Okay, it took me five minutes to look up the initial NIST study from 2005 and 2008 on WTC 7. (This is how 7 World Trade Center is listed on investigatory documents. It is not Building 7 as the video asserts.)

It took me another five minutes to find the official website of these "University of Alaska Engineers" on their four year study:

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

First, we learn that the entire study was funded by the people who posted the youtube video:

Funding

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Project Budget: $316,153

Second, we learn that this team consists of two professors and a student. That's it.

Lead Researcher(s)

    J. Leroy Hulsey

Project Team

    Feng Xiao, Associate Professor, Nanjing University of Science and Technology
    Zhili Quan, Bridge Engineer, South Carolina Department of Transportation

Third, this appears to be a difference in semantics rather than revealing the government lying in any way over this building.

The 2008 NIST study stated the following in their abstract:

This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7;

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610

The Alaskan Engineers funded by AE911TRUTH.ORG state the following on their own website:

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 and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. 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.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Now if you "want to believe", I suppose you can read endless conspiracies into the final paragraph there.

For a layman such as myself, I have no problem assuming that the collapse of two towering skyscrapers next to this little WTC 7 47-story building was enough of a shock to cause its collapse. Hawaiigar, If you were to have stood between the WTC and WTC 7 as the twin towers were collapsing, would you be having a good day? How hard is this, really? Where is the comprehension problem? Twin towers collapsing next to WTC 7, WTC 7 has some problems in the hours thereafter. Anyone could have said that, and quibbling about how WTC 7 came down is pointless. WTC 7 came down because Al-Qaeda terrorists succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in completely bringing down the twin towers. Collateral damage is exactly as anyone would have expected.

The fact that 911 truthers have to resort to picking at surrounding buildings for conspiracy clues shows the desperation this movement has after 18 years of 100% failure to prove anything, indict anyone, convict anyone, or imprison anyone for faking 911. Eighteen years of bullshit is still bullshit.

As the data points the Alaskan Engineers show, a tiny simulation of reality is no match for the real thing. Your handful of data points are a good guide, but will never match the reality of every piece of WTC 7 interacting with the rest of the structure, the nearby damage and shaking of the twin towers coming down.

In the same way, I believe that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were shocked that they managed to completely take down the twin towers. I believe they thought they would just be setting some fires on the structure, and the fact that they completely succeeded was the death knell for Bin Laden and his organization. If they wanted to die for causing this, we were happy to oblige. And so they were dealt with in various ways. I think most Americans are satisfied with this, and after 18 years, the 911 truthers have failed in their mission to prove otherwise.

On a lighter note, Hawaiigar, I will share one of my favorite fusion instrumentals, Tower 7 by Thievery Corporation:



 

Last edited by Ogami (9/05/2019 3:50 am)

All that typing for nothing.

It only took me 10 or so minutes to completely debunk that 1 minute 20 second video, Hawaiigar.

I'm saddened that none of the other people posting on your duplicate thread came to look at this one here. The NIST study, the University of Alaska engineer's website, it's all here.

I am puzzled by why if "ae911truth.org" paid for all of this, why their video was so empty of information.

For example, consider the man's voice we hear at the end of the clip. He is either 1) an eyewitness to WTC 7 coming down in a uniform manner 2) the reporter at the news station commenting on it as it comes down or 3) someone who wasn't there giving his opinion on how it "looks", months or years later.

You'd think if "Ae911truth.org" spent $316,153 of their donors hard-earned money on this study, they could have done better than that crappy video.

You fail to see that those at NIST are backed by the government.

You just contradicted Cydoniaquest, who argued quite vehemently that NO ONE is claiming the federal government did a controlled det on WTC 7.

"You fail to see". Think over what you just said there. All I did was quote their report, dude. I quoted their report because these Alaskan professors just spent four years of their life specifically refuting the 2008 NIST report. I'm not contending anything, I just posted some basic information from both websites to understand the issue. NIST said one thing, these professors say otherwise after their own computer modeling shows a different result.

I just wanted to educate myself on the topic, and I've posted the links for others to see. Instead of praising me for adding to your initial post, you're taking it personally. I helped YOU out, dude. Now people can read more of what the original NIST report said, and what the professors' own website says! Shit. If you're really after the truth, you should be happy to see more information than that video you posted.

And for the umpteenth time, a 5 year old would understand that if office fires did bring down the structure, it would have fallen in a haphazardly fashion, not perfectly straight down on it's own footprint and with virtually no resistance.

I don't think anyone in the NIST report disagrees with you, "ae911truth.org", or the Alaskan professors. They wasted their money, their time, and your time on arguing something that no one on the entire planet cares about. The reason is what they open the NIST abstract with: debris from the collapsing twin towers struck WTC 7. Regardless of what you consider happened next, debris hit WTC 7, and it fell down the same day. No one but these two old farts and their student at the University of Alaska cares about it any further, hawaiigar. Sorry, but that's the truth. Two skyscrapers came down and came down hard, and WTC 7 was too close to survive after that happened.

