The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: LaBTop

For WTC 7, for the Penthouse dropping below the roof line, where did the structural failures originate to cause it to drop below the roof line. In relative silence, that didn’t drown out the conversations of people talking in the crowd?

a reply to: LaBTop

Do you even understand where your beloved NIST said that the collapse initiation took place?

Please quote where I love NIST.

I think the fire related collapse is the mostly likely because:
The truth movement uses falsehoods.
The truth movement cannot even agree on type of explosives and how they were deployed.
Fire related collapse best fits the video, audio, seismic evidence.
The twin tower floor connections where sheared or stretch. Not cut by demolitions.
Because there is ZERO evidence of WTC planted explosives.
Zero likelihood the CD systems would maintain their integrity through building damage, jet impacts, and building fires.
There are at least three studies that show fire related collapse is the most likely cause for WTC 7, and at least one study is a signed deposition.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

It's getting crazier by the minute.
..

Don't waste your time he just keeping posting stuff that you have answered a dozen times already. That's his debating style.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

It's getting crazier by the minute.
..

Don't waste your time he just keeping posting stuff that you have answered a dozen times already. That's his debating style.

What a false statement. The only thing Labtop is offering is the same thing you offer. Contradictions, out of context facts, and falsehoods.

You

Again false the steel was the first thing they removed that was done in the first month. A few scraps of steel here and there were probably still scattered around the sites.

Anymore more creditless and ridiculous statements you want to make.

Ia reply to: LaBTop

For WTC 2

The inward bowing was in isolated areas in a band around the circumference of the tower. Is that false.

The inward bowing was isolated to a section only about two stories tall. Is that false.

The jet impacts cut core columns in addition to outer columns. The jet impact do not result in inward bowing. Is that false.

The jets impacts did result in hanging floor slabs that did not cause inward bowing. Is that false.

There was reported inward bowing and buckling of the tower whole minutes before collapse initiation, is that false.

The bowing was deforming WTC 2 about the 80th floor, is that false.

Please explain exactly how the core could be cut and dropped to induce the isolated and narrow band of buckling with no visible effects above the areas of inward bowing and buckling.

This is important for the dropped core fantasy.

One twin tower floor needed to be struck by the equivalent mass of at least six falling stories to induce failure of the floor connections.

On floor could handle a static load with the equivalent mass of 12 stories.

But at the 80th floor, the actual columns were made to support the 30 floors above. So take a faily conservative value that the outer columns by themselves could support at least ten floors equivalent mass with no core columns.

So, how much of the core would have to be removed to cause failure of the outer columns? Example, I think one cut on each core column would not induce buckling. It would drop the amount of the cut of say 2 inches, and get hung up on the structure below. You would have to cut and remove whole foot sections of core columns to cause loads with enough drop to induce buckling. An event that would visibly ripple up the tower.

Vs the contracting of cooling drooped floor connections that would induce credible amounts of stain that would cause inward bowing of the outer columns in isolated areas.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: Jesushere

Yes exactly 15:07 is when these booms start, there are 3 of them within approx. 2s.

With no proof of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

Audible evidence remains. In sequence of 3 booms.

youtu.be...

You hear these booms neutronflux Yes or No?

originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: Jesushere

Yes exactly 15:07 is when these booms start, there are 3 of them within approx. 2s.

With no proof of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

Audible evidence remains. In sequence of 3 booms.

youtu.be...

You hear these booms neutronflux Yes or No?

Random link again? Not going to bother?
Because there is no sound from a pressure wave with the energy to cut steel columns. And nobody is saying there wasn’t explosions from heated air conditioning units, fire extinguishers, refrigerators, electrical transformers, water pipes, generators, large batteries for power back up to server rooms.

There was no explosions with the power to cut steel at WTC 7.

9/11: WTC 7 Collapse (NIST FOIA, CBS video)
m.youtube.com...

Other things than planted charges explode

Generator blast shakes high-rise building in downtown LA
abc7.com...

Caught On Camera: Backdraft Explosion At Franklin Fire

m.youtube.com...

Air conditioner explosion
m.youtube.com...

newsok.com...
Deputy Chief Cecil Clay of the Oklahoma City Fire Department said a water pipe broke, causing water to flood the building's electrical and mechanical tower. The water caused an air-conditioning unit to explode and, in turn, caused an electrical fire with heavy smoke on the sixth and seventh floors.

