The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

Interviewer then says that he let the audience draw their own conclusions.
Then he asks Prof. Hulsley what we can expect from the peer review process and subsequent publishing.
At least 4 papers are coming out around the end of this 2018 year.
54:34 It's not gonna be one paper, but several papers.

Listen to the remaining part of the interview by yourself, I got cramped up fingers by now.

1:00:20 ALERT ! Prof. Hulsley launches his most important remark.
At the end of this year, when his team will at last show the public the original collapse video of WTC7, side by side with his team's recent simulation video, it will MIMIC the real time WTC7 collapse video.
That simulation is then based on what he said there at around 53:00, that severing the WTC7 interior AND the exterior columns together, was needed to get their simulation to become a nearly perfect mirror of the 9/11/2001 news videos we all know so well.

And that will be the end of the NIST column 79 fairytale.
At last. It was so badly needed.

( soundcloud.com... = The user "9/11 Free Fall" on SOUNDCLOUD.COM... )

a reply to: LaBTop

Trying to change the subject?

Long rant with you posting the worlds of charlatans.

With no answers to questions asked of you?

Again,

You don’t answer questions directed at you, you project a bunch of BS in a mass assault to drown out other people..

Again....
For WTC 2

The inward bowing was in isolated areas in a band around the circumference of the tower. Is that false.

The inward bowing was isolated to a section only about two stories tall. Is that false.

The jet impacts cut core columns in addition to outer columns. The jet impact do not result in inward bowing. Is that false.

The jets impacts did result in hanging floor slabs that did not cause inward bowing. Is that false.

There was reported inward bowing and buckling of the tower whole minutes before collapse initiation, is that false.

The bowing was deforming WTC 2 about the 80th floor. With no deforming running up the tower. Is that false.

Please explain exactly how the core could be cut and dropped to induce the isolated and narrow band of buckling with no visible effects above the areas of inward bowing and buckling

This is important for the dropped core fantasy for the twin towers

One twin tower floor needed to be struck by the equivalent mass of at least six falling stories to induce failure of the floor connections.

One floor could handle a static load with the equivalent mass of 12 stories.

But at the 80th floor, the actual columns were made to support the 30 floors above. So take a faily conservative value that the outer columns by themselves could support at least ten floors equivalent mass with no core columns.

So, how much of the core would have to be removed to cause failure of the outer columns? Example, I think one cut on each core column would not induce buckling. It would drop the amount of the cut of say 2 inches, and get hung up on the structure below. You would have to cut and remove whole foot sections of core columns to cause loads with enough drop to induce buckling. An event that would visibly ripple up the tower.

And for the floors to pivot on the outer columns, do to length of the floor trusses, the core would have to be dropped at least two stories if not three. The floors below would have to be obliterated. If the floors below are not obliterated, there is no room for the floor trusses to swing down.

Vs the contracting of cooling drooped floor connections that would induce credible amounts of stain that would cause inward bowing of the outer columns in isolated areas.

a reply to: LaBTop

For WTC 7 where is the video proof of bombs detonating. The proof of pressure waves with the force to cut columns in the video and audio record. Why is there no seismic record of detonations? Why is there no ejection of material. Didn’t you claim the same devices were used for all the WTC buildings? Why are the collapses different?
How would the integrity of the fantasy CD systems be maintained through building damage, jet impacts, and wide spread fires?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

For WTC 7 where is the video proof of bombs detonating. The proof of pressure waves with the force to cut columns in the video and audio record. Why is there no seismic record of detonations? Why is there no ejection of material. Didn’t you claim the same devices were used for all the WTC buildings? Why are the collapses different?
How would the integrity of the fantasy CD systems be maintained through building damage, jet impacts, and wide spread fires?

It truly breathtaking how you just ignore that NIST claims multiple floors and columns and steel beams/girders were collapsing before the Penthouse fell in on the eastside. Are just going to ignore that no windows broke when this was happening? There nothing to indicate collapse on the eastside no noise nothing?

The first sign of something was happening was a loud bang went off the Penthouse caved in.

Your nonsense needs to stop

a reply to: Jesushere

See you are trying to change the topic from WTC 2, and absolutely no proof of planted charges.

If the structure was changing geometry from buckling, why would windows not break? Breaking is different than being blown out by an atmospheric pressure wave from a charge charge setting off. Is that false.

