# AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### gerrycan

##### Banned
Banned
Do all the other problems mean nothing to you? You asked me earlier if I knew about the C79 change of direction. Is this no longer relevant?

Of course it is. But it isn't clear what Dr Hulsey is actually stating here. And it is similarly not clear what difference at times is being highlighted. This is the problem with interim reports.
But for you to start a thread claiming to have debunked this is just nonsense. You haven't debunked anything. You cannot claim on one hand not to have enough data or context to properly scrutinise it, then claim to have debunked it on the basis of the same available data.
You have jumped the gun in a very big way making that claim Mick.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
I am looking at Slides 44 to 48, where Hulsey addresses the question of what the impact force would be on the floor below if the north-east corner floor assembly detached at col 79. This depends on the mass and the stiffness of that floor assembly.

And it looked awfully familiar:
Slide 44:
Modal analysis showing 52 Hz frequency mode of the falling beam and girder assembly which was needed to calculate the combined stiffness of the contacting structural members and the subsequent impact load on the girder below on the 12thfloor.
Content from External Source
This is illustrated with an Image of the floor frame that is directly lifted from Tony Stamboti's PowerPoint file which he posted here at Metabunk in January 2016: Open the attached file, page 2.

However, Tony told us that "the information on the upper left says 5.1693e-01 Hz, which I rounded up to 0.52 Hz" - not the 52 Hz that Hulsey has in his slide 44 (although he uses the correct 0.52 Hz further down).

Slide 46 then has a calculation that is very nearly the same that Tony presented early last year here.
Hulsey:
The weight of the beams and girder assembly is approximately 20,000 lbs., so mass (m) = 20,000/32.174 = 622 slugs. ...
stiffness could then be found using the equation
Fn= 1/2pi* SQRT (K/m)
and rearranging to
K = (Fn* 2π)^2* m
stiffness (K) of the falling beam and girder assembly can then be found
K = (0.52 * 6.28)2* 622 = 6,633 lbs./inch
Content from External Source
Tony:
The weight of the beams and girder is just over 20,000 lbs., so mass = 20,000/32.174 = 622 slugs so

K = (0.52 * 6.28)^2 * 622 = 6,633 lbs./inch
Content from External Source
I wonder if Hulsey checked Tony's model inputs, or just believes this unpublished work om blind faith.
I was under the impression so far that Tony was not really closely involved with the project. I see now that this impression was false.

#### gerrycan

##### Banned
Banned
One interest point--while there is no singular diagram of the unseating of girder a2001 in the NIST reports, NIST's technical briefing from 11/19/08 contains a simple drawing of the unseating on pg. 33):

While certainly not proof that NIST properly modeled this connection correctly in its detailed sim, this drawing does include side plates and shows the girder clearing them. Whether this was possible (strictly from a side plate trapping sense) in the real world seems to me to be entirely a product of two factors (assuming the eastmost beams were expanding and pushing the girder to the west): (1) what was the average temperature of girder a2009 at the time of alleged dislodgement, and (2) regardless of its average temperature at such time, had girder a2009 previously suffered damage from the fire (e.g., had it already buckled or substantially sagged and then started cooling). We don't know the answers re these considerations in respect of Hulsey's study yet. I don't think we really know them in real exacting detail in respect of NIST's study, either, but I made be mistaken in my recollection on that point.

Mick--I would also note that the slides Hulsey used to dismiss Arup and WAI's studies out of hand lack support. For Arup, Hulsey relied on the same error Tony has made here re dismissing Arup's collapse initiation model due to a flaw in Nordenson's subsequent hand calculations. For WAI, he dismisses the study on the bare assertion that the fire temperatures used in their primary model were too hot (even though he didn't do any independent fire modeling). He also does not address the fact that WAI received from Arup copies of iArup's girder failure models and confirmed them.
Page 43 in the PDF shows the eastern lower flange of the C79-44 girder to have contacted the C79 flange.This is a move of around an inch or so toward the face of C79 and brings the West side flange of the girder well to the inside of the C79 side plate lip overhang.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
a read a bit of Chapter 8 since Tony brought it up, and it says there were no sheer studs, and they got this from structural drawings "Cantor 1985".. I don't want to watch an hour long video again, did Husley say why he thinks there are sheer studs?
Go to footnote 2 at the bottom of page 3 (pdf page 40) at the link below to see Colin Bailey's declaration to the court that there were 30 shear studs on girder A2001 just like Frankel WTC 7 Project Engineer John Salvarinas said there was in his 1986 paper.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/aegis-bailey-expert-report-pdf.16781/

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Page 28 is not based on Hulsey's modelling.
It is based on the unvetted, unpublished work of an unacknowledged other.

