1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think we can take his statement on face value, that it was simply more complicated than they had anticipated. I think also one of the students has left UAF, which might have slowed them down.

    I'm sure they have some interesting results. Of course we can't forget that the study was paid for by AE911, who had preconceived notions of what it should show. But Hulsey and his students were not members of AE911, and while he certainly seemed sympathetic towards their position, one would hope that his conclusion reflect only the science. I think we'll eventually see something.

    But the question it raises (and I've asked in some 9/11 groups on Facebook) is: if, as is often claimed, it's "obvious" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why cannot it be simply demonstrated? Why does it take a four year study? Perhaps it's not as obvious as it seemed?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Based on graduate research I did to gain my masters degree, I think the case of "unpredictability of the research process" could be grad students (I would have) dropping the project based on perceive bias for an outcome the advisor/professor/faulty advisors has. An opinion, if I had pressure for a desired outcome of a semester or a year of work, I would be looking for new advisor where unbiased research is the goal. I know there is pressure when doing research to find money, I worked in a lab where we had to keep selling our expertise and design skills to gain the projects and money to run studies. When the WTC 7 study first popped up, I thought it was take the money, who cares where it comes from. If a flat earth group would give your research group 325,000 dollars to research flat earth, would you take the money? There are many possible reasons for "unpredictability of the research process", I can think of a few more.


    It might be a good sign fire was not mentioned in the update.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Since he says:
    Does that mean they have not yet ruled out fire?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The NIST model suggests a single failed girder connection on one floor at one column location would lead to the entire building collapsing. Is this true?
     
  5. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    Not completely, If I understand correctly indeed NIST refers to a single column in their writings, but in their modeling failure can also be seen in other places; I think this thread goes more into depth about it:
    https://www.metabunk.org/wtc7-is-ae...f-it-was-not-key-in-nists-global-model.t9427/
     
  6. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Only time will tell what Hulsey ultimately chooses to do, but my impression was that the preliminary report power point presentation that has already been debunked in this thread was the full extent of the fire analysis Hulsey intends to do and that the second phase of the project would focus exclusively on coming up with a non-fire-based theory for the observed global collapse. In any case, whether or not Hulsey actually revisits his flawed fire analysis, the apparent difficulty he is having in the second phase should certainly give him and those inclined to believe him pause about accepting at face value his previously stated conclusion re the inability of fire to initiate a total collapse of the building. (If Hulsey actually believed in the soundness of the first part of his analysis, by the way, there is absolutely nothing stopping him from submitting such analysis to the Journal of Structural Engineering to rebut and correct the same's earlier publication of the NIST report, regardless of the status of his second phase analysis.)

    My guess (based on a series of angry emails I received from someone affiliated with the project) is that the UAF report is being written primarily by Hulsey and Tony Szamboti at this point, and so I expect it is just a matter of those two playing with modeling software to come up with a "just so" set of explosives that could result in a global collapse that is substantially similar to what was actually observed. In fact, if the final theory offered by Hulsey isn't some variation of Tony's long-proclaimed theory that some sort of near simultaneous demolition of the core columns across 8 floors or so lead to the global collapse, I will donate $100 to AE911Truth.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  7. Joe C

    Joe C New Member

    I misspoke, you are correct about how easily CTers accept CT's. In fact they need no study at all to convince them. I think what I meant was that the die hards who would presumably lead the charge in parading the report all over social media in a worldwide victory tour claiming Hulsey has "proven" WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire will not be able to do so effectively if there is any ambiguity at all in its conclusions. I think many of them learned their lesson from trying to do the same with "Active Thermitic Material" and being met by crickets from anyone outside their own circles.

    I think the delay will continue indefinitely until they can find a way to "definitively" proclaim the intended conclusion.... And since know that can't be done, the final report will likely never see the light of day.
     
  8. Joe C

    Joe C New Member

    [politeness edits]

    If Hulsey is the honest guy you give him credit for being, perhaps that explains the indefinite delay... He doesn't want to put his name on a definitive conclusion he can't support and the propaganda organization that funds him would never allowed the release of a report that said anything other than a definitive, "fire couldn't do it."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2018
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon New Member

    Were they angry with you or angry with the fact that Hulsey and Tony are primarily writing the report with nobody else's input?
     
  10. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    They were angry about my commentary on the progress and conclusions to date of the study. They seemed to believe specifically that I had discouraged Hulsey's research assistants to some extent. Sorry for leaving it vague--but certain people from AE911Truth have attempted to dox me in the past and so vague it is.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  11. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    It seems any failure that was created by heat from fire could be also created by a placed./ engineered device.

