Meet J. "Black" Leroy Hulsey: He's Got Some Bad News About WTC7
by John Kendall Hawkins
J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., University of Alaska Fairbanks. Professor Emeritus in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He received his scientific training at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign. "The reason I went there is: That was probably the number one school in the nation in structural engineering, and I wanted to study under the best." he tells us in the new 9/11 What Happened film, Seven. It's almost like he feels compelled to dangle his creds.
His story checks out: Hulsey went there, as he claims, and the structural engineering program at UIUC is regarded as one of America's best, just behind MIT and Berkeley in some surveys. That's what he has to tell you, up front. He's legit. And he would tell you to your face: World Trade Center 7 did not come down by fire on September 11, 2001. He can't tell everyone to their face -- literally -- so this film telling will have to do. The second thing he'll tell you to your probably mawkish face is that "the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
Oh, no. Here we go again. I can't read your mind, but I'd wager all my worldly sins, that that's what you're going with as you read Dr. Hulsey's conclusions about WTC7. He's a well-known, well-liked instructor at UAF who, whether you like it or not, is a force to be reckoned with. His conclusions are the result of four years of rigorous scientific investigation, and we're told, in Seven, that Hulsey went out of his way to keep politics out of it. He was all, Just the Facts, Ma'am, as Joe Friday used to tell us on TV's Dragnet, back in the black-and-white days before the Turd Blossoms turned us against reality-based thinking.
Dr. Hulsey spent four years, from 2016-2020, putting his report and its conclusions together. Checking and rechecking his data until he was sure it was time to present to the public and his peers. You can find the Abstract and Full Report of his A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 here. In addition, Hulsey even provides a link to the simulation materials he used to come to his conclusions, so that "any person with the requisite software tools to examine and replicate all of the computer analyses performed during this study" can do so. Also, if you go to the AE911Truth site you can view a public presentation of his findings making the rounds of conspiracy aficionados and academics alike. As far as Hulsey is concerned, as well as his Truth movement followers, his science-based modeling and results should be enough for the government to open another investigation.
A few years back Noam Chomsky, during a Q/A session following a speech he delivered to a University of Florida crowd, an activist confronted him with a question about WTC7,
You've mentioned quite a few contradictions from the media and their presentation on things, and I think the most notorious case of this is with September 11, 2001...There is a consensus [among scientists signed on to Architects and Engineers 911 Truth] that the third building that fell on 911 fell in free fall speed, as the NIST Report acknowledges. Are you ready to come forward and jump on board with 911. I know you mentioned that it's a distraction, but there's no better case of the media covering up things than not presenting that third building...What about Building 7, Noam?
Well, it seemed like a good question at the time.
But, we can see from his reaction that our oracle, our public intellectual, has heard this question before, and almost like Dylan going electric after being harangued by the folkies to lead them, Noam puts the whippersnapper down with some choice disdain:
Well, you're right. There's a consensus around a minuscule number of architects and engineers -- tiny number. A couple of them are perfectly serious. They're not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they've discovered something... What you do is write articles in scientific journals and give talks at the professional societies that go to the civil engineering department at MIT [or wherever] and then present your results and proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional, physicists and civil engineers...at the major universities. Now there happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics, but it doesn't work like that...
The Deus ex MIT Machina goes on to add that he has no real opinion on the doings at WTC7 on 9/11, including claims that nanothermite was used. Though he is still, arguably, the world's leading linguist, he owns that that does not make him an expert in architecture or engineering, and that, far from being cowed, scientists are far more likely to call for an investigation if science-backed research called for it. Instead, as he has maintained for years, we should be looking at the larger picture: American hegemony. The events of 9/11 gave cover for what the US long lusted to do in Iraq, where the world's second largest oil reserves are located. Do "we" think that ignoring information of an impending attack was "worth it"? Oh, yeah.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).