What’s up with NIST’s modelling of WTC7, anyway? And what’s that about explosions, you say? (Three videos . . .)


, , ,

Norm’s note: merely for a bit of context, a comment left by myself at OffG:

Good morning, to you, too, CloudSlicer,

“Hulsey shows that NIST artificially assumed stiffness in certain parts of the floor structure in order to produce the required elongation of the beams through thermal expansion, sufficient to dislodge the girder. This is similar to heating a steel rod which is constrained at one end only, thereby ensuring that all the displacement through thermal expansion occurs at the unconstrained end. Applying such an artificial constraint to the floor beams is clearly a nonsense because it does not accurately model the real structure of WTC7.”  [– by CloudSlicer]

Quite ri[g]ht. In fact, apart from all the mechanical elements that NIST simply ignores in its modeling of WTC 7, this is the crux of their deception and what Hulsey underscores: if you have an elongated piece of steel, like a girder, and it is “rigidly fixed” at one end and not at the other, the ‘movement’ of the entire expansion of the steel is all in the direction of the end that is “not fixed” or that allows for ‘movement.’

And Hulsey proves that that is how NIST models the whole of WTC7, first by bringing your attention to the floor plan of floor 13 — ( @ 17 minutes to roughly 22 minutes of the first video above [– posted here, below –] and titled “WTC 7 Evaluation Finds: Fire DID NOT Cause the Collapse of WTC 7”) — to point out that NIST purposely leaves more than half of the floor area without what he calls “springs,” that it is to say, without properly modeled ‘joint’ or ‘connection’ substitutes, thereby creating a scenario whereby the girders are effectively modeled as being fixed (or more rigid) at one end and free to expand at the other.

It is in this way that NIST ensured that “all” of the girder’s expansion must happen at the ‘free end,’ pushing, so to speak, against the “fixed end,” thereby in their model, finding the necessary “anchor point” to unseat the intended and purposely targeted column. Ironically, because this is how they had to model WTC7 to reach their predetermined conclusion, when they run their animated version, the movement of the overall collapse is not anything like what was actually observed . . .

Once this work gets peer-reviewed and ends up as a respectable and legitimate area of academic research, the “investigating team of NIST” (sic) will be exposed in the gross misconduct of their so called investigation. I can’t imagine how comfortable they must be in their skins with Hulsey at their heels . . .

Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings of his WTC 7 Evaluation study at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 10, 2016. I added a couple of videos into this presentation as Dr. Hulsey had a problem playing them.

Source of quote and where I pilfered the links to all the videos below: 9/11 Blogger

WTC 7 Evaluation Concludes: Fire DID NOT Cause WTC 7 Collapse

Video description as quoted from YouTube:

Published on Sep 11, 2016

For the complete video archive from the ‘Justice in Focus 9/11 | 2016’ event, please visit: And please support the event producer, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at: http://AE911Truth.org9/11

Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings of his WTC 7 Evaluation study at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 10, 2016. The 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. For more information and to support the project, visit:

Watch Dr. Hulsey’s second presentation to a panel of attorneys here:

Continue reading