WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model?

Joe Hill

Member
It was a key factor in the NIST collapse scenario - but it did not happen. Without the walk-off of A2001, the collapse does not happen. Therefore, the NIST report does not explain the destruction of WTC 7.

The video simulation has the collapse happening but it uses an impossible extreme sagging of A2001 to trigger the collapse.
Assuming you are correct, that A2001 had to fail in order for Building 7 to collapse, you have limited the possible failure to "walk-off" at column 79, and "extreme sagging", both of which you claim "impossible". Your premise is invalid due to limited choices. There is another end to A2001, the perimeter wall connection, which could have failed.
 
Without the walk-off of A2001, the collapse does not happen.
What are you basing that on? NIST does not say that, and their simulation does not say that.
NIST does, in effect, say that with this quote. And they offer no other possibility.
The simple shear connection between Column 79 and the girder that spanned the distance to the north face (to Column 44) failed on Floor 13. The connection failed due to shearing of erection bolts, caused by lateral thermal expansion of floor beams supporting the northeast floor system and, to a lesser extent, by the thermal expansion of the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44. Further thermal expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder off its seat, which led to the failure of the floor system surrounding Column 79 on Floor 13. The collapse of Floor 13 onto the floors below—some of which were already weakened by fires—triggered a cascade of floor failures in the northeast region. This, in turn, led to loss of lateral support to Column 79 in the east-west direction over nine stories (between Floors 5 and 14). The increase in unsupported length led to the buckling failure of Column 79, which was the collapse initiation event. NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p. 611 [PDF p. 273/677]
Without the failure of A2001 on the 13th floor, column 79 would still have support in the east-west direction and it would not have buckled. The walk-off of A2001 is the crux of the NIST hypothesis. If it doesn't happen, the rest of the collapse doesn't happen. It doesn't happen in the video because it is impossible for thermal expansion to push the A2001 girder off of its seat. The video shows that it doesn't which disproves the NIST hypothesis. What it does show is a fraudulent depiction of A2001 sagging far more than it would at 400 °C. (or even 600 °C )
 
Assuming you are correct, that A2001 had to fail in order for Building 7 to collapse,
For the NIST hypothesis to be correct, A2001 had to be pushed off of its seat at column 79. If that doesn't happen, the NIST hypothesis is invalid.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For the NIST hypothesis to be correct, A2001 had to be pushed off of its seat at column 79. If that doesn't happen, the NIST hypothesis is invalid.
And yet the star of the show here is a simulation from NIST in which A2001 is NOT pushed from its seat, and yet the building still collapses.
 
And yet the star of the show here is a simulation from NIST in which A2001 is NOT pushed from its seat, and yet the building still collapses.
"The star of the show" refutes the NIST hypothesis. Therefore, the NIST hypothesis is not valid.

The video simulation has the building collapsing by using a fraudulent sagging of A2001. It refutes itself with that fraud.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Those who claim geometry prevents the girder from moving past a plate on the column are treating the girder as an undistorted section. It likely was not and may have been sagging, and twisted which would change the geometry of the end condition, Further the entire north face kinked at the approximate location of the girder in question which indicated the geometry at that location went kittywhampus. Heat was distorting the frame apparently.
 
I think you miss the point.
No, the point I am making is:
Either the simulation is correct and the A2001 girder was not pushed off of its seat which means the NIST hypothesis is wrong.
or
The NIST hypothesis is correct and the simulation is wrong.

You can't have it both ways.

A third option is: They're both wrong and none of this happened.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member
No, the point I am making is:
Either the simulation is correct and the A2001 girder was not pushed off of its seat which means the NIST hypothesis is wrong.
or
The NIST hypothesis is correct and the simulation is wrong.

You can't have it both ways.

A third option is: They're both wrong and none of this happened.
Considering how focused you are on this one detail of a "probable collapse sequence", I can totally believe you believe AE911 is justified focusing on A2001.
But was NIST justified focusing on A2001?
 