You mean the sound of the structure failing. Which is different from the sound of a charge with the force to cut steel setting off. Post where the largest conspiracy group, Architectures and Engineers, has proof of a cutting charge setting off. What do you think pushed them into proclaiming mythical fizzle no flash bombs.

Is it false the truth movement claims the resistance of the columns had to be cut column by column and floor by floor to produce the witnessed rate of collapse and symmetry?

Again, post a video of WTC 7 holding the sound of a 130 to 140 dB audible shockwave that is part of the physics of a detonation with the energy to cut steel columns. A detonation that would have relentlessly echoed through manhattan.

It was cute and sad when you claimed a drill runs at a 130-140 dB. Pitiful actually. And proved you would literally post anything to keep the fantasy of CD alive. Very truth movement of you.

How would large charges be installed on a open concept building unnoticed. Where the insulation would have to be removed for the fantasy fizzle no flash bombs. Remember, myth busters could not even cut a SUV in half with 1,000 lbs of thermite sitting on top. 1,000 pounds for a 4000 pound target. How could you get something like thermite to cut vertically.

And you have no proof the steel at WTC 7 was exposed to the 4,000 F temps that pyrotechnics burn at.

If mythical fizzle no flash bombs were used, why is there a bang anyway?

How would a CD system survive the building damage, and widespread fires?

What was causing the building to deform, buldge, and structurally failed in near silence that caused first responders to set up a perimeter around WTC 7 out of fear it would collapse?

What happen to you saying fire collapse was impossible? You didn’t realize that another building at the WTC had partial structural failure, and was only saved because it was less than 10 stories tall. Or the structural failure at the Madrid Windsor above the 17th floor was a fire induced structural collapse. The Tehran Plasco fire related collapse. The Brazil São Paulo building fire related collapses.

a reply to: Jesushere

And nice of you to ignore there are at least two other WTC 7 studies that conclude fire related collapse. But you only talk about NIST this and NIST that?

Funny the official WTC 7 evaluation project cite last update was March 2018. I see they are not willing to put anymore release dates in text form.

a reply to: Jesushere

How can anyone take a study seriously trying to prove a negative. When the need for fire insulation is well documented. When it was found pre 9/11 the WTC insulation was deficient. And WTC 5 shows fire related structural failure is very real.

a reply to: Jesushere

Here is a good overview of how week the truth movement position is

www.metabunk.org...

ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/

By: benthamitemetric

First--the government account of WTC7 facilitated exactly zero invasions. No one knows or cares about WTC7 aside from some specialists in the engineering community (did you know it's actually a case study in a standard text on progressive collapses?) and it was never used by anyone in a high ranking government position as part of the case for any war, at least as far as I am aware. Moreover, the NIST report on WTC7 was published many years after the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason it is a topic loved by conspiracy theorists is because of the fact that exactly what happened in the building is unknowable (simply because the fire progression was unobservable--but more on that in the third point below). You are greatly overstating the importance of the building and of NIST's study of it.

Second--again, neither Hulsey nor Tony have proven anything about whether the omission of certain minor elements in the NIST model led to significant errors in NIST's conclusions. They did not even test NIST's modeled scenario. I've asked both you and Tony to specify how Hulsey could possibly come to a conclusion re the accuracy of NIST's scenario while not controlling for the most important factors that lead NIST to its conclusion (how the observed fire conditions damaged the lower 16 floors of the building over a 4.5 hour period). No answers have been forthcoming. Why? Because any interested, questioning citizen can easily see how this error in Hulsey's approach is, in fact, a fatal flaw that prevents him from honestly reaching his stated conclusion. (And, do I need to remind you that Hulsey explicitly stated his conclusion in this case long before he had even completed modeling around column 79?) As Mick has helpfully summarized, there are also additional flaws in Hulsey's approach.

