9/11 is perhaps the seminal historic moment of many people’s lives and there will always be talk about it for centuries to com. I’m pretty sure the official account of what actually happened will be questioned for this long as well.
Featured Image VIA
That’s why theories like the one in this article are going to keep appearing all over the internet, probably until the end of time. Today, we’re talking about a study at the University of Alaska regarding the collapse of the second tower, officially known as Tower Seven.
The general consensus on its collapse – as presented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology – is that ordinary fires caused by debris from the first tower led to the building falling, as it was never hit by a plane itself. This would make it the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapse from fire damage, which has always been treated with suspicion and why some of the top engineers at the University of Alaska are looking into this issue.
The study is expected to be published in April, but Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey (the leader of the project and pictured below) dismissed the fire narrative as false at a recent presentation of his findings at the Justice In Focus Symposium in New York:
It is our preliminary conclusions, based upon our work to date, that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.
We are using modelling techniques to evaluate the possible causes of the building’s collapse.
I am approaching it like most forensic engineers would.
We’re looking at the structure itself, trying to put together all of the details of what was available, and in this case very little was available.
Because most of it has been destroyed or it’s locked in vaults somewhere.
We’re promising a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s “collapse”, and will post every step of our scientific process online for everyone to see.
We’re currently coming up with different scenarios of how hot the fires could have been in different parts of the building, and then for the next 6 months we will be running tests and scenarios around these.
Well, I’m sure these guys know what they’re doing, but even when they publish their study I’m not sure what it’s going to achieve. Someone will just perform another study and disprove it, or just refer back to the original one and say that that’s the correct version of events. I find it hard to believe that the general population will ever be universally convinced of what happened that day, however many of these stories emerge. I hope that one day we do find out the truth though.
For more 9/11, check out this story about Steve Buscemi and what he did that day. Pretty unbelievable stuff from the guy.