Considering how focused you are on this one detail of a "probable collapse sequence", I can totally believe you believe AE911 is justified focusing on A2001.
But was NIST justified focusing on A2001?
I don't believe that any of this happened so there is no justification for any of it. But justified or not, NIST did focus on A2001 to get their hypothesis to work. In the NIST hypothesis, the walk-off of A2001 is the trigger that started the total collapse. Without that triggering event, their collapse never starts. So it is definitely a 'key' factor in the NIST collapse scenario.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't believe that any of this happened so there is no justification for any of it. But justified or not, NIST did focus on A2001 to get their hypothesis to work. In the NIST hypothesis, the walk-off of A2001 is the trigger that started the total collapse. Without that triggering event, their collapse never starts. So it is definitely a 'key' factor in the NIST collapse scenario.
You keep going round and round in circles. Yes, we can safely say that if A2001 did not walk off, then any hypothesis that relies upon that walk-off is false.

But the months of computer simulations that NIST did gave a result, which they shared with the world and put in their final report, in which A2001 did NOT walk off. So A2001 not walking off does not invalidate that result.

They also gave a narrative in which A2001 DID walk off. Why they did this is a puzzle, but it does not invalidate the simulation results, and it likely based on a different simulation that for some reason they did not have visualizations of.

AE911 really really want everyone to think that the only possible way the building could collapse is from the walk-off. But that's not what NIST's report shows. It quite clearly shows a collapse without the walk-off. They don't show a collapse with the walk-off, but they do talk about one.

So, AE911's (and Hulsey's, and NIST's) focus on A2001 is not justified. Regardless of the walk-off, the building collapses.
 
Yes, we can safely say that if A2001 did not walk off, then any hypothesis that relies upon that walk-off is false.
Correct. If A2001 did not walk off, then the NIST hypothesis, which relies upon that walk-off, is false. You cannot claim that the NIST hypothesis is anything other than what they said it is.
But the months of computer simulations that NIST did gave a result, which they shared with the world and put in their final report, in which A2001 did NOT walk off. So A2001 not walking off does not invalidate that result.
NIST did not put the simulation in their final report, they released it at the same time they stated in their final report that the collapse was triggered by the walk-off of A2001.
They also gave a narrative in which A2001 DID walk off. Why they did this is a puzzle,
That is not a puzzle. They stated clearly and unequivocally that the walk-off of A2001 was the trigger that started the collapse. And they went into great detail as to how the floor beams pushed the A2001 girder off of its seat.
but it does not invalidate the simulation results,
Either the NIST narrative invalidates the simulation or the simulation invalidates the NIST walk-off hypothesis.
and it likely based on a different simulation that for some reason they did not have visualizations of.
Hogwash! There was no other simulation. You are making stuff up to justify your denial that the NIST hypothesis is based on the A2001 girder walk-off.
AE911 really really want everyone to think that the only possible way the building could collapse is from the walk-off.
AE911Truth has presented conclusive proof of controlled demolition. i.e. none of this happened.
But that's not what NIST's report shows.
It is what the NIST final report says. The video is not the NIST report. It accompanies the NIST report, The report is the 1000+ page written document.
It quite clearly shows a collapse without the walk-off.
Yes, the simulation shows the A2001 girder failing because it is sagging far more than it possibly could, That is fraudulent.
They don't show a collapse with the walk-off, but they do talk about one.
And therein lies the rub. Both cannot be true. Therefore, one is false. Take your pick but you can't have it both ways.
So, AE911's (and Hulsey's, and NIST's) focus on A2001 is not justified. Regardless of the walk-off, the building collapses.
Of course. Everyone, including NIST, has it wrong, but you have it right.
However, if you are right and NIST has it wrong, then their report is invalid.
 
P.S. The simulation shows the A2001 girder sagging several feet, which is impossible at 400 °C or even 600 °C. But the floor beams are not sagging at all, which is also impossible if the girder is sagging that much. The simulation is clearly fraudulent.
1580098996810.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
NIST did not put the simulation in their final report, they released it at the same time they stated in their final report that the collapse was triggered by the walk-off of A2001.
No, it's in there. There are renderings taken from the non-walk-off simulation.
Metabunk 2020-01-26 21-41-59.jpg

Hogwash! There was no other simulation. You are making stuff up to justify your denial that the NIST hypothesis is based on the A2001 girder walk-off.
How did they figure it out without doing a new simulation?
 

