The First Transparent and Unbiased Computer Modeling of WTC 7

Today I’m thrilled to officially announce AE911Truth’s most important project in our nine-year existence: a two-year computer modeling study of World Trade Center Building 7’s destruction.

WTC 7 Evaluation is a two-year study by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded through the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Before you read any further, I invite you to watch our short WTC 7 Evaluation Video on and meet Dr. Leroy Hulsey, the principal investigator of this study.


This is so good to see

Thank you to all those involved, I will share this video as much as I can and keep an eye on your progress.

Dissemination - Anyone can do this... Everyone should...

Universities have their "Colleges of Engineering and Architecture". This video can be sent to faculty, to the student organizations, to the University Newspaper (you can even post a comment in a school newspaper).

This short video is an excellent segue approach to getting the word out about 9/11. (There is "no conspiracy" tied to the video. This makes the video "non-threatening".)

Excellent idea


Excellent project. If the

Excellent project. If the findings of the recently unearthed FEAs of the 13th floor carried out by ARUP and presented in evidence is any kind of indicator, NIST should just abandon their stated hypothesis of the girder walking off to the West now. Be interesting to see if this FEA confirms the ARUP study findings, and what that will mean within a full model of the building.
Good luck with it. I will be supporting this in every way i possibly can. And finally thank you to the people who made this happen..

I second that

This is long overdue and irrefutable. I'm happy to give all I can too. First I've heard of these FEAs? Sounds very exciting.

Great job to all!!

Finite Element Analysis - FEA

I well remember in 2009, engineer Derek Johnson repeatedly and repeatedly emphasizing the need for an FEA. But it was difficult to rally the troops and funds in an organized fashion.
An FEA is a massive undertaking.

My hat is off to the students and Dr Hulsey for attacking this monster project.

Do we know

Do we know where Derek is now? We could have a chat about other new developments.

Working on it.

For the information at hand in 2009, Derek Johnson gave a fantastic presentation on Building 7 in Plano, TX at Collin County College Spring Creek Campus. The guy does his homework. He put the whole thing together. Very impressive!
Repeatedly, Derek emphasizes an FEA. Here is a few seconds at the end...

6 architects and engineers were at this Collin College event about 9/11. "Building 7 - Gone in 7 - What You Are Not Supposed to Know About 9/11"
Radio ad at beginning of 5 minute video...

A Twin Towers Modeling

Would be nice to eventually see a modelling of the Twin Towers collapses. The government after all has conceded that it could not explain the total structural failures post initiation.

Some interesting reading:

"In addition, up until 9/11, it had always been the goal to show that a building 'stayed up' in a fire. When attempting to model the WTC towers, the intention now became to demonstrate 'global collapse'."

That didnt make it past the final edit, but the tracked changes are intact:

More raw data NIST's inability to simulate "global collapse":

Would be nice to see the structural drawings....

This FEA project happened ultimately because NIST released SOME of the WTC7 structural drawings and people looked, compared and found there were "issues". Would also love to see what conditions would need to be applied to a FEA of a tower through initiation to progressive collapse. I don't actually think a model of the towers would be as difficult to produce as WTC7. Some of the angles, particularly around Column 79 are tricky, as a look at E12/13 framing plan shows. There's also the complication of the pre-existing con-ed, so not the easiest building to model I would imagine.
Obtaining the drawings remains key re the towers. NIST knows that, and they must be hurting over the recent evidenced revelations that they knew key, pertinent, structural details re WTC7 but failed to disclose these details when asked through the proper channels to do so. I think they may have learned a lesson here about what happens when you give honest people facts and data to chew on, and in particular, what happens when you give researchers structural drawings that allow them to check the work NIST did.
NIST have already been refuted by one FEA, carried out by ARUP and presented to a US court in evidence, but on the other hand, I suppose NIST's opinion could end up being endorsed by this project. I doubt it though, but not as much as I doubt NIST will risk inviting similar scrutiny on the towers than that which got them into this mess re WTC7.

"NIST have already been

"NIST have already been refuted by one FEA, carried out by ARUP and presented to a US court in evidence"

Do you have a link?
Can you please briefly summarize
- what ARUP modeled
- what the conclusions were that they presented to the court?


Is Dr. Hulsey aware of the ARUP study? If I understand him correctly, he said he didn't want to read any of the other studies to avoid getting biased, so perhaps he doesn't know about ARUP. Should he?

The only working links that I

The only working links that I can see to the files is here.
This is the one i was talking about. The FEA is toward the end..
There's a lot of information, it's difficult to summarise. Maybe you could post it in a new thread, and without the particular link, for which I apologise.
There's another 5 or so files at the site there too.