Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis

Not open for further replies.
About 2 weeks to go to the end of the comment period - unless it gets extended (no reply yet on that matter from Hulsey)

Is anyone here going to submit a comment?
What do you think about the idea to collect as many comments submitted to AE/Hulsey as we can? Such that we have a repository of what they SHOULD publish. I kind of predict that they would put my contribution in the bin, based on name recognition alone...

This would mean to publish an email address and ask any would-be contributors to forward or Bcc their comment to it.
I was planning on submitting something, essentially a focussed summary of the issues raised here - mostly the inappropriate use of static analysis, and the lack of dynamic analysis. I was hoping to be able to at least look at their data set first. But they seem to be having difficulties uploading files to the internet.

Just for the record, as of Oct 15, 2019, the page still says:

All input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during this study will be made available here and at The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. (Update: Please be advised the data has not been posted yet due to technical issues encountered while uploading several hundred gigabytes of data. It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.)
For anyone intending to download the data, please be advised that there are several hundred gigabytes, so plan your data storage accordingly.
Content from External Source
This seems like a ridiculous excuse to me. Universities, even in Alaska, have quite adequate internet connections. So this suggests to me that it's not being handled by anyone at the University. The simplest way would be to upload it to a Dropbox account, which gives you 3TB, with 50 GB file sizes.
Last edited:
Hello guys and gals. I'm new here but read for a long time. Thanks Mick for the great work.

I just wanted to say that they just released the data.
Okey. I deleted my last comment regarding a problem with the download of the data. It stopped at 17.2 gigabytes. Then I tried to download it on a different computer. It downloaded past the 17.2 GB. So, I thought that my failed try was me and/or a problem with my computer or something, hence deleting of my comment. But now on the second attempt the download pauses(not stopped) at 97.7 GB.
Does anybody else have problems?
Now for something different: What effect did the release of the Hulsey Draft, and its associated media reports, have on AE911Truths online engagement (which I offer as a rough proxy of change in public awareness)?

As you know, for a long time I have been momitoring some online numbers from AE's web presences, among them
  • Their Facebook "Likes"
  • The number of Page Hits, as displayed on the bottom of the old homepage design ("Content View Hits")
It's always been the case that those numbers/day increased on and around the 9/11 anniversaries every year. Much of this can be attributed to general popular interest about 9/11 peaking around those days, some of it may be attributed to the fact that AE themselves center some of their largest marketing efforts (such as press releases and new announcements, projects) around that date.

The Hulsey report was released on September 03 this year (Alaska time - Sept 04 in most of the world), and in the days following, some independent media outlets carried the story, e.g
I think I remember, but can't find it now, that Mick expressed some concern that such early news reports might have the power to transform the minds of many fresh people into Truthers. But how many?
If that was such a huge influence on public awareness, then some of these newly recruited Truthers should come back to AE911Truth, look at their home page, and like their Facebook presence.

Three graphics show that there is, if any, only a very small discernible signal in the data.

1. Here is the development of "likes/day" to their Facebook page:


What you see here is that they actually were losing a few likes almost every day until Sept 04, then (after the release),. three days just above 0, then (starting Sep07/08 - when news reports came out - a small jump to around 50/day. Then comes 9/11 proper, with a sharp 2-day peak follwed by about 10 days of deterioration back into negative territory.
Then comes another, smaller peak that deteriorates over 3 days. Sinced then, they've been below 0 again.

This seems to suggest that the Hulsey report and subsequent media echo has gained AE something like 5 extra Likes per day for a period of no more than 10 days - under 500 total.

To illustrate that it is normal for "Likes/day" to start increasing a few days before 9/11, peaking and then deteriorating on 9/11 and ca. 10 following days, here is an overlay of the same thing for the years 2015-2019. Note that in some years I did not record the numbers daily, nor at regular intervals, so don't compare peak heights. The area under the graph is what counts in the end:


What I claim is that the Hulsey report generated few, if any, extra "Likes" compared to the usual development in Septembers.