Joe Hill

Member
For the NIST hypothesis to be correct, A2001 had to be pushed off of its seat at column 79. If that doesn't happen, the NIST hypothesis is invalid.
You ignored my question about the other end of A2001; the perimeter wall connection. "Walk-off" at column 79 isn't the only possible scenario for A2001 to fail.
But let's assume NIST got it all wrong. What they postulated didn't happen. Therefore________________; what?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There are renderings taken from the non-walk-off simulation.
Specifically, figure 2-2
Metabunk 2020-01-26 22-09-57.jpg

This is from the non-walk-off simulation.

Also Figures 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13 and 3-14 are taken from the non-walk-off simulation. Metabunk 2020-01-26 22-16-58.jpg
Metabunk 2020-01-26 22-16-32.jpg


Metabunk 2020-01-26 22-17-23.jpg
 
Last edited:
NIST did not put the simulation in their final report, they released it at the same time they stated in their final report that the collapse was triggered by the walk-off of A2001.
No, it's in there. There are renderings taken from the non-walk-off simulation.
Specifically, figure 2-2
You are right. My bad.
Here is Figure 2-2 with the text above it describing what it supposedly shows - the NIST walk-off scenario.
1580112333979.png
Either the simulation is not showing the walk-off properly due the the limitations of the simulation program
or
NIST is lying about the walk-off of A2001 at column 79.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
You cannot claim that the NIST hypothesis is anything other than what they said it is.
watch yourself. this is paraphrasing. Mick said no such thing.

That is not a puzzle. They stated clearly and unequivocally that the walk-off of A2001 was the trigger that started the collapse. And they went into great detail as to how the floor beams pushed the A2001 girder off of its seat.
this response proves you are not taking time to thoughtfully READ what you are responding to. Your answer does not answer WHY (they did this).

You are making stuff up to justify your denial that the NIST hypothesis is based on the A2001 girder walk-off.
This again is paraphrasing. Mick has never denied NISTS "probable cause of collapse" includes the walk off.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
AE911Truth has presented conclusive proof of controlled demolition. i.e. none of this happened.
you said this responding to..
AE911 really really want everyone to think that the only possible way the building could collapse is from the walk-off.
i'm putting this quote in its own comment box, so it is highlighted. because... wow.
Your faith in NIST's "probable cause" is mind boggling. Did you even read the NIST report? They were very clear about all the limitations of their study.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Either the simulation is not showing the walk-off properly due the the limitations of the simulation program
or
NIST is lying about the walk-off of A2001 at column 79.
This is a false dichotomy. I think the more likely explanation is what we discussed two years ago. They had two different sets of damage results that were both attributed to 4.0 hours of Case B temperatures. One of which is shown in the draft report (no walk-off) and one of which is shown in the final report (walk-off). The images were manually edited to include this data. Of course, they could not manually edit the multiple simulation videos.

It would be great if NIST would explain this, and it certainly dilutes the quality of the report. But having two simulations, BOTH of which lead to collapse does not mean that collapse is impossible.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
It would be great if NIST would explain this,
my guess is they just didn't want to tweak it and run it again, because didn't it take like 8 months to render the one simulation we see? and does it really matter if the support was lost due to a walk off or just the beam sag?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
my guess is they just didn't want to tweak it and run it again, because didn't it take like 8 months to render the one simulation we see? and does it really matter if the support was lost due to a walk off or just the beam sag?
I think they had a much more comprehensive set of runs from the initial simulation and had already written up the report based largely on that. But then they discovered the walk-off in a more limited investigation, and for some reason decided to use that. Rember their brief was to find why the building collapsed so they could learn from it and make future buildings safer. They discovered the significant effects of thermal expansions, and how it could lead to progressive collapse. So they led with that, even though it meant putting out a somewhat messy mixed report.