Large explosion during hotel fire
m.youtube.com...

Arc flash Explosion
m.youtube.com...

What happens when transformers fail ? [5 videos]
m.youtube.com...

People would be more surprised if there was no explosions.

Now post evidence of a detonation with the force to cut steel, and the 130 to 140 dB shockwave that is part of the physics of a pressure wave that can cut steel.

a reply to: democracydemo

Forgot fire extinguisher.

Favorite MythBusters Moment: Exploding Fire Extinguisher

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: democracydemo

Another supposed backdraft explosion amount 9 minutes and 32 seconds into the video. Blows out windows. And more.

Paris, Texas Dixon Furniture fire explosion backdraft
m.youtube.com...

I think that was more than a backdraft? Guess you cannot believe everything on YouTube? Wonder what is was?

files.abovetopsecret.com...


To me, a better explanation is the usage at the collapse initiation, of incendiary thermobaric devices, who's first outward exploded HEAVY tower material that was sheared off its positions, got launched out of the perimeter facade, as the first objects ahead of the following more complex and huger building parts.

Or, there were multiple smaller, lower than the main initiating floor explosions, and in that case, there will be also several objects falling ahead of the main parts flock.

What's your opinion, waypastvne ?

a reply to: LaBTop

Nice of you to ignore that there was no ejection of material during the reported buckling of the twin towers before collapse.

And nice of you to ignore during the actual inward bowing and buckling there was no ejection of materials. Not until the actual upper portion of the twin towers fell into the buildings below to displace air.

The actual WTC 2 inward bowing and buckling is in the video in the linked to thread below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

There is no detonations and ejection of material while the columns are being drawn in and buckling.

You

of incendiary thermobaric devices,

One: If fireballs cut columns, then the jet explosions would have had the same effect. The fireballs for such weapons are for use against personal, starting fires, and consuming oxygen in a given space. The conventional explosives in such devices are what cause there pressure wave, and still would result in a 130 to 140 dB audible shockwave if they could generated the pressure to cut columns.

Two: there is no audio, video, seismic evidence of shockwaves made by planted explosives that had the force to cut steel columns.

Again....
For WTC 2

The inward bowing was in isolated areas in a band around the circumference of the tower. Is that false.

The inward bowing was isolated to a section only about two stories tall. Is that false.

The jet impacts cut core columns in addition to outer columns. The jet impact do not result in inward bowing. Is that false.

The jets impacts did result in hanging floor slabs that did not cause inward bowing. Is that false.

There was reported inward bowing and buckling of the tower whole minutes before collapse initiation, is that false.

The bowing was deforming WTC 2 about the 80th floor. With no deforming running up the tower. Is that false.

Please explain exactly how the core could be cut and dropped to induce the isolated and narrow band of buckling with no visible effects above the areas of inward bowing and buckling

A reply to: neutronflux


I've given you and other OS-trusters most if not all the answers long ago, Dec. 2012, around Christmas.
In : WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
After reading that linked to second post there on top of its page 4, just keep on reading all my posts on that page 4.

Day in, day out repeating the same obnoxious posts full of long since answered questions, is not getting you anywhere.
We are forced increasingly to ignore you. Since there's no honest debating with a zealot.
Someone who will never listen to, or read or view his opponents evidence.
Instead, keeps running in circles within his/her own construed fantasy, full of long ago already obsolete misinformation.

You clearly do not even start to understand that the fact that after 3 US Institutions sampled crucial steel from three collapsed towers, only three pieces of two columns from the Twin Towers rubble heaps were SAVED. And NONE from WTC7.
While they said all these years, that every piece of steel was meticulously inspected.
What for ? Fire induced failure ? Because that's what they said caused all 3 collapses...
In the case of finding such important evidence for their theory, they all three would have triumphantly published those finds...However...
All three, never did that. Deafening silence around such simple thing as showing publicly their steel evidence for fire induced collapses.

WAKE at last UP !!!
And you zealous defender of the OS, do still not understand the grave importance of the absence of any, by fire failed steel ?
It's gonna be a damn rude awakening, when at last you will realize you spend all this online time, defending the wrong party.

a reply to: LaBTop

You don’t answer questions directed at you, you project a bunch of BS in a mass assault to drown out other people..

