These are the remarks of Prof. Hulsley during his 36 minutes long RECENT radio interview.
With 9/11 Free Fall radio, 911freefall.com...
(interview link follows)
TYPED OUT for you, nearly in full,
by your own nn LaBTop.
nn -NN-Nn_nN ; Fill in at free will, interpreting it as f.ex. :
Beloved ; hated ; respected; detested; friendly; vicious; logical; illogical, and so on.
You, the reader, and me, the poster : always happy that way.
As long as you keep in mind, it's about the message, not the messenger...then you'll never err anymore.
Since much later, growing old, in those days, perhaps you've changed your mind.
Miraculously, it's still working the same way as when it was long time ago once written...just another meaning.
And below is the direct audio LINK to Prof. Hulsley's, via Soundcloud, 9/11 Free Fall radio recorded interview.
WTC-7 study - update :
A few decennials younger than me.
The first 25 minutes cover the still ongoing debate between Prof. Robert Coral & Tony Szamboti and Dr. Lee & Prof. Bazant.
The European Physics Journal has closed the period for debate, and given Bazant et al, the last word. The other two have sent an open letter to the
Editor there, with a list of points, that indicate the errors in their opponents last publication. Listen to it at will.
Then follows from 25:00 on, a little shortened by me, LaBTop, smaller first part of the Prof. Leroy Hulsley interview.
You better listen to it yourself too, after you read (and listen simultaneously) my typed out, remaining bulk of it.
Then at 32:26, the bulk of it.
The following remark by Prof. Leroy Hulsley is quite indicative of the OFFICIALLY ENDORSED witch hunt still going on, also on boards like this one,
and all other boards covering the still unanswered questions around 9/11/2001.
In his own words :
27:17 "At that point, I decided I was old enough to not worry if there would be any consequences to this,
so I said, I'll do it."
Then he tells a lot about Finite Elements Analysis. Two of his students were put on the job. They fed 2 of those programs with the by now, well known
WTC7 blueprints derived from their Erection Drawings, with their structural components strengths, and so on. Then they correlated the outcomes of
those 2 FEA programs, to see if they corroborated each other, and thus were comparable.
And to top it off, Prof. Hulsley then also checked these 2 assistants their work himself, to be sure of the trustworthiness of their work.
30:40 He then explains they had no actual WTC7 steel to study, which is standard procedure in every other forensic engineering investigation.
What they instead used was the Erection Drawings showing what the building was build by. From those, they created their computer models.
They were not able to use experimental steel damages, that were once out there in the field at Ground Zero.
That was all hauled away
before they had access to it. He says that their work was however quite accurate,
despite that missing WTC7
Since September 6, 2017 they kept silent and were working on WTC7's progressive collapse and much of those issues.
At that time in the interview, he said : "I can say very clearly and empathically, that fire did not bring this building down.!
Since then, him and his team looked at various aspects of what the building brought down, what the building collapse might look like.
Prof. Leroy Hulsley :
32:26 And right now (6 Sept. 2018), I can tell you, without anybody seeing it yet, that if you take our building collapse simulation, and put it in
a video, beside the real video of the building coming down, so, the two videos side by side, THEY LOOK ALMOST IDENTICAL.!
Which is quite different than what you have seen previously by analysis done by NIST. Where the building simulation looks quite different, in the way
it's coming down, versus how the true building came down.
(LT : And NIST calculated only the first 2 secs of collapse.! And it didn't look identical at all, to what we all see in the real WTC7 collapse
So at this point in time, we are effectively about two weeks away from the point in time to conclude our FEA on progressive collapse, and we are now
basically going through the process of refining it. We will have a report by the end of this year (2018). The idea there is to try to have sufficient
people reviewing our work, to invite the peer reviews of our effort. That would be the constructional side, the material side, perhaps the
architectural side, and so that we have truly, a quality review by the peers. So, so that's where we are, we are close to being done, we intend to
have the things written by, ehh, somewhere before the end of the year. (2018)
33:33 - 34:43 A few remarks by his interviewer, then he asks : How was your outcome so much different from the crinkling collapse simulation by NIST
He answers : It's not completely clear what they did to achieve their progressive collapse result.
Here's a couple of things which affects their results :
34:55 If you look at their models of the, ehh, building, they (NIST) did only model the connections over part of the floor system, and the other part
they'd approximated by what's called pins and joints and fixed joints and so on. It turns out that the stiffnesses within in those two areas are quite
different. By making that decision, to try to simplify computer time, if that's what they were doing, they actually affected the behavior of the
structure, and so, if you take that idea and you progress it all the way to the 47 stories, and begin to look at what happened, if you take out some
floors, take out some columns, and the building starts coming down, you'll notice that part of that building is quite different in looks then the
other part of the building, and that's where they, those, eh, stiffness values are changing.
35:52 What we have done, is model the building with connections, and we simulate those connections accurately, put in springs, to save in computer
time, that those springs act like these true stiffener of the true connections, that were in the building. And when we do that, you are actually
getting a representation that is highly accurate of what that building would be subjected to if you would put a load on it. So, that's the difference,
that's at least one of the differences.
Then the interviewer asks, how NIST, opposed to him, got the building interior collapsing in their animation. And how he did that.
37:01 He's not prepared today to give the interviewer all the details of what NIST did, he can tell that they were looking at column 79 coming down,
and effecting the floors down below, you know the numbers of floors that were affected, and all that kind of stuff. He can't remember the number of
floors. He needed some time :
Let me think...,
So, the vertical support in lateral restraint at the north side only, was at about, ehh, from floor 8 to floor 13, and then they had lateral support
buckling issues over 9 floors. That was their (NIST) argument of what actually may have happened during the, ehh, during the collapse.