2. Visitors to the - the home page, as recorded on the old design

This data is very noisy from day to day, so I have now taken to record the numbers every 3rd day. Only from 9/10 onwards did I record daily for 6 days.

PageHits 20190812-20191011.png

Almost every year, they see more traffic in September than in the preceding and following month, due to the heightened interest that the anniversary creates.
You see: Traffic peaks somewhat (roughly +40% over the average of preceding and following months) for no more than 4 days. There's a more prominent peak at the end of September that I have no explanation for.

The page hits after the press releases and before 9/11 are unremarkable.

September totals have been higher than August's and October's almost every year. Comparing the August-October averages of the last 5 years...

PageHits Aug-Oct 2015-19.png

...2019 does'n stand out at all - in fact, other Septembers have stood out more markedly in recent years.


It seems that the press coverage of the Hulsey Draft has benefitted AE911Truth's online engagement only marginally, if at all. It is difficult to discern a signal.

(Post Scriptum: I have not seen, nor spent serious time looking for, explanations for the "FB Likes" peak of Oct 5, nor for the "Conetent View Hits" peak between Sep 28 and Oct 01. They also do not coincide with each other, which indicates they have different origins, which makes it unlikely that media reports about the Hulsey study would have caused them)
The spikes of Oct 5, Sep 28 and so on are probably certain truther website refering to AE9/11truth after they put something out. Just the usual around that time, I guess.
It sure has nothing to do with the public news only with the filter bubble. In my opinion.
So, 300'000$ for nothing.
Even the hardcore conspiracy theorist I once followed, did not use the study in his subsequent articles when he was summarizing 9/11 and his proof for a false flag. Maybe after I pointed out to him, that it is hugely flawed and biased(thanks to Mick as well).
That means it perhaps did not even convince the target group, much less so the common public.
Hi all, as I am wrapping up my comments to be sent to Hulsey, I have a couple of questions:


I am reading back and forth in the NIST report as well (NCSTAR 1-9, primarily), and here is something I can't find at the moment - does anyone know this, or better yet, can help me find where this is said explicitly - this:

In Chapter 10 (structural response to heating), the Figures with color-coded heat distributions have the floors at 0:30 hours intervals, labeled by the time on the clock: "12:30 pm" through "6:00 pm"
In Chapter 11 (ANSYS model - connection failures), the damage patterns are recorded after a number of hours: "3.5 h" and "4.0 h".
How did they map time on the clock to hours passed? "4.0 h" = "4:00 pm", or "5:00 pm"?

The reason I ask is that Hulsey copied the temperature distribution at "5:00 pm" (Figure 2.53), and I remember having seen someone say that this was an ill choice, for some steel temperatures were already decreasing at that time.


Same issue - Hulsey took the "5:00 pm" temperatures in the floor 12 and 13 slabs and steel as input to his SAP2000 model, and makes transforms them thusly:
We inputted the temperature distribution given by NIST into SAP2000 using three different zones of temperature distribution: high temperature at 1211°F, medium temperature at 941°F, and low temperature, which was room temperature, at 68°F.
Content from External Source
But how? These temperatures correspond to 655, 505 and 20 °C. NIST's Chapter 10 temperature charts are color coded with about 20 °C increments. How did Hulsey translate, e.g., 250 °C, 450 °C and 580 °C to his three base temperatures? It's not explained in the Draft, afaics, but perhaps he talks about it in the presentation?




The above two videos details some issues raised in the thread below (and in prior threads) regarding Professor Hulsey's study.

Draft report and videos at: (mirror)
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. All input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during this study are available at
Content from External Source
Hulsey's Presentation on Sept 3 [Slides enlarges. Question Audio Fixed]


Moderator deirdre
This thread is to discuss the data within Leroy Husley's final draft report funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" released September 3, 2019.