Third--there is a huge difference between not being able to know exactly how the building collapsed and thinking that the building couldn't have collapsed without the use of demolition devices of some kind. NIST, Arup and WAI don't differ because they fundamentally disagree about anything; they differ in their conclusions only because they make different but reasonable assumptions about unknowable variables (most importantly--the exact heating scenario). The fact that they all differ on such assumptions and yet all come to the same overarching conclusion re the vulnerability of the building to a fire-induced progressive collapse is not something that calls that overarching conclusion into question. To the contrary, that they all arrived at the same overarching conclusion despite different approaches and assumptions about unknowable variables should greatly strengthen the confidence that any interested, questioning citizen should have in the validity of NIST's conclusion re fire being able to cause the collapse of the building. It also worth pointing out that Arup in particular was retained by the insurers of WTC7 in a multimillion dollar litigation against the owners, occupiers and designers of the building (among others). The plaintiffs in that case had hundreds of millions of reasons to uncover a plot to destroy the building and, instead, their experts offered a theory only of negligent design and construction.

Fourth--let's step back and sum up Hulsey's study and comments to date in context. At every level, Hulsey's approach and conclusions are highly suspect and, at least to this interested, questioning citizen, Hulsey's study does nothing to actually call into question the overarching conclusion reached by each of the three other studies; the only things Hulsey has called into question to date with his stated conclusions are his integrity and competence:
There is only a single study (Hulsey's) that purports to reach a conclusion contrary to what the other studies have concluded re the vulnerability of WTC7 to progressive collapse from reasonable fire scenarios.
Hulsey received a grant of $300,000+ from an organization (AE911Truth) that has for years dedicated itself to the theory that WTC7 could not have collapsed as a result of fire, and that same organization was explicit in wanting Hulsey's study to prove that when it chartered the study.
Hulsey made his bias in favor of his sponsor's desired conclusion crystal clear when he announced he reached that conclusion before even completing his modeling. (It doesn't help appearances that he initially announced that conclusion at a PR event hosted in NYC by AE911Truth.)
Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.
On top of coming to a different overall conclusion re the vulnerability of the building to fire, Hulsey also seemingly came to the indefensible conclusion (which points to a fundamental error in his approach) that there could be no local connection failures at all in the building!
Hulsey is also the only study author of the bunch to describe his conclusion in absolute terms, even when that means defying logic and the reality of his limited study to claim he proved a negative

a reply to: neutronflux

What a disgusting response neutronflux,
to a simple y/n question.

A reply to: neutronflux

I'll give it another try. In fact for the readers here with some form of logic left.

1. It looks to me, that he did not read my typed out interview.
You know why? Because he didn't even noticed, that I changed Dr Hulsley to Professor Hulsley.

2. That's why I also wonder, if he can't listen to podcasts or radio interviews, since it's not texts on a screen.
A curious reader could eventually ask him/herself, if either the poster is hearing impaired, or one of those DoD AI-forum bots, or just terribly impatient. (The latter is the case)
That's why I give you now the perfect FULL transcript made by A&EforTruth and put online on 11 September 2018 :
WTC-7 Evaluation nearing the finish line, an interview with Dr Leroy Hulsley
And another type of link to that same transcript : archive.is...

3. Regarding Metabunk-member benthamitemetric, about his post -linked to, by you above- at the Metabunk website.
That post #1214 was written Dec 11, 2017, that's 10 months ago, during the period from September 6, 2017 on, during which that Dr Hulsley's team kept totally silent.
Aren't you just a tad bit curious, if his four points still hold up against the explanations by Dr Hulsley in his recent radio interview.?

Firstly, if you would have read Tony Szamboti's last sentence in his post by him, on the top of that same page 31 there at Metabunk.org, you could have understood that benthamitemetric is a lawyer, working for any or one of the accused 9/11 planner parties, according to Tony's post there :
""#1212 :Tony Szamboti : Benthamitemetric's attempts to diminish what I am saying need to be seen from the reality that he is a lawyer and is apparently working for the defense of a guilty party here.""

EDIT - 3 days later than what I typed up above on Sunday night 23rd September, in this, at that Sunday time, concept post of mine :
NnN ! ALL posts by Toni Szamboti, and ALSO ALL numerous references in other members THEIR posts to his former posts, while they were reacting on former posts by Tony, are suddenly SCRUBBED from that Metabunk.org forum thread.
Does that mean that Tony deleted his account, or just all of his posts in that thread, all by himself? Or, did he ask Mick West to scrub every sign of him ever existing there? Or, did Mick West such scrubbing? Or a hacker ? Which is of course DAMN strange forum behavior. Caused by whoever did that there.
If it's build-in software behavior, than that's an undesired software feature.
Here at ATS, when a member closed himself his account, or ATS mods closed it, all his posts and posts references in other members posts reacting on those posts, stay on this forum, the only thing added is a tilde ( ~ ) on top of all his/her former posts, to indicate a closed account.. END-EDIT.

