Discussion in '9/11' started by Oystein, Jan 13, 2015.
I thought he said two years.
The pragmatic realities of getting funding for research. And the most likely source - already committed truthers.
Could be that being somewhat isolated in academia he expects us folks in the outer world to read between the lines with the same skill as his academic colleagues. But - if that is the situation - it is as opaque as a foreign language to me.
IIRC 2 years.
Hulsey says they started in May 2015.
AE911Truth asks supporters to consider monthly donations on a plan that goes through April 2017.
That's 2 years.
it's probably all a money scam again...a trend i've noticed in conspiracies.
Here is the video of Prof. Hulsey talking about the project to his students. I'm not terribly optimistic about his approach. He intersperses his slides with many talking points directly from the AE911Truth website (symmetrical collapse, emphasis on the free fall period, claim that there wasn't much fire, etc.) and even uses the misleading post-utility shed collapse video snippet to represent the entire collapse. Moreover, his approach is really no different than NIST's (i.e., running multiple computer simulations), though he is incredulous about NIST's efforts while, at the same time, ascribes much more certainty to the ability of his model to find "the truth" than NIST ever did to their model ("if I can't make [column 79 initiate the collapse as NIST said], then it didn't happen"). But it seems like he is only dealing with a model of two floors of the building (12 and 13) with a somewhat arbitrary load (1000 kips) on column 79, and, in those floors, seems to only be heating column 79 and assuming the rest of the floor is unchanged. He also never mentions that the NIST work was peer reviewed by and republished in the JSE, nor does he talk about any of other published research pertaining to WTC 7, much of which I listed here. In fact, he really doesn't even talk about NIST's report in any detail at all and, when he does, it is mostly in terms of AE911Truth talking points, even though the Q&A session presented multiple opportunities for him to do so (e.g., instead of acting like the fire loads were a mystery and quoting AE911Truth's dubious "fires could only burn in one place for 20 minutes" claim, he could have discussed how NIST modeled the fires and what shortcomings he saw with that approach). At one point, he even states that it would have been impossible for WTC 7 to have collapsed "symmetrically" (as it did) due to fires.
All in all, he didn't seem terribly informed or come across as trying to step back and tackle the problem from an objective point of view, in my opinion. It seems like he is just building a very limited model of select areas to prove that column 79 wouldn't become unseated given some arbitrary inputs.
EDIT: Looking more into Hulsey and he is a curious guy, indeed. His expertise seems to largely be with bridge design and construction; however, he hasn't published in a journal in over 15 years and so it seems he's likely been focused on teaching and administration for quite some time. http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
I wonder how his research assistants feel about getting roped into this...
There's nothing in the JSE peer-review guidelines to suggest NIST provided access to the computer model data it is hiding from the wider structural engineering and scientific community, preventing independent testing and validation: if NIST had done so, Prof Hulsey would not need to reconstruct the model to test NIST's theories.
JSE's publishing guidelines as they relate to the availability of modeling and data are as follows:
(Emphasis added.) http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/9780784479018.ch03
Per those policies, any reviewer who felt he or she needed access to the underlying data or modeling could have made a request. The authors of the NIST paper could then have provided such information to the JSE under the protection of a confidentiality agreement, which would have allowed the reviewer access to it without it being made public. The fact that the paper was published is fairly strong evidence that this process occurred to the reviewers' satisfaction. The fact that it took the JSE one and a half years to review and publish the manuscript (it was submitted on June 25, 2009 and approved for publication on February 16, 2011) is even more evidence that the process was not taken lightly.
As far as the wider engineering community goes, nothing is stopping other academics from requesting such information for research purposes subject to a confidentiality agreement. The engineers hired by Aegis Insurance company conferred heavily with NIST on their own analyses, likely under such a scheme. (See my compilation of research link in my first post in this thread for the text of their affidavits. And, by the way, their full reports were filed with a court and are thus public records. If you want copies of those reports, all you need to do is request them from Aegis's law firm as directed in the notes on the case's docket sheet.) Instead of making such a request to NIST, however, Truthers lawyered up and decided to make a FOIA request, a request that required the departmental IG to make a legal determination re publicly disclosing the information (i.e., releasing it not subject to a confidentiality agreement). By going that route, the Truthers tied NISTs hands as to whether it could share its modeling and data with them (and Truthers then failed to exercise their statutory right to challenge the IG's determination in federal court). But at least the Truthers got some fun headlines and publicity for fundraising, right? Much better than actually working with NIST to analyze and research the subject matter in a meaningful way.
Let's see what route Prof. Hulsey takes with his requests...
In short, then: we don't know if the NIST model was verified or not: you just think it probably was, but actually you don't know and can't find out.
