Study: Fire Did Not Cause WTC7 To Collapse, Explosives Necessary
Study: Fire Did Not Cause WTC7 To Collapse, Explosives Necessary
A new study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks has been published showing that fire did not bring down WTC 7 on 9/11.
Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.
A study out of the University of Alaska Fairbanks has concluded “definitively” that fire could not have caused the fall of World Trade Centre building 7. Regardless of official government claims that the building came down due to fire, most people knew this wasn’t the case, and 20 years later we now have the definitive proof.
What exactly happened on 9/11 we may never know, but independent researchers are breaking aspects of the mainstream narrative little by little.
On September 11, 2001 at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction. Calls for the evidence to be preserved went unheard, and New York City officials had the building’s debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place.
Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires. There official explanation claimed 'thermal expansion' was the cause for structures to become weak, causing the building to collapse in what looked exactly like a controlled demolition.
Click to watch our latest video report 9/11: The Latest Science Collapses The Mainstream Narrative
Given the way video footage clearly shows WTC7 falling in accordance with a controlled demolition, the idea that there were pre-planted explosives inside the building is a thought pondered by many families of victims, scientists, physicists, engineers, and more.
A study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where professor and Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, provides “definitive,” proof that the building must have been blown up.
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the collapse recorded on video,” [...] “We simulated every plausible scenario, and we found that the series of failures that NIST claimed triggered a progressive collapse of the entire structure could not have occurred. The only thing that could have brought this structure down in the manner observed on 9/11 is the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building below Floor 17.”
Professor Hulsey
The significance of ‘near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building’ is great because it leads one to posit that explosives must have been used to bring it down. Explosives would mean someone had access to the towers main structures to plant all of the explosives.
Unlike NISTS’s non transparent model of explaining how WTC7 came down, the research team at UAF made all of the data used and generated during the study available to the public. NIST’s official explanation for why they did not release their own model? It “might jeopardize public safety.”
Also worth noting, Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, alongside Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter, published a paper titled “15 Years Later, On The Physics Of High-Rise Building Collapses” in the European Scientific Journal.“
The question of 'false flag terrorism' has arisen many times in an attempt to shed light on what underlying motives there might be around complex global events like 9/11. One powerful quote about this topic comes from Edward Bernays, who was known as the father of public relations and worked very closely with the government.
According to him,
“the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” (source)
When it comes to false flag terrorism, there are also many examples of people who shed light on this, including Pierre-Henri Bunel. He’s a former high ranking French artillery and intelligence officer who became more known to the public when he leaked sensitive NATO documents during the Kosovo war, which he served jail time for.
It’s not just insiders blowing the whistle, there is hard evidence supporting it as well, which is why a couple of years ago, current presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R.608). It was a bill to stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda.
In light of all of this, we're left with the who and the why, a massive subject to undertake, but let’s ask ourselves a question: why did George Herbert Walker Bush have a meeting with Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of Osama bin Laden, and members of his family the day before and the morning of the 9/11 attacks? It was apparently a routine “business” meeting. You can read more about that here.
The Takeaway
In a world where valuable information and a natural thirst for truth, these findings would be front page news, but they are not in our world. The testimonies from thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, firefighters, and families of victims as well as whistleblowers, have been calling for a new investigation for over a decade, and they are addressed as nothing more than "conspiracy theorists" even when the science supports their position.
The answer as to why there’s been no response to this new investigation is simple–it’s because the implications are too huge.