Possible problems with the UAF WTC 7 collapse study

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) commissioned the Institute of Northern Engineering at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF), to preform a study in order to determine the real reason for the global collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 11 September, 2001. The four year study was completed in December of 2019 at a cost of $316,153. AE911 didn't agree with the findings of the NIST study which concluded that the collapse of building 7 was due primarily to fire and thermal expansion of key structural steel beams.

During the terrorist attack upon the United States on 9/11, brought to us with the assistance of the Israeli Mossad, the Saudis, the CIA and other actors, a plane was flown into each of the iconic twin towers in Manhattan, both of which collapsed shortly thereafter. Many people are not aware however that a third building, World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7), also collapsed that day and did so in a way that appeared virtually identical to a controlled demolition, both to the untrained eye and demolition experts alike.

Video title: (HD) Building 7 Collapse / WTC7 Collapse / World Trade Center Building 7

Anyone who has investigated the events of 9/11 beyond the untenable conspiracy theory proposed by the U.S. government and its mainstream media mouthpieces, knows very well that the fairy tails disseminated by these criminally corrupt institutions are largely garbage, plain and simple, and this has prompted a plethora of internet sleuths, collectively known as the 9/11 truth movement, to perform their own investigation. Unfortunately many internet researchers suffer from handicapped analytical abilities and confirmation bias however. While many are intimately aware that it is often bullshit that spills out whenever the mainstream media or the government opens its mouth, they make the mistake of assuming that everything the government and media says is a lie.

Such lies, disinformation and misinformation rightfully prompt the curious to look elsewhere for the truth, which is understandable and commendable, except they too often look to the wrong places and people, such as Alex Jones, Judy Wood, Albert Stubblebine, Jesse Ventura and the Loose Change loonies, and then spread this sensationalist, untenable crap all over social media without ever bothering to vet it. Their cognitive bias seems to be largely based on the principle that as long as the information contradicts the official narrative, then it is more likely to be factual and therefore no further investigative effort need be expended. Suddenly the ludicrous becomes evidence and proof in their minds as well as the minds of their followers and this has crippled the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement in the eyes of much of the public.

For example, Dr. Judy Wood tells us that the planes the world and first-hand witnesses saw, heard, felt and tracked flying into the twin towers, and the parts thereof that were recovered, didn't exist at all and that it was a "Hutchison effect" energy space beam weapon that "vaporized" the buildings.

Alex "Bullhorn" Jones, the fear-mongering Zionist bullshit artist he is, readily blasts over the airwaves any ridiculous nonsense that entertains his cult-like audience as long as it sells more of whatever it is he's selling and it generates more clicks and "likes". Israel's involvement in the attack is never seriously considered. Promoting the nonsense that nobody died at Sandy Hook is quality investigative journalism in his warped mind, but discussing the well documented Israeli/Mossad connection to the 9/11 attacks is taboo. Alex Jones is largely responsible for the damage done to serious 9/11 research, but he isn't the only one.

Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas and Matthew Brown, the four dingbats who produced the fact deficient Loose Change series of cartoons on the subject at hand which they call documentaries, are also responsible. These videos have been viewed by many millions of people. Unfortunately for the film makers, many of the most crucial points they made regarding 9/11 have been proven to be false by serious researchers whose content is far less popular and so the damage these clowns have done remains.

Jim "crisis actor" Fetzer, the ego-laden PhD possessing moron who was sued by the families of the Sandy Hook mass shooting because he insists the event was staged by crises actors and therefore "nobody died at Sandy Hook", also tells us that the planes that hit the towers were actually holograms and that mini-nukes were used to "vaporize" the core steel framing.

There is no shortage of lunatics proposing fantasies regarding the attacks, including Gorden Duff, the senior editor of Veterans Today, Jesse Ventura, Abby Martin, and even James Corbett to an extent, a guy i have a great deal of respect for but who doesn't always get it right (none of us do).

Much of the information and evidence provided by those mentioned is easily debunked and tossed in the stupid bin where it belongs, however organizations like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) are viewed by the public as deserving of more credibility because they are professionals in structural engineering. The problem is that AE911, headed by architect Richard Gage, has made mammoth blunders that seriously jeopardize that credibility.

One of these blunders occurred when Gage attached himself to the "no planers" crowd who insist that a plane could not have caused the damage inflicted upon the Pentagon, one reason being that it could not have have penetrated six reinforced concrete walls of the rings and leave a hole on the other side. Gage promoted this theory for years. The problem is that Gage, an architect of some 30 years, apparently never bothered to look at the architecture of the building. Had he done so he might have realized that the section of ground floor where the plane penetrated had two exterior walls, not six.

