1. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    You think a two-year FEA study is done for average Joe and Jane? Not for academic and scientific advancement?
    Scholars and professionals in the relevant fields of study think about these things year round.
    Your excuse betrays the understanding that this study is very specifically NOT intended for an academic and professional audience. Instead, it is geared towards the gullible - and their MONEY.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    You are missing the fact that they have already released their conclusion: that there was zero chance that fire caused the collapse of WTC7. They released it about a year ago. Of course, those of us who have been paying close attention to the study know very that their stated conclusion couldn't possibly have followed from their actual analyses at that time. How do we know this? Because Hulsey is on record publicly acknowledging that his team hadn't even finished modeling column 79 over a month after he had announced that conclusion. I explained this all in detail in this very thread. See here.

    There is very good reason to doubt the validity of this study, even before we have it. We can look at the record of Hulsey's public comments and see they obviously do not add up.
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Essentially they released it before they started. They were clear from the outset in 2015 that this was not an investigation. They only wanted to make computer models that would replicate their preconceived notions of what happened.
    upload_2017-8-27_21-46-53.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    While there's certainly valid criticism to be made of the way AE911 are handling this, please don't let it turn into simple mocking. Many people think that AE911 is the respectable face of their 9/11 concerns - so while it's great to show those people what AE911 is really about, we also want to avoid turning off people by appearing to just be mocking.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. John85

    John85 Member

    I believe I saw Hulsey say in one of his presentations something reassuring about the independence of the review panel. Again, we will have to see who makes it up before judging. I hope they get published in the most mainstream journal possible. The more credible the journal, the more credible the experts who engage with it. Those who expect Hulsey to be wrong would surely want mainstream experts to evaluate his claims. Those who think he's right will be gunning for the exposure. Science would not be served well by the claims lying around unchallenged.
     
  6. John85

    John85 Member

    AE911's intention is to advocate for a new investigation of 9/11 and bolster this with a credible, scientific study. Hulsey himself rejected their advances twice before agreeing to conduct the research. He looks close to retiring, which means that the potential damage from being associated with the tin foil hat brigade will be limited.
     
  7. John85

    John85 Member

    Hulsey's public comments don't add up? How so?

    I suspect Hulsey got involved because a quick examination of NIST on WTC 7 persuaded him that the failure of one column would not have caused progressive, global collapse. Believing something's wrong is quite different from then spending 3 years building 2 models to prove it. As such, voicing one of the conclusions early (even from the get-go), does not mean the data, evidence and results later revealed are unscientific. Similarly, someone who took a look at the collapse of WTC 1&2, had a conviction that it was a progressive collapse, and then wrote a paper outlining why (looking at you Bazant) is not unscientific purely by virtue of having preconceived ideas. Everyone approaches something with an angle, a bias, an interest. The question will be the quality of the evidence provided in support of their conclusions.
     
  8. Ph_

    Ph_ Member

    Please don't tell me conformation bias is in any way, shape or form tolerable, or shared by everyone.
    Multiple experiments have shown that conformation bias influences someone's mind without them even knowing it.
    It also influences the endresults in a way that only confirming evidence is presented (which may be of good quality) and the opposing evidence is simply not tested out or published.
    Any strong emotion formed towards a bias (which Hulsey has demonstrated) should disqualify people.
    Just like it's done in court cases with the jury.
     
  9. John85

    John85 Member

    Whether his conclusions have been invalidated by confirmation bias or not can only be determined by examining the results and methodology of the study, and by considering the strength of the review committee and academic standards associated with being a UAF professor. It cannot be determined in advance.
     
  10. Ph_

    Ph_ Member

    I'm very much looking forward to his falsification part of a paper with standards associated with being a UAF professor.
     
  11. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    I have detailed exactly why his statements don't add up here (which is in this very thread), as I have previously cited to you. If you have a specific disagreement with my analysis, please raise it. There is no need for open ended speculation as my claim is very specific to the content and timing of Hulsey's statements to date.
     
  12. John85

    John85 Member

    Interesting point. My guess is he'll say that the columns supporting the substation could be taken out simultaneously to create the bulk of a 2.5s or 8-floor free-fall drop, but that the failure of column 79 alone would not produce this.
     