This thread should be viewed as an analytical and informational thread, written for outside readers looking for informed analysis. Links and quotes that support your comment, must accompany all observations and objections.

This thread will be strictly moderated.

  • Off topic observations will be removed.
  • Circular arguments will be removed. If you disagree with someone, but have nothing NEW to add to your previous observations, then use the "disagree icon".
  • Long winded, gish gallop responses and comments are strongly discouraged and may be deleted.

Please focus on the data WITHIN the report only.

In the first video "WTC 7 Report Problems and Questions"
2:13 My next question is; Why do you continue to confuse NIST’s ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model?
Content from External Source
Hulsey is not confused. He is aware of the way the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models were used.
Page 26:
In the NIST investigation, ANSYS was used to model local failures and LS-DYNA was used to model large-scale collapse. When column buckling appeared to be imminent in ANSYS, the analyses were continued in the LS-DYNA 47-story model (NIST, 2008, NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2). … The connection damage data from ANSYS was transferred to the LS-DYNA global model using a damage index.
Page 28-29:
Outside the selected area in Figure 2.4 shown below, structural damage — such as buckling of the steel frame and crushing and cracking of the concrete slab — was modeled over the entire floor, but connection failures were not modeled over the entire floor. Connections were also not modeled in the exterior moment frame, as no failures were observed there prior to the onset of global collapse (NIST, 2008, NCSTAR 1A).
Content from External Source
From "WTC 7 Report Problems and Questions"
2:21 West “Which is something that is in the report on pages 29 and 30. Here you say that the projected collapse model was separated into 2 parts you show here and you show a line in the model. Problem is this is the LS-DYNA model, (indicating the full building model in the right) This diagram refers to the ANSYS model.” (indicating the partial floor drawing on the left)
Content from External Source

That’s not a problem. Figure 2.5 is to show where the red dot-dash line in the ANSYS model is in the LS-DYNA global model (red dot line).
Last edited:
That’s not a problem. Figure 2.5 is to show where the red dot-dash line in the ANSYS model is in the LS-DYNA global model (red dot line).

It's a problem because Hulsey thinks there's a difference on either side of the line in the LS-DYNA model. There is not.
His mistake is more clearly stated in the presentation he gave after the draft report was released. 40:04
Metabunk 2019-11-23 21-10-17.jpg
in the presentation he gave after the draft report was released. 40:04

what IS ls-dyna? it's not like Blender?

I'm confused by what Husley is even claiming. wouldn't the ls-dyna model fall instantly (the right hand side) if no connections were modeled?

Is he saying they just "solidly glued" the girders and beams connections together on that side and on the exterior frame (39:45) when they built the ls-dyna model?
The most benign interpretation I can come up with for Hulsey's drawing a line in the LS-DYNA model is the true fact that floors 8-14 have plenty of failed and damaged connections in the east, but none in the west (where there were fires, too, capable of damaging connections), which would make the west floors 7-14 more stable than they actually were.

But that would be rather incincere coming from a guy who totally ignored all the devastating fires below 12, and who started his global model from an entirely pristine state (zero connection damage)
His mistake is more clearly stated in the presentation he gave after the draft report was released. 40:04
Metabunk 2019-11-23 21-10-17.jpg
I checked out the video and it appears that you are right. I notified the AE911Truth team of this and our mutual concerns about the unrealistic collapse models. The info has been forwarded to Dr. Hulsey. There will be a response to these and other questions/criticisms but it may take a while. Thank you for your observations. They will help Dr. Hulsey make these things clear.
Truthers really need to stop worrying about the official stuff... They need to make a thorough compelling technical presentation of how / why the building collapsed. Things like qui bono are not even close to a demonstration of the CD claim we've read for years. And tossing out a "vague" CD is completely unconvincing. No one questions that buildings.... anything really... can be destroyed with "explosives". An assertion is not a proof. That dog don't hunt.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Truthers really need to stop worrying about the official stuff... They need to make a thorough compelling technical presentation of how / why the building collapsed