EDIT-2 - Now (Sunday Sept. 30, 2018, suddenly Tony Szamboti's posts are back, but not on top of their page 31, but at 1/3rd. (Mick thus clearly had a back-up version, and was alerted to the disappearance of Tony's posts, or perhaps cleaned up the thread a little. But Tony's posts were definitely absent for several days).END-EDIT-2.

That's why I waited a few days, to see if this also happened at ATS. It doesn't, now. So I post now again.

A reply to: neutronflux

I remember only ONE damn important scrub on ATS, and it involved also MY reactions posts : the total disappearance of all posts here, in this 9/11 forum, of all posts by Brent Blanchard, the editor of the online journal of that demolition firm PROTEC, but also my posts reacting on him. He said they had seismograms from PROTEC's handheld devices, present and working on 9/11 in Manhattan, and they showed no signs of demolition charges.

Neutronflux used to throw triumphant remarks about them around in the last years, totally neglecting what I told him a myriad of times.
I told Blanchard to show them to all of us, or shut up. He disappeared....Later, PROTEC came up with a lame excuse letter. Their Manhattan handheld devices were suddenly not precise enough to be of value for the 9/11 events....And after telephone contact by me with them, they told me that all those HH devices their seismograms from 9/11 were strangely absent from their repository....

Thus, the same kind of strange software behavior here at ATS. I asked staff here about it, they thought it was a software glitch.
I really don't think so. I think either PROTEC forced them by lawyers to scrub all of Blanchard's and my reactions posts, or 9/11-planners their hacker(s) did that, and then mods of course will think much later, when checking after my alert, that it was a glitch. They told me they suspected it to have happened after a huge DDoS attack the long time members here, all remember.
I do believe the ATS software administrators to be not such dummies, that they do not have BACK-UPs....to defend themselves against malicious attacks. They could have just reinstalled our original posts exchange. So, let's keep it to the simpler reason, PROTEC lawyers threatening the owners here with a law suit. Or nicer, asked their colleagues for a scrubbing favor, since one of their PROTEC personnel made such a really huge mistake by appearing here at ATS...hurting their reputation. And their seriously big money worth, Government contracts...
Or the CIA, NSA, DoD agencies, and so on, putting some pressure on them. An offer you usually can not resist...if you have invests inside the USA.
Anything seems possible in the USA, in these very strange, seemingly time-warped days of ours.

A reply to: neutronflux

Regarding Metabunk-member benthamitemetric his FIRST point :
""First--the government account of WTC7 facilitated exactly zero invasions.""
It took NIST from 2002 until 2008 to get it's WTC7 final report out. During which time the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were started by the USA. During these nearly 7 years NIST removed f.ex. all their draft reports regarding the seismic WTC7 research by LDEO, after my seismic evidence for a huge explosion, 2 seconds before WTC7's eastern penthouse started to topple into its roof area, was published here at ATS, titled ""WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved"".

Then, during NIST's preliminary hearing about their final report, David Chandler pointed them to the 2.35 seconds of accelerated free fall, calculated by him from online videos of WTC7 its collapse. Of which FFA the NIST leading investigator, Shyam Sunder, declared then, after he heard Davids explanation, that in that case, it meant that all constructional resistance under the initiation point must have been absent during those 2.35 seconds.
Which is EXACTLY what every self respecting demolition firm will thrive after, when soliciting for any huge demo job.
In a NATURALLY induced collapse scenario, which is always chaotic of nature, this FFA will never occur.

His remark : ""You are greatly overstating the importance of the building and of NIST's study of it"", is one of those obvious tries, to minimize the importance of any WTC7 research. If Prof. Hulsley comes up with a scenario of failures, that results in a collapse animation that mimics the real time collapse videos of WTC7, it will undoubtedly show, that the NIST investigation was intended to result in what the US Administration wanted as their outcome : Fires did it....