  13. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    actually it does.
    You can and SHOULD voice your HYPOTHESIS from the get go, but until you have actually done your testing and got your results and thoroughly looked at and interpreted your results you cannot possibly reach a conclusion in real science. So if you announce your conclusion right from the start and state that your investigation is to show the conclusion you have already reached without even being able to use your modelling software then you aren't being really scientific.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Did he KNOW the peer-review panel? Who were/are they?

    In academic publishing, the author who submits a paper generally will NOT know who the reviewers are - it's an anonymous process. The moment Hulsey knows his peers, they are no longer independent. Isn't that obvious?

    You apparently did not get what I told you: By announcing a schedule and expected time of pubölication, AE has slipped the fact that Hulsey will not publish in any peer-reviewed journal at all! This is a promise broken. A promise made to pad calls for MONEY.

    Absolutely. WHich is why AE makes sure this gets published only to the nutty fringe and will NEVER see a real journal or even a real engineering conference.

    So since they are, apparently, NOT gunning for exposure, I think the reasoning in the opposite direction is valid: Hulsey's enablers do not themselves believe that the study is any good and would survive earnest scrutiny.

    Which is why the hand-picked a highly biased and dependent "expert panel".


    Mark my words.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. John85

    John85 Member

    I don't know whether Hulsey knows his panel; he said something reassuring about the panel's independence. The panel selection should be out of his hands, and if it is, he could know that they were independent without knowing who they were.

    AE911 engineers have tried to get rebuttals published in mainstream journals (if you're interested I can show you the example). As you would expect, nobody is really keen to take the flak that association with the loony fringe gets you. Big journals are political beasts anyway - people compete to get in based on connections, prestige and good self-promotion, and not just the validity of their study. And if we're prepared to speculate about Hulsey and AE911's motives being money, then at least you and I appear to share the view that external factors, money and pressure can influence the conclusions of a study. How much money did the NIST study cost...?
     
  16. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Because WTC 7 collapsed due to fire, not explosives. The AE911t sponsored study has no evidence for explosives.

    NIST has a probable collapse cause for WTC 7's collapse due to the effects of fire. Presenting the work of students and a conspiracy minded professor to prove NIST's probable cause is wrong is not evidence for explosives or thermite being used. It is like AE911t don't understand the meaning of probable. As pointed out in this thread, the thesis of the work was NIST was wrong, it was CD. The study has no evidence for CD, trying to prove NIST's probable cause is wrong; not evidence for CD.

    The AE911t engineers work is based on speculation at best. Journals don't publish fantasy claims made by AE911t when the theme is engineering.
    Engineering journals are based on reality, not politics. When articles are submitted they are reviewed by rational engineers, not conspiracy theorists on 9/11. When an article is based on the claims made by AE911t, it fails due to content, not politics.

    Did AE911t read the NIST goals?

    What are AE911t goals? $$$$$$
    How many people contributed to the study NIST did on WTC 7?
    How many experts consulted beyond the many on NIST Technical staff? (11)
    How many were on NIST tech staff?
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2017
  17. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    So who gets to elect the panel? Try to be as specific as you can!

    Moving goal posts to find a well to poison.

    It doesn't matter how much the study cost. You are poisoning the well and pulling a tu cuoque.

    We showed you already that both AE911Truth and Hulsey already announced at the outset the result they wanted to find.
    Along the way, the broke the promises they made when soliciting the money.
    We documented all this. You seem to be rather okay with this.

    Now if you want to piss on NIST's tree, please document their breaches of trust. Do not simply insinuate.


    Over at ISF, just yesterday I quoted AE911Truth's "2016 Priorities" - their main goals they set themselves to work on at the beginning of the year - which of course was connected to a "membership" (read: solicitation for sustained MONEY inflow) drive.
    They had 9 such projects.
    7 ended up FAILED - as in abandoned, or not even attempted.
    1 was a moderate success.
    1 had a bit of visible effort, but goal not achieved.
    AE911truth has a documented history of not delivering the effort they promise while asking for MONEY.
    NIST on the other hand has a sterling reputation for delivering state-of-the-art science and leadership. Even AE911Truth's latest "star", Peter Ketcham, admits NIST is a fine institution (page 43):

    This is the complete extent of opinions that Ketcham offers that are within his own league of experience and expertise - all the rest is the uneducated ramblings of an admitted non-expert.