When I read lines like these, I always ask myself why noone is doing that thorough and meticulous analysis with the virtual goal and approach of a debunk towards the NIST report.
I mean, I find it odd that everything is viewed critically that needs "debunking" (and then ALWAYS is concluded as debunked, that success rate is way to high statistically) but things that are taken as granted are never tried to be debunked (which should be done for the sake of argument and consistency alone).
After all, that is how enlightenment works: We assume nothing, and we believe in no truth. There is only the critical rationalism.
But I disgress....
but things that are taken as granted are never tried to be debunked

you are welcome (as everyone is) to analyze and debunk whatever you want. Read the posting guidelines and start a new thread ... or check to see if there already is a thread, as NIST problems have been discussed and dissected by many.

But this thread is about the Hulsey draft report. Please stay on topic.
This comment may be off topic.... but...

I have been thinking that any "explanation" of what was observed would require data of course. The static structural data is clearly available in the engineering drawings and the engineering principles of structural design. We understand that structures are not designed to perform at minimum parameters... that is they are conservatively designed for the anticipated loads/forces. This part of the data for understanding the event should not be in dispute.

Since the structure failed we attribute the failure to forces associated with changed conditions to the structure. There seem to be a few main categories. Heat from fire, fluid dynamic forces from movement or air and liquids perhaps, and mechanical forces from movement of parts of the building itself driven by gravity. We know that heat (or the absence of it) can do several things: change the strength attributes of materials. We know that heat can change the mechanical properties of materials... making them elongate, or shrink or become more or less elastic. And the impact of heat is dependent upon how much heat is present and this can and did vary as there was no uniform heat applied... the heat was a dynamic input over time and through space.

Observers trying to explain the collapse will need to determine the "values"energy applied to the structure over time and in space and then how the structure itself and its components will respond to these dynamic/varying forces (energy inputs). So we can see evidence of fires in parts of the structure and we can see evidence of some mechanical damage to the structure. We can see some flames and we can see smoke. We can likely know what the fire was consuming (fuel) which would be the flammable building contents... assuming what was on each floor and where it was is knowable.

How accurate and reliable are the various inputs to a very dynamic and somewhat chaotic situation? Aren't these energy inputs largely "educated guesses"?

Do we know what actually started the fires low in the building on the NE quadrant? Do we know how they spread? How do we know the energy input to various parts of the structure over time? How does an investigator factor in the fact that the structure's performance was changing over time because of the heat dynamic and mechanical damage?

We know the EPH collapse before the entire building did. A good assumption is that the axial paths below the EPH had failed. But there were several as the plans show. How do we know which lines and bracing beams led that collapse? It appears that the main thesis is col 79. Is this perhaps because it is supporting a 2 way slab (NE quadrant)?

Can one node or location be isolated from the structure for study almost completely ignoring the rest? Isn't that what both NIST, independent investigators and the Hulsey "debunk" are doing?
How accurate and reliable are the various inputs to a very dynamic and somewhat chaotic situation? Aren't these energy inputs largely "educated guesses"?

NIST-despite having access to thousands of photos, videos and witness statements- already discussed the limitations of any/the fire model. Is there a reason you are 'playing dumb'? What exactly are you insinuating?

Can one node or location be isolated from the structure for study almost completely ignoring the rest? Isn't that what both NIST,
I dont see how NIST ignored the rest of the building. I also don't see how the hulsey 'debunk' is doing that. Perhaps if you are going to comment, you can be more specific and way way less cryptic in the future.
As I wrote or meant to write... how do we know where the fires started in 7wtc?
Why were the upper floors not on fire as the lower ones were?
Do we know what started them?
I am aware that debris feel on the SW corner and the roof and fires in those locations could (and did start). But these locations were not the focus of the collapse studies.
Not open for further replies.