AE911 treat the report as if the entire thing if focussed around the walk-off. Hence the exchange with Tony at the start of this thread.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
I think they had a much more comprehensive set of runs from the initial simulation and had already written up the report based largely on that. But then they discovered the walk-off in a more limited investigation, and for some reason decided to use that.
that's what I said :) or what I meant anyway.
 
They also gave a narrative in which A2001 DID walk off. Why they did this is a puzzle,
That is not a puzzle. They stated clearly and unequivocally that the walk-off of A2001 was the trigger that started the collapse. And they went into great detail as to how the floor beams pushed the A2001 girder off of its seat.
this response proves you are not taking time to thoughtfully READ what you are responding to. Your answer does not answer WHY (they did this).
I was responding to MIck's saying "Why they did this is a puzzle". I did answer 'why' they did this. It is perfectly clear why they 'did this'. It's their scenario.

and it likely based on a different simulation that for some reason they did not have visualizations of.
Hogwash! There was no other simulation. You are making stuff up to justify your denial that the NIST hypothesis is based on the A2001 girder walk-off.
This again is paraphrasing. Mick has never denied NISTS "probable cause of collapse" includes the walk off.
That is what this thread is all about. Mick is saying that in their final analysis (the video simulation) the NIST hypothesis is one where the girder does not walk-off. He thought it was a puzzle why they "gave a narrative in which A2001 DID walk off" and said that statement was likely based on a different simulation that for some reason they did not have visualizations of.
 
Last edited:
I think they had a much more comprehensive set of runs from the initial simulation and had already written up the report based largely on that. But then they discovered the walk-off in a more limited investigation, and for some reason decided to use that. Rember their brief was to find why the building collapsed so they could learn from it and make future buildings safer. They discovered the significant effects of thermal expansions, and how it could lead to progressive collapse. So they led with that, even though it meant putting out a somewhat messy mixed report.
That's a lot of supposition. But in the end, it's just a sugar coated way of saying that NIST lied about walk-off being the trigger that started the collapse.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was responding to MIck's saying "Why they did this is a puzzle". I did answer 'why' they did this. It is perfectly clear why they 'did this'. It's their scenario.
Why they did what? "It's their scenario."

I was wondering why they have two different results in the report. Why do they sometimes talk about a walk-off, but don't actually show any global simulations that involve a walk-off.

And again, having two simulations, BOTH of which lead to collapse, does not mean that collapse is impossible.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's a lot of supposition. But in the end, it's just a sugar coated way of saying that NIST lied about walk-off being the trigger that started the collapse.
How do you figure? I mean what's the actual logic steps that lead to this conclusion?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
No, the point I am making is:
Either the simulation is correct and the A2001 girder was not pushed off of its seat which means the NIST hypothesis is wrong.
Which means the NIST triggered-by-walk-off hypothesis would be wrong - but collapse ensues regardless

or
The NIST hypothesis is correct and the simulation is wrong.

You can't have it both ways.
Right - and collapse ensues

A third option is: They're both wrong and none of this happened.
But collapse still ensued, with fire as root cause being the obvious null hypothesis

In short: NIST could be right for the right reasons, or right for the wrong reasons, or wrong altogether - and still fire most likely was the cause of global collapse.

Focus on girder A2001 does not help make a determination whether or not fire caused the total collapse. because collapse ensues either way from fire damage.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
What it does show is a fraudulent depiction of A2001 sagging far more than it would at 400 °C. (or even 600 °C )
Hulsey's depictions show things that are physically impossible.

Have you accused him of fraud yet? Why not?

You claim that NIST "lied" and their depictions are "fraudulent". Those terms imply an intention to deceive and (in the case of fraud) reek a profit from the deceit.
How are you going to prove that intention?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I think one very possible reason why the global collapse animation does not show walk-off is simply that NIST's process did not allow it to as a technical matter.

As we should all know by now, NIST used the local model to figure out approximately when enough damage would have accumulated to cause column 79 to buckle. That damage was cumulatively generated in the local model as traveling fires were painstakingly simulated moving across 16 floors. Once the enough damage had occurred to cause column 79 to buckle in that local model (where NIST claims to have observed the walk off), NIST input all of the cumulative damage into its global model, but, importantly, it did not input the exact failure sequence that led to such damage. The result is that the global model starts up with a rather chaotic series of events as failed elements fail in a truncated period and thus in a manner different from that seen in the local model.