    So the ball is in your court: Please document that NIST handles their donors' money as recklessly as AE does! Please document that NIST started their WTC investigation with a prefered outcome!
    Alternatively, retract your unsupported accusations.
     
  18. John85

    John85 Member

    No, I'm helping you to stay consistent with the reminder that external factors like funding and politics do not just influence Hulsey's work. But the key point is evidence. Whether or not the study came under pressure, whether or not the researchers knew the preferred conclusions, whether or not funding was at stake - we can only really judge the conclusions by looking at how well supported it is by evidence. With NIST, trust is the operative word. We must trust they got it right. We can't evaluate whether any political pressure biased their interpretation of the data, as they have not made their model public, or submitted their work for publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

    I've already said that if they didn't keep their promises about the level of detail they would release prior to completion, that is a failing on their part. Plus, having a view about where the study will lead at the beginning does not mean the conclusions are invalid. It is perfectly plausible that an engineering professor could take a look at somebody's work and spot an egregious error straight away, but still need to do painstaking work to provide a sophisticated model to prove it to the level required by his profession and position. Indeed, Bazant had a hypothesis of how WTC 1&2 collapsed which he disseminated on Sept 13 2001, almost immediately after the event and before any data was available. He then got it published in Jan 2002 and defended it again in 2007. I do not disagree with him on the grounds that he formed his idea first and (possibly) looked for evidence second. I disagree because I think there is evidence against his position. Once Hulsey's work is released, you will have to look at it, decide if you agree, and if you do not, provide evidence of why his conclusions are invalid. As I've said before, it is still too soon to say.
     
  19. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    This is incorrect. As I've already noted in this thread, NIST's WTC7 report was independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering, which is the flagship journal of the ASCE and one of the most highly respected and cited engineering journals in the world.

    Also, I note that you have yet to respond to my specific criticisms of Hulsey. This forum's focus is on specific claims. Instead of speculating about what Hulsey may or may not be thinking, we can analyze his words and actions to date, which is what I have done. You seem to be avoiding specific analysis. Here again is a link to my analysis in this thread as to why Hulsey's claims to date do not add up. Mick has also noted several times how the original study design explicitly stated its bias.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2017
  20. John85

    John85 Member

    Ok, I am duly corrected on that one - NIST's work was presented in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. But the data used for their model of collapse is classified. We cannot gain assurance that the conclusions were not the result of biased and selective interpretation of the data - it is unscientific.

    I have read it, and this is the most powerful criticism of Hulsey:

    And this is why it doesn't matter:

     
  21. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    You have just moved the goal posts very quickly. You ought to question why you suddenly discount the value of independent peer review by a top flight journal. Is it because you actually believe the process is inadequate or because you don't want to believe the conclusion it supports in this case?

    Also, the NIST data is not classified and there is no evidence that the NIST data was withheld from the Journal of Structural Engineering or any other researcher who requested access to it for academic or professional purposes. In characterizing the data as classified and assuming the peer review panel did not have access to it, you are demonstrating a mistaken understanding in how FOIA requests work, which mistaken understanding is relatively common among people who have mistakenly trusted what AE911Truth has told them. Please refer to my post here for a detailed overview of the meaning of the NIST FOIA request rejection.

