received:
    9,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    only an expert in engineering and architecture is qualified to try to debunk NIST's analysis of the WTC 7 collapse.

    common sense? got nothing to do with it. when it comes to engineering and science, "common sense" is a useless cliche.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct and that has been accomplished by many studies conducted by appropriate experts, Hulsey is just one of these. So you're saying you're not qualified to make the claim "we can only assume that this guy does not fully understand the official explenation for WTC 7's collapse, or has failed to even look into it", especially since it's obviously false based on the first couple of minutes into the video. Common sense dictates it's obvious you're not and made that up. And common sense dictates that if you made that up, why should you be trusted when you cite a summary of NIST's theory and fail to provide a link to the real McCoy.

    That's only partially correct. Common sense is the basis for and controls scientific research and analysis. Without it, scientific research and analysis would not exist. But it does not by itself yield a definitive answer. That's why scientific research and analysis is conducted (liberally using common sense in the process), to try to arrive at a legitimate answer. Common sense told me those 3 buildings were not destroyed as claimed by NIST. Common sense told me NIST was lying. But to confirm it, I require scientific research and analysis conducted by appropriate and credible experts and their conclusions.
     
  23. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,037
    Likes Received:
    9,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!!!!

    common sense told me the towers were going to collapse, and they did.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah right you're such a great psychic, you should feign amusement. I guess we all have our version of common sense. Your "common sense" dictates that you allegedly believe that what has never happened in the history of high rise fires either before or following 9/11 was certain to happen on 9/11. My common sense tells me that what has never happened before (outside of CDs) was extremely unlikely to happen this time. It's called the laws of probability, something most educated people are taught and understand. When you roll the dice, do you always expect a 13? Even NIST claims that the collapse of WTC7 was an "extraordinary event", but for you it's commonplace because it has never happened before. Fairy tales are made for children, you fool no one.
     
  25. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,037
    Likes Received:
    9,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    when the first tower started to lean as it was burning, i told my friends that building looked like it may come down.

    and i was right.

    and btw, when the Windsor Tower was burning, the all-steel section collapsed.

    no concrete reinforcement means bad news for burning buildings
     

Share This Page