The caculations assume that the geometry and materials on the 12th floor are unaffected by the fire inferno and thus still in pristine as-built full structural desin strength. An optimistic assumption.

#### Mick West

Staff member
While certainly not proof that NIST properly modeled this connection correctly in its detailed sim, this drawing does include side plates and shows the girder clearing them.

NIST included the side plates in the NE floor framing system model:

For Column 79, the flange on the north face and the extending portions of the side cover plates were
modeled to allow for contact with the girder
. For Column 44 and the exterior columns, the column web
and the flanges on the near side were modeled, and contact with the girder and the floor beams was
defined. The welded edges of the seats, top plates, and clip angles were modeled as perfectly fixed. The
columns were modeled as perfectly fixed along the edges of intersection between the webs and flanges
and between the flange and side plates. Contact was also defined between the concrete slab and the
girders to allow for transfer of the gravity loads. This contact also provided some rotational restraint for
the girders and floor beams
Content from External Source

(NCSTAR 1-9, Page 351, PDF page 395)

#### deirdre

##### Senior Member.
But for you to start a thread claiming to have debunked this is just nonsense
read the title of the thread. Mick is debunking the [fire could not have caused the collapse] claim.

#### benthamitemetric

##### Senior Member
Of course it is. But it isn't clear what Dr Hulsey is actually stating here. And it is similarly not clear what difference at times is being highlighted. This is the problem with interim reports.
But for you to start a thread claiming to have debunked this is just nonsense. You haven't debunked anything. You cannot claim on one hand not to have enough data or context to properly scrutinise it, then claim to have debunked it on the basis of the same available data.
You have jumped the gun in a very big way making that claim Mick.

If you ever get an email from a Nigerian Prince, be sure to respond as there is no way for you to debunk his claim to the throne without knowing his complete genealogy and the laws and traditions of royal succession in Nigeria.
Page 43 in the PDF shows the eastern lower flange of the C79-44 girder to have contacted the C79 flange.This is a move of around an inch or so toward the face of C79 and brings the West side flange of the girder well to the inside of the C79 side plate lip overhang.

Page 43 in which PDF?

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
... You haven't debunked anything. ...
You already agreed that Hulsey's core conclusion does not follow from the work presented.

I don't understand what your problem is now.

The work Hulsey and Feng have done since 2015 is insufficient to prove what he claims. And that debunks the claim: It is a bare assertion and can and must be dismissed without further evidence, period.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
Page 28 is not based on Hulsey's modelling.
It is based on the unvetted, unpublished work of an unacknowledged other.

The caculations assume that the geometry and materials on the 12th floor are unaffected by the fire inferno and thus still in pristine as-built full structural desin strength. An optimistic assumption.
Oystein, the 2" x 14" x 18" support plate that the bearing seat and girder A2001 sat on was welded to column 79 on the 12th floor and the column never got hotter than 300 C. Structural steel, which includes the material used to weld it, has not lost any strength at 300 C. The welds of the support plate to column 79 would need to be sheared for the girder at that floor to fall and they would have been at or below 300 C and still had their full yield strength along with the support plate and column. So the calculation is quite realistic.

Last edited:

#### gerrycan

##### Banned
Banned
NIST included the side plates in the NE floor framing system model:

For Column 79, the flange on the north face and the extending portions of the side cover plates were
modeled to allow for contact with the girder
. For Column 44 and the exterior columns, the column web
and the flanges on the near side were modeled, and contact with the girder and the floor beams was
defined. The welded edges of the seats, top plates, and clip angles were modeled as perfectly fixed. The
columns were modeled as perfectly fixed along the edges of intersection between the webs and flanges
and between the flange and side plates. Contact was also defined between the concrete slab and the
girders to allow for transfer of the gravity loads. This contact also provided some rotational restraint for
the girders and floor beams
Content from External Source

(NCSTAR 1-9, Page 351, PDF page 395)
Do you STILL believe that the girder can fail to the West in the manner NISt described, when the elements making up the connection are modelled accurately as per the drawings available ?

