I can see some damage in the vid showing the front? elevation of the WTC7 but not sure what it represents and at what time it happened. It seems to be confined to a narrow strip of facade approx. 2 odd sets of windows wide. Quite narrow if that is all damage that can be seen by eye from outside. The diagrammatic presentation of 'structural damage' has come from somewhere - it would be good to know the source and if this is not due to windows damage only. I think I heard that there was severing of columns in that strip - not sure how this was ascertained if one wasn't inside of the building after severing
I am starting from the premise that Dr Hulsey and his Phd guys would not have missed this 'severing' of the columns in that area. These are professionals and know what they are doing. Personally I'd dig deeper into the sources of this blogger.
Now, I think the main reason why 'back' elevation collapse was shown is that it is a clear image of the collapse and indicates the 'freefall' as per physics prof has shown during the open NIST Q&A. The subsequent change of the report admitted 2.5 secs which I think is enough to highlight that there were no supporting columns during that period. How? : ).
A couple of other claims by blogger is there were no explosions heard for WTC7 ... check this report:
Second claim by the blogger, there were no spherical nano-particles of thermite in this area or melted steel in the footprint. Pass, I haven't been following this line of thinking - I wasn't interested after I saw AUni report.
Third, the blogger has claimed that NIST collapse reconstruction is the true representation of the actual collapse seen. That couldn't be more wrong as AUni report has shown clearly.
Personally I would take this blogger's claims with a bucket-full of salt, but that's just me : ).
It seems to me that NIST is criticised for uncertainties and dubious assumptions (as they should be), but sometimes the 'opposition' (as it were) aren't held to the same standard; or criticised as much for not being to explain everything about what happened. Now spotting the flaws in the main explanation is fair enough to take as an indicator to continue trying to find out, but doesn't itself prove any counter theories, just that they mainstream explanation isn't correct (the 'good' researchers I've read I don't think do this so much, but in the vernacular I hear this sort of leap a lot).
I disagree, I think the AUni report does the trick. There is a slight doubt as to how AUni guys represented the collapse in their model i.e. using linear as opposed to non-linear mechanism. In this case it is the representation and not the actual number-crunching part of the model methinks. I just haven't bothered to find out how this was answered, if it ever was (it should've been).
As for this blogger's claim regarding the column 79 - it's daft. The whole point of the AUni report is to show this claim was bogus ref thermal expansion. Furthermore AUni dynamic collapse model representation is spot on (bar linear part as mentioned above). NIST one was no-where near to real-life. I could comment more but need to re-start my jobbie etc. tomorrow.
It seems likely we are to stay in our own camps. I am happy since I don't have to start proving or disproving external content like who let this happen and who dunnit etc. As a structural engineer, I don't need it, facts speak for themselves (if you let them - sorry, that slipped out ).