PART 3 6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down. This point is the second of 2 points that does require the appropriate physics formula that calculates the amount of energy necessary to cause a girder connection failure and it is supplied in Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report. Anyone can verify the formula if one feels it’s necessary to so. Dr. Hulsey demonstrates via physics that the energy required to cause such failure was far too insufficient (see slides #44-#48 ). 7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling. NIST’s structural drawings shown in their report simply do not match the original Frankel drawings that NIST worked with which clearly show that there were lateral support beams. The missing lateral support beams are best explained by illustrations in slides #36-#38 of Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary report. 8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce. NIST used data and structure that was inconsistent with reality but necessary to try to support its column 79 failure and subsequent collapse propagation theories. See Roland Angle video at 29:00. 9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored. FEMA noted that physical evidence showed extremely high temperatures had been attained. Furthermore, there were many eyewitness claims of seeing molten steel, iron or metal that John Gross, a NIST lead engineer and spokesperson claimed he never heard of. This is despite the claim by NIST that they interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses. So either NIST’s claim is false or those eyewitnesses were ignored. And furthermore, there is a photo of John Gross standing on a pile of WTC7 steel that clearly shows the effect that extremely high temperatures would produce on steel. See also Roland Angle video at 30:00. 10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse. This is strictly observational. Anyone can plainly see that the NIST collapse model does not in any way resemble the actual collapse of WTC7 seen in multiple videos. As such NIST’s computer model has no basis in validity. See Roland Angle video at 32:15. IMO the computer generated collapse animation model published by NIST is intellectually insulting. 11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications. There is no controversy with respect to this point. NIST published the fact that free fall indeed occurred for about 100 feet or 8 stories for a period of 2.3 seconds. NIST also claimed that fires lasted in one area for about 30 minutes then moved on to another area. Furthermore, observation showed that fires were scattered in different areas of WTC7 and that there were no fires in many parts of WTC7. In fact, no fires can be seen in the vast visible portion of WTC7 (3 sides seen on multiple videos) as it was descending. In order for WTC7 to descend uniformly at a rate indistinguishable from free fall (an appropriate description used by physics Professor David Chandler), it would be absolutely necessary for failure to occur simultaneously at the exact same level. This is simply not possible from fire alone. NIST did not address the ramifications of free fall other than claim it was stage 2 of a 3 part collapse stage. See Roland Angle video at 33:50. See also a lengthy article written by Professor David Chandler: https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e So as demonstrated only two of these points may require calculation verification for a reader if necessary to avoid acceptance on faith. However as also explained, the rest of these points are strictly common sense and far from faith based. All these points are sourced from the NIST report itself which is publicly available. In technological terms most of them have long been analyzed and do fully expose NIST’s criminal fraud. A much more thorough detailed analysis will soon be available for peer review and the final publication will be entered into the court record as expert witness evidence/testimony.