Given what NIST has said about its global model runs taking months to render on their workstation clusters (with such simulations actually covering only seconds of WTC7's response in real world time), it would make sense that that it was computationally impracticable for NIST to import into the global model a failure scenario as complex as that which was witnessed to take place over several hours of real world time in the local model.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter in context. NIST claims its local model demonstrated that fire could cause column 79 to buckle, and ARUP and Weidlinger have independently confirmed that. That NIST's global model starts from a slightly different buckling scenario than where NIST's local model left off doesn't seem likely to have materially changed the outcome of the building collapsing in NIST's scenario.

Hulsey, meanwhile, claims to have ruled out the NIST scenario but neither he nor AE911Truth tested whether a fire progression and the full array of fires witnessed on the lower floors of the building, each of which NIST modeled, would change their respective analyses. They thus cannot honestly or logically say that their analyses ruled out the NIST scenario of walk off. They didn't test it with proper controls. @Christopher 7's argument cannot avoid this logical chasm at its heart.

(It's also questionable whether Hulsey properly modeled any connection failure criteria at all in his local model and we know he did not do any modeling to rule out the Weidlinger or ARUP results, but we can keep those points on the side for now.)
 
Last edited:
I was wondering why they have two different results in the report. Why do they sometimes talk about a walk-off, but don't actually show any global simulations that involve a walk-off.
Sometimes? That's the only scenario they talk about. It doesn't show that in the simulation because it's impossible as I just pointed out in a post that you deleted because of speculation. I posted the 3 reasons why walk-off is impossible in post #102 which was not deleted. They are established facts, not speculation.
BTW: Your post #143 is speculation.

[..misrepresenting other member]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sometimes? That's the only scenario they talk about.
But they sometimes don't talk about it. For example in the Final Report (1A) right at the start, in the Executive Summary, they say:
Don't you think if they had found a more precise initiating event they would have included it in the executive summary? Instead the walk-off hypothesis is mentioned only once in section 2.4:
The focus is on column 79 buckling. That's the initial local failure. They include a probable collapse sequence, but they don't claim this is the only way it could have happened, nor do they give any degree of confidence beyond the rather vague "likely" and "probable".

Then in chapter 3, they state more clearly what their actual hypothesis was:

Again in chapter 4: Principal Findings:
Could the NIST report be better? Yes. Is there going to be another investigation because of this? No.
 
That's a lot of supposition. But in the end, it's just a sugar coated way of saying that NIST lied about walk-off being the trigger that started the collapse
How do you figure? I mean what's the actual logic steps that lead to this conclusion?
I have given the logical steps that prove NIST is lying about the walk-off of A2001.
These are established facts, not speculation.
1. The floor beams could not expand enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat.
Also:
At 400 °C, the floor beams would have expanded 3.3 inches, nowhere near enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat.

1580164948307.png

2. Even if thermal expansion of the floor beams could push the A2001 girder far enough to cause it to walk off of its seat, it would have been trapped by the side plate on column 79, preventing the floor beams from pushing the A2001 girder any further.
Also:
Figure 8-26 shows the girder being trapped by the side plate on column 79.
3. The web stiffeners, that NIST fraudulently omitted, would have prevented the bottom flange from folding, even if the floor beams could push the A2001 girder past its web.
Also:
1580169310922.png
1580169344884.png
1580169373985.png
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Even if thermal expansion of the floor beams could push the A2001 girder far enough to cause it to walk off of its seat,
even if?

but you just said
1. The floor beams could not expand enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat.
if you think you've proven something with #1, why do you need to keep adding 2 and 3? it makes you sound like you aren't sure about #1.
are you sure about #1 or not?

(even though none of this proves NIST was lying. mistakes are not lying.)
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
@Christopher 7—in the NIST scenario, column 79 was being pushed to the west when A2001 walked off in NIST’s local model. This was because the girder to the east of that column was expanding as the fire moved eastward. But Hulsey didn’t model any of that heating scenario, so how can you say walk-off wouldn’t have occurred in his model if he did? It takes two to tango, and A2001 is only one side of the connection in question.

