In the Name of Engineering, Science, and Truth: Leroy Hulsey and Roland Angle on the Final WTC 7 Report
- AE911Truth
On this week's episode of 9/11 Free Fall, Dr. Leroy Hulsey of the
University of Alaska Fairbanks and Roland Angle of AE911Truth join host
Andy Steele to discuss the release of the final report on World Trade
Center Building 7 and the importance of everyone helping in their own
way to share it.
We invite you to listen or to read the interview below.
engineering experience have included designing and testing of blast-hardened missile launch facilities and designing US Naval explosive containers, harbor terminal facilities, earth foundation systems, and hydraulic systems.
In addition, Roland has owned three construction companies and has taught engineering subject to high school students. He is also a board member with AE911Truth and a lead presenter on Project Due Diligence. Roland, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall.
Professor Hulsey has taught at the University of Missouri, Rolla; at North Carolina State University; and at the University of Alaska Fairbanks most recently. And while he's been at UAF, he has been an active researcher, he has served as the department head, and he has participated in numerous university committees. Dr. Leroy Hulsey, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall.
And there was just a lot of research that indicated that the conclusions that NIST came to—that the building was brought down by normal office fires—was highly suspect. And so Professor Hulsey and the University of Alaska agreed at our request, to conduct a full, thorough engineering study of the collapse and determine just how valid the NIST report was. And if not, what other mechanism might have caused the collapse of the building.
So that's the purpose of the study. And I would like to say that I've worked with Professor Hulsey and other engineers as this report has been developed, and I can say that it is a very thorough and exact study of what happened that day.
So if it's going to come down through some form of natural phenomenon, it's likely not to come straight down. That was looked at very carefully at the beginning. We established the methodology to look at every little detail that might impact what might have occurred to this building as it might be coming down.
And so we looked at, in detail, floors 12 and 13, as NIST did, and we examined numbers of things about that. We also, at the same time, were looking at, without consideration from NIST, what might have happened under a heated-up floor system, walls, columns, etc., etc. And we determined that the modeling was essential in determining how this building is going to respond.
What we did is put together a virtual model of the building to virtually simulate a failure and then [analyze] what kind of failures needed to happen to get what you see in the videos that actually occurred. That's kind of a snapshot overview.
The second thing we began to look at is how the building actually deformed if it was subjected to all this heat. And it became pretty clear pretty quickly that the exterior part of this building was not that stiff. So when you heat up something, imagine that it's going to elongate with respect to some point. And that point is where it's the stiffest. That's not on the outside of the building; it's closer to the inner core, where the elevator shafts were.
That being said, the response going around, the big controversy, which was column 79, and the bearing plates, and the A2001 girder coming into it led to a whole different set of findings than they used as an argument that brought this building down. And furthermore, when you go up and take a look at the system, the other conclusion we came to was that the system up near the top, near the penthouse, that series of columns didn't fail down below, they failed up around Floor 45—in that neighborhood, which there was no fires up there.
So that was a further finding that led us to be sure that what we were saying is true. Anyway, that's kind of a snapshot.
But when you actually have now a published report from a university like the University of Alaska Fairbanks, that is a lot harder to ignore. That's not to say that the corporate media isn't going to try to, because I think maybe their primary job is to ignore this issue, it sort of feels like, from my position in all this work all of these years. But we're not going to let them. Because I have learned over the years that if we get any traction on this issue that we care so much about, it's going to be from our own labor, our own efforts, our own caring about the people who died on September 11th, which World Trade Center 7 provides a huge smoking gun to a much bigger picture. That's the view that we take at AE911Truth.
And one of the people out there bringing it to the engineering community— they are so important, the engineers—is Roland, with Project Due Diligence. Now, Roland, now that the report is going to be out this week, how will this impact the work of Project Due Diligence moving forward?
Some of the information we had. But the definitive conclusions that he came to are now available for us to bring to the engineering community as well. I think the reason why this is so important is, the academic community, of course, is the wellspring of the engineering community. All of us were trained as engineers in the academic community. And that is the source of our connection with science, and with the history of our profession. So it is very important—this is a very important event for us.