NOT so, say I for too many years already. The WTC7 collapse seismogram, combined with the Cianca photo timestamped by NIST itself, based on their huge timing-of-all-9/11-videos research, which by them conclusively became based on one atomic clocked mainstream video event, as aired on 9/11 : the by multiple main stream cameras filmed entrance of the plane into WTC1.
Thus, that Cianca photo of the onset of the sinking of the eastern penthouse in WTC7's roof area, was just as atomic clock based as the seismograms at LDEO seismic station at Palisades, Columbia University were. And then you see clearly on that WTC7 collapse seismogram, that the first, huge peak on there, was written by the needles at Palisade, about 2 to 3 seconds earlier than the NIST timestamp on Cianca's East Penthouse denting photo.
And that first written peak was much higher in amplitude (showing more energy released into the bedrock) than the following amplitude peaks depicting the total collapse of a 47 stories high, office building.

Regarding Metabunk-member benthamitemetric his SECOND point :
""Second--again, neither Hulsey nor Tony have proven anything about whether the omission of certain minor elements in the NIST model led to significant errors in NIST's conclusions. They did not even test NIST's modeled scenario. I've asked both you and Tony to specify how Hulsey could possibly come to a conclusion re the accuracy of NIST's scenario while not controlling for the most important factors that lead NIST to its conclusion (how the observed fire conditions damaged the lower 16 floors of the building over a 4.5 hour period).""
Well, his 2017 remarks have been countered by Prof. Hulsley in his Sept. 10, 2018 interview.

Regarding Metabunk-member benthamitemetric his THIRD point :
All three former investigations of WTC7's collapse, NIST, Arup and WAI were not able to mimic WTC7 collapse videos in any of their calculations or animations.
Prof. Hulsley's team did so, they say they are going to show it, around the end of the year.
I expect however, that the peer review process by European Engineering journals will be a bitter, lengthy and obstructionist process, since I expect the US agencies to do everything in their might, to influence the editors and reviewers there.
Because Prof. Hulsley's team's findings and fire induced failure re-calculations, and especially their to be expected, WTC7 collapse videos duplication by their own animation sequence, that will mimic these original WTC7 collapse videos, will devastate the official stories of 9/11/2001, which all these US institutions are still defending to the extreme.

Regarding Metabunk-member benthamitemetric his FOURTH list of points :
The Prof. Hulsley team did perform extensive research into all possible fire scenarios from Sept. 6, 2017 on, one of their team of three is even making fire induced collapse scenarios, for his doctor thesis.
They checked all NIST reports their fire scenarios, against their collapse cause, and subsequent resulting collapse animation, that results in a match for the real time WTC7 collapse videos. And thereafter concluded that NIST's fire induced collapse theory is unrealistic.
Prof. Hulsley explicitly states in his latest radio interview, that they will not offer their papers for review in US based Engineering Journals, because they expect biased results, like the ones benthamitemetric is pointing at. That's why they optioned for European Journals and their peers, hoping to encounter no bias, or less than in the US.
Regarding all of benthamitemetric points, we will see at year's end, what Prof. Hulsley's team will come up with, and I expect benthamitemetric to become very silent, or very busy, depending on the evidence laid before us at that curiously awaited and anticipated point in time.

REFERENCES :

From OS-Doubter forums :

1. Professor Hulsey's September 6, 2017, Interim Report Undercuts NIST WTC 7 Study.
By the 9/11 Truth Action Project. A written print out with drawings, of the Sept. 6, 2017 Interim Report presentation by Professor Hulsley and his team of two, during a live stream event, analyzing the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7).

2. WTC7 Evaluation project at Alaska's Fairbanks University, department of Engineering : www.wtc7evaluation.org...
WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Visit ine.uaf.edu... to view the most recent information about the study.
Their conclusion to this date :

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7 and to examine what may have occurred at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001.
Therefore, the UAF research team evaluated the structural response due to the reported fire(s). A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated:
1) The planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements;
2) The building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and
3) The validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements.
At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building.
Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

3. www.ae911truth.org...
The Sept. 10, 2018 radio interview with Professor Hulsley.
This special episode of 9/11 Free Fall radio is offered as a transcribed interview to go along with the radio podcast, now also on YouTube. CLICK here to listen to it.
Stay tuned for the draft report of the UAF WTC 7 study in the coming months.
Prof. Hulsley's conclusion, at the end of the interview :

AS: Dr. Hulsey, I think that is a very good update. You gave us your time frame. You told us some about what your findings were. I just want to know now, do you have any final thoughts or anything that you want to get out there to the audience that I didn't think to ask you today?