Again....
For WTC 2

The inward bowing was in isolated areas in a band around the circumference of the tower. Is that false.

The inward bowing was isolated to a section only about two stories tall. Is that false.

The jet impacts cut core columns in addition to outer columns. The jet impact do not result in inward bowing. Is that false.

The jets impacts did result in hanging floor slabs that did not cause inward bowing. Is that false.

There was reported inward bowing and buckling of the tower whole minutes before collapse initiation, is that false.

The bowing was deforming WTC 2 about the 80th floor. With no deforming running up the tower. Is that false.

Please explain exactly how the core could be cut and dropped to induce the isolated and narrow band of buckling with no visible effects above the areas of inward bowing and buckling

a reply to: LaBTop

This is important for the dropped core fantasy.

One twin tower floor needed to be struck by the equivalent mass of at least six falling stories to induce failure of the floor connections.

One floor could handle a static load with the equivalent mass of 12 stories.

But at the 80th floor, the actual columns were made to support the 30 floors above. So take a faily conservative value that the outer columns by themselves could support at least ten floors equivalent mass with no core columns.

So, how much of the core would have to be removed to cause failure of the outer columns? Example, I think one cut on each core column would not induce buckling. It would drop the amount of the cut of say 2 inches, and get hung up on the structure below. You would have to cut and remove whole foot sections of core columns to cause loads with enough drop to induce buckling. An event that would visibly ripple up the tower.

And for the floors to pivot on the outer columns, do to length of the floor trusses, the core would have to be dropped at least two stories if not three. The floors below would have to be obliterated. If the floors below are not obliterated, there is no room for the floor trusses to swing down.

Vs the contracting of cooling drooped floor connections that would induce credible amounts of stain that would cause inward bowing of the outer columns in isolated areas.

These are the remarks of Prof. Hulsley during his 36 minutes long RECENT radio interview.
With 9/11 Free Fall radio, 911freefall.com... (interview link follows)

TYPED OUT for you, nearly in full, by your own nn LaBTop.
nn -NN-Nn_nN ; Fill in at free will, interpreting it as f.ex. :
Beloved ; hated ; respected; detested; friendly; vicious; logical; illogical, and so on.
You, the reader, and me, the poster : always happy that way. :

As long as you keep in mind, it's about the message, not the messenger...then you'll never err anymore.
Since much later, growing old, in those days, perhaps you've changed your mind.
Miraculously, it's still working the same way as when it was long time ago once written...just another meaning.

And below is the direct audio LINK to Prof. Hulsley's, via Soundcloud, 9/11 Free Fall radio recorded interview.
WTC-7 study - update :
soundcloud.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...


A few decennials younger than me.

The first 25 minutes cover the still ongoing debate between Prof. Robert Coral & Tony Szamboti and Dr. Lee & Prof. Bazant.
The European Physics Journal has closed the period for debate, and given Bazant et al, the last word. The other two have sent an open letter to the Editor there, with a list of points, that indicate the errors in their opponents last publication. Listen to it at will.

Then follows from 25:00 on, a little shortened by me, LaBTop, smaller first part of the Prof. Leroy Hulsley interview.
You better listen to it yourself too, after you read (and listen simultaneously) my typed out, remaining bulk of it.
Then at 32:26, the bulk of it.

The following remark by Prof. Leroy Hulsley is quite indicative of the OFFICIALLY ENDORSED witch hunt still going on, also on boards like this one, and all other boards covering the still unanswered questions around 9/11/2001.
In his own words :
27:17 "At that point, I decided I was old enough to not worry if there would be any consequences to this, so I said, I'll do it."

Then he tells a lot about Finite Elements Analysis. Two of his students were put on the job. They fed 2 of those programs with the by now, well known WTC7 blueprints derived from their Erection Drawings, with their structural components strengths, and so on. Then they correlated the outcomes of those 2 FEA programs, to see if they corroborated each other, and thus were comparable.
And to top it off, Prof. Hulsley then also checked these 2 assistants their work himself, to be sure of the trustworthiness of their work.
30:40 He then explains they had no actual WTC7 steel to study, which is standard procedure in every other forensic engineering investigation.
What they instead used was the Erection Drawings showing what the building was build by. From those, they created their computer models.
They were not able to use experimental steel damages, that were once out there in the field at Ground Zero.
That was all hauled away before they had access to it. He says that their work was however quite accurate, despite that missing WTC7 steel EVIDENCE.
Since September 6, 2017 they kept silent and were working on WTC7's progressive collapse and much of those issues.
At that time in the interview, he said : "I can say very clearly and empathically, that fire did not bring this building down.!"
Since then, him and his team looked at various aspects of what the building brought down, what the building collapse might look like.

