Last Updated on September 10, 2019
A comprehensive 127-page report compiled by Institute of Northern Engineering researchers has revealed potential cracks in the foundation of what happened to World Trade Center Building 7 in New York on September 11, 2001.
The Institute of Northern Engineering, the research arm of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ College of Engineering and Mines, spent nearly four years compiling data for the study starting in September 2015. The funding for the research came from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a controversial group of professionals who believe the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 was not caused by the planes alone, with a budget of $316,153.
The project summary on the UAF website outlined three main objectives for the report:
(1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.
The research team produced a simulation that replicated the structural fire loading conditions of WTC7 on September 11, 2001, supplemented by data from the National Institute of Science and Technology’s collapse initiation hypothesis.
The researchers concluded that “fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse,” adding “the secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” This contradicts other scientific research and analysis that concluded fires weakened the structure and caused it to collapse. The competing theory has not been acknowledged as valid by mainstream scientists. The research does not appear to have been peer reviewed at the time of publication.
The UAF team provided detailed graphics that illustrated their findings, documenting the simultaneous collapse of WTC7’s load-bearing columns.
The researchers say they have debunked the “progressive collapse” theory proposed by NIST:
1. Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse.
2. The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore, the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column 79 would trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event.
3. Even if we assume the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 could lead to the failure of the next row of core columns, the hypothetical failure of Columns 76 to 81 would overload the exterior columns around the southeast corner of the building, rather than overloading the next row of core columns to the west, which would result in the building tipping to the southeast and not in a straight-down collapse.
The simulation demonstrated that only a controlled simultaneous collapse could be responsible for WTC 7’s load-bearing failures.
4. The hypothetical simultaneous failure of all core columns would cause the building to tip to the southwest and would not cause a straight-down collapse.
5. The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.
The study concluded:
It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building. Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and cause a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.
For nearly two decades, scientists and researchers have said the events of September 11, 2001 are settled, and those who offer competing theories been viewed as taboo.