Because with the credentials that Professor Hulsey brings to the study and the backing of the University of Alaska Fairbanks for this report, we have essentially put our cards on the table in a very legitimate way that is going to be very difficult for the engineering profession to ignore.
We are already getting some indications from the universities that there is an interest in exploring these findings. I think it's just a super-important development for us. Because with this information that we now have, it's going to have to be confronted. And that is the beginning of our quest: to make the engineering profession confront this fact that now there are two different versions of why this building came down. And really, you can't accept both. Somebody's going to have to make a decision and take a position on this. We are confident that the academic community is going to stand behind professor Hulsey's report.
Alright, so you have that side from NIST. [And on the other side you have the fact that] our input data has been laid bare. It's been put out there. People who like us, people who don't like us—[both] have the same access to it. There has been a public review period. There was a public review period with NIST, and NIST was very much challenged when they put out their World Trade Center 7 report. Some challenges have not even been properly addressed, in my view.
But this is only phase one of our getting the word out. Again, the corporate media have never been the best friend of 9/11 Truth. Any progress we've made has been because of ourselves. So the next step is to be doing the work to get this out in front of as many people—especially engineering professionals—as possible.
Our volunteers are getting ready for the long fight. They're going to be doing their work. They're fighting those professors on one team. They're going to be calling those professors on another team. And we're going to be having Project Due Diligence doing the proper outreach to those people as well, to carry on those discussions, to get presentations.
This is going to be a full-on assault against the official story of Building 7. And this report is going to be the big Sherman Tank driving through the resistance. Because, again, it's very hard to challenge. I mean, common sense, when you first look at the building coming down, is a very big weapon. But when you actually have the science and everything laid out in this volume, it's very hard to get around it.
Roland, I want to hear from you though. I know what our supporters can do. I've got my own views. But as a board member, what in your view, can our supporters do to help us out in promoting the results of the study?
People have asked in the past, "What good does it do to go back and study this?" And I think we need to understand that the study points out the fact that the evidence that was examined and the conclusion that we came to as a result of that study, was seriously flawed. Therefore, we have been off on a deviant trip. And we need to go back to that information and restudy it and come to different conclusions about what was the cause of that event.
And that event is so important from a professional standpoint alone, for us as engineers. We cannot allow information that is not correct to circulate throughout our profession. It will undermine the foundation of our profession, and we will lose all credibility—and we should lose all credibility if we can't explain why a failure like this actually occurred.
So, what people can do is spread this information as best they can. Point to it, talk about it, research it, look at the different aspects of it, and encourage, especially their engineering friends and colleagues, to do the same.
We will reach a tipping point. And I'm convinced that, from my experience—and our experience as engineers who have been taking this information out into the engineering community—that engineers, like it or not, are playing a very central role in this whole event, because we are the experts.
The public is relying upon us to tell them what we know to be true about what happened. What I'm finding is that, wherever we go, when we present our information to the engineering community, they stand behind us 100% and agree that the NIST report is flawed and we need a new investigation.
That's the message we need to carry forward through the engineering community and through all of the folks out there who are not engineers. [They need to] educate themselves as best they can, talk to engineers about it, convince engineers that they do need to move forward with this new investigation and that it is in our interest and in the interest of the broad public to do so.
Dr. Hulsey, I'm curious, because my understanding is that you had no dog in this fight whatsoever, had no opinion on this. You agreed to do the study, and these were the conclusions that you came to. But obviously, you have become known, as a result of this report coming out, and your name has been associated with it. Have other engineers talked to you about this and shared their opinions, or has it been largely silent?
And keep in mind that this study was not done by just me. Two PhD students who now are doctors studied with me on this building. They both are extremely competent and both very, very good at what they do in structural engineering. They were heavily involved every single day. We did quality control. We managed to take a look at our models, made sure that each one of us was looking at the models to critique it, made sure that there were no issues with respect to it.
And so at the end of the day, we then found things, and then later we began to put this together with respect to talking to engineers and talking to people for our main presentations, and also looked at the work that had been done by NIST and others. This was an essential step, in my view, to make sure that we were not affected by previous work that had been done on the subject.
