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 reason for the global collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 11 September, 2001. The study was completed in four years at a cost of $316,000. AE911 didn't agree with the findings of the NIST study which proposed that the collapse was due primarily to fire and thermal expansion of the steel beams.
During the terrorist (Mossad, Saudi, CIA, etc.) attack upon the United States on 9/11, a plane was flown into each of the twin towers in Manhattan, both of which collapsed shortly thereafter, but many people are not aware 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 to both untrained personal and demolition experts alike.
Anyone who has investigated the events of 9/11 beyond the untenable conspiracy theory proposed by the U.S. government and its mainstream media mouthpiece knows very well that the stories 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 do their own investigation.
Many internet researchers suffer from a handicapped analytical ability 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 mainstream media says is bullshit. Many researchers look elsewhere for the truth, which is fine, except they often look to the wrong people, such as Alex Jones, Judy Wood, Albert Stubblebine, Jesse Ventura, the Loose Change loonies, etc., and then spread this sensationalist disinformation and misinformation all over social media without ever vetting the information. Suddenly the ludicrous becomes tenable in their minds and the minds of their followers and this has crippled the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement at large in the eyes of much of the public.
Dr. Judy Wood tells us that the planes the world saw, heard, felt and tracked flying into the twin towers didn't exist and that it was a "Hutchison effect" energy space beam weapon that "vaporized" the buildings.
Alex "Bullhorn" Jones, the fear-mongering Zionist bullshit artist that he is, readily entertains any wacky nonsense that grabs the attention of his large and attention deficient audience as long as Israel isn't part of the discussion. Promoting the damaging nonsense that nobody died at Sandy Hook is good 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 the real 9/11 research community.
Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas and Matthew Brown are the four dingbats that produced the fact deficient Loose Change series of cartoons which they call documentaries and which have been viewed by millions of people. Unfortunately for them, many of the most crucial points they made regarding 9/11 have been proven to be false by many serious researchers whose content is not nearly as popular and therefore much of the damage that has been 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, also tells us the plains that hit the towers were actually holograms and that mini-nukes were used to "vaporize" the towers.
There is no shortage of lunatics proposing and subscribing to fantasies about 9/11, including the senior editor of Veterans Today, Gorden Duff, Jesse Ventura, Abby Martin, and even James Corbett, who i have a great deal of respect for, but who sometimes gets thing very wrong.
Much of the information and evidence provided by the above mentioned people 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 more creditable because they are assumed to be professionals and there are many members. The problem is that AE911, headed by architect Richard Gage, has made mammoth blunders that seriously compromise that organizations credibility as well.
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 the six reinforced concrete walls of the rings and leave a hole on the other side. Gage promoted this bullshit for years. The problem here is that Gage, an architect of some 30 years, apparently never bothered to actually look at the architecture of the building. Had he done so he might have realized that the bottom floor of the Pentagon had two exterior walls, not six. The ringed portion of the building was built on top of the ground floor, labeled as "general offices" in the image below, and the plane debris penetrated mostly the ground floor.
The point i want to make here is that no one is infallible, not even veteran professionals with college degrees. No researcher should ever depend on any information without vetting it, regardless of the source. That Richard Gage of AE911 promoted such a grossly incorrect theory for years is nearly unforgivable and beyond comprehension. That blunder aside, there remains the fact that there were lots of plane parts recovered from both inside and outside of the Pentagon and the DNA for nearly every passenger was recovered and the location of the bodies mapped, but this evidence is ignored by those that worship the fear mongering morons like Alex Jones, et al. If you explain to them that the little hole on the courtyard side of the building is where a part of the plain exited and not where it entered, they just move the goal post and say, well, what about this? How do you explain that?
The obvious nail in the coffin in the no plane theory is far less complex than analyzing debris and documents and DNA and evidentiary chains of custody. The simple fact is that many 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 basic and obvious logic and evidence.
Yes, there are potential problems with some of the Pentagon witnesses and yes, there are arguments regarding the exact flight path of Flight 77, and yes, we know for a fact that the government and mainstream media lie much of the time, but this does not mean that every aspect of the official story is a fabrication. Until one can explain why Flight 77 headed toward the Pentagon and never went further, it is only logical 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 isn't worth considering, period.
There are key facts that a portion of the 9/11 truther community go to extremes to hide because they destroy their distorted narratives. For example, the morons that made the Loose Change videos correctly tell us that a 757 could not have fit through the 30 ft. hole in the Pentagon. This of course is true, but what these idiots conveniently hide from their cult followers is the fact that the hole shown in their videos was a hole in the second floor of the building, not the first floor where the wings of the plane impacted and which was roughly 75 ft. in length.
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 thermal expansion, a brand new phenomena. 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 artificially, 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. 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.
Again, we know the government and its media mouthpiece lie much of the time. We know Larry Silverstein said "pull it". We know that several mainstream media outlets announced that WTC 7 collapsed long before it did. 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 due to fire as NIST posits, but the misconception regarding the fire is where the embarrassment begins for a large portion of the truther community.
As the 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 in the collapses, leaving far fewer to combat the many 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 such, the remaining firefighters never made a serious attempt, if any at all, to extinguish the blazes that raged throughout the building.
The fires, which apparently resulted from debris from the north tower striking and severely damaging it, had been burning unabated for roughly eight hours prior to the building's collapse and were far more extensive than those promoting the demolition theory care 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 struck it during its collapse 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.
The south side images are also absent from the UAF study which states that they ignored fire above floor 13. Again, the report shows only the north side of building 7 and it appears they may 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 seems to be untrue. In the following video smoke can be seen emanating from the fourth and fifth floors from the top 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. In it they state the following:
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.
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.
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 the penthouse 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 is an opposing argument.
This evidence alone contradicts the statement that all of the columns collapsed simultaneously and the final hypothesis of the UAF study seems to be heavily dependent upon such a conclusion.
The explanation given in the study for the delay between the collapsing of the sections of the penthouse, while still allowing for a 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.
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.
I had access to a veteran FDNY fireman while working in New York 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 not at all surprised that it collapsed.
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 the real 9/11 researchers. This is not to say that fire 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 explanation.
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 as well, particularly with regard to the extent of the fires and the floors on which fires were located. Perhaps the most obvious problem in my mind that challenges the demolition theory is how the demolition charges and wiring could have survived an eight hour fire and remain intact.