The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) was tasked with investigating how World Trade Center 7 fell on 9/11; the findings were live-streamed a few days ago. The team found that WTC 7 did not fall due to fire, contradicting NIST who said the building collapsed from structural damages due to the fire.
The presentation was presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey. Hulsey spoke about the building, its design, as well as the methods the team used to determine their first of two conclusions. The first part of the experiment is finished; the UAF team found that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire. The next part of the study is to map out the building’s structural system’s response and what would have had to happen in order for it to fall down. The report was published on Thursday on the UAF’s website.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened an investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in August 2002. NIST released its final report on WTC 7 in 2008, finding that the fires that were ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the collapse of WTC 7. Independent researchers, however, have assembled evidence that has raised profound questions regarding the notion that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire.
The study was backed by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth; the researchers used a virtual model of the building to conduct the investigation.
Last year, Activist Post talked to the Director of Strategy and Development for A&E 9/11 Truth, Ted Walter, who is also in charge of working with the professor and raised the money to fund the WTC 7 Evaluation. Walter previously told Activist Post that “the project began in May 2015 and should wrap up in April of next year.” That deadline was passed but the study should wrap up in October according to the project’s website.
The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18.
Three types of evaluations were performed:
1. the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements.
2. the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and lastly.
3. the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion.
The study concluded:
“The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously,” the website for the study noted.
The building’s structural system’s response to local failures is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion according to the website for the study.
Former U.S. Congressional staffer Susan Lindauer, a CIA asset, has previously said that she was told by her CIA handler Richard Fuisz not to return to New York City in September of 2001 and that it would be ‘far too dangerous’ to do so due to an ‘imminent’ detonation of a miniature thermonuclear device.
Interestingly enough, a peer-reviewed scientific publication identified the presence of nano-thermite in the WTC rubble. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by Chemical Engineer Mark Basile.
A draft report of UAF’s current re-evaluation will be “released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community with a final report to be published in early 2018,” www.wtc7evaluation.org, noted. (For more from the author of “UAF: Impossible That WTC Building 7 Collapsed by Small Fires as Claimed by NIST” please click HERE)