Three of the five engineers that gave affidavits for Aegis made diesel fuel fires a condition of collapse, did they not? This was not a theory supported by NIST.
We know that the NIST model was verified to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers on the JSE and that such peer reviewers took a year and a half to complete their review of said model. Given that I don't have the technical knowledge to evaluate the input data myself in any event, to me the uncontroversial publication of NIST's manuscript in the JSE (with no meaningful criticisms likewise published to date), along with the scope and compelling logic to the publicly available NIST report itself, stands as a very persuasive argument that fire caused the collapse by unseating column 79. If Prof. Hulsey completes a reasonably diligent investigation and presents thoughtful criticisms of NIST's work, I would certainly be open to whatever points he raises. Given the complexity of the problem, reasonable minds can certainly disagree about the particulars. As you note, the Aegis Insurance experts did reach a slightly different conclusion than did NIST (though it's a difference of degree and not kind re how the diesel fuel contributed to the fires). My concern based on Prof. Hulsey's video, however, is that he is not interested in actually doing the work necessary to rigorously challenge NIST's conclusions; rather, he seems content to create the report his benefactors requested (i.e., one that concludes column 79 couldn't become unseated by fires). Of course, perhaps he is right about that and all of the experts at NIST and who were employed by Aegis simply got it wrong. I reserve judgement until the final work is released, but the language he used in the video suggested a rather strong bias to me and the design of his experiment sounded questionable at best.
I've no doubt that Prof Hulsey's research will be infinitely superior to NIST's in at least one critical respect: it will be made available for verification and testing to a wide body of experts, irrespective of their perspective of the cause of the collapse. This in itself will make a nonsense of NIST's already nonsensical justification for hiding data.
With respect to the JSE, what positive evidence do we have that the entire model and its input data was made available to the peer reviewers, and they made reasonable efforts to falsify it? All we have seen in this thread so far is supposition: people are saying it should have been done. But that's not the same as confirming it was.
The experts who comprise the peer reviewers of JSE were able to review the NIST model to their satisfaction. That much is evident by the manuscript's publication. Whether that means those experts had access to every aspect of the model or only wanted to see certain portions (inputs, calculations, etc.), I of course can't say. I'm sure they have a better idea as to what they would need to see to be satisfied with its soundness than you or I (it may not be the case that they would, in fact, need to see and pour over every input file as you suggest). What's important to me is that they, as experts selected to serve as reviewers for the JSE, were satisfied enough with whatever they saw that they approved the manuscript for publication. If that doesn't satisfy you (for whatever reason) then you could probably inquire with the JSE as to what particular information had been made available to the peer reviewers.
I think we may be getting off topic with this, though. As far as this back-and-forth pertains to Prof. Hulsey, it remains to be seen what information he has already obtained and studied (again, it wasn't clear to me based on his comments that he was even very familiar with the public NIST report), what information he will seek, what information he will receive, and what information he will actually make public. If he does find a major flaw in the NIST report, it would behoove him to submit a manuscript of his findings to the JSE as well so they can retract NIST's manuscript accordingly. It'll be interesting to see if he does that and, if so, whether the NIST authors respond, etc.
It think we are very much in the "wait and see" mode here regarding this new investigation. Let's try to keep speculation (and going over old ground) to a minimum (or elsewhere), unless new information comes out.
will CTrs be satisfied if the conclusion is that NIST got some "important" details wrong - but overall the collapse was simply a combination of the building design, unfought fires and heavy collateral damage from the WTC's as they collapsed
right but for the wrong reasons so to speak
would some from the CTer community claim a "victory" - and in some senses maybe they are right, NIST may have got some details wrong
They will claim the victory, and use it as proof of the conspiracy - even though it is nothing of the sort.
Prof. Hulsey might be in it for the research funds. Who has worked in research? I have, and finding funding is important to keep research going. Is Hulsey playing to the funding from AE911T for academic purposes? Publish or perish, get funding... however, on the surface it appears Hulsey is a 911T advocate. Getting funds is important to researchers - a priority.
Is it for funding, or the inside job CD ignore the 19 terrorists CT stuff.
I loved the steel is fire resistant stuff; Student can see steel fails in fire, and why steel has to be insulted (a lot),,, insulated (protected) to survive office fires.
Here is that fire resistant steel sagging 3 feet... But it did not burn much, a little oxidation (rust), but it survived to be dismantled; One Meridian Plaza steel totaled in fire. Prof. Hulsey was right, the steel did not start on fire.
Hi Beachy. That's the best and most concise summary I have seen across 4 forums - and 100% agreement with my own thoughts. The pragmatic Professor needs funding for research for two of his star PhD pupils. Pragmatics then of how to appeal; to the most promising source of funds.
That said - I accept Mick's guidance to avoid speculation whilst we "wait and see".
