While Everyone Was Distracted By Covid-19, Final Report By UAF Concluded WTC 7 ‘NOT Destroyed by Fires’

Fact checked
The final report of a rigorous four-year computer modeling simulation that was followed by a robust peer review process has concluded that World Trade Center Building 7 could NOT have collapsed as a result of office fires, as the "official" explanation dubiously claims.

The final report of a rigorous four-year computer modeling simulation that was followed by a robust peer review process has concluded that World Trade Center Building 7 could NOT have collapsed as a result of office fires, as the “official” explanation dubiously claims.

According to the highly anticipated final report issued last week by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the official narrative surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 is simply implausible.

The UAF team’s findings, which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the building’s collapse, directly contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building in the history of the world to collapse primarily due to fire.

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator.

The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”

The four-year study was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization representing more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed the organization’s petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

AE911Truth report:

We are proud to have supported the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Professor Leroy Hulsey in conducting a genuinely scientific study into the reasons for this building’s collapse,” said Richard Gage, president and founder of AE911Truth.

It is now incumbent upon the building community, the media, and government officials to reckon with the implications of these findings and launch a new full-scale investigation.”

AE911Truth and its allies among the 9/11 victims’ families will now use the findings in the report as part of a formal “request for correction” that the group plans to submit to NIST in the coming days.

The indisputable errors documented in our request for correction will give NIST no way out of correcting its deeply flawed report and reversing its conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse,” said Gage.

The final report, entitled A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Final Report, includes clarifications and supplemental text based on public comments submitted in response to a draft report released by UAF and AE911Truth on September 3, 2019.

The UAF team’s final report is the result of an extensive four-year computer modeling effort that was followed by a robust peer review process. The peer review included dozens of public comments as well as external review by two independent experts, Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski of Analytical Service Company, a leading expert in structural mechanics and finite element modeling, and Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.

I am grateful to everyone who supported or participated in this study in any way,” said Professor Hulsey. “We hope that our findings will be carefully looked at by the building community and spur further investigation into how this building came down on that tragic day.

The Hulsey report and supporting materials can be found on UAF’s Institute of Northern Engineering website at http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7 and on the AE911Truth website at https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at The People's Voice. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Email: baxter@thepeoplesvoice.tv
Baxter Dmitry

33 Comments

    • Apparently there’s not very many, especially in the media, that are up to drongo level. Never underestimate the power of the masses to uphold a lie … just ask Hitler.

    • Lol, any demolition expert with experience in controlled detonations would laugh at your ignorant comment.

  1. You would have to a complete fucking retard like the democraps and their supporters to believe that a fire brought the building down. We all know it fell due to explosives. The question is, what was the FBI trying to destroy? They are corrupt as fuck.

  2. WE’VE ALL BEEN LIED TO!

    WHITE PEOPLE CAN’T BE RACIST:

    HERE’S A LIST OF “WHITE SLAVE TRADES”: 1.BARBARY SLAVE TRADE 2. ARAB SLAVE TRADE 3. IRISH SLAVE TRADE 4.CRIMEAN SLAVE TRADE, 100’S OF MILLIONS OF WHITE PEOPLE WERE ENSLAVED OVER THE LAST 2,500 YEARS, HALF WERE WHITE WOMEN!

  3. I call bullshit on these so-called “modelling” results. I designed computer software for over 50 years (now retired) and know how this stuff works. Same with the global-warming models – it’s all bullshit. All you fools who buy into this crap are just whistling in the wind. Give it up already!

    • You realize the official story was also based on computer modelling to come to its conclusion … I guess you didn’t, LOL! Idiot.

  4. So a study, by a highly suspect and biased group, that was not actually peer reviewed (the author of the article is obviously completely ignorant of what peer review entails), came to a conclusion that aligns with their initial bias? Yeah, that’s credible (sarcasm). The sheer stupidity of the idea that any of the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions is staggering.