    Anyone carrying out a CD would typically take out a bunch of core columns low down and the building would collapse inward.

    There was a collapse sequence they would have planned... East side... center and finally west side interior/core columns. But CD devices usually make enormous sounds which were no heard... If you ignore the sound aspect... it seems a trivial problem for Hulsey. Cut they be "silent" "cutters"? Who knows.

    The CD "plan" is something people have been asking for for 10 years... and have received nothing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    That was one of my main concerns from the start of the project - "what price a PhD based on a CT scam project?" It was both amusing and somewhat sad when a few years back I saw the students report framing the project as "legit" but different in significant details from what Hulsey was reporting to the AE911 and more public audiences.

    IF the research assistants are discouraged - they should be without needing you or any of the on-line community to point out some true bits of reality.
     
  13. Tomi

    Tomi Member

    I agree with the post above. However taking out a bunch of columns will be much more difficult than it sounds. Columns at the lower levels were W14x730 or larger and these have 4.9in thick flanges. So I hope Hulsey will try and explain how they could be easily cut without noise.

    Not sure I understand the thermite idea either, because melting a 5 in thick steel plate that is predominantly in compression is only likely to squish it under extreme circumstances.

    If we assume that the US military had plenty of time to study the WTC7 plans, ( which is what is implied by Ae911truth ) as they would have had to have time to develop the silent explosive as well as plant them, make sure the WTC tower was designed to damage WTC7 , as well as start the fires and knock out the sprinklers.

    So how many of the infinite variety of demolition options do you think Hulsey will look at. ? And how many parameters they will look at.? Rapid collapses can cause large dynamic load amplifications and slow collapses don’t so I would expect thermite to be slow and explosives fast. Lots of other variable in loads, tolerance, damage patterns could have big impact in outcomes. I hope they look at the following options:

    1. The low cost options: Demolish the beams coming into Col 79 to get a cascade failure of the beams below. If one level doesn’t work try several. And what assumptions would one have to make, to cause a collapse and are these assumptions unreasonable.

    2. The col 79 option. This is the NIST preference. Would be interesting to see what Hulsey makes of it.

    3. 1&2

    4. The transfer column supporting transfer truss TT1. This would take out 4 superstructure columns.

    If that doesn’t work then add the Column supporting TT2

    5. 3&4

    6. All the interior columns. This is the scheme implied by Ae911truth. Lots of thermite, pyroclastic clouds, pools of molten metal, straight down and free fall accelerations
     
  14. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The demo would have had to be the silent type... of it exists. And taking out columns of that thickness seems very difficult. But if they could collapse some floor sections and cause a multi story cascade the dynamic load might destroy the transfers down on floors 5-7 and that would propagate westward and produce the visuals we saw.

    I am not sure... but I am not an engineer that multiple floor slab collapses to one side of one column would cause it to buckle if it was still braced on the other 3 sides. But if it could... the demo would be one of cutting beams not columns. And that would be easier or so it seems.
     
  15. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    I think you guys are making it more complicated than Hulsey and AE911Truth are going to make it. I don't want to speculate too much, but I expect that demolition devices are largely going to be assumed to be effective at felling columns and that it's just going to be a matter of Hulsey and whoever is working with him placing them around the building in a just-so pattern. Does anyone really expect a fulsome model of a hypothetical nanothermite cutting device, after all? Since Hulsey and AE911Truth have no basis for modeling exactly what such a device would be, they are just going to assume its effectiveness and model the demolition devices as cuts to columns that occur on timed increments. We all know that such an approach is obviously flawed, and we will be here pointing that out if and when Hulsey ever publishes anything concerning it, but obviously flawed is par for the game AE911Truth is playing, so get ready to be underwhelmed. These will not be serious models that actually meaningfully tread new ground re the type of demolition devices allegedly used; I guarantee it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I MUST be missing something. When did Hulsey disown his objectives and his explicit limitation?

    Since when has Hulsey been intending to assert or prove CD???

    At the start of the project when he rewrote his objectives to align with the Szamboti inspired AE911 goals he stated two objectives...in my words they were:
    1) Prove that fire could not cause collapse of WTC7; AND
    2) Prove that the NIST explanation was wrong.

