Order the autumn edition here

20 years after September 11

SEVEN
Regissør: Dylan Avery
(USA)

DOCUMENTARY: A research team in Alaska has via research and new computer-simulated models concluded that the NIST report on 11 September has been incorrect. Something for NRK?

(PS. This article is machine-translated from Norwegian)

A research community around Dr. Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has spent four years investigating why and how World Trade Center No. 7 (WTC7) collapsed on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. In September 2019, they published their report. The report undermines the official report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Dylan Avery has just finished directing the documentary SEVEN, which in 45 minutes tells the story of WTC7. The film shows how Hulsey (professor of construction engineering) and his students investigated the collapse, how they worked, and what they concluded.

Was not hit

WTC7 was a 47-storey skyscraper that housed several important public institutions, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and the Secret Service. The building contained data for several Wall Street investigations that were not backed up elsewhere.

WTC7 was not hit by any aircraft. The building stood 100 meters from the nearest tower that collapsed, but was only slightly damaged. A few fires could be observed around the building. Never before had a high-rise building in full flames collapsed due to fire, and there was absolutely nothing to indicate that this skyscraper would collapse.

Nothing should indicate that this skyscraper should collapse.

Still, the BBC went on the air 23 minutes before the collapse – while we could see the building live there in the background – and announced not only that it had collapsed, but even why it had collapsed. The BBC's prediction led to this collapse being filmed from all sides.

The building went straight down like an elevator, completely symmetrical, and landed on its own imprint as if it were a professional demolition job no experts could have done better.

The wreckage was quickly driven away for remelting in China, in violation of standard procedures for handling and examining evidence. Nevertheless, the research communities managed to secure enough pieces of the material to prove that steel beams in WTC7 were exposed to temperatures around 1000 degrees Celsius, far above what is expected from an office fire.

NIST report

NIST had such major problems with WTC7 that they only in August 2008 completed a preliminary report in which they claimed that the building collapsed with 40 percent less acceleration than free fall. This caused professionals to rage. The engineers only needed to mark a point on top of the building and analyze frame by frame in the videos, then they could prove that the building fell into free fall for over 2 seconds (8 floors) – otherwise the collapse occurred in almost free fall.

NIST had to turn around. In their final report in November 2008, they agreed that the building fell into free fall for a little over 2 seconds, but they failed to tell how this could happen, nor did they assess the consequences of such a discovery.

Professor Hulsey undertook to lead a group funded by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to research WTC7. The group was to find out what really happened, and put an end to speculation and different opinions. For Hulsey and the team, it was not just a matter of finding out what happened, it was also important to find out what happened. not could have happened.

NIST's report explaining the collapse was studied in detail. The building was then entered into a computer program that simulated the entire collapse. Hulsey's philosophy was that if you put in the worst case scenario and did not even then manage to bring about a collapse that supported NIST's version, then NIST was wrong. Therefore, they entered the most powerful parameters based on a WTC7 without any fire protection.

Unfortunately, the team did not have access to NIST's calculations, since NIST keeps the documentation secret for reasons of «public safety».

It is difficult for people to acknowledge a different explanation for 9/11 than the official one.

NIST substantiated its report with a simulation that showed that the building collapsed as we see in the videos in that every single column failed at the same moment across all floors. The simulations of Hulsey and his team gave a completely different outcome. According to NIST, the first pillar that failed was placed approx. 1/3 out on one long side of the building. Hulsey's team found that if this pillar failed and managed to take the entire building, WTC7 would bend over to the side instead of falling straight down symmetrically.

Hulsey and his team conclude that NIST was wrong.

Professor Hulsey concludes the documentary SEVEN with expressing their concern: Because if there is a problem with WTC7, then there is a problem with 9/11, and in that case we have a very problem. But it is difficult for people to acknowledge a different explanation for 9/11 than the official one. This is a door that no one wants to open.

The documentary SEVEN deserves to be shown on NRK in normal broadcast time.

Reidar Kaarbø
Kaarbø is the author of the book 20 years after September 11, 2001.

You may also likeRELATED
Recommended