So I thought I would post this .......... if any one is interested ? 
I am not one to automatically dismiss something just because I disagree with the content as it always pays to understand both sides of the argument! On another forum, I have had months of the usual abuse from ‘Believer’s of the Official Account’ after Prof. Leroy Hulsey’s (4 years in the making) report came out on the collapse of WTC 7.
When the final peer reviewed UAF/Leroy Hulsey report: “University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7’s Collapse on 9/11” http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 ....... was released, I resurrected the thread, was promptly told I was a f*****g idiot and directed to an ‘expert’ blogger (Mick West of Metabunk) who I was assured had debunked the Hulsey report and shown it to be all wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4
So I watched West’s exercise in debunking and realised that quite to the contrary of his claim ..... he proved that Hulsey was in fact absolutely correct and that clearly West didn’t have a clue about what Hulsey was trying to explain!
When the Twin Towers collapsed the ‘expert’ was Bazant who described everything in detail. NIST based their findings on Bazant’s explanation! The explanation from both ceased the moment the situation became dynamic and the loads started moving.
NIST’s detailed explanation of the continuing collapse was one sentence on the lines “..... and then the Tower’s collapsed!”
Then came the NIST report on WTC 7 ..... and they did exactly the same sort of analysis. NIST describes in great detail about expansion, bending beams due to ‘raging fires’ and that is what caused a single column 79 to fail. After coming to that conclusion they again gave another detailed description of what happened next as something like “.... then the building progressively collapsed from East to West!, due to fires from office furnishings”. That was it, the NIST explanation and the believers fell for it!
In the explanation of each of the collapses the detailed explanation of its initiation ceases at exactly the moment the situation went from STATIC to DYNAMIC. Bazant and NIST must have been fully aware that had they continued their explanation(s) of the collapses it would have shown the most likely outcome would have been that the structures would have toppled ..... all three of them! Certainly the straight down collapse was clearly impossible if Newton Laws of Motion are applied.
What this ‘expert’ on 9.11 debunker seemed unable to grasp was what Hulsey was explaining :
Hulsey used a floor plan of WTC 7 showing just the columns. A computer program calculated loads and he started from the STATIC status. He then accepts NIST’s collapse initiation scenario without question and manually removes the columns 79, 80 and 81. His computer says all other columns all remained within the design load parameters when he removed them. Basically the NIST hypothesis failed to initiate a progressive collapse in any direction, let alone from East to West.
So Hulsey then removed the next line of columns 76, 77 and 78 and this did restart the collapse sequence. However the sequence then stopped again as columns 58, 59, 62 and 65 still remained standing. Only when these columns are manually removed did the building collapse completely.
What Hulsey was showing was that even if what NIST hypothesised was correct the progressive E/W collapse would not, could not have happened! But, what our debunker seemed to have difficulty understanding is that although Hulsey was using purely STATIC conditions to create a picture, the resulting DYNAMIC situation, i.e. the results of his manual intervention, had to be considered, So he used a simulation showing what was the most likely reaction of the structure as a whole to the steps he had described in STATIC terms. West seemed to have difficulty understanding Hulsey’s dynamic scenario message.
What Hulsey describes is what Newton’s Laws of motion dictate, under the conditions he created. A body falling under the effect of gravity alone will follow the path of least resistance. From the moment columns 79, 80 and 81 were removed the situation was DYNAMIC ..... put simply .... the ball game changed, everything above was on the move downward, increasing the load on the next row east which Hulsey also manually removed, so it was going down gaining velocity (Accelerating) but just on the East end of the structure. As the lower steelwork below collapses or is crushed the top starts to tilt to take the path of least resistance to gravity !
Every time more columns are removed the tilt would increase, the mass above also crushing the steelwork ABOVE the collapse point and eventually the building falls to the East ..... the line of least resistance to gravitational collapse.
So Hulsey shows that NIST’s hypothesis could not possibly have been correct as the evidence does not show WTC 7 tilting to any great degree at all.
Hulsey then looks at what little is provided by NIST as to what data they used to create their column 79 hypothesis and he finds that crucial steel elements, shear studs, stiffener plates etc. had been left out of their explanation. He also found incorrect sizing of main beams which NIST claimed were 11” and were actually 12” and temperatures that were way beyond what was achievable with office fires!
So, Hulsey’s team replaced the missing steel elements, corrected sizes and used the top end temperatures that could have been achieved and they ran the program again. The result was ......A BIG FAT NOTHING ! Nothing moved, the NIST hypothesis didn’t work! So NIST had removed or altered anything that would/could prevent their hypothesis from working! IS THAT NOT A FRAUD?
So, the debunker managed to debunk himself and prove Leroy Hulsey correct ....... for sure ...... fire alone as claimed by NIST did not bring down building WTC 7 .....is now confirmed! It will be interesting when this goes into Court ..... or maybe Hulsey will die in a mysterious car crash and his team will disperse into the Jungle and hide?