#### Jaytje

##### New Member
Go to footnote 2 at the bottom of page 3 (pdf page 40) at the link below to see Colin Bailey's declaration to the court that there were 30 shear studs on girder A2001 just like Frankel WTC 7 Project Engineer John Salvarinas said there was in his 1986 paper.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/aegis-bailey-expert-report-pdf.16781/

And why don't you copy and paste the footnote on page 36 for us, or better yet, yell us what he thought the impact was of those 30 studs.

Here is the footnote.

Evidence discovered after June 15, 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed on each floor on the girder running between columns 79 and 44. This was done to increase the ability of this part of the structure to support an additional 10 psf load above the original design load. As a result, only 30 shear studs were installed, which, in my opinion, was not sufficient to transfer thermal thrusts. For a fully composite girder a total of 96 shear studs would be required, which would have transferred the thermal thrusts.
Content from External Source

Last edited:

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Oystein, the 2" x 14" x 18" support plate that the bearing seat and girder A2001 sat on was welded to column 79 on the 12th floor and the column never got hotter than 300 C. Structural steel, which includes the material used to weld it, has not lost any strength at 300 C. The welds of the support plate to column 79 would need to be sheared for the girder at that floor to fall and they would have been at or below 300 C and still had their full yield strength along with the support plate and column.
We'll see if Hulsey's full model and data shows this.

Remember: The promise that we would be kept up-to-date throughout the duration of the project, and would have access to the full data, was broken.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Do you STILL believe that the girder can fail to the West in the manner NISt described, when the elements making up the connection are modelled accurately as per the drawings available ?
It would depend on the relative position of all the elements - Col 79, Col 44, the ends of girder A2001, and that in turn would depend on accumulated damage elsewhere and the temperarure distribution and -history throughout the assembly - things that Hulsey cannot possibly have modelled with his very limited approach.

Hulsey has A2001 apparently expanding and pushing into the Col 79 flange, NIST apparently has it clear of Col 79. I assume both results have causes.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Do you STILL believe that the girder can fail to the West in the manner NISt described, when the elements making up the connection are modelled accurately as per the drawings available ?

My question here is if Hulsey's statement of (Husley Page 32)
It appears that NIST did not examine the side plate influence on the restriction of movement by the girder.
Content from External Source
is accurate.

When NIST says they did: (NCSTAR 1-9, Page 351, PDF page 395)

For Column 79, the flange on the north face and the extending portions of the side cover plates were modeled to allow for contact with the girder.
Content from External Source

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
We'll see if Hulsey's full model and data shows this.

Remember: The promise that we would be kept up-to-date throughout the duration of the project, and would have access to the full data, was broken.
I guess it is hard to understand what you are complaining about as Leroy Hulsey gave something like 8 different presentations over a two year period describing the work they had done up until the time of each presentation and they were all put on You Tube.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Hulsey has A2001 apparently expanding and pushing into the Col 79 flange
And the question remains why this is even relevant given Hulsey's bizarre insistence that everything near column 79 moved 2 inches east, all together.

#### deirdre

##### Senior Member.
And why don't you copy and paste the footnote on page 36 for us
why don't you?
No clicks should be required to understand the post
Content from External Source
https://www.metabunk.org/metabunks-no-click-policy.t5158/

Moderator Note - deirdre
ALL MEMBERS: I realize you all have talked about this topic for 16 years, but please try to remember this is an information forum- not a private chit chat session. So please try to include links, excerpts diagrams etc as much as possible as per Posting Guidelines.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I guess it is hard to understand what you are complaining about as Leroy Hulsey gave something like 8 different presentations over a two year period describing the work they had done up until the time of each presentation and they were all put on You Tube.

The promise was:
"WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress."
Content from External Source
Do you think the YouTube presentations fulfilled that?