Even NIST said that heating of column 79 could not be effected sufficiently to directly fail that column.
It was heating of floor beams that pushed girder 44 off its seat on col 79 that initiated a multi-floor collapse which in turn created a long column instability on col 79, and that column's failure. This is NIST's "most probable" initiating event.
What quite evident from recorded video, is that col 79 failed creating a hole into which the east mechanical penthouse fell. Then that hole expanded westward at the rooftop as at the same time a full height 'kink' formed on the north face of the structure.
NIST did an FEA on a failure of col 79.(this did not include a reason for failure, just that it fails) It showed progression to global collapse, once for a structure with known south face impact damage, and again with fully intact structure. Both FEA progress to global collapse.
This new AE911T sponsored FEA will not bother with investigating whether or not a single column failure (79) could progress to global collapse. Instead they will concentrate only on the "most probable" initiating event. That's just shy of attacking a straw man.
I have no doubt that one could design a demolition take down to mimic the collapse seen to occur. Might be as easy as cutting column 79 at the 12th floor, in fact NIST's own FEA suggests that would do it.
However, and this is a BIG consideration, while there is scant to no evidence of explosive use in WTC7, there is a great deal of documentary evidence of fires in WTC7. Indeed we know there was a significant fire in the vicinity of col 79.
The single point of failure (column 79) theory totally depends on the theory of the expansion of the long beam and
the theory of the expansion of the long beam totally depends on the single point of failure (column 79) theory.
Both assertions are false - both are 'strawman'.
That is patently incorrect.
First, the beam expansion walk off of girder 79 is simply the most probable initiating event that NIST could deduce with available evidence. Fires did obviously exist in WTC7, fire on 12 was in the vicinity of col 79. COLUMN 79 failure IS obviously the first visible sign of collapse.
Given no other known proximate cause of column 79 it simply stands to reason that fire directly or indirectly caused a failure of col79.Further forensic investigation strongly pointed to girder 44 walk off, progressive lower floor collapse leading to long column instability and failure of col79. NIST simply posits girder walk off from beam expansion as the "most probable" scenario. Note the wording. It leaves open the possibility that something else caused col79 failure.
How the second part of your claim even makes any sense is beyond my grasp of reality. How can girder walk off possibly depend on column 79 failure. To extend a long used analogy, carts depend on horses but horses do exist in the absence of carts.
Hi, new here. I was reading about the newly (hopefully diminished) effort to put up WTC7 as the new "smoking gun" for the so called "truth movement". They are holding on to the web stiffeners on column 79 to say that "it had a web stiffener, it couldn't have failed!" I was looking at some exchange between NIST and some members of the movement. In this, NIST acknowledges that web stiffeners weren't included, because their analysis showed a crippling failure wasn't present, therefore, the web stiffeners weren't included. Please note that this exchange was between public relations and the member of the "truth movement". I would like to ask: how could a web stiffener in column 79 have prevented failure? I'm not a civil or structural engineer, I'm an Electronics engineer. My formation had a small background on Strength of Materials. I know the truthers are fundamentally wrong, just curious on the mechanics of this particular item (column 79).
I believe the omitted stiffeners were on the girder, not the column. They supposedly would have prevented failure by the girder A2001 being pushed off by the beams, as the additional strength on the flange would mean the push distance would be more than thermal expansion of the beams could supply.
I think I got it. Correct me if I'm wrong: the beams, heated by the fires, expanded. This caused girder A2001 to be pushed, eventually dislodging from column 79 and the rest is history. It makes sense to me. Additionally, a stiffer girder would have been more efficient at transmitting forces than a plastic one, in this case, the forces pushing it off its seats.
By the way:
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ currently has at the bottom of the front page a link to "Research and Data Analysis":
This is a 1.1 GB (gigabyte!) ZIP file. Most of this is the erection and construction drawings in high resolution that AE911T's Bruce Bowman got from NIST in 2011.
But they have a couple of MS Office files where they document day to day what the two PhD candidate students are doing. One is a log with one page per day, often including a couple of graphics to show for example the floor framing they had entered into AutoCAD that day, or details from the original drawings where they think they spotted an error and discussed it.