    But my points do still matter, even if there is uncertainty as to the validity of the Hulsey ultimate conclusion. Neither you nor I know Hulsey (though I have corresponded with his research assistants); however, human activity is path dependent and, unless we deliberately ignore Hulsey's dishonesty to date, I think we have to admit that it makes it less likely his end conclusion will be honest. You are right in a purely logical sense that Hulsey's dishonesty to date does not mean his final product will necessarily be dishonest, but do you have any actual reason to expect the work to be honest? (Heck, Charles Dawson could have still discovered the missing link even after the Piltdown man--would you have been prospectively cheering such a claim even before you had seen supporting evidence?) Every single step of the project is tainted with dishonesty and/or biased intent: the project was originally chartered in an explicitly biased framework, Hulsey has not kept his promises re openness, Hulsey has not kept his promises re timeline, Hulsey has reversed himself on the scope of the project, Hulsey has reversed himself on the level of review to which he would subject his work, and Hulsey has outright lied about his conclusions. I get that you still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but ask yourself whether you are doing so because he deserves it or because you want to believe what you think he will conclude. I never contended, and do not contend, that Hulsey's work will necessarily be dishonest or wrong, but, knowing what we know about the project now, I think we'd have to assess that there is now a far lower chance that it will be honest and correct than if we had made that same assessment ex ante 2 years ago.

    Also, I should point out that your counter example to Bazant provides a very poor analogy. Bazant was not raising money for his research by deliberately misrepresenting the scope of his findings at any given time. Bazant published articles containing limited mathematically models that were carefully caveated as to their scope and limitations, and he later iterated on those articles to include increasingly detailed calculations, both in response to criticisms and as a result of refinements he chose to implement to his limited models. He still carefully noted the limitations of his models and their findings and provided his models to independent peer reviewers in every iteration, and he never misrepresented the actual extent to which he had modeled the event or lied about the conclusions from his modeling.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Strawman.
    I never argued how the presence of money influences the results.
    I argued that Hulsey and AE911Truth are breaking promises - promises they made while soliciting MONEY.
    That is probably not fraud in a legal sense, but if I were a donor, I'd feel defrauded morally.

    To me, to NIST, perhaps even to you - but apparently not to Hulsey and AE911Truth, who already claimed to know with 100% certainty what the result would be, a year prior to having even developed the evidence.

    What are you talking about? Strawman still/again, or moving goal post?

    Trust is earned.
    NIST has earned that trust through a history of sterling work.
    Even Peter Ketcham has expressed this sentiment in his letter to the EPN.

    The same is of course true for Hulsey and AE911Truth: Trust is an operative word. AND they have a history of breaking promises and not delivering on their priorities - not to mention a broad body of work that includes deceptions galore.
    There is precisely zero reason to "trust" them at this point.
    But you, John85, wrote earlier that Hulsey had "said something reassuring" (about the panel's independence). You need to explain how you can perceive anything these people says about this project as "reassuring", given the documented history of let-downs!

    Wrong.
    The conclusions may, theoretically, turn out (by pure coincidence) to be correct, but the way they arrived at them - prior to gathering the evidence - is invalid.

    No. If you spot the error and can assess that it is "egregious", then you can spell it out without further ado. If you can't, then it's only a hunch, or a guess.

    a) It wasn't a theory of "how" the towers collapsed. It was a (largely valid) estimate of "why" the collapse progressed and accelerated - by enveloping (finding a best-case limit) the energy dissipation potential of the structure. This best-case scenario was not "how" the collapse actually progressed. Bazant, like most Truthers, assumed (for his limiting case!) that the columns would be the limiting factor. It's what Gage, stupidly, calls "the path of most resistance", and it's at the core of Tony Szamboti's papers ("Missing Jolt" etc.). But in reality, the columns were almost entirely bypassed: The collapse progressed mostly by breaking the floor-jost to columns connections, and because that is a path of very little resistance, collapse speed was mostly limited by Conservation of Momentum, not by column strength.

    I disagree with Bazant, too, at least with his follow-up papers (the original 2002 limiting case was wonderful - even if it's possible to nitpick). He, too, has a false model of collapse progression in his head. Still today.

    But Bazant is a distraction here, as is any talk of the twin towers. We are not discussing him, nor the twins.

    Agreed - we will have to look at the work once released.

    But our criticism is still
    - that he broke promises so far (you lamented this already)
    - that he will break the promise of publishing through a real engineering journal
    - that he will studiously avoid exposure to the actual academic and professional communit by not publishing in a real journal, not planning to present this at real conferences, and instead catering to gullible donors through the production (give more MONEY for this production!!) of slick propaganda videos on YT.