Also, in the NIST model, cumulative local failures were modeled, which would have affected the locations and resistance to movement of both column 79 and A2001. Hulsey not only failed to model the heating pattern that led to such cumulative failures, he failed to model any such failures at all. So how do you know that he would have reached the same conclusion if his model had been improved by taking such critical details into account?

EDIT: Just realized I reversed the applicable cardinal directions in my head when typing out the above. In NIST's local model, the fire was moving west and heating the area to the west of column 79 and A2001 when A2001 and column 79 failed. Same point, opposite directions.
 
Last edited:
@Christopher 7—in the NIST scenario, column 79 was being pushed to the west when A2001 walked off in NIST’s local model. This was because the girder to the east of that column was expanding as the fire moved eastward. But Hulsey didn’t model any of that heating scenario, so how can you say walk-off wouldn’t have occurred in his model if he did? It takes two to tango, and A2001 is only one side of the connection in question.
ETA: If the girder to the east of column 79 was expanding, the slab would be expanding with it. And together they would push everything to the east. So there would be no net increase of the displacement of the A2001 girder.

Hulsey used NIST's fire analysis to make the point that even using NIST's fire analysis, the floor beams to the east of column 79 could not expand enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat. And as I pointed out. NIST said that the walk-off occurred at 400 °C but the floor girders would only exp[and 3.3 inches at 400 °C. The floor beams could not have expanded enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat.
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
ETA: If the girder to the east of column 79 was expanding, the slab would be expanding with it. And together they would push everything to the east. So there would be no net increase of the displacement of the A2001 girder.

Hulsey used NIST's fire analysis to make the point that even using NIST's fire analysis, the floor beams to the east of column 79 could not expand enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat. And as I pointed out. NIST said that the walk-off occurred at 400 °C but the floor girders would only exp[and 3.3 inches at 400 °C. The floor beams could not have expanded enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat.
Please show where in Hulsey’s analysis he conclusively proved that the concrete deck and floor elements always move together in every direction uniformly, regardless of differences in local heating, and that differential heating of local systems would not, in fact, distort those systems differently as the NIST report clearly demonstrated in its simulation that actually properly heated localities differently, as was the case in the real life. I think you are making a wild claim that you cannot support. Hulsey doesn’t even try to prove such a ridiculous assertion.

You also didn’t respond re how Hulsey failed to model any connection failures.

Also, your point about the local floor system being 400 degrees C at the time column 79 failed in NIST’s model just unwittingly demonstrates how off base Hulsey’s model is RE it’s temperature application. In the NIST model, the area around A2001 was cooling when column 79 failed. The area to the west of column 79, meanwhile, was heating up. Hulsey failed to model this dynamic and compounded this obvious error by also taking the then-cooling temperatures of the area around column 79 and treating them as if they were the max temperatures for the whole system. Such sloppy work not only doesn’t make sense on its face, it definitely does not in any way disprove what NIST found in its much more precise model.
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
x

That is axiomatic because the beams and slabs are composite.
Please cite exactly where Hulsey or anyone else has shown that composite floor systems all move uniformly when subjected to differentiated heating patterns (as in the NIST model and reality) or even when subjected to an unrealistic, oven-like uniform heating pattern (as in Hulsey’s model). (Also, if that were the case, ponder how it could be consistent with Hulsey finding that A2001 could be moved relative to column 79 at all.)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave 9/11 65
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire 9/11 43
Mick West Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX] 9/11 12
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 127
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Cube Radio Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed? 9/11 75
jaydeehess Why little to no analysis of steel from WTC7? 9/11 45
Ron J WTC7 Firefighting 9/11 48
gerrycan WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference? 9/11 52
Cairenn The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11 9/11 429
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Representative Press Significance of WTC7 9/11 36
ColtCabana FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7 9/11 135
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Alchemist How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did? 9/11 319
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site. 9/11 60
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Tazmanian Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7 9/11 79
Oxymoron WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough? 9/11 340
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top