Thar log ends in early September, the last message being that they had lost a hard drive with data already plugged in for a number of floors, and were hoping their IT techies can recover it.
mmm sound suspicious
I just realized there are two videos of Hulsey describing the project, the one I posted earlier (where he is giving a presentation to students) and another (where he is giving a presentation to the Associated General Contractors of Alaska). In the latter, he says something that confirms my suspicions from watching the first: he has refused to read any of the literature about the collapse, except to the extent necessary to prepare his public presentations. In other words, he hasn't even read the NIST report! He says he has avoided doing so so that he can maintain some sort of objectivity, but it strikes me as a very odd and disingenuous way to try to impose objectivity. No one had ever done reports like the NIST reports before and dozens of very serious people spent countless hours trying to get them right. Why jettison all of that work and try to reinvent the wheel completely--surely there is something that can be learned from that work that would help Husley avoid errors in the current project? If there are flaws or limitations to NIST's approach, isn't the rational approach to build on all of their work to correct them? Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't seem like a sound starting point for an incredibly complicated research project and I can't see why it is necessary to avoid "bias" here (or at least, intuitively, it seems the possible cost of bias would be outweighed by the likely benefits of the previous research).
Now, to his credit, he does mention there will be a "technical review team" that criticizes the final project in some sort of internal peer review process, though he doesn't define exactly what that panel will look like. Here's to hoping that he sticks to his guns and lets that process play out in a meaningful way.
It would be interesting if they get something right. I don't really hope they will change their minds in any way if their results are similar to those obtained by NIST. I think they have reached the point in which the weight of any compelling evidence against their beliefs will have no bearing in their thinking, for most of them.
NIST has a lot of information about the structure etc. which I assume is where he is getting the structural plans etc. from. The other input aside from the structure itself would be the damage report from the collapse of 1wtc and some information about the fire load and the fire suppression "systems". Hw ill have to decide somehow where the fire started etc... Where will this information come from? What about the Jennings and Hess report of an explosion below them which blocked the stairwell???
It would not hurt to review all the work out there done about the collapse, FEMA did some, Nordsenson did some and of course NIST did a lot.
Ironically his pitch uses AE talking points and so it's not as if he decided to do this himself.... because he was unsatisfied with NIST. If AE is supplying the money... could he bite the hand that feeds him?
I want to quote Richard Feynman's words when he was working on the Challenger disaster commission: "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery? .. It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy". Substitute NASA for "truthers" and it is almost the same case, except Nasa seems to learn from their mistakes. What drives truthers to believe that the WTC buildings were invulnerable?
I suppose they believe that they wtc was invulnerable to complete collapse from fire which was what led to the frame coming undone.
I have hypothesised that the driving motivation for many - probably most - committed truthers is distrust of Government. For those whose faith base is "distrust Government" (AKA "the man" "any authority" etc) then reasoned explanations of the technical aspects of 9/11 including WTC collapses are actually irrelevant. 9/11 WTC is merely the latest justification for their ongoing rant against authority. It is a symptom only of a deeper issue - and addressing the symptoms will have little if any effect on the underlying malaise.
Also now - 2015 - at this late stage of 9/11 debate - those still active from the "truth" side are mostly deeply dug in to their faith based obsessions. Or simply "playing the trolling game" to see who bites.
It's none of those things for me. It's essentially the complete and total lack of a reasonably representative tower collapse experiment to validate the official explanation for the twins' sudden, rapid and complete destruction. As you say, the debate is at a late stage and there is still not a single virtual or physical tower collapse experiment to validate the theory you are putting your faith in. To quote Feynman again: if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.
But to return to the topic, the main issue I have with the NIST model of WTC7 is that data has been classified so it can't be validated. I'm sure this model will be more scientific.
it's not every day that a boeing 757 fly's into a couple of towers at 500mph.....so yes, im sure it will be difficult to find some comparable examples from the past and the future. most likely will never happen again, atleast we should hope.
I said EXPERIMENT. You know, the foundation of the scientific method. Think you've found the explanation? Prove it. That's more than NIST could do: they simply said collapse was inevitable. But it really wasn't. Just like NIST's WTC7 theory, these ideas have to be tested and validated, which is exactly what Prof Hunsley's model should do.
Not necessarily. There is much "settled science" in mechanics which is used every day to design "things" and it is not necessary to test them to know how they perform. The basic principles of materials are known such as the effect of elevated temperatures. The problem was that NIST did not have precise data inputs and attempted to make reasonable assumptions. Whether they are reasonable or not is a matter for review and discussion. Their explanations / models should bear resemblance to the real event.
Do you have a "tested and validated" model that shows collapse was not inevitable? If not, you are revealing a double standard here in the level of evidence you demand before you accept and espouse certain conclusions, no?
Let's try to keep this thread on the topic of AE911's WTC7 Evaluation Study please. You know it's a black hole of sidetracks if you just start a general 9/11 discussion.
Anything not strictly on-topic may be deleted and the poster may be removed from the thread.
Is anyone aware of any rationale for the choice of Dr. Hulsey for this project?
I see a lot of work with bridges on his resume, but not much that would explain why he would
be among the better candidates for an inquiry into WTC 7.
I'm not disparaging him, just wondering if any explanation has been given... (?)
Separate names with a comma.