By Peter Drew
In April 2018 the University of Alaska Fairbanks will release what are literally bombshell findings in the final report of their two year scientific study into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7. Not struck by an aircraft, WTC Building 7 was the third tower to collapse on 9/11 and it collapsed neatly, in perfect symmetry, and in only seven seconds at 5.20pm on the afternoon of 9/11.
The findings of this $300,000 university study are that the official reasons we have been given for the collapse of WTC Building 7 are impossible. The implications of these findings are profound as this study is the most extensive scientific research ever undertaken into the collapse of any of the three towers that collapsed on 9/11.
Sixteen years ago we were all told that the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11 as a result of aircraft striking the buildings. There was initially no explanation for how WTC Building 7 collapsed as it was not struck by an aircraft. It was not until 2007 that the official investigators, NIST (National Standards for Science and Technology), finally provided their official explanation, which was that the tower collapsed ‘due to normal office fires’. It should be noted that no steel framed high-rise tower in history has ever collapsed from fire, either before or since 9/11.
This explanation by NIST was strongly challenged by numerous professionals of the industry, including nearly 3,000 professional architects, engineers, and demolitions experts who believed that the evidence strongly supported a ‘controlled demolition’ using explosives http://www.ae911truth.org/. When repeatedly pushed on this issue, NIST conceded that they had not even tested for the use of explosives and that this was not the reason the building collapsed. When asked to provide the computer modelling output data that confirmed their official position they refused to do so, and still do. The reason being that the release of this information could jeopardise national security. How could it be a risk to national security to understand how and why a 47 storey high-rise building collapsed from normal office fires?
It was for this reason that the University of Alaska Fairbanks, agreed to conduct a two year study, the WTC 7 Evaluation, whereby they would replicate the exact same computer modelling process that NIST had stated they used, using the exact same input parameters, and then compare the results. In essence, they conducted as closely as possible, a replica of the NIST computer modeling investigation. The study was led by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and Ph.D. research assistants. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
The outcome of that two year study was that when the NIST computer modeling was exactly replicated by Dr Hulsey’s team, the building did not collapse. In fact, no matter what input data Dr Hulsey and his team attempted to enter into their computer model, the building still did not collapse. A quite incredible outcome. In Dr Hulsey’s draft report in late 2017, he went as far as to say that the chances of WTC Building 7 collapsing according to NIST’s official explanation was zero.
The implications of this are enormous. Firstly, it means that according to the most rigorous scientific study ever conducted into this collapse, WTC Building 7 did not collapse due to fire. If that is the case, then what did cause it to collapse in perfect symmetry in just seven seconds? Secondly, how and why did NIST produce an official explanation that has now been proven to be impossible? Why have they refused to divulge the data that led them to that conclusion? Also, why did NIST not even test for evidence of explosives, which thousands of industry experts were saying is the only thing that could bring that building down in that manner?
Added to this, in 2016 the European Scientific Journal, a publication of the European Scientific Institute, published an article which also disputed the findings of NIST regarding the collapse of WTC Building 7 and indicated that NISTs conclusions were impossible according to the laws of physics.
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf (page 21)
The official version of events of 9/11 have been proven to be impossible on so many fronts now that it cannot be realistically covered up anymore, and this latest scientific study provides perhaps the most robust scientific evidence to disprove the official narrative.
The final WTC 7 Evaluation report from Dr Hulsey’s team will be officially released in April and it should receive the attention it deserves, such is the magnitude of the findings.
Did you like this article?
Thank you for your vote!
16 June 2019
Israeli Submarines Suspected of Sabotaging Shipping in Gulf of Oman. In Case of Conflict with Iran, Oil Prices could Double Overnight
14 June 2019
Trump administration providing ‘false’ information about Gulf of Oman attack, says Japanese tanker owner
From our advertisers
21 hours ago
Palestinians instantly reject Trump’s $50 billion economic peace plan: ‘Palestine is not for sale’
From our advertisers