Talk is cheap. Scientific data is costly in time and money. You must gather it, interpret it, and then discuss it with other scientists in your field. The third step, discussion, is just as important as the first two. Without transparency, your conclusions aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. It’s just a bunch of blah blah.
In the first hours after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the “Official 9/11 Story” was relayed, through major news organizations, to the American people:
- The attacks were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists lead by Osama bin Laden.
- All the destruction was caused by airplane collision and fire. No explosives were involved.
Many Americans were unsatisfied with this explanation—especially the family members of the victims. They demanded an investigation.
On July 22, 2004 the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) released a 567 page public report. In a nutshell, it confirmed that the attacks were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists lead by Osama bin Laden.
On April 5, 2005 the National Institute of Technology (NIST) released its report confirming that all the destruction in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania on September 11, was due to airplane impact and/or fire. No explosives had been used.
Most Americans were willing to accept the Official Confirmation of The Official Story, which they had already heard, over and over and over again, since September 11, 2001. However, some Americans were still unsatisfied for various reasons. Personally, I objected to the government’s lack of scientific transparency.
“A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7”
In May of 2015, ten years after NIST published its Official Confirmation of the Official Story, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, began a forensic study of the collapse of one of the World Trade Center buildings. He didn’t choose the dramatic collapses whose images play an integral part of our collective memories of the morning of September 11, 2001. Instead, he chose the catastrophic failure of World Trade Center Building 7 that took place later that afternoon. Unlike the North and South Towers, WTC 7 had not been hit by an airplane.
In September of 2019 he and his team published a preliminary draft that stated the following conclusion:
“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”
Unlike NIST, Dr. Hulsey publicly shared the data on which he based his conclusions.
“All input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during this study
are available at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7.”
Why should you choose to read this study? I suppose each individual has a slightly different answer.
Personally, I have always thought that the collapse of WTC 7 looked exactly like a controlled demolition. However, I could be wrong. As an 8th grade science teacher (retired), I have taught many lessons designed to challenge my students’ incorrect preconceptions about the natural world. For instance, even the great Aristotle wrongly assumed that given two objects of different weights, the heavier object will fall faster. In fact, they fall at the same speed. My opinion about the collapse of WTC 7 has been based on the same amount of experimental data as Aristotle’s opinion about falling objects— Zero, Zip, Zilch.
Unfortunately, the same can be said for the NIST report: Lots of words and pretty pictures but no supporting data. The government can hardly blame its citizens for creating “conspiracy theories” if it refuses to release the scientific data of 9/11.
What do I mean by data?
I want a detailed, public report on the forensic investigation of each of the crash sites in the days following September 11. After all, it has been 22 years.
I want a detailed list of the forensic evidence that was removed from the site, and then permanently stored in a secure location.
I want a detailed list of the evidence that was removed and/or destroyed along with paperwork and signatures.
I want detailed information about all structures prior to impact–particularly those that suffered catastrophic failure. For example: The original set of design plans, the erection drawings, materials suppliers, etc.
I want all federal, state, and local agencies to fully cooperate with any private citizen or group of private citizens that wishes to evaluate the evidence contained in official reports on the events of 9/11.
Dr. Hulsey did not have access to the above data. He explains how he and his team challenged the NIST report and arrived at their own conclusions in this video:
Forensic Engineering World Trade Center 7 | CSI | Forensics Talks Ep12 | ft. Dr. Leroy Hulsey
3D Forensics Nov 20, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpqJvjekM
The Hulsey Study is not an easy read. It is directed toward architects, engineers, and others in the construction industry. There was a lot of vocabulary that I didn’t understand, and I am sure that many of the engineering concepts flew right over my head. I would not have found it so frustrating to read the study if I had watched the above video first, but the interview wasn’t taped until one year after I had read the report. This is the only 9/11 study in existence that provides data to support its conclusions. I ask everyone who has had the advantage of the education necessary to completely understand Dr. Hulsey’s “Reevaluation”: Please provide feedback. http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Links
“A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” published on September 19, 2019.
https://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
Data supporting the study: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Helpful interview in which Dr. Hulsey explains his study: Forensic Engineering World Trade Center 7 | CSI | Forensics Talks Ep12 | ft. Dr. Leroy Hulsey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpqJvjekM
NIST Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf
NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc
The Official Theory/World Trade Center Building 7 https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/the-official-theory-wtc7
Free-Fall Acceleration /World Trade Center Building 7 https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration
Fraud Exposed in WTC7 Reports https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/317-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-series
Beyond Misinformation/What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. https://www.ae911truth.org/images/BeyondMisinfo/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf
Control Savvy 
I’ve read through all of the reports you’ve linked and, while much of it was way over my head, I was able to grasp that the 9/11 collapse of the WTC is consistent with controlled demolition and not consistent with fire-induced collapse. This corresponds with what I thought when I first saw the footage of the towers collapsing, most particularly WTC 7.
The first question I cannot answer is “why?” Why did the NIST present incomplete and misleading findings? Who set the charges and why? Why is this not being investigated further? And the second question, of course, is “Who profits?” Who profits from killing 3000+ civilians, endangering the health and safety of emergency and fire fighting personnel and all of the people who dwell in New York? Who profits from causing millions of dollars worth of medical damage and property damage? Who profits from the destruction of massive amounts of stored information? If it was indeed Al Qaeda, why not investigate who set the charges? The official narrative makes no sense to me.