LH: Well, I don't know how well we're going to be able to do this, but it's my intention right now to show the building video as it's coming down and beside it, our anticipated failure type, with our building coming down in the same framework of the video, so you could see it coming down, and the time it takes for it come down, and the way it comes down, comparison one by one, those two side by side.
That's what I want to show. If this is really very, very good—and I anticipate it to be really good—then the layman can see, without having to worry about the science, here's what our analysis shows, here's what the building did.

I offer the reader also the ongoing WTC7 Collapse sub-sections of the Subjects-threads discussions on an overall OS-Truster forum like Metabunk.org, and a much less overall OS-Truster forum like The 9/11 Forum :

A. www.metabunk.org...
Metabunk.org Title : AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project.
Discussion in '9/11', started by Oystein, Jan 13, 2015. And this page 30 link is Tony Szamboti his post regarding Prof. Hulsley's 2017 interim report, and the following reactions in that thread.

B. www.metabunk.org...
Metabunk.org Title : Could Girder A2001 Possibly Have got Past the Side Plate on Column 79?
The third next link is benthamitemetric's extensive 2017 post in that thread's page 2, regarding the Weidlinger Associates expert report, compared with the ARUP investigation of the WTC7 collapse.

LT : Note that steel expansion (3.6" is the calculated increase in length of A2001 due to temperature increase), when heat is EVENLY applied, works in ALL directions, thus that heat-expansion force is spreading the once cold steel girder/beam A2001 molecules out over a few inches (3.8" ), that's 1.8" to one side/height of a partially heated (by office fires) beam, girder A2001 or column 79; and 1.8" to the opposite side/height of them. Depending on which side the greater restriction force against any expansion, or later following contraction movement after cooling, is in place, this expansion/contraction length will vary per side/height.
Those steel molecules are always expanding in all directions, left, right, up and down, and every other direction, in between.
And if the positioning steel side plates at column 79, their bolts or welds, on one side, held under the heat expansion forces that girder A2001 was exposed to, they will also hold again under the contraction forces while that steel is cooling. Retracting the displaced steel they are connected to, towards their originating positions.
It's a freely operating system.
Either the far sturdier column 79 doesn't move at all, or just 1 to 2 inches, or that essential NIST girder or beam which was connected to column 79, sags a bit at its heated part, or just pushes at the less sturdy side, in this case the perimeter columns side, that perimeter facade a few inches maximum, outwards.
Which few inches we can't measure from those grainy 2001 videos, showing the few burning lower floors on the eastern side of WTC7.
Because the restriction forces around column 79, over several floor heights, are far greater than the girder A2001 its expanding forces .
Girders and beams by the way, are essentially the same things, only a girder supports beams, thus in most cases, is the sturdier one from the two.
Only when you apply a huge holding force at 2 fixed points, at steel ends, huge breaking forces come into play in the cooling phase.
Which was not the case at WTC7 fire events. That was a freely operating heat-expanding/cooling-contracting system.

=more=

Tyndall’s Bar Breaker is such a demonstration experiment for those thermal expansion and then contraction holding forces at 2 fixed points.
The tension rod (b) is locked using steel pen (c) in the bracket (d) and fastened with the nut (a). The tension rod is heated with a flame (e) and thus expands. The nut (a) is re-tightened subsequently to compensate for the thermal expansion. The tension rod cools down and contracts. This creates an increasing force on the steel pen (c), until it is finally deformed or even torn off : files.abovetopsecret.com...




So search for a much greater applied amount of steel expansion-contracting resisting forces at a certain spot (column 79) in the NIST report for the WTC7 collapse, so you can consider that column 79 nearly as a fixed point, like the left end of that bracket with that nut (a), in the above drawing, compared to the smaller forces, acting on it, through that eastern girder and its attached beams.
Like column 79 and its 3 other girder/beams attached to it, under those huge composite floors. Those four steel pieces together plus their intertwined huge composite floor on their top sides, do have a far greater heat-expansion/contraction resisting force combined, than the fifth one, that eastern girder A2001, and its smaller beams attached under a smaller composite floor area.
There's just one pesky detail : no bracket...so, it's a freely operating system. The entire heated WTC7 building parts, including their composite floors, all expand and contract like a balloon, with no connection failures.