The ringed portion of the Pentagon sits on top of the ground floor, labeled as "general offices" in the image below.

The point is that no one is infallible, regardless of their field of study field, not even veteran professionals with college degrees. No researcher should ever blindly depend on information from a sole source without vetting it regardless of the source. That Richard Gage promoted such a grossly incorrect theory for years is nearly beyond comprehension. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that there were lots of plane parts recovered from both inside and outside of the Pentagon and that the DNA for nearly every passenger was accounted for and the location of their remains mapped.

The obvious nail in the coffin in the "no plane" theory doesn't require anything as complex as analyzing debris and documents and DNA and evidentiary chains of custody however. The simple fact is that many eye witnesses saw a plane flying very low and crashing into, or heading toward the Pentagon, and/or heard the explosion and/or saw the smoke rising and none of these witnesses saw the plane fly away. This however doesn't dissuade a large segment of the 9/11 truth movement who continue to ignore such blatantly obvious facts by simply shifting the goal post every time one of their claims is debunked. "A plane can't fit in a 30 ft. hole!" It didn't, it fit in a 75 ft. hole. "But there were no plane parts found!" But there were and here's the photographs. "But there were no bodies!" And on and on and on.

There are key facts that a portion of the 9/11 truther community go to extremes to ignore because they destroy their narrative. For example, the morons that made the Loose Change videos correctly point out that a 757 could not have fit through the 30 ft. hole in the Pentagon. This of course is true, but what they hide from their audience is the fact that the hole shown in their videos was a hole in the second floor of the building, not the approximately 75 foot hole in first floor where the bulk of the plane impacted.

Yes, there are potential problems with some of the Pentagon witnesses and yes, there are arguments regarding the precise flight path of Flight 77, and yes, we know for a fact that the government and mainstream media lie, but this does not mean that every aspect of the official story is always fabricated.

Until one can explain why Flight 77 headed toward the Pentagon and never went further, it is only logical (and sane) to conclude that it struck the building, the one with the huge 75+ ft. hole in it with smoke billowing out of it. Any alternative explanation that fails to account for this simple fact is not worth considering.

This brings us to WTC 7 and its collapse. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tells us that the global and nearly symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center building 7 was due largely to fire and thermal expansion, a new phenomena apparently. NIST's conclusion is admittedly easy to dismiss by virtually anyone who has seen what a controlled demolition looks like, but watching a video isn't proof that the building was brought down by intentional demolition, nor does it make one a demolition expert.

Many of the architects and engineers who have stated that the collapse of WTC 7 looks like, or was in fact a controlled demolition, did so without any previous knowledge of the building's collapse and immediately after having been shown a video of the collapse. In other words their reaction was impulsive. They had not yet read the NIST report nor had they any time to contemplate other possible scenarios before their opinions were solicited and plastered all over the web. Some of these architects had later changed their opinion but their names remained on the AE911 roster.

Again, we know there's serious problems with the official story. We know Larry Silverstein said "pull it". We know that several mainstream media outlets announced that WTC 7 collapsed before it actually collapsed. We know about the testimony of Barry Jennings. We know who the tenants of the building were. We have a good idea of what a controlled demolition looks like. In all this, there is certainly evidence to suggest that the collapse of building 7 was not simply due to fire and thermal expansion as NIST posits, but the misconception regarding the extent of the fire is where the embarrassment begins for the authors of the University of Alaska study.

As those who produced Loose Change did with the Pentagon, those promoting the demolition hypothesis for WTC 7 are also hiding and/or ignoring crucial evidence. Anyone who researches building 7 will undoubtedly come across many claims that the fires in the building were small and isolated and therefore could not have led to its collapse, however this claim is absurd.

When the twins fell, approximately 343 firefighters died as a result, leaving far fewer to combat other fires. Furthermore, there was a massive area of damage and chaos for emergency personnel to deal with and limited resources available with which to do so, including decreased or no water pressure in the vicinity of building 7 as a result of a fractured main. As such, the remaining firefighters never made a serious attempt, if any at all, to extinguish the blazes that raged throughout the building much of the day.

The fires which ignited as a result of debris from the north tower striking and severely damaging building 7, had been burning unabated for roughly eight hours prior to its collapse and were far more extensive than those promoting the demolition theory are willing to admit. As evidence to support their claims of small, isolated fires, they show us photographs of the north side of the structure, the side opposite of where the north tower (WTC 1) struck the building and opposite of where the fires started. Following is the south side of building 7, and no, this is not dust from the collapse of the twins.