    (And - as I said - those happen to be the objectives that Szamboti's strategy has consistently folowed over recent years when discussing wTC7) (Hence my oft repeated speculation that Szamboti is pulling the strings on Hulsey - or at least is defining the strings if some other AE911 person is doing the actual pulling.)_

    Hulsey was at that time EXPLICIT that he did not intend to show what DID cause the collapses (hint hint - he would not be addressing CD claims - which could leave his project as borderline professionally respectable.) he intended to show that fire COULD NOT cause the collapses.

    The first goal is a blatant "prove a negative" and is self falsifying almost from the start. (It is falsified because Hulsey's process cannot falsify all the alternates- the necessary path to the exception that can "prove the negative")

    I admit that I have not been following the project closely so I may have missed ir BUT....

    ...When and how did Hulsey change his objective to include demonstrating CD or even including CD in the outcomes???
     
  17. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I too haven not been following his efforts... but I suppose if he proves that fire cannot collapse a building... and then use the NIST location to show this was incorrect (poor engineering) he can declare is it was not fire... which was the only observed energy input aside from damage from falling debris which appeared to have not been fatal.... then he believes he can conclude that the energy input leading to the collapse was an engineered intentional one.

    I don't see how he can prove that fire cannot render steel ineffective. It seems the existence of fire codes seem a priori evidence that steel frames don't do well with fire.
     
  18. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Hulsey already claims he has proven that fire could not cause the collapse of the building. That was the subject of the preliminary report power point presentation that has been discussed at length in this thread. The consensus here is that Hulsey has erred greatly and on several levels in claiming to have reached such a conclusion, but that's what his claim is and he has not retracted or otherwise publicly modified it since he made such presentation. The second part of his study is to focus on how the building could have fallen if not as a result of fire, which seems set to simply build from his initial flawed conclusion re the inability of fire to cause the observed collapse. He mentioned this second phase explicitly in his last presentation and, when asked directly during previous talks on the subject whether the building could have been brought down by demolition devices, has said in effect that he couldn't say but that they would look into all possibilities. Taking the history of this project, Hulsey's statements, and the history of AE911Truth into consideration, it's really not a leap to expect that the second phase of his project that we are now waiting on is going to be an attempt by him to show how, absent a fire induced collapse, demolition devices could have produced the observed collapse. Again, it is generally understood here how and why such an analysis will be flawed, but, as someone who did pay attention to what Hulsey has actually done and said to date, I am pretty sure that's exactly where his study is going.

    I welcome Hulsey proving me wrong by correcting his previous assertions and/or by actually producing a non-biased, thoughtful report that he submits to an actual refereed structural engineering journal (like the JSE) but we really have no reason to expect anything other than another flawed analysis that builds off his previously-stated flawed conclusions and again works backwards from AE911Truth's predetermined conclusions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2018
  19. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Thanks for the "sitrep" benthamitemetric. The overall status is near enough what I thought it was.

    I agree the speculations as to where the project may go. More specifically I have zero doubt as to where AE911 would want it to go. One of my aspects of interest has been watching the "drift" of Hulsey's stated objectives and his progress reports. So it looks like he will rest on the claim that he has "proved the negative" that fire could not cause the collapse. That has been my central point of contention though for historic reasons I'n not surprised that the various discussions seem to once again rely on falsification at the middle level of engineering rather than address the fatal flaw in the foundation of logic. Hence my speculation about the T Szamboti influence because false starting premises have been Tony's trademark since at least my first meeting with his work in 2007.

    So that puts us on broadly the same position as per your final summary: "...we really have no reason to expect anything other than another flawed analysis that builds off his previously-stated flawed conclusions and again works backwards from AE911Truth's predetermined conclusions."

    Personally i have little interest or faith in the "peer review and publish" process for dealing with WTC collapses. Papers from the academic side of the profession have not served well in addressing the real mechanisms of Twin Towers collapses where the most advanced qualitative explanations have arisen in the setting of on-line discussion. And much contention has resulted from those engineers and applied physicists who have both NIST and Bazant on too high a pedestal and refuse to accept when errors are identified. I expect no better with WTC7.

    Thank for the update...I will probably stay on the side [EDIT: "rather than join in"] the more detailed discussion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  20. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    If Ozzie is correct... and he may very well be... Hulsey will declare that fire could not have caused the collapse... and then AE will declare... if it wasn't fire then it must be something else... and the only possible something else would be a purposeful engineered demolition. QED... NIST lied, covered up and we need a new investigation to find out what they concealed from the public.