The other point I need to make, which I think is really, really significant: As a structural engineer, if I'm designing a building, or a bridge, or whatever, we absolutely have to have good data, good results, good information, because our responsibility is public safety. We need to make sure that if we we're designing a structure, that that structure is going to withstand everything that we expect it to go through and it is going to be safe for the public to use.
When you say that it's brought down by fires, there is then a responsibility to address, in the codes, how to fix such a thing. So if it was or it was not, it's a very significant step. And so you've really got to address anything that causes a failure, to ensure the engineers are designing and meeting the obligations that we all take responsibility for and really, really take seriously. Without having that data, and without having accurate information, we are put in a very difficult situation. Anyway, I needed to make that statement as well.
However, we're progressing from an engineering standpoint of, in this case, constructing a virtual model, subjecting it to the fires, looking at the observed collapse, and coming to a reasoned, scientific conclusion about what caused that collapse. So we've got to take that information now out to the universities. We're going to encourage the universities to study both reports. They have students who are routinely assigned to solve forensic problems that are presented to them in this field. And we're going to ask that the universities take up such studies.
They can come down only in three ways. They can say that the NIST report is valid and they stand behind it. They can say that the University of Alaska study is valid and they stand behind it. Or they might come up with some third hypothesis or some theory as to why the building came down.
But I think it's very important that this discussion take place in the engineering community, that the public be aware that this discussion is going on, that the public encourage the engineering community in every way possible to take up this study, and that people continue to assist us by funding us to go out to the engineering community.
So far we've made 22 presentations to chapters of professional organizations like the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Society of Professional Engineers, and to various universities. We've gone to conferences. We're getting a great response and a lot of interest.
And that all takes money. Money is a very important aspect of this, and we have only been able to accomplish this with the support of our many supporters who have contributed the money that has been necessary for us to pay for this study and to pay for our efforts with due diligence, and our other efforts to publicize this issue.
We are a grassroots organization. We're a nonprofit. We don't get any money from any special interest. We are not endorsing any products. We are simply in it for the benefit of the reputation of the engineering community and the responsibility that we have to the general public.
So, everybody has a role to play. Wherever they fit into that model, they should play their part. We encourage everyone to take this up as a matter of great, overwhelming importance to our society.
There would be really a wonderful experience to be able to take pieces of the material that was brought down, and see if we could actually have a metallurgical evaluation of them. Even small samples would give an indication and the details of what that microstructure might look like. It's the first time ever that I've seen a failure come down where the concrete was powder instead of broken chunks with respect to the steel.
Although we can never accomplish this task, because it doesn't exist any longer, but it would have been nice to be able to look in the microstructure of what that dust looked like and what it was made of. Anyway, that would be a wonderful thing, but apparently we don't have access to that stuff.
And again, they may have you quarantined right now, but they don't have to quarantine your activism. You can certainly do a lot online, you can do a lot on the phone. Reach out and touch someone and tell them exactly what we are up to here and what this report has to say. You don't even have to get into the details of the report; all you got to do is get them to read it. That's the main job. It's a pretty easy job if you can just forward them a link and talk to them on the phone, and move onto the next person.
Gentlemen, you have been doing amazing work for this cause, and for science, mainly, and the importance of truth, and getting to the bottom of what really happened that day. So thank you for that. Good luck. And thank you so much for coming on 9/11 Free Fall today.
We invite you to listen or to read the interview below.
Andrew Steele:
Welcome to 9/11 Free Fall. I'm the host, Andy Steele. I'm joined by two esteemed guests today. The first one is Roland Angle. Roland graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, with a bachelor of science in civil engineering. He served in the US Army Special Forces, where he was trained in the use of explosives. He became a licensed civil engineer in California, and his 50 years ofengineering experience have included designing and testing of blast-hardened missile launch facilities and designing US Naval explosive containers, harbor terminal facilities, earth foundation systems, and hydraulic systems.
In addition, Roland has owned three construction companies and has taught engineering subject to high school students. He is also a board member with AE911Truth and a lead presenter on Project Due Diligence. Roland, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall.