That column 79 its total packet of 1 column + 3 girders + composite floors on top, was much sturdier than the few perimeter columns at the other end of that 4th eastern girder + side-beams, where the by NIST supposed failing 4th eastern girder and adjacent beams under a part of that same composite floor, were attached to. These perimeter columns in the eastern facade were a lot less stiff, they had more "" wiggle room", to bulge a few inch outwards over the height of the few floor rooms that were seriously on fire per half hour, after which time the fire per room extinguished.
That's the maximum time it took for one floor room on fire, to consume all its combustibles. And meanwhile the fires hopped over to an adjacent or next higher or even lower floor room, as we can see in those 9/11, WTC7 on fire videos of the east and north sides.

I however propose one (or a few) huge TB(s) taking out one (or a few) crucial WTC7 core column(s) at last, 2 seconds before WTC7 its eastern penthouse started to sink into the roof, after smaller cutter charges, exploded during the day, weakened its core columns and adjacent girders and beams at first. Then it took another 8.3 seconds to let the western penthouse sink away in the roof floor area, and then at last, the sudden global collapse started with its surprising 3.5 seconds of free fall acceleration.

Note that Prof. Brown, many years ago already, showed us all, when they demolished the remains of the Alfred P. Murray building in Oklahoma City, that every demolition charge the planners there exploded, turned up on his seismograms as far far higher impulses than the following debris its ground impacting impulses there.
This find by Prof. Brown is crucial in reading the WTC7 collapse seismogram : explosions of an ultra short duration and huge energy release during that same ultra-short duration, excite the bedrock below WTC7 far far stronger than its following building debris raining down on the increasing rubble pile. Search ATS for : LaBTop Brown Oklahoma

That's why I am quite curious, which (chain of) event(s) Prof. Hulsley's team comes up with as their WTC7 collapse initiation event(s).
Prof. Hulsley already said in his Sept. 2018 interview with Free Fall radio, that they only got their collapse animation equaling the real time videos of WTC7, when they removed the resistance of all core columns AND all perimeter columns, at the same moment. And on their website they say now, Sept. 2018 :
""Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.""
And that's what Graig Bartmer, former NYPD first responder told us in his interview I linked to earlier : "An umbrella of crap spat out a few feet above my head, and I started running, while all that debris rained down behind me".

C. www.metabunk.org...
Metabunk.org Title : AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project
The debunkers stopped posting there on page 33 it's only, last post by econ41, after the transcript of Prof. Hulsey's radio interview came available on September 10, 2018, posted by Oystein in their post #1280 at the bottom of page 32.
The only logical thing to do, BTW, is of course to better wait for the publication date. Then lots of judicially based ant fornicating will as usual follow.
However, if the calculated WTC7 collapse animation really mimics the real time videos of WTC7 sinking down in the first 4 seconds as a complete block, and then in the last visible 2 seconds torques a bit westwards at its base, all their debunking efforts will be useless.
Thus, wait and see.

D. The 9/11 Forum : www.tapatalk.com... :

WTC7 EVALUATION : Last post Sep 24, 2018
www.tapatalk.com...

FRI 12 JAN -- WTC7 DEBATE - Mick and Tony : Last post Sep 24, 2018
www.tapatalk.com...

Girder walk-off between column 79 and 44 : Last post Sep 22, 2018
www.tapatalk.com...

NIST Video Deceit : Last post Sep 19, 2018
www.tapatalk.com...

And lots of intelligent debate threads there. You, the logical thinking 9/11 researcher, should go and read it all. Before it's too late for you to join the ranks of neutrality based 9/11 researchers.

a reply to: LaBTop

Let’s count how many levels you have failed on?

One: You still have not cited any video, audio, credible seismic, or metallurgical evidence of planted charges at the WTC. How can there be explosives supposedly making seismic evidence with no presented video or audio evidence. It defies total logic. Explosives supposedly making seismic readings miles away would be fearfully obvious on the video and audio record.

Two: You have not proposed any types of explosives that could have brought down WTC 7 as witnessed on video and audio without leaving obvious video and audio evidence.

Three: Please explain how a supposed sophisticated and split second timed CD system would have survived wide spread fires and building damage.

Four: There is still debate on what hardware was actually installed at WTC 7.

