Analysis of the AE911T and UAF Rebuttal of the NIST Report on WTC 7

The work done by the AE911T (American Engineers for 911 Truth) and the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in their rebuttal of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 (World Trade Center 7) is a significant contribution to the ongoing debate surrounding the official explanation of this tragic event. This article provides a critical assessment of the UAF report and the broader implications of these alternative explanations.

The UAF Report: A Comprehensive Critique of the NIST Report

The UAF report, much like the work of AE911T, presents a detailed counter-argument to the NIST report. It does so by both confirming what many non-psychologically troubled observers have long concluded and by formally and scientifically detailing the many inconsistencies and shortcomings within the NIST report.

Key points of critique include the lack of a determined cause for the collapse, which indicates that significant aspects of the event may have been overlooked. Additionally, the irony lies in the fact that the UAF report essentially reiterates many of the issues that AE911T had previously identified. The UAF team had accepted a smaller budget and a smaller staff to undertake the study, which perhaps explains the broader scope of errors in their findings.

Most notably, the UAF report was initially marketed as being peer-reviewed and published, a claim that remains unsupported in subsequent confirmations. This lack of transparency and thoroughness further undermines the credibility of the report.

Why the Official Explanation is Unconvincing

The AE911T and UAF rebuttals offer a compelling explanation of why the WTC 7 collapse cannot possibly be explained by the official NIST report. The convening forces of nature would require an extreme and highly improbable scenario for a steel-framed building to collapse at free-fall acceleration.

For a building to collapse at free-fall speed, a minimum of 57 steel columns must fail over an 8-floor span. This failure must be widespread, affecting multiple points on each column simultaneously, to enable the speed and extent of the collapse. Such a scenario defies the laws of physics and the structural integrity of steel-framed buildings, which are designed to withstand significant forces.

Therefore, the NIST report must be viewed with skepticism, especially when it is forced to admit the presence of free-fall acceleration, a fact that should have prompted a comprehensive review of all steel-framed buildings on the planet.

Engineering Truth and the Lie Continuation

Unfortunately, some engineers are so invested in the official narrative that they are incapable of seeing the truth. This includes the NIST report, which defies scientific and engineering principles. This allegiance to the lie not only perpetuates misinformation but also poses a risk to public safety by ignoring critical aspects of the event.

The AE911T and UAF studies provide a stringent scientific analysis that adheres to the laws of physics, making their findings significantly more credible. They offer a detailed examination of the structural and engineering aspects that the NIST report fails to address. The alternative hypotheses presented by AE911T and UAF are based on empirical evidence and logical deductions, whereas the NIST report relies on speculative explanations and secret calculations.

Conclusion

The official reports on the WTC 7 collapse must be critically evaluated. The AE911T and UAF studies present a formidable challenge to the official narrative and provide a more convincing explanation based on established engineering principles.

Choosing to follow the AE911T and UAF explanations offers a path towards a deeper understanding of the truth. This is not only about engineering integrity but also about ensuring the safety and understanding of future generations. The work of these groups provides a robust and transparent framework that complies with the laws of physics and scientific method.