Video title: 9/11 World Trade Center WTC 7 South Side Fires

Video title: WTC part1 clip26

A few more images are available on the 911 Myths website.

Inexplicably, the south side images are also absent from the UAF study which states that they ignored fire above floor 13. The report shows only the north side of building 7 and they downplay the extent and impact of the fires. The report states the following:

Furthermore, the probability that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the upper floors was caused by fires is virtually zero, since there were no documented fires above Floor 30, and the fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were of relatively short duration.

The above statement is false. In the following video smoke can be seen pouring from the upper floors of this 47 story building and what may be the light of a fire can be seen from the window of the second floor from the top. Several other bright areas which seem to be fires can be seen in this vicinity also.

Video title: WTC 7 part1 clip48

The UAF study concludes that the hypothesis presented by NIST and other studies is not possible:

Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse.

The problem with that statement is that the core columns did not fail simultaneously. Watching the video that the UAF used in their study, it can be seen that the left side of the penthouse on top of building 7 is the first part to collapse. Only after its collapse into the lower part of the structure does the rest of the penthouse collapse, followed by the remainder of the building.

Video title: Figure 4.24a Video of WTC 7 Collapse, Perspective 1 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report

Following is an enhanced version of the same video which makes it easier to see where windows are breaking as a probable result of the core columns collapsing.

Video title: Steven Bikofsky's WTC7 9/11 Footage (Enhanced Video/Audio & Doubled FPS)

Since the left/east side of the penthouse collapses first in the video, it would seem that the core columns under this section of the penthouse have given way while the columns supporting the remainder of the penthouse are still intact.

After the east side of the penthouse collapses there is a noticeable delay followed by the collapse of the remainder of it which indicates that the rest of the core columns have failed. The expelling of debris through the windows can be seen on the right/west side of the building at this time. While a delay during the collapse is not entirely inconsistent with a controlled demolition, i believe it constitutes a valid opposing argument.

The explanation given in the study for the delay between the collapsing of the sections of the penthouse, while still allowing for a near simultaneous collapse of all core columns, is that the east side of the penthouse fell into the building and then stopped falling as shown in the model labeled figure 42b.

Video title: Figure 4.24b Near-Simultaneous Failure of All Columns Persp. 2 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report

The problem with this hypothesis is that their model seems to contradict what we actually see in the earlier video where a pattern of debris shooting out of the windows below the eastern part of the penthouse can be seen cascading down the building well below where it stops falling in their model. This expelling of debris can clearly be seen in the first video in this article, though it focuses on building 7 only after the penthouse collapse has initiated.

What prompted this article was a video in which Ryan Dawson of ANC Report interviewed Mick West who, although not an architect or engineer, has an interesting take on the University of Alaska study.

Video title: New WTC 7 Alaska study Debunked

In this next video, Mick West interviews engineer Donald Friedman.

Video title: TFTRH #21 Donald Friedman - After 9-11: An Engineer’s Work at the World Trade Center

While working in New York, i had access to a veteran FDNY fireman who had been in the immediate vicinity of WTC 7 prior to its collapse. When i questioned him about the intensity of the fires in building 7, without hesitation he stated that the fire was indeed extensive and that he was surprised that it had not collapsed sooner.

To propose that the fires raging in WTC 7 for approximately eight hours could not have had an impact on its collapse is wilful ignorance to an extreme in my opinion. This is not science, nor even serious research, and it this kind of nonsense that has, and continues to infect and discredit real 9/11 researchers. This is not to say that fire and thermal expansion of the steel beams was in fact the cause of the collapse of the building as NIST proposes, but evidence should never be ignored simply because it contradicts a preferred conclusion.

At this time i don't have a hard opinion regarding the cause of the collapse of WTC 7. There is indeed evidence to suggest that its collapse was the result of a controlled demolition and some of that evidence is difficult to dismiss. On the other hand, there is also evidence in the form of three studies to suggest that fire was the catalyst for the collapse, plus testimony from first responders, including what was stated to me personally by an FDNY fireman near building 7 prior to its collapse. The UAF study seems to have some serious problems, particularly with regard to the extent of the fires and the floors on which fires were located and therefore this evidence was ignored. This is not science!

The most obvious challenge to the demolition theory is the question of how possibly hundreds of explosive charges and detonators, along with their wiring, could have withstood an extensive eight hour fire and remain intact until someone decided to push the big red button, but nevertheless i cannot discount it with any authority.