Five: WTC 5’s fire related failures show that WTC buildings were susceptible to fire induced failures. Who could take a study seriously when it try’s to show fire related collapse was impossible when WTC 5 shows structural failure relating to fire was very possible.

Six: Please cite a completed model that shows the supposed elements (that may have not been installed, or omitted by genuine confusion over the remaining WTC 7 drawings and versions) omitted were proven to make collapse impossible.

Seven: It was known the WTC had deficient fire insulation.

Eight: If structural elements made out of steel could prevent thermal expansion, thermal stress, uneven heating, steel buckling/deforming, contracting, or induced stress from contracting, then why require insulating structural steel at all. The billions spent on studying steel, insulation, and applying structural steel fire insulation could have been saved by just installing a few minor structural steel bolts and stops. I think your argument fails on many levels.

Nine: It’s not all about NIST.

www.metabunk.org...

ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/

By: benthamitemetric


NIST, Arup and WAI don't differ because they fundamentally disagree about anything; they differ in their conclusions only because they make different but reasonable assumptions about unknowable variables (most importantly--the exact heating scenario). The fact that they all differ on such assumptions and yet all come to the same overarching conclusion re the vulnerability of the building to a fire-induced progressive collapse is not something that calls that overarching conclusion into question. To the contrary, that they all arrived at the same overarching conclusion despite different approaches and assumptions about unknowable variables should greatly strengthen the confidence that any interested, questioning citizen should have in the validity of NIST's conclusion re fire being able to cause the collapse of the building. It also worth pointing out that Arup in particular was retained by the insurers of WTC7 in a multimillion dollar litigation against the owners, occupiers and designers of the building (among others). The plaintiffs in that case had hundreds of millions of reasons to uncover a plot to destroy the building and, instead, their experts offered a theory only of negligent design and constr

Ten: What un biased or “neutral” study? The one funded by AE 9/11 truth? I know there has been lots of spoken recent claims made by people literally years late on a promised 2 year WTC 7 Modelling project. They have dropped their findings would be publicly reviewed, and changed it to a select panel.

A study that still has officially posted on their website as of September 30th 2018:

www.wtc7evaluation.org...

Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave the following update on March 27, 2018:

To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.

We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.

Again, we thank you for your interest in our study and we appreciate your patience as we strive to bring a truly scientific answer to the important question of how WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Alaska Fairbanks

And the University of Alaska Fairbanks website, ine.uaf.edu/wtc7, still lists the project dates of

ine.uaf.edu...
May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018

a reply to: LaBTop

Please, cite actual video or audio evidence of planted charges at the WTC.

a reply to: LaBTop

You think the University of Fairbanks University has any influence on the study? Not because of any conclusions. Because the study was going to be open, and follow a normal academic review process. A process that Husley has reneged on under the influence of AE? Doesn’t bode well in that people donated under false promises, the study/model will not be openly scrutinized, and the study is controlled by a biased group.

a reply to: Spacespider

"never find out" or "never accept"?

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

For WTC 7 where is the video proof of bombs detonating. The proof of pressure waves with the force to cut columns in the video and audio record. Why is there no seismic record of detonations? Why is there no ejection of material. Didn’t you claim the same devices were used for all the WTC buildings? Why are the collapses different?
How would the integrity of the fantasy CD systems be maintained through building damage, jet impacts, and wide spread fires?

It truly breathtaking how you just ignore that NIST claims multiple floors and columns and steel beams/girders were collapsing before the Penthouse fell in on the eastside. Are just going to ignore that no windows broke when this was happening? There nothing to indicate collapse on the eastside no noise nothing?

The first sign of something was happening was a loud bang went off the Penthouse caved in.

Your nonsense needs to stop

The Structure was damaged on the opposite side to the collapse videos a 20 FLOOR RIP in the facade also want to explain how the lower floors on the elevation the videos are viewed from is ON TOP of the rubble pile does that show the collapse was truly vertical as claimed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

You think the University of Fairbanks University has any influence on the study? Not because of any conclusions. Because the study was going to be open, and follow a normal academic review process. A process that Husley has reneged on under the influence of AE? Doesn’t bode well in that people donated under false promises, the study/model will not be openly scrutinized, and the study is controlled by a biased group.

You are wasting your time with him he has been posting the same posts for a long time, now he thinks rocks on Moon images are old machines he has no background or experience in construction he just has lots of time on his hands to look for and post BS.