    More hot air from the truther camp.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Tomi

    Tomi Member


    I think we should discuss what Hulsey would need to do to develop his hypothesis. The tests and analyses outlined above are the minimum amount of analysis that Hulsey would need to do, to demonstrate his claim that fire could not have brought down the buildings, and it had to be a CD.


    Analyses 1 and 2 gets to the very essence of the disagreement between NIST, Weidlinger, Arup, Thomassetti, the rest-of-the-world on one side and Ae911truth on the other.


    Analysis 1 is important, because there are many reasons why a beam or floor could have failed. And there are many examples of beams failing in fire in tall buildings and even in small buildings. WTC5 was a great example of fire induced floor failure. Most of the specialists only take the WTC7 analysis as far as beam failure, because once the beam fails the assumption is that the rest will go. But if Hulsey can prove that the assumptions needed to get beam failure to cause progressive collapse are unreasonable then that will help to justify his theory.


    The reason that the parametric analyses are important is to determine what variables are important. As with all conventional non-linear collapse analysis, the speed of impact will be very important for determining ductility and dynamic amplification effects. The ductility of the joints is also a primary variable. While the beams above the burn-out floors could be quite ductile, we know that in the floors below, say level 12, the floors have burnt out, the beams will have expanded, locally buckled at the end, and will be in the cooling phase, so the bolts will have large tensions in them… not a good condition to resist impact loading.


    Its important to generate a progressive collapse and then see if the variables you have assumed are unreasonable rather than doing an analysis and saying… ”see it doesn’t collapse”. Doing so proves that you have the capability to generate and modify the collapse sequence. And once collapse starts it becomes very difficult to control the sequence and you can image that there are millions of interaction so an impact a half a second later or 4 inches to the right will effect the millions of subsequent interactions.


    Once you get failure of beams around Col 79, its not clear to me if the connections to columns 80 and 76 , would be ductile or if they would shear. If they shear you get progressive collapse of Col79 below the fire. The next stage is the column becomes slender, stripped of its floors, reaches its compressive capacity, starts to buckle, turns into a tie and hangs from the upper level… at this stage the penthouse will sag as the floors try and act as a catenary to span between adjacent columns. If Hulsey can prove that the beam connection parameters that you need to assume to get progressive collapse are not consistent with a post fire ductility then he is a good step on the way to proving that fire induced beam failure would not cause the collapse.


    The second analysis is column removal. Failure of large columns in fire is less common than failure of beams however lots of precedent of column failure in fire. So how can he prove that failure of col 79 does not lead to a global collapse? If he can prove that the assumptions that you need to make to cause collapse are unrealistic then that will also help to prove that fire induced failure did not cause the collapse. This analysis will be interesting because he will also have to prove that the sudden load transfer to adjacent columns would not cause failure of the columns or transfer beams.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  22. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    That is the fundamental flaw to Hulsey's claim - he CANNOT prove the global negative "fire cannot". He has only - and can only - test a limited range of possible collapse scenarios. "fire cannot" in effect is claiming "there is no possible scenario where fire could". All he can "prove" is that the scenarios he has tested don't cause collapse. There will always remain the possibility that he has NOT identified at least one "fire could do it" scenario of which there could be any number including of course the ONE that actually happend.

    It is the classic logic fault of "cannot prove a negative. Where the only exception available requires falsification of all the alternates (either directly and explicitly OR by proven coverage of all valid subsets). And in this scenario it isn't even possible to identify all the alternates.

    It is the same fatal error of base level logic that applied to T Szamboti's first attempts at proving CD for WTC7. In fact - as I have said previously - the Hulsey project is little more than a more complicated repeat of the same style of false argument as T Sz/AE911 have been recycling for years....dressed up by the apparent credibility it gets from the UAF involvement.

    Sure people can have a lot of fun falsifying the engineering details - Hulsey may be wrong at the level of detailed argument AS WELL as the false foundation... that has been the consistent style of T Szamboti's multiple claims over the years but I won't drift off the specific topic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Ozzie is absolutely correct... rather impossible to prove that fire played no role in the collapse the the building. But it won't stop him from trying!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Sure - but take care to not alter what I said. And neither I nor Hulsey are saying "fire played no role in the collapse".

    It is also important to remember that the intended primary audience is those who support AE911. They - or at least the influential leaders - will spin the outcome their way no matter what. But even they would prefer Hulsey to be close to what they want so they can minimise "spin".