Roland Angle:
Thanks for having me again, Andy.Andrew Steele:
And our other guest is someone that the 9/11 Truth movement is very familiar with at this point. This is Dr. Leroy Hulsey. He is the lead researcher on the report that we'll be talking about today. Among several different degrees, he has a PhD in structural engineering from the University of Missouri, Rolla. And he has a master of sciences and civil engineering from that same university. He has owned and run three high-tech engineering research corporations and has extensive teaching and research experience.Professor Hulsey has taught at the University of Missouri, Rolla; at North Carolina State University; and at the University of Alaska Fairbanks most recently. And while he's been at UAF, he has been an active researcher, he has served as the department head, and he has participated in numerous university committees. Dr. Leroy Hulsey, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall.
Leroy Hulsey:
Thank you so much, Andy.Andrew Steele:
So we are all collectively at the end of a very long journey, maybe not long in the span of all of humankind, but for all of us who have been eagerly awaiting the publishing of the final report on World Trade Center 7, we are here now this week. We're going to be talking about that. For people who may be new—we always want to take them into account—Roland, can you briefly describe for our audience what this report is about.Roland Angle:
Professor Hulsey and his team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks conducted this study of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, the 47-story building that collapsed in New York City on 9/11, because there had been significant questions raised about the government-issued report on that collapse, which was authored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.And there was just a lot of research that indicated that the conclusions that NIST came to—that the building was brought down by normal office fires—was highly suspect. And so Professor Hulsey and the University of Alaska agreed at our request, to conduct a full, thorough engineering study of the collapse and determine just how valid the NIST report was. And if not, what other mechanism might have caused the collapse of the building.
So that's the purpose of the study. And I would like to say that I've worked with Professor Hulsey and other engineers as this report has been developed, and I can say that it is a very thorough and exact study of what happened that day.
Andrew Steele:
Now, Dr. Hulsey, I know you have taped presentations out there that go into a lot of detail about this. But just briefly for our audience, as we maneuver into talking about the report overall, can you tell us about some of the many years' processes that were involved in putting this report together?Leroy Hulsey:
Well, I think the first thing that I could probably bring to the table is that we took a look at this building from a very broad viewpoint, and we said, Okay, what can cause a building to come down without having any tilt—or any tilt that might look like there's tilt. And so the first thing we did is we took a look at the centroid of this building, and it's not a symmetrical system.So if it's going to come down through some form of natural phenomenon, it's likely not to come straight down. That was looked at very carefully at the beginning. We established the methodology to look at every little detail that might impact what might have occurred to this building as it might be coming down.
And so we looked at, in detail, floors 12 and 13, as NIST did, and we examined numbers of things about that. We also, at the same time, were looking at, without consideration from NIST, what might have happened under a heated-up floor system, walls, columns, etc., etc. And we determined that the modeling was essential in determining how this building is going to respond.
What we did is put together a virtual model of the building to virtually simulate a failure and then [analyze] what kind of failures needed to happen to get what you see in the videos that actually occurred. That's kind of a snapshot overview.
Andrew Steele:
Now again, because our time is brief, can you just talk about some of the conclusions that you had reached that you talked about last September.Leroy Hulsey:
Yeah, well the first one was that it became very clear early on that fire did not bring this building down. So that's the first thing. And when I took this on, I said, "I might not be able to come up with the reason it came down, but I could certainly tell you what didn't happen." And, well, that didn't happen.The second thing we began to look at is how the building actually deformed if it was subjected to all this heat. And it became pretty clear pretty quickly that the exterior part of this building was not that stiff. So when you heat up something, imagine that it's going to elongate with respect to some point. And that point is where it's the stiffest. That's not on the outside of the building; it's closer to the inner core, where the elevator shafts were.
That being said, the response going around, the big controversy, which was column 79, and the bearing plates, and the A2001 girder coming into it led to a whole different set of findings than they used as an argument that brought this building down. And furthermore, when you go up and take a look at the system, the other conclusion we came to was that the system up near the top, near the penthouse, that series of columns didn't fail down below, they failed up around Floor 45—in that neighborhood, which there was no fires up there.