    And, mark my words: I predict that they WILL brutally censor any and all criticism. You can bet your sweet arese that several of us will submit criticism of the draft, and that none of it well ever see the light of day.
     
  23. John85

    John85 Member

    Not long now til the progress update. Let's hope it satisfies, for now.



    http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
     
  24. John85

    John85 Member

    The way I see it happening, there's not necessarily any real dishonesty. At the start, I imagine he was persuaded to do the study because AE911 convinced him (after 2 failed approaches) that the official story on WTC 7 was wrong, and that they needed a study to demonstrate why. He may have simply found NIST's claim highly surprising that a single dislodged girder ended up bringing down the whole building pretty much uniformly, and very fast. It was an event that even NIST said was extraordinary, and implied a new model of collapse due to fire. Then, some preliminary investigation would have shown that, indeed, collapse in the way indicated was not possible due to fire. A small bit of digging would show that NIST failed to model half the building; that their model did not look like the actual collapse; that the exterior connections to the interior structure were ignored; and that stiffeners were left out, and shear studs left out; and so on. Hardly takes much critical thinking then to suspect a fraud. Big claims require big evidence - even a cursory look shows that NIST did not provide big evidence. He may have then taken a risk by saying in public that fire was not the cause of collapse, knowing that he had not yet crossed the t's and dotted the i's. But it would be a calculated risk given his experience of forensic analysis of structural failures telling him NIST was wrong.

    That the study has gone past the deadline is unimportant as a test of honesty. That the big journals may not want to touch him is also unimportant as a test given the political implications of his conclusions. That the scope may have reduced simply to showing that NIST was wrong is no great issue: against the idea that Hulsey is biased and his conclusions are false and he's in it for the money we have to balance the fact that he stands to lose a great deal of respect and suffer a great loss of reputation if his conclusions are found to be invalid. And everyone will be trying to prove that.

    The above is just a sketch - but it is an entirely plausible view of how the study has been carried out, and it shows that Hulsey's actions to date do not necessarily weaken the confidence we may logically have in the rigor and validity of the study, ahead of actually knowing the conclusions and supporting evidence.
     
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm not sure how it shows that. He promised an open investigation with continual updates. If there were continual updates then problems would already have been identified with the study. As it is he's going to announce the conclusions months ahead of anyone being able to look at the details. That greatly reduces the initial confidence we can put on those conclusions - especially given that the STATED INTENT of the study was to reach those specific conclusions, and no others.
    [​IMG]

    We shall see this in a few hours.
     
  26. Ph_

    Ph_ Member

    So the peer review already happened?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
    Or am i missing something here, is it normal to first announce the results per broadcast, then do peer review before publishing a paper?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  27. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Hulsey proclaimed that he had concluded fire could not cause the collapse of the building before his assistants even completed modeling the behavior of column 79. I have documented this in exacting detail in this very thread, as you know. No amount of previous engineering experience (and Hulsey is not even an expert on tall buildings, fire science or forensic engineering, as far as anyone can tell from his CV and publications) could allow him to make such a huge jump to claim he reached a conclusion that he obviously could not have actually reached. It was a dishonest claim, plain and simple.

    And it's not a question about big journals wanting to publish his work. It's a question about whether he'll even submit the work to any reputable peer reviewed journal. That was an explicitly stated goal at the beginning of the study, and now it has been dropped completely from public announcements related to the project, including public announcements that provide project timelines. It is a ominous omission, especially in light of how Hulsey has also completely shifted the scope of the project without any explicit public announcement and how Hulsey has completely failed to keep the project open and accessible as promised.