#### gerrycan

##### Banned
Banned
And the question remains why this is even relevant given Hulsey's bizarre insistence that everything near column 79 moved 2 inches east, all together.
(my emphasis)

Why is reporting what he saw in his FEA model suddenly becoming a "bizarre insistence"
Explain why it is "bizarre" please.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Oystein, the 2" x 14" x 18" support plate that the bearing seat and girder A2001 sat on was welded to column 79 on the 12th floor and the column never got hotter than 300 C. Structural steel, which includes the material used to weld it, has not lost any strength at 300 C. The welds of the support plate to column 79 would need to be sheared for the girder at that floor to fall and they would have been at or below 300 C and still had their full yield strength along with the support plate and column. So the calculation is quite realistic. The support plate welds would not be sheared and the girder could not have fallen even if the 13th floor girder were to fall as ARUP claimed. This applies to NIST also although it is moot there as their analysis can't even show the 13th floor girder would fall.
NIST's Case B at 4.0 hours shows the girder between C79 and C76 already failed - total loss of vertical support. With this loss of lateral framing from the west, the east side beams would be free to push Columns 79 farther west on the 12th floor than on the 13th floor. As a result, the dropping floor assembly would hit at a different spot.

Also, has Hulsey considered the cooling cycle and the possibility of A2001 being pulled off towards the east? This would further affect the impact point.

You may then have to consider failure modes other than "support plate shear".

Because you see, you ignored the word "geometry" in my post.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
It would depend on the relative position of all the elements - Col 79, Col 44, the ends of girder A2001, and that in turn would depend on accumulated damage elsewhere and the temperarure distribution and -history throughout the assembly - things that Hulsey cannot possibly have modelled with his very limited approach.

Hulsey has A2001 apparently expanding and pushing into the Col 79 flange, NIST apparently has it clear of Col 79. I assume both results have causes.
The corner of girder A2001's east side flange was about 1.1" from column 79's flange and the west flange corner about 1.8". The NIST WTC 7 fire simulation put girder A2001 at 500 C and the report says the seat and clip bolts broke due to thermal expansion of the girder. The NIST WTC 7 report also mentions that girder A2001 contacts column 79's flange due to thermal expansion. Thermal expansion at 500 C for the 531.625 inch long girder A2001 would be 3.76 inches. Dividing that by 2 gives about 1.88 inches of elongation per side.

The girder could not possibly get around column 79's western side plate. Whoever did the NIST analysis ignores it and simply claims the girder traveled laterally until its web was beyond the bearing seat and that the flange folded as it could not withstand the load in flexure. They never showed an analysis of the girder moved off its seat. They just made the claim.

The NIST WTC 7 report authors have been caught in a series of fibs here.

Last edited:

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
I guess it is hard to understand what you are complaining about as Leroy Hulsey gave something like 8 different presentations over a two year period describing the work they had done up until the time of each presentation and they were all put on You Tube.
As Mick has documented already, the presentations were not that much different.

They were insufficient for us to be able to give specific input - a possibility that was also promised; a promise that was also broken.

It is hard to understand why you are NOT complaining about all the broken promises.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
As Mick has documented already, the presentations were not that much different.

They were insufficient for us to be able to give specific input - a possibility that was also promised; a promise that was also broken.

It is hard to understand why you are NOT complaining about all the broken promises.
What would you have expected him to provide to you?

#### benthamitemetric

##### Senior Member
The corner of girder A2001's east side flange was about 1.1" from column 79's flange and the west flange corner about 1.8". The NIST fire simulation put girder A2001 at 500 C and the report says the seat and clip bolts broke due to thermal expansion of the girder. The NIST report also mentions that girder A2001 contacts column 79's flange due to thermal expansion. Thermal expansion at 500 C for the 531.625 inch long girder A2001 would be 3.76 inches. Dividing that by 2 gives about 1.88 inches of elongation per side.

The girder could not possibly get around column 79's western side plate. Whoever did the NIST analysis ignores it and simply claims the girder traveled laterally until its web was beyond the bearing seat and that the flange folded as it could not withstand the load in flexure. They never showed an analysis of the girder moved off its seat. They just made the claim.