So that was a further finding that led us to be sure that what we were saying is true. Anyway, that's kind of a snapshot.
Andrew Steele:
And this is such a big deal because for years at AE911Truth we would talk about World Trade Center 7 as part of our overall presentation. We'd present the evidence, present the facts, gather the facts from various different sources. But it was a DVD. It was something that somebody could say, "Well, that's something on the internet." People have this immediate disdain sometimes for what's on the internet, especially if it challenges their own personal world views, they wave their hand and say, "I can't trust anything I hear on the internet."But when you actually have now a published report from a university like the University of Alaska Fairbanks, that is a lot harder to ignore. That's not to say that the corporate media isn't going to try to, because I think maybe their primary job is to ignore this issue, it sort of feels like, from my position in all this work all of these years. But we're not going to let them. Because I have learned over the years that if we get any traction on this issue that we care so much about, it's going to be from our own labor, our own efforts, our own caring about the people who died on September 11th, which World Trade Center 7 provides a huge smoking gun to a much bigger picture. That's the view that we take at AE911Truth.
And one of the people out there bringing it to the engineering community— they are so important, the engineers—is Roland, with Project Due Diligence. Now, Roland, now that the report is going to be out this week, how will this impact the work of Project Due Diligence moving forward?
Roland Angle:
We'll be able to use the final report and incorporate all of its findings in the information that we have been providing to the engineering community. We have had a significant portion of that information already in our report, because a lot of the material that Professor Hulsey incorporated in the study was information that had been uncovered by various researchers during the past 15 years—since the NIST report was issued on Building 7.Some of the information we had. But the definitive conclusions that he came to are now available for us to bring to the engineering community as well. I think the reason why this is so important is, the academic community, of course, is the wellspring of the engineering community. All of us were trained as engineers in the academic community. And that is the source of our connection with science, and with the history of our profession. So it is very important—this is a very important event for us.
Because with the credentials that Professor Hulsey brings to the study and the backing of the University of Alaska Fairbanks for this report, we have essentially put our cards on the table in a very legitimate way that is going to be very difficult for the engineering profession to ignore.
We are already getting some indications from the universities that there is an interest in exploring these findings. I think it's just a super-important development for us. Because with this information that we now have, it's going to have to be confronted. And that is the beginning of our quest: to make the engineering profession confront this fact that now there are two different versions of why this building came down. And really, you can't accept both. Somebody's going to have to make a decision and take a position on this. We are confident that the academic community is going to stand behind professor Hulsey's report.
Andrew Steele:
Absolutely. And I love the fact that you point that out—the fact that we have NIST telling us one thing, Dr. Hulsey and the University of Alaska Fairbanks telling us another. You have two very different outcomes of this analysis. I will step back further and say for myself that from one side, you have the input data hidden away under this guise of public safety: We have to preserve public safety by not making the input data available to the general public, even though engineers like yourselves need that input data—if you believe the official story—to make the general public more safe. Because if buildings can just collapse from random office fires, good God, we're all in danger—anybody who works in a major city.Alright, so you have that side from NIST. [And on the other side you have the fact that] our input data has been laid bare. It's been put out there. People who like us, people who don't like us—[both] have the same access to it. There has been a public review period. There was a public review period with NIST, and NIST was very much challenged when they put out their World Trade Center 7 report. Some challenges have not even been properly addressed, in my view.
But this is only phase one of our getting the word out. Again, the corporate media have never been the best friend of 9/11 Truth. Any progress we've made has been because of ourselves. So the next step is to be doing the work to get this out in front of as many people—especially engineering professionals—as possible.
Our volunteers are getting ready for the long fight. They're going to be doing their work. They're fighting those professors on one team. They're going to be calling those professors on another team. And we're going to be having Project Due Diligence doing the proper outreach to those people as well, to carry on those discussions, to get presentations.
This is going to be a full-on assault against the official story of Building 7. And this report is going to be the big Sherman Tank driving through the resistance. Because, again, it's very hard to challenge. I mean, common sense, when you first look at the building coming down, is a very big weapon. But when you actually have the science and everything laid out in this volume, it's very hard to get around it.