Prof. Leroy Hulsley :
32:26 And right now (6 Sept. 2018), I can tell you, without anybody seeing it yet, that if you take our building collapse simulation, and put it in a video, beside the real video of the building coming down, so, the two videos side by side, THEY LOOK ALMOST IDENTICAL.!
Which is quite different than what you have seen previously by analysis done by NIST. Where the building simulation looks quite different, in the way it's coming down, versus how the true building came down.
(LT : And NIST calculated only the first 2 secs of collapse.! And it didn't look identical at all, to what we all see in the real WTC7 collapse videos).
So at this point in time, we are effectively about two weeks away from the point in time to conclude our FEA on progressive collapse, and we are now basically going through the process of refining it. We will have a report by the end of this year (2018). The idea there is to try to have sufficient people reviewing our work, to invite the peer reviews of our effort. That would be the constructional side, the material side, perhaps the architectural side, and so that we have truly, a quality review by the peers. So, so that's where we are, we are close to being done, we intend to have the things written by, ehh, somewhere before the end of the year. (2018)

33:33 - 34:43 A few remarks by his interviewer, then he asks : How was your outcome so much different from the crinkling collapse simulation by NIST ?

He answers : It's not completely clear what they did to achieve their progressive collapse result.
Here's a couple of things which affects their results :
34:55 If you look at their models of the, ehh, building, they (NIST) did only model the connections over part of the floor system, and the other part they'd approximated by what's called pins and joints and fixed joints and so on. It turns out that the stiffnesses within in those two areas are quite different. By making that decision, to try to simplify computer time, if that's what they were doing, they actually affected the behavior of the structure, and so, if you take that idea and you progress it all the way to the 47 stories, and begin to look at what happened, if you take out some floors, take out some columns, and the building starts coming down, you'll notice that part of that building is quite different in looks then the other part of the building, and that's where they, those, eh, stiffness values are changing.
35:52 What we have done, is model the building with connections, and we simulate those connections accurately, put in springs, to save in computer time, that those springs act like these true stiffener of the true connections, that were in the building. And when we do that, you are actually getting a representation that is highly accurate of what that building would be subjected to if you would put a load on it. So, that's the difference, that's at least one of the differences.

Then the interviewer asks, how NIST, opposed to him, got the building interior collapsing in their animation. And how he did that.
37:01 He's not prepared today to give the interviewer all the details of what NIST did, he can tell that they were looking at column 79 coming down, and effecting the floors down below, you know the numbers of floors that were affected, and all that kind of stuff. He can't remember the number of floors. He needed some time :

Let me think...,
So, the vertical support in lateral restraint at the north side only, was at about, ehh, from floor 8 to floor 13, and then they had lateral support buckling issues over 9 floors. That was their (NIST) argument of what actually may have happened during the, ehh, during the collapse.

37:47 We attempted to, to, fine, to do that same simulation. And we didn't even came close to what they were talking about, using 2 different computer programs, by two different individuals, trying to accomplish that same task. There is just no way that that could have occurred, going through all of our results and our studies. And we've taken a look at things quite differently than NIST did, we looked at, ehh. Their argument was that ehh, the floor was not compositely connected to the girders and that they didn't had shear connectors on the beams, and so all of that would affect the behavior .
Actually, we found that they DID have shear connectors on that girders, but we studied it with shear connectors, and without shear connectors, and found that their was sufficient friction to enable that thing to behave, particularly since there were shear connectors on the beams, and there's no one that argues about that, so consequently, ehh, the floor stiffness was, ehm, I think, quite a bit significantly better than they (NIST) thought it was.
39:01 And, so, ehh, when you take a look at that massive concrete resistance, with the floor systems and the beams and the girders all working together as a unit, it's gonna take a tremendous amount of, ehh, effort, to get that to start acting like they were suggesting it would have, eh, had to do.
Furthermore, we looked at, ehh, we determined, ehh, they stiffened, ehh, they treated the exterior wall as fixed, and, ehh, that simply just was not the case. So we, we actually applied the connections that actually were installed in the building, ehh, as springs, and ehh, and simulated the behavior around the exterior of the building as well as the interior of the building to get the performance. So when it begins to move, there is some resistance to rotation, but not a lot.
39:59 Furthermore, it's pretty interesting to make sure that, ehh, if you, ehh, if we looked at the, ehh, concrete floor, it should be connected to the girders and the beams. But not necessarily to the column. So, that, that we looked at as well, to evaluate the potential influence of the floor, and the beam girder system, and the girder, ehh, column system. And how that all interacted.
The other thing that we did, which was quite a bit different in terms of behavior as we actually attempted, to get an understanding of the aggregate that was actually used at the job side. And those aggregates have a certain behavior or characteristic, both thermally as well as mechanically.