The NIST WTC 7 report authors have been caught in a series of fibs here.

Was 500C the average temperature of the whole beam at that time or the hottest spot temperature?

Would the beam have experienced any sagging at that temperature?

EDIT: Can you actually just cite to exactly where in the NIST report you are taking that temperature so we can understand the context? (E.g., was that the temperature at the time NIST alleged dislodgement or some other time?)

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
NIST mentions that girder A2001 contacts column 79's flange due to thermal expansion. Thermal expansion at 500 C for the 531.625 inch long girder A2001 would be 3.76 inches. Dividing that by 2 gives about 1.88 inches of elongation per side.
You are again, or still, ignoring the almost certain fact that the columns were no longer in their as-built position laterally due to several hours of infernal fire compromising the entire structure. Those values of inches down to three decimals east of the dot are silliness.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
Was 500C the average temperature of the whole beam at that time or the hottest spot temperature?

Would the beam have experienced any sagging at that temperature?
At 500 C the steel retains about 70% of its strength so there would be very little sagging. The thermal expansion made the girder fit nearly perfectly in the corner of column 79's flange and side plate. The side plate was about 3.6" from girder A2001's western edge, so the girder could not travel laterally more than 3.6" to the west.

Do you wonder how NIST could have then claimed that the girder travelled laterally 6.25" to the west to put its web past the edge of the bearing seat?

#### Mick West

Staff member
Why is reporting what he saw in his FEA model suddenly becoming a "bizarre insistence"
Explain why it is "bizarre" please.

Because everything up to this point, including the first half of his presentation, and including your work, and Tony's work (and the post above he made a few seconds ago), has been about thermal expansion pushing girders so they break their connections. The disagreement has been about how much, and what are the results.

Hulsey is now apparently saying it's all zero, everywhere.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
What would you have expected him to provide to you?
The raw models and key results. At least on a monthly basis.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
You are again, or still, ignoring the almost certain fact that the columns were no longer in their as-built position laterally due to several hours of infernal fire compromising the entire structure. Those values of inches down to three decimals east of the dot are silliness.
Really. it has now been shown that column 79 was pushed about 1.9" to the east. It doesn't matter as the girder was trapped behind its side plate.

It sounds like you want to just say the building was on fire of course that had to cause its collapse. Well no that is not correct. The devil is in the details and NIST and others are wrong on details and their reports do not explain the collapse being due to fire.

#### benthamitemetric

##### Senior Member
At 500 C the steel retains about 70% of its strength so there would be very little sagging. The thermal expansion made the girder fit nearly perfectly in the corner of column 79's flange and side plate. The side plate was about 3.6" from girder A2001's western edge, so the girder could not travel laterally more than 3.6" to the west.

Do you wonder how NIST could have then claimed that the girder travelled laterally 6.25" to the west to put its web past the edge of the bearing seat?

Can you please cite where in the NIST report you are taking that temp from? And can you quantify very little sagging? We talking about sagging in the context of changes of ~.7% of the girder's total length, so it seems a little sagging is something that would need to be accounted for, no?

#### benthamitemetric

##### Senior Member
Really. it has now been shown that column 79 was pushed about 1.9" to the east. It doesn't matter as the girder was trapped behind its side plate.

It sounds like you want to just say the building was on fire of course that had to cause its collapse. Well no that is not correct. The devil is in the details and NIST and others are wrong on details and their reports do not explain the collapse being due to fire.

How has that been shown to your or anyone else's satisfaction? On top of the fact that we have a general dearth of info re Hulsey's methods, you are studiously avoiding the multiple, detailed posts Mick has made that seem to show Hulsey's methods, as described in his own slides, for determining displacement make little sense.

Last edited:

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
The raw models and key results. At least on a monthly basis.
Do any other professors do that when performing an analysis? I have never heard of any doing so.

Do you even have the software needed to view or work on the models? or are you just bellyaching because you want to make Leroy Hulsey look bad?