Roland, I want to hear from you though. I know what our supporters can do. I've got my own views. But as a board member, what in your view, can our supporters do to help us out in promoting the results of the study?
Roland Angle:
I think if people will look at the results of the study. It's a 115-page document, and I think it's very well laid out. It's very clearly stated. I think that most people can actually follow it. Now, I know it's asking a lot for people to look through 115-page technical report, but this is an issue that is part of a story that has defined the whole era that we're living in.People have asked in the past, "What good does it do to go back and study this?" And I think we need to understand that the study points out the fact that the evidence that was examined and the conclusion that we came to as a result of that study, was seriously flawed. Therefore, we have been off on a deviant trip. And we need to go back to that information and restudy it and come to different conclusions about what was the cause of that event.
And that event is so important from a professional standpoint alone, for us as engineers. We cannot allow information that is not correct to circulate throughout our profession. It will undermine the foundation of our profession, and we will lose all credibility—and we should lose all credibility if we can't explain why a failure like this actually occurred.
So, what people can do is spread this information as best they can. Point to it, talk about it, research it, look at the different aspects of it, and encourage, especially their engineering friends and colleagues, to do the same.
We will reach a tipping point. And I'm convinced that, from my experience—and our experience as engineers who have been taking this information out into the engineering community—that engineers, like it or not, are playing a very central role in this whole event, because we are the experts.
The public is relying upon us to tell them what we know to be true about what happened. What I'm finding is that, wherever we go, when we present our information to the engineering community, they stand behind us 100% and agree that the NIST report is flawed and we need a new investigation.
That's the message we need to carry forward through the engineering community and through all of the folks out there who are not engineers. [They need to] educate themselves as best they can, talk to engineers about it, convince engineers that they do need to move forward with this new investigation and that it is in our interest and in the interest of the broad public to do so.
Andrew Steele:
Exactly. And I find a lot of times, with engineers—and architects—they don't even know that there was a third building that fell on September 11th. So it's a question of getting the information out, letting them know there is an issue to begin with that exists.Dr. Hulsey, I'm curious, because my understanding is that you had no dog in this fight whatsoever, had no opinion on this. You agreed to do the study, and these were the conclusions that you came to. But obviously, you have become known, as a result of this report coming out, and your name has been associated with it. Have other engineers talked to you about this and shared their opinions, or has it been largely silent?
Leroy Hulsey:
Well, there are a couple points I want to make. Number one is that when I went into this thing, I refused to read anything about it. I didn't want any kind of opinions affecting the science we were going to put together.And keep in mind that this study was not done by just me. Two PhD students who now are doctors studied with me on this building. They both are extremely competent and both very, very good at what they do in structural engineering. They were heavily involved every single day. We did quality control. We managed to take a look at our models, made sure that each one of us was looking at the models to critique it, made sure that there were no issues with respect to it.
And so at the end of the day, we then found things, and then later we began to put this together with respect to talking to engineers and talking to people for our main presentations, and also looked at the work that had been done by NIST and others. This was an essential step, in my view, to make sure that we were not affected by previous work that had been done on the subject.
The other point I need to make, which I think is really, really significant: As a structural engineer, if I'm designing a building, or a bridge, or whatever, we absolutely have to have good data, good results, good information, because our responsibility is public safety. We need to make sure that if we we're designing a structure, that that structure is going to withstand everything that we expect it to go through and it is going to be safe for the public to use.
When you say that it's brought down by fires, there is then a responsibility to address, in the codes, how to fix such a thing. So if it was or it was not, it's a very significant step. And so you've really got to address anything that causes a failure, to ensure the engineers are designing and meeting the obligations that we all take responsibility for and really, really take seriously. Without having that data, and without having accurate information, we are put in a very difficult situation. Anyway, I needed to make that statement as well.
