# AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

Discussion in '9/11' started by Oystein, Jan 13, 2015.

Not open for further replies.

Hulsey says both the girder and the column move together. So they don't have any relative motion. He says they both move about 2" away from (approximately) the center of the building.

NIST says the girder moves 6.25" relative to the column, and so it fails. They don't say how much either the girder or the column moves away from the center of the building.

Hulsey compares the 6.25" to the 2", but that's the wrong comparison. Since he's saying the girder does not move relative to the column, then the comparison should be 6.25" to 0"

This is significant, because he also seems to have 0" EVERYWHERE, and nobody really thinks that there's zero relative movement between connected parts anywhere in the building.

So his comparison is wrong, and his general finding of 0" is highly suspect.

2. ### James IceNew Member

I confess I don't know quite what you mean, but it's nice to see on this occasion you feel that attempting to elucidate is not necessariluy off topic, and good for all that you didn't delete your post the moment after it was posted.

3. ### James IceNew Member

OK, thanks for putting it simply.

I think I see where you are going wrong. As you say, the two inches thing Hulsey is on about is movement from the ‘centre’ of the building. The zero inches thing is the relative distance between the points where the girder and the column connect.

4. ### deirdreModeratorStaff Member

you don't? huh.

I agree, so where am I going wrong?

6. ### James IceNew Member

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't see what the objection is. Hulsey is saying the building expanded as whole, but the girder and the column stayed together, because they were fixed together.

So it seems to me the misunderstanding is that we can claim Hulsey is having it both ways - saying there is thermal expansion, and movement, but at the same time saying there is no movement.

The objection is:

A) Hulsey compares 6.25" to 2", instead of to 0"
B) It is unrealistic to get 0" everywhere

8. ### deirdreModeratorStaff Member

I would personally also add that Hulsey several time stresses "east, not west" (around 55 min mark in current presentation)
to me, implying that NIST is saying the column and floor moved west. but NIST doesn't say that.

9. ### OysteinActive Member

And as a matter of fact, NIST does say column 79 is pushed east, at least on floor 12 (benthamitemetric showed this a few pages ago), so it seems reasonable to assume it also moved east on floor 13, given that it had lost its lateral bracing to the east.
NIST doesn't say by how far column 79 was pushed east by the time girder walk-off was observed, but that is not of interest anyway.

• Agree x 1

11. ### OysteinActive Member

Fails to spot Hulsey's conflation of absolute and relative motion here here:

Some intereting perspective from someone who claims to know Hulsey and one of the students.
So it really does not seem like they are really finished their brief, which was (in part) to demonstrate how explosives could have brought the building down.

14. ### Jeffrey OrlingActive Member

The so called "straw" whatever and wherever it is has to begin a cascade of failures in order for the entire structure to collapse. We saw it didn't collapse in an instant.. It began with the EPH collapsing and the whole thing was something like 20 seconds or so and included the collapse of the screen wall portion then the WPH and finally the facade moment frame descends. There was PROGRESSION... SEQUENCE and a CASCADE of failures over TIME.

Even if the girder was "first" to become disengaged... that would likely have to lead to loss of axial support for floors which crashed down and took out the transfers below and with them displaced and destroyed the columns beneath the EPH... and so on.

15. ### OysteinActive Member

Just a reminder:
The project website http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ has been saying since late August that a "draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017", while an AE911Truth Newsletter dated Aug 24, 2017 optimistically stated that "a draft report of the study is now on course to be issued in mid-October".

Mid-October passed three weeks ago, while it is still November.

Waiting.......................

• Like x 3
16. ### OysteinActive Member

The WTC 7 Evaluation Project homepage has changed that text - it now reads:
When does "fall 2017" end in Anchorage?

I think they changed the wording to erase the embarrassment that all of October and most of November have passed with no draft report. Next, I guess they'll scratch "fall" to grab another month.

That's not a change, it said both things back in september

We are into December now. I wonder why the delay?

• Agree x 2
• Funny x 1
19. ### John85Member

I expect Hulsey is simply cramming all the final tasks in as fast as possible to get the project finished. Ask the same question about the length of time it took NIST to report.

• Dislike x 1
20. ### OysteinActive Member

This is silly.

Hulsey has decades of experience finishing reports and writing papers. The idea communicated in early September was that he'd be done by mid-October, and just to be safe, they said "fall", or "October or November". This soon before the due date, he should have had a clear idea how long it would take.

Having said that, I am not terribly worried about the delay. I'd like to know why there is a delay, but more interesting is the draft itself. More interesting is also why Truthers aren't asking where the draft is! I see no comment on AE911T's Facebook, nothing at 9/11 Blogger, nothing on any of the other blogs I follow.

• Agree x 2
21. ### John85Member

I'm not worried either, and also looking forward to the draft, as well as media interest. Particularly important will be skeptics' engagement and criticism. I hope people on here put forward their questions.

22. ### TomiMember

Hi Johny,
The media weren't very interested in the Arup report or the Weidlinger report although the latter won the ASCE grand prize. From what I have seen the Hulsey report is a lot less scientific.