Interviewer asks what an aggregate is :

Ehh, broken rocks. And sand, and it, ..they put it into cement, and water, and they stir it up, and they take it up to the job side, and they pore,..they place it in a set of forms, and then it begins to harden. And then they use, ehh, slopes, to actually slope it down, and then you get a smooth floor system about it. Once it's hardened, then it carries load as well.
41:27 OK, so then we began to, to look at, the potential ways that this building could come down. Now keep in mind, eh, that we should not forget, that we have video of, of some of the building as it comes down. There's just no doubt about that. The top 26 stories that we can see, everything what's going round around, at least at one side or two.
So we take our building there, and you put it, you subject it to, ehh, some condition, ehm, what happens to your building? And what is it gonna take, to make that building, act like, like the true building? And so, at that point in time, we began to look at, alternate things that might had occurred, and lot and lots of people argue that, OK, the interior columns came out first, they went down, and they dragged the exterior columns in, and they buckled and folded down upon itself.
42:32 Once you look at the video, that could not have happened. And if you look at the video from another stand, now there was an exterior surface on that wall system. And that external surface system is not very structural. So, if there is any movement, relative to one column to another, one member to another, you gonna see it, on the surface of that ... and you just don't see much. And so, that tells you automatically, if it's not bending, in respect to its neighbor, and it's not moving in respect to its neighbor, then the two neighbors are going down together. And if that's the case, there's no relative displacement between the edges, and which means there's no warping, and there's no bending and there's no rippling and there's no cuts, in and around that stuff on that surface.
43:23 That being said, that being said, that's telling you that it's a FREE FALL condition.
So, that's what we're finding, right now.

Interviewer then makes lots of remarks about the fires in WTC7, and that essentially NIST worked towards a wanted outcome, then Prof. Hulsley answers :

44:30 What we did, we said we are not gonna argue about the fires, we just take those fires and use them, which is the worst scenario than there's truly out there, and if we can't determine the things you did with that, then obviously, one of us is wrong. And so, that's what we did, and we determined a number of things to that process. First of all, we put the fires there, and we let it move around, and the first thing we discovered was, their movement of 5.5 inches, what they first said, that moved off and shoved off the support, and that enabled the column 79 to not be braced and it came buckling down. Well, guess what. They (NIST) forgot the fact that there was a , ehh, a plate there, a stiffener plate that prevented it from being able to be shoved off.
Secondly, there are a number of factors, associated with that scenario. They also were looking on the expansion of the, ehh, girder, and on the floor system, and if you really stop and take a look at that, when you heat up a floor, it's gonna react in respect to the stiffest point.
45:49 And what NIST did, they FIXED the exterior wall, and when they did that, the floor system moved away from the exterior wall system. And therefor, it shoved it. And they explain the shoved 5.5 inches they later shaved it around, I think, around 6 inches, ahm, off of that seat.
Given the resistance of the stiffener there, it couldn't have happen.
But our analysis, we did not, we did not lock in that exterior wall, we put the connections that were actually build into the building, there.
As well as the rest of it. And let it that thing move. And when it moved, it did not move from the exterior wall inwards towards column 79, it moved just the opposite.
46:45 And so, we were getting horizontal movements in the neighborhood of 1.2 inches, and maybe 2 inches and so forth, not 5.5 inches, 6 inches.
So there's just no way it's gonna move out the way that they say.
So that, that automatically says, OK, what they are saying, is not one of those things that could have had happened.
Now, the next question is, to ask yourself, OK, so there was these fires. Really? Where did the combustibles come from? We're talking about fires in floors, that, much of which was committed to businesses. Or, secure information. Won't you think that that stuff would have been locked up in files and cases, and not out on the desks? And even if it was on the desks, was there enough combustibles to keep that fire raging for that many hours? Just don't think so!