      • You’re kidding, right? That group is the epitome of bias, and that is well documented. Typical idiot, has to call anyone that uses facts a “troll”

        • Post a link to this documentation. It should be easy if your not lying about this being “well documented”.

          • That’s not how the burden of proof works. If you’re going to suggest that someone is a liar, it’s on you to bring evidence of guilt, not on them to bring evidence of innocence. It’s a really basic concept.

          • Er … That’s exactly what I was asking Tom to do … he charged that that group is the epitome of bias, and I asked him to bring evidence of guilt … are you slow? Or just biased as all hell? I didn’t even say he was a liar, I suggested he couldn’t bring evidence of guilt – as you claim is what is important, and as a result, conclusions might be drawn. Think before you type.

          • You said “prove you’re not a liar.” That clearly suggests the implication that Tom is a liar unless he proves otherwise. That you were also asking Tom to provide evidence for his own claim (which you’ll notice I did not include in my criticism) doesn’t change that you misplaced the burden of proof regarding your claim presuming he is a liar.

            Think before you type?

          • I didn’t presume he was a liar. I simply implied that making extremely outrageous claims with no evidence or desire to provide evidence could well be, and rightfully so, interpreted as a lie. If he would provide even some evidence, even if a mistaken evidence that would shift that possible interpretation from an outright lie, into something else – like a mistake, presumption, assumption etc. then all would be well and good. Or if he could provide proof that he wasn’t lying, I’d like to see that.

            Pretty simple there bud, you don’t have to get your panties in a knot.

            What if I said you fuck your mom … ? Would you not be right in calling me liar (assuming you don’t), unless I provided evidence or at least reasoning for evaluation?

          • Your hypothetical is a false equivalence. If you made a claim about my mom, the reason I can reasonably conclude that it’s bullshit is the fact that you don’t know her.

            The claims Tom made, on the other hand, are opinions based on verifiable information.
            1) that AE911Truth is a “highly suspect and biased group” is an opinion based on the organization’s vested interest in disputing the NIST’s findings, which is a reasonable assessment.
            2) that the study “was not actually peer reviewed” is verifiable fact
            3) that the study “came to a conclusion that aligns with their initial bias” is an opinion founded on the reality that what the author and sponsors of the study expected to find was exactly what the study found, without compelling evidence to support those findings.

            Sorry, but that doesn’t clear any reasonable bar by which you could assert that he must prove not to be lying. Your equivocation on that point isn’t worth much either. None of this is about me pearl-clutching, it’s about your response being in bad faith. If anything, bringing my mom into it just to make an antagonistic point shows that you’re the one whose panties are in a twist over being called out on your bad-faith bullshit.

          • You can “reasonably conclude its bullshit” – because you believe I don’t know your mom. I believe that there is no evidence that the University of Fairbanks is biased in this way (see how that’s the same as the comment about your mom?), as reader Mainlander, put forth in which Tom was responding to. Mainlander specifically mentioned the University, and that is what I was referring to – to keep the conversation in the correct context of the original argument.

            1) the argument put forth by mainlander was that the University isn’t biased. It was the university that conducted the study. AE911 just requested it. I would expect that both you and Tom might be intelligent enough to avoid trying to employ an association fallacy that your “belief” that AE911Truth has no desire to get to the truth, is biased, and by extension that also means the University of fairbanks is also biased …

            2) not being “peer reviewed” does not making something false … lol.

            3) watch the video … “simultaneous failure of every single support column in the building” (as the report concluded) is what we see — or do your eyes lie to you when people tell you they do? lol …

  5. ah the old “computer model”

    so bollox

    the computer models heer said there would be 250000 deaths from CV19

    its down to 20000

    so a order of magnitude

    if someone came to me with a model that had such a huge difference id tell them to try again

  6. Nkgoo, geniş kapsamlı bilgi platformudur. Her konuda bilgi içeriği üretme amacıyla yayın hayatına başlamış referans kaynak sitedir. Ayrıca telif hakları konularına da özen gösterilmektedir.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.