#### gerrycan

##### Banned
Banned
The level of data being demanded of this UAF project at this interim stage, when viewed in the context of the willingness among those calling for it to blindly accept and defend NIST on the basis of no more than thin air to support their claims, is quite simply, breathtaking.
On one hand you have Mick, claiming that the project has insufficient data accompanying it in order to be properly scrutinised, but on the other hand claiming to have "debunked" it already, on the basis of same data.
On the other hand, we have Dr Hulsey telling us how the building was modelled and what conditions it was subjected to and what the outcomes and conclusions were, and Mick calling that a "bizarre insistence".
I, like many others presumably, would not be satisfied with a similar lack of openness and refusal to publish data from the UAF project as was and continues to be demonstrated by NIST.
Bizarre indeed.

#### Mick West

Staff member
On one hand you have Mick, claiming that the project has insufficient data accompanying it in order to be properly scrutinised, but on the other hand claiming to have "debunked" it already, on the basis of same data.

I have made no such claim. I have debunked the claim that this study proves fire could not have caused the collapse. Tony think the study does prove fire could not have caused the collapse.

Do you?

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
Can you please cite where in the NIST report you are taking that temp from? And can you quantify very little sagging? We talking about sagging in the context of changes of ~.7% of the girder's total length, so it seems a little sagging is something that would need to be accounted for, no?
The girder temperature of 500 C is given in section 8.8 of the NIST WTC 7 report.

The girder was a W33 x 130 with a 130 kip distributed load on it. The yield strength at 500 C is 70% of what it is at room temperature and the modulus of elasticity about 65% of room temperature. Using the beam equation

deflection = (5 x load x length^3) / (384 x modulus of elasticity x moment of inertia)

the deflection would have been about 2 inches in the center.

#### gerrycan

##### Banned
Banned
I have made no such claim. I have debunked the claim that this study proves fire could not have caused the collapse. Tony think the study does prove fire could not have caused the collapse.

Do you?
Dr Hulsey is making that claim, and I believe it is made in good faith.
Have you seen the study to the extent that he has? NO

The question is this. Is there a level of FEA exaggeration of conditions that you believe that this model can be subjected to, in order to reasonably rule out fire as the proximate cause of collapse ?

#### Mick West

Staff member
Really. it has now been shown that column 79 was pushed about 1.9" to the east.

Column 79, and everything around it, right? So how did the girder end up wedged against the side plate?

And if that's just some abstract expansion of the composite system, then why did Hulsey compare that figure against the NIST figure for girder movement?

#### Mick West

Staff member
The question is this. Is there a level of FEA exaggeration of conditions that you believe that this model can be subjected to, in order to reasonably rule out fire as the proximate cause of collapse ?

I've not seen any evidence he even models failure conditions yet. I've seen graphs of 15" vertical displacement for a knife connection on a 16" high beam. I see the same FEA images now as in 2016 when Hulsey said they had not even modeled the shear forces on the girder seat bolts yet. So I have no confidence in its accuracy at all. The model needs to be validated before we can interpret what the results mean.

#### gerrycan

##### Banned
Banned
I've not seen any evidence he even models failure conditions yet. I've seen graphs of 15" vertical displacement for a knife connection on a 16" high beam. I see the same FEA images now as in 2016 when Hulsey said they had not even modeled the shear forces on the girder seat bolts yet. So I have no confidence in its accuracy at all. The model needs to be validated before we can interpret what the results mean.
Fair point. And so should NIST's have been. It hasn't.
NIST is not at an interim stage though, UAF is.

You never answered my question though. And let's presume that the model is verifiable and true if that suits you better. Can such a model be subjected to exaggerated conditions to the extent that fire could be reasonably ruled out as a proximate cause? <<--It's a reasonable question.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
245
Views
9K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
58
Views
3K
Replies
73
Views
9K
Replies
183
Views
63K
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
AE911 New Collapse Hypothesis 9/11 245
AE911's Response to Mick West's Iron Microspheres Talk. 9/11 17
Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Why Didn't the WTC Fires Ignite AE911's Supposed "Nanothermite"? 9/11 28
AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Discussion: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 16
Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used! 9/11 62
Debunked: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 10
The 10 tactics of fascism - Truth General Discussion 53
Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 174
TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 24
Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 67
9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds 9/11 245
Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection 9/11 73
Related Articles