So I suspect the media interest will be more a reflection of the hype that Ae911truth can jazz up rather than its scientific worth. A bit like Donald Trump's tweets

23. ### John85Member

The media should be, quite clearly. If NIST's account is wrong and the building didn't collapse from fire, the political implications are wide-reaching. An engineering professor of good reputation is putting his neck on the line to say the official explanation is wrong. There's little to gain if he's doing so insincerely - he'll come in for ridicule and scorn, people will say he's unpatriotic, that he's betraying the memory of those who were killed on 9/11, that he's an apologist for terror. He isn't pocketing the \$300k project budget for himself either (assuming that were his price, anyway). He has done the study because he sincerely believes that the account of WTC 7's collapse is wrong. It's uncomfortable to consider, but we've had the Piazza Fontana massacre, Watergate, Iran-Contra, nonexistent WMDs, unconstitutional data collection; we've possibly even had Russian collusion. Make use of the stated openness of the study and put your questions to him when the report is released.

24. ### OysteinActive Member

From the point of view of the media, this study should rightfully remain far below their radar until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal of major repute and has captured the interest of the relevant scientific community - both will not happen. This is a minor effort by an obscure professor at an average institute pushing a fringe opinion - no media outlet with a sense of quality should take notice.

You are prematurely lining up a bunch of strawmen. Since neither any relevant media nor the relevant professions or academics will take serious notice, he will not suffer any such ridicule from those relevant stakeholders. He will of course suffer some sort of ridicule from us, the weird fringe of hobbyists who are indeed interests, but for none of the reasons you invent, but for simply being wrong. Hulsey may be 100% sincere, he is still wrong.

He has demonstrated already that he formed a preconceived, invalid conclusion long before doing the actual study based on a faulty, or absent, understanding of what NIST did. His interim presentation contains a number of weaknesses and errors that should prevent any competent peer-review board from publishing this crap. Your best hope may be that Hulsey was made aware of the weaknesses we found, and that the delay is due to him trying to make amends.

And?
Lots of crimes have been perpetrated by lots of people. That alone doesn't make the next accusation credible. I could accuse you of any crime I could pick citing many cases of that crime having happened before - would that justify investigating you, or even featuring you as a suspect in the media? Just so? Obviously not. I don't understand this resort to whataboutism.

That stated openness was a promise made years ago and broken for years, and now they are silent on why the draft is overdue. I am baffled that you would still bring this promised but non-existent openness up on the positive side of issue!

• Agree x 3
• Like x 1
• Winner x 1
25. ### NoPartySenior Member

Which is really the foundation of science isn't it?
Have a sincere belief that x is true. Then conduct an objective investigation that concludes that x is true.

26. ### John85Member

Hulsey's project is delayed because he not only looked at whether the column in question would have failed, having corrected NIST's inputs, he also looked at the most obvious alternative hypothesis - controlled demolition. It looked like a controlled demolition, and for it to have happened by fire would indeed have been exceptional, as NIST admits. Science starts with common sense, and its foundation is observation and evidence. NIST on the other hand spent 7 years trying to support a politically-motivated conclusion.

• Disagree x 3
• Funny x 2
27. ### LandruModeratorStaff Member

What evidence can you provide that supports your claim that is why he is delayed? As far as I know the only one talking about the delay is you.

• Agree x 1
28. ### John85Member

I expect it was in his most recent presentation, in September, that Hulsey said what the final bits were that he was still working on. The report will include an assessment of what didn't cause the collapse, as well as what could have done.

29. ### LandruModeratorStaff Member

This is what he said was next:

At the time the release was slated for oct/nov. There has been no explanation given for the delay.

And while they may welcome input, they have not acknowledged any input.

31. ### John85Member

The above is exactly what I was going to add. At the time of the Sept update, the draft report was not ready. Their next tasks are listed, and given that the draft report is still not ready, we can presume that the outstanding tasks have not yet been finished. Outstanding tasks include modelling what could actually have caused the collapse.

So exactly how many seconds would it take to give a status update of that nature? Why just leave the web site hanging?

• Agree x 1
33. ### John85Member

Well yes, the website is behind. Presumably he's spending his time teaching and finishing the project. The previous deadlines have been missed so, frustratingly, it's not surprising that this has been missed too.

34. ### LandruModeratorStaff Member

How about, "hey, we're working on the last minute calculations and we'll have it out in xxx." That took less than a minute.

35. ### John85Member

Maybe you should do PR for AE911 Truth

36. ### deirdreModeratorStaff Member

It's the University of Alaska, and the researchers specifically, who are responsible.

• Funny x 2
• Agree x 1
38. ### LandruModeratorStaff Member

This is basic stuff and further evidence that there is nothing there.

39. ### NoPartySenior Member

Boy, I just don't see that as "obvious" at all.
It seems closer to the "most far-fetched" theory one could possibly spin and then try to prop up.

Again, it didn't look "like a controlled demolition" to me, at all. Even more importantly, it absolutely
sounded nothing like any controlled demolition on record. Why is that "common sense" to be ignored?

• Agree x 6
• Like x 1
40. ### WhitebeardSenior Member

As opposed to the 9-11 conspiracy crowd who have been been pushing the same old and debunked many times over 'looks to me like CD so it must be' mantra with nothing solid to really support the claim for the past 16 years?

• Agree x 1