The problem: Has WTC7 building collapsed due to fire as claimed by NIST?
The study from Fairbanks Uni, 3 odd years in the making, showed fire was not the cause. Job done, no planes and no kamikaze.
But ... there are problems with the Fairbanks computer model that I haven't seen any responses to. See this:
From memory, this critique seems to show that Dr Hulsey's team have possibly been sloppy. According to the animations it appears that Hulsey's team have used linear analysis i.e. a static model, as opposed to non-linear dynamic model (as NIST's model did - although this NIST model didn't work because of the original collapse assumptions i.e. fire).
I thought that was a brilliant critique and it seems to be on the button. From memory again, the conclusion in the vid is that the collapse was not due to fire, but that Hulsey's team were 'sloppy'. I agree.
Whether the original report will see the light of the day in an enquiry seems unlikely, so far. It will be probably 'memory holed'.