Andrew Steele:
As a layman sitting on the outside—I mean, I work here at AE, but I'm not a scientist or engineer like you guys are—it just seems to me that so much work has been done in this report and in all of the work previous on World Trade Center Seven. Now that this report is out, what else can be done to make the case? I think I asked Richard Gage one time this on the show, but I want to hear it from you guys as the engineers here, starting with Roland, is there anything further that could be done on World Trade Center 7 to point to the fact that we're not getting the full story of what happened that day?Roland Angle:
That's a very good question. I think the information is clear now. I'm satisfied that the information that we have produced, including this report, over the last 15 years, proves without a doubt that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. That information is presented to the public most often as some kind of a conspiracy theory.However, we're progressing from an engineering standpoint of, in this case, constructing a virtual model, subjecting it to the fires, looking at the observed collapse, and coming to a reasoned, scientific conclusion about what caused that collapse. So we've got to take that information now out to the universities. We're going to encourage the universities to study both reports. They have students who are routinely assigned to solve forensic problems that are presented to them in this field. And we're going to ask that the universities take up such studies.
They can come down only in three ways. They can say that the NIST report is valid and they stand behind it. They can say that the University of Alaska study is valid and they stand behind it. Or they might come up with some third hypothesis or some theory as to why the building came down.
But I think it's very important that this discussion take place in the engineering community, that the public be aware that this discussion is going on, that the public encourage the engineering community in every way possible to take up this study, and that people continue to assist us by funding us to go out to the engineering community.
So far we've made 22 presentations to chapters of professional organizations like the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Society of Professional Engineers, and to various universities. We've gone to conferences. We're getting a great response and a lot of interest.
And that all takes money. Money is a very important aspect of this, and we have only been able to accomplish this with the support of our many supporters who have contributed the money that has been necessary for us to pay for this study and to pay for our efforts with due diligence, and our other efforts to publicize this issue.
We are a grassroots organization. We're a nonprofit. We don't get any money from any special interest. We are not endorsing any products. We are simply in it for the benefit of the reputation of the engineering community and the responsibility that we have to the general public.
So, everybody has a role to play. Wherever they fit into that model, they should play their part. We encourage everyone to take this up as a matter of great, overwhelming importance to our society.
Andrew Steele:
Dr. Hulsey, in our last few minutes here, I want your thoughts. Is there anything that can be further done to raise alarms about the story we've been given by the government on what happened at World Trade Center 7? Scientifically speaking, I mean.Leroy Hulsey:
Well, it sure would be nice to be able to open up the original design drawings. I'm talking about the design calcs, the design drawings, the contracting construction companies that were involved in the building of the building, all the materials and how they were inspected and reported through the shop drawings as well as through the inspection reports when it was being built.There would be really a wonderful experience to be able to take pieces of the material that was brought down, and see if we could actually have a metallurgical evaluation of them. Even small samples would give an indication and the details of what that microstructure might look like. It's the first time ever that I've seen a failure come down where the concrete was powder instead of broken chunks with respect to the steel.
Although we can never accomplish this task, because it doesn't exist any longer, but it would have been nice to be able to look in the microstructure of what that dust looked like and what it was made of. Anyway, that would be a wonderful thing, but apparently we don't have access to that stuff.
Andrew Steele:
Well, I think that we have done as much as we can to at least raise alarms about the official story to justify a new investigation. I think the report would hold up in court, and it's going to be up to you out there in the truth community to help us out. I mean, if you are staying at home right now because of the current world situation and you're looking for something to do, go ahead and fill out the volunteer form. I will give you something to do. And it's going to involve getting promotion of this report out there to the people who need to hear it the most.And again, they may have you quarantined right now, but they don't have to quarantine your activism. You can certainly do a lot online, you can do a lot on the phone. Reach out and touch someone and tell them exactly what we are up to here and what this report has to say. You don't even have to get into the details of the report; all you got to do is get them to read it. That's the main job. It's a pretty easy job if you can just forward them a link and talk to them on the phone, and move onto the next person.
Gentlemen, you have been doing amazing work for this cause, and for science, mainly, and the importance of truth, and getting to the bottom of what really happened that day. So thank you for that. Good luck. And thank you so much for coming on 9/11 Free Fall today.
No comments:
Post a Comment