4 ms·

The part that stuck with me is: > The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous fail

The part that stuck with me is: > The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. I'm not an expert in structural engineering but simultaneous failure of every column seems like there is definitely some explaining to do. Also here is the direct link to the draft version of the report. http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-...

java-man 7y ago
yes, the explanation is long overdue. NIST did eventually admitted free fall acceleration: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  So how do they explain the free-fall? Doesn't free-fall mean that all structural support has vanished from below? Freefall means that the thing basically could not fall any faster -- unless something more than gravity was pushing it down from above? It did not fall any faster but it did not fall any slower either. And they admit that.
  - java-man 7y ago
    They did not explain, they tried hard to conceal this fact.
    - galaxyLogic 7y ago
      I see. I was googling it a bit and found this on wikipedia: "The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[7] and at the time, the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[8]" [FROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center] The phrasing "the first, at the time the only ..." seems to suggest that there have been other steel-skyscrapers which collapsed because of fire AFTER that. But as far as I can tell this wikipedia article does not name them.

java-man 7y ago

yes, the explanation is long overdue. NIST did eventually admitted free fall acceleration: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration

galaxyLogic 7y ago
So how do they explain the free-fall? Doesn't free-fall mean that all structural support has vanished from below? Freefall means that the thing basically could not fall any faster -- unless something more than gravity was pushing it down from above? It did not fall any faster but it did not fall any slower either. And they admit that.
- java-man 7y ago
  They did not explain, they tried hard to conceal this fact.
  - galaxyLogic 7y ago
    I see. I was googling it a bit and found this on wikipedia: "The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[7] and at the time, the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[8]" [FROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center] The phrasing "the first, at the time the only ..." seems to suggest that there have been other steel-skyscrapers which collapsed because of fire AFTER that. But as far as I can tell this wikipedia article does not name them.