    Re your comments on NIST's model, I think you misunderstand the scope of what NIST was trying to model and why. They weren't trying to prove with perfect precision the exact collapse sequence. It's absolutely impossible for them or anyone to do so given the limitations of modeling and the fact that no one has actual measurements of the fire intensity/progression. AE911Truth's claims have long been based on an overly simplified view of the nature of NIST's models and aims, so it's not terribly surprising that many of their followers also lack a nuanced view. Not much more to be said in this thread on this topic except that you should closely read the NIST reports and related peer reviewed articles re disproportionate collapse modeling to better understand the state of the field. (And remember that NIST's reports are 10+ years old at this point, and so software and computational ability have greatly improved.) You could also just email and talk to professional structural engineers at your local university (maybe invite them out for a coffee on you) to see what they think about the NIST's modeling work. Unless you live in Fairbanks, I'm pretty sure I know what they'll say...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    7wtc was not a garden variety high rise on a standard grid system. The structural design was VERY UNorthodox because it was built over top of a massive Con Ed Sub station. This required a number of MASSIVE transfer structures some of which were several stories tall. These massive trusses were field assembled from 6" thick plates basically bolted together.

    There was also a large amount of diesel stored inside and under the building for the emergency power... which kicked in when the Con Ed power station went down ( likely with electrical explosions) from shorts/surges caused by the plane severing high voltage risers in 1wtc. The diesel was automatically pumped up as needed. The back up power generators kicked in at 9am when the AA plane hit 1wtc and likely continued all day as long as the there was power demand in the building.

    There were no operational sprinklers from the time 1wtc fell as apparently fall debris from it destroyed the main on Vesey Street.

    This was not a collapse from office fires as one might find in a typical office or residential high rise.

    This was not a typical structure as one might find in a typical office or residential high rise.

    What is needed is a model which uses realistic assumptions to analyze how the structure would fail.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He's talking now, just giving an overview of the building. Says he's going to spend a lot of time on Floor 13, and Column 79.
    20170906-171959-7vmh5.
     
  30. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    This is a waste of time... it's embarrassing... [...]. he's rehashing the old [...] arguments or Gerry and Tony et al
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2017
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Pretty much. Just a focus on that one small segment. No actual variable modelling of the building, just one floor, one set of inputs.
     
  32. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    His what's next does say he will look at failures in other sections of the building such as the perimeter "trusses" and the sub station level. That should be interesting especially with his assumed heat inputs.
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    His approach to heat inputs seemed a little suspect. He kept saying things like there would be be enough papers on people's desks. Did he use NIST heat inputs?
     
  34. John85

    John85 Member

    There's a difference between stating the expected outcome and refusing to accept results that differ from your expectation. You will have to show the latter, not the former, once the data is released
     
  35. John85

    John85 Member

    Yes, he used NIST's fire data
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. John85

    John85 Member

    Pretty straightforward presentation then.

    The girder would not have dropped off its seat if the column sides, girder stiffeners, shear studs, concrete friction and beam lateral supports are included in the model.

    If the girder is pushed off column 79 it doesn't fall through the concrete deck anyway.

    Collapse would not have initiated through this mechanism and, if it had, would have arrested immediately.
     
  37. mjl

    mjl New Member

    I watched the presentation yesterday and found it quite disappointing: Husley focused on the NIST simulation most of the time and his own simulations seem to be very limited. He also did not present an own theory why and how WTC 7 collapsed, he just announced more research.

    But it was late and as a non-native speaker I probably missed some stuff. Somebody else already uploaded the video of the presentation to Youtube, so it is available for broader inspection. ;-)


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRkgIV8U9f0
     
  38. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    This is more GerryCan and TonySz stuff taking NIST assumptions and showing NIST had made mistakes.

    Why doesn't he explain how the tower fell not not the NIST assumptions were incorrect?????

    There are some who suspected that this column location/ failure was not the cause of the collapse by a consequence of it and the global collapse began lower down, spread rapidly laterally westward, caused failures at the best trusses and the building then collapsed. Visually this matches what it looks like from the outside (what can be seen) And the hypothesis should be build on what we can see.

    Another waste of time and we are no closer to understanding the collapse.
     
  39. John85

    John85 Member

    He's showing that NIST's model cannot describe what actually happened. NIST is the official study of course, so if they're shown to be wrong, it makes a case for fresh investigations. The second part of the study is manipulating a model of WTC 7 to see what would have had to happen to produce the collapse witnessed.

    Why do you disbelieve the NIST model in any case?
     
  40. John85

    John85 Member

    I take it you do believe that NIST's model is the best approximation to the cause of the collapse?