    The error should be self evident but as you and I both know a lot of debunkers totally miss false starting premises in their haste to check the details or the maths. With the result that they are often content to debate - even falsify - truther claims within the false limited scope set by the claimant truther.

    Hulsey's logic error can be demonstrated even to an unsophisticated audience by using W Edwards Demmings favourite bag of mixed red balls and white balls. Say 95 white and 5 red in the bag. Pull out blind a sample of 5 balls - all white - you CANNOT assert "there are no red balls". Pull a sample of 20 balls - the odds getting longer BUT again all are white. You still cannot assert "there are no red balls". And unless there is something far more sophisticated being concealed by Hulsey - that is exactly the false basis of his claim. If we assume that there is only one "red ball" - one scenario where fire would cause collapse - to prove the global negative Hulsey has to test all the scenarios or possible all of the subsets of scenarios if he can show that variance within the subset is not critical....but even THAT is "prove a negative" :confused:
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
  25. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Compound that with Bayesian inference: We already know as facts (probability 100%) that a) the building was on fire and b) the building collapsed. So even if Hulsey can narrow down the a-priori probability of WTC7 collapsing due to fire to a tiny value, Bayes will raise that probability to virtual certaint because no other explanation exists that covers all the observations - and thus the a-priority probability of WTC7 falling in the way observed by means other than fire is, as of now, practically zero.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Fully understood and agreed on the "Bayesian Inference" BUT stop there - lets add into the mix yet another valid perspective. (These alternate perspectives - all three??? -- are independently self sufficient" proof of the argument.)

    Let's revert to the simple basic protocols of the scientific method.
    The situation:
    1) The WTC 7 tower was a steel framed building.
    2) Steel framed buildings - esp. high rise - are design premised on the fundamental vulnerability of steel frames to fire.
    3) WTC 7 was "fully involved in fire" and the correct interpretation of that terminology is that fires could not be actively fought within the building AND external active fighting not practical either technically or for reasons of resource limitations - human and materiel.
    4) WTC was deliberately left to take its chances. A valid choice by the emergency manager(s)
    5) Outcome WTC 7 lost the risk gamble.

    The default hypothesis writes itself "fire caused collapse"

    Anyone claiming otherwise has to falsify the extant hypothesis - which Hulsey's project cannot do because it relies on "prove a negative" OR present an alternate "better" hypothesis eg one for MHI (AKA "CD") which Hulsey initially said was not his objective and to date he has not stated it EXPLICITLY as his goal (AFAICS - hence my specific recent questions.)

    Hence the almost certain need for Hulsey to "prove CD" as speculated by benthamitemetric. Which I suggest has been an obvious need from early in the project - at least from the time Hulsey denied or evaded it.

    And all this recent aspect of argument does not need - is valid without going to engineering details or FEA.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  27. BeenAwake

    BeenAwake New Member

    Models and computer simulations can be minipulated to fit a narrative. [off topic text removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2018
  28. Tomi

    Tomi Member

    Yes I agree with you. That’s why Nist did not release their computer model as it’s easy to make a few subtle changes and something different would happen.
    Like missing fire protection to the top flange, or changing where one element hits another or simple out of tolerance could change stresses substantially and the millions of subsequent reactions
     
  29. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I added the first word to the above quote.

    Do you agree?
     
  30. BeenAwake

    BeenAwake New Member

    All models can be minupulated not just his. I don’t need fancy illustrations and computer simulations when what happened that day is right in front of my face. Remember building five was burning too but it didn’t collapse and also building 6 did not collapse but building 7 one block away a 47 story reinforced steel and concrete building just drops because of office furnishings please.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  31. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Cherry picking and argument from incredulity in a single sentence - impressive!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  32. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    If you want to tell the world that you've made up your mind about what cause WTC7 to fail for reasons unrelated to Hulsey's study and have nothing to add specifically regarding Hulsey's study, then this isn't the thread for you. If you want to make an argument that your personal impression of the collapse and a high-level comparison to WTC5 are all the evidence anyone would need to determine what caused WTC7 to collapse, then you should make a new thread to do so.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  33. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    What is your comment then, and your judgement, on Hulsey's project and the computer simulations he is putting together? Remember that that is the thread topic - not what happened to any other building or even what you think happened to WTC7.

    It sounds like you are saying Hulsey's project is totally unnecessary (thus a waste of time and money), and a fool's errand for the ouput cannot be trusted anyway. Do I sense your gist correctly? If not, please elaborate!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1