( LT : We have evidence on video, that for the rooms on the east and north sides that became engulfed in fire, those fires were hopping from one room to the next, under influence of the wind gusts blowing in those "ravines" between all these high rise buildings, which took per room about 20 to maximum 30 minutes. Then such a room was deficit of any more combustibles. )

47:36 So, why there's just so many issues with regards to what they coming up with in terms of a solution, and it was not consistent with what was actually build out there? Furthermore, what I did, which was a lot different than they did, I attempted to get the actual area of the floor, Dolomite, and I looked at the thermal expansion; - I wrote a paper about this some years ago - and what it takes to expand the concrete, ehh, within different areas, and how that correlates with the steel expansion, and they are quite, they are different.
And so, therefore many, ehh..., I saw no evidence where they actually considered the floor system expanding at a different rate than the floor, ehh, than the girders and the beams.
So all of that also impacted the end result. So, so we looked at that, all the issues, very carefully and looked at the possibility of wether the building could have actually come down as they said it was, and I see no, ehh, nothing in our analysis that shows their effect could have been even remotely possible.

48:45 Interviewer : Now you're talking about "remotely possible", the scenario the girder getting pushed off its seat, and all these internal failures are happening, because the inside is coming down and leave the exterior standing as a shell, for a few moments, before it comes down, and that's where they say it looks like a controlled demolition for each of them.
Can the exterior columns ever still stand if the core columns have failed.? :

Well, ehh, I don't know..I can tell you that we were not able to get that to happen. Our analysis does not show that that's a possibility.
We tried to simulate wether they actually buckled inward, as many people argue, we tried to simulate all those conditions and none of them, ehh, and we, we used more than one computer program, we even took simpler models to examine the theory behind that whole phenomenon, and , ehh, it became very clear that that was not going to happen.
49:50 So, that means something else was happening. Right? To get the conditions they saw.

Interviewer then asks what other ideas than the one from NIST, were looked into? :

Well, I don't know if I am prepared to talk about every little detail that NIST did, in that regard, today, but I can tell you that we, we looked at, ehh, every aspect of what we thought could have happened in that (NIST's) scenario, and you gotta remember something, that this building is not symmetrical.
Because it's not symmetrical, if you, if something happens, some place within the building, it's not gonna come straight down. It's gonna come down at an angle, or rotate, or any number of things. Cause the centroid of that building is not in the middle. It's just not. And so its, if there's a, a strength that's causing it to come straight down, there's gonna be influences, to make that happen. And I didn't see a lot of evidence that they were giving space to that thought, ehh, we have studied extensively that, carefully, I'm not gonna tell you that it's controlled demolition, I'm gonna tell you, that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure, we have, ehh, ended up with a result that looks very comparable to what the building actually went through, when it came down.

51:58 Interviewer asks if Prof. Hulsley could get into that rate of failure offered by them, that mimics the actual collapse we saw :

Well I can tell you that we took, ehh, I can't remember.., ehh, we looked at several floor levels, ehh, and taken out the interior columns.
The CORE columns. And then we delayed the coming down of the EXTERIOR columns, and determined that was not what really happened because the behavior was TOTALLY different.!
The columns , they were gonna fold inwards? Didn't happen. We tried everything. We looked at the individual column buckling behavior, from bottom, the substation, all the way to the top, looked at various aspects of every single column, to try to understand, what it would take to do, what many people think it did.
We couldn't EVER getting it to do those things.

+/- 53:00 So then, we started looking at, ehh, severing the exterior columns as well, and when we began to do that, when the behavior of the system, ehh, began to look a lot like the, ehh, and I'm talking about after, or simultaneously to the interior columns, then you getting a, ehh, a behavior that's very very similar of what you see in the video. (LT : the real time 9/11 collapse video of WTC7)

Interviewer asks : What could cause those columns to sever, in those moments; what natural phenomena you think, could cause that many core columns to break at the same time, given what we saw that day ? :

53:40 Prof. Hulsley : I don't believe there's a natural phenomena that's gonna do that.