 |
| Do NIST computer models match any of the 9/11 videos? |
First, let me state that I have designed many tall and important buildings during my career. At least 6 have employed Dynamic Analysis in the final design, the first a 34 story building in the late 60’s, and the last a 1,000,000 sf building at LAX.
Secondly, I was the Board Chair at AE9/11Truth and negotiated and signed the contract with the University of Alaska Fairbanks for the study undertaken by Dr. Hulsey. We both agreed that this would be a completely independent peer review study, no interference from AE or anyone else. UAF would not undertake the study without that being a condition. Additionally, when I was with AE, no one else even had a clue what was really involved is such a study. It was just “A good idea” to do it was the general consensuses. Dr. Hulsey and I are still in contact but our only discussions have related to how was it going. I am an Architect, not an Engineer.
Third, the final report, peer reviewed, was published a few months ago along with all the supporting data and misc other studies connected with his work. And that work was based upon over 2,000 sheets of Shop Fabrication Drawings prepared by Frangle Steel Fabricators and Erectors. These are the drawings from which Building #7 was built. The original steel design drawings were also available for review. All of the above is on line for public review.
Fourth,
the analysis by fire was considered and is discussed in the report.
Additionally, all reasonable scenarios were also analyzed in order to
simulate what was captured on the videos we have all watched. This
included studies of the building after it was damaged by debris from
Buildings #1 and #2. Ultimately the only scenario that worked, or
resembled what we have all seen, involved removing the interior core
columns followed shortly
 |
| FROM NIST Cut Steal Beam |
 |
| FROM NIST Green lights |
No comments:
Post a Comment