As a separate topic, Cydoniaquest was quite clear that they did not believe the federal government collapsed WTC 7's internal supports. I don't know how one can be that certain one way or the other, but if you also believe the same, perhaps you could enlighten us who you believe brought down WTC 7. It sure as heck isn't stated in the 1:20 video you start this thread with!

Deny all you want but not being afraid of ugly truths does not make you any less of an American.

Um, I haven't denied anything, dude. I looked up whatever the heck these Alaskans were complaining about, posted a bit of their Abstract from the NIST report, posted a bit from the engineers website, and there it is.

Why are you making this about me? I've posted a lot more information from the engineers in question than your video did. Please look at the two websites and tell us what's going on that we're missing.

 

Here's a really simple way that even a child can understand the problem. A building is constructed similar to this bar stool. 
 The legs in this case, would be analogous to the columns of a building. 

The horizontal components would be analogous to the beams tying the columns together in a strong box structure to prevent lateral movement of the columns and keep them aligned. On a smaller architectural scale, this form of construction is called post and beam construction. 

The posts or columns carry the gravity loads of the building and are what keeps the building standing... The beams tie the columns together.... So, if you look at the seat portion of this bar stool, that would be like the roof structure of the building... 

Now, how would we get that seat, by itself to fall to the ground at freefall acceleration? Only one way to do that...You've got to remove the legs...(columns) structures.....

If you were to suddenly make the legs of this stool disappear, the seat portion representing the roof, would fall to the ground at free fall... The physics are very straight forward here. 

The ONLY way you're going to get building 7 roof (along with the rest of the building) to collapse at free fall acceleration is to remove the support structures.....the columns....and you have to remove them simultaneously to get an even collapse....

So, working the problem backwards, identifying cause, by observing the end effect, we can clearly see what had to happen for the collapse to occur as it did.....The columns had to be explosively removed all at the same time, as you would rig to occur in a controlled demolition.

This was a controlled demolition....No question about it...The experts specializing in controlled demolition have identified it as such... This expert found out the hard way what happens when you tell the truth about 9-11....You end up dead...




 

Last edited by Cydoniaquest (9/06/2019 2:27 am)

Do you see that the columns must be removed first?

Um, you're trying to convince me of something I never argued against.

I just posted links and quotes from the two websites of the people involved, NIST and the University of Alaska Engineers whose study was entirely funded by "ae911truth.org".

I have no more idea of what happened than if you told me that Ivanka Trump was down in the basement of WTC 7 with a jackhammer taking out the internal supports.

You might laugh at the above sentence, but that's still more than you, Hawaiigar, or anyone else has told the rest of us who did this removal of the columns of WTC 7. So who did it? Rosie O'Donnell? The crew from Fast & Furious? Albinos against concrete rebar? Give us something. I'm willing to entertain suggestions of who did this and why.

Haven't gotten squat from you yet on that account.
 

Going backwards to your previous post (two posts in a row, so convincing!)

I don't believe I made any such argument...You may have misconstrued the point I was actually responding to on the other board. I'm not sure.  The only argument I've presented so far is from a purely physical point of view....Analysis of the physics.

On the other board, you said I was wrong in assuming that if the internal supports of WTC 7 were removed, that the contention of the Alaskan Engineers and "ae911truth.org" was that the federal government staged this for some nefarious purpose.

As a matter of physics, I have not argued against a single damn thing you've posted on whether the building fell due to fire, whether it fell due to the removal of internal supports. We are not arguing any of that because I haven't argued, contested, differed, or reasoned against a single damn physics argument you've made.

Let's assume you've sold me. You and gar seem to think I'm defending the merits of the NIST report. I just posted the abstract of their report and a link to read their resources further. Not the same thing as you needing to argue any of the physics with me. Duh! I'm asking who removed those internal supports, which is the sole focus of "ae911truth.org" and the University of Alaska engineers who wasted 4 years of their lives proving something no one else was asking about.

Who did this to WTC 7? And Why?

 

Last edited by Ogami (9/06/2019 3:47 am)

NASA said asteroid would not hit earth. Then it crashed into the Caribbean. All previous building 7 theories are hereby canceled. It was smacked flat by an asteroid with incredibly bad timing.

Cys analogy below is deficient in several respects, 

the legs are not steel

Yes, steel is stronger, not susceptible to fire as wood is.

there is no large fire under the stool

There was no large fire under the buildings.

the legs of the stool are not loaded to near their maximum compressive load

Neither was the building because the entirety of the building is analogous to the stool. The building IS the stool, in this analogy. It's not like we're setting some weight on top of the building. The columns of the building all the way to the roof are compared to the legs of the stool reaching all the way to the seat.

the legs have not been weakened  by a massive impact

The columns beneath the damage section had not been weakened by massive impact either. Those columns beneath the impact zone were capable of carrying the same loads they ALWAYS carry