Tags:
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Hulsey Study Title - Metabunk.


    The Claim Being Debunked Here

    In a Sept 8 2017 article shared by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Daily Mail says:


    There are numerous problems with the claim that the study shows that WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire:
    • The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.
    • The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged.
    • The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.
    • The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210992/
    • The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/211186/
    • The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly.
    • The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/
    • The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/
    • The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow.
    • The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse.

    While it is possible that Dr. Hulsey's study will eventually yield some interesting results, it is factually incorrect to say that it proves that fire could not have caused the collapse.



    Background

    On 9/11/2001 the two World Trade Center towers (WTC1 and WTC2) fell within two hours of being hit. When WTC1 (the North Tower) fell at 10:28AM, it damaged a third building: World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7). Multiple fires were ignited in WTC7, firefighters were hampered by a lack of water. After observing deformation of the building as early as 2:00PM, firefighters withdrew from the area around the building at 3:30PM, fearing collapse. WTC7 collapsed at 5:20PM, after varied burning for nearly seven hours, seemingly from an interior collapse, followed by exterior. The visual resemblance to some controlled demolitions led people to think it might have been brought down deliberately.

    In November 2008, NIST released their final reports on the collapse of WTC7, totaling over a thousand pages.
    The conclusion of NIST was that multiple damaged connections led to floors collapsing, leading to lack of support and subsequent buckling failure of a single column (column 79) which spread to adjacent columns, leading to the interior collapse, quickly followed by the exterior collapse.

    Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (a group that thinks that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives) approached Dr. Leroy Hulsey (a professor at University of Alaska, Fairbanks) in 2013 to:
    Source: http://archive.is/ZR9S5 and https://web.archive.org/web/20150330080428/www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015

    The study took on more official status in 2015. AE911 was asking for over $200,000 to finance the project, and UAF put the project budget at $316,152. A web site was set up in October 2015, with the less loaded description:
    Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20151126053055/http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/


    Note: This post is largely derived from this larger thread:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/
    Where relevant I've added links to that thread to some point above. Please check the discussion there before posting here.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017 at 1:33 PM
    • Like Like x 4
    • Useful Useful x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. FFTR

    FFTR New Member

    I agree with your problem list. There are many unknowns when dealing with WTC7. Such as fire behavior on the floor, fuel loading for the fire, damage done by the fallen debris from WTC2, only modeling fire on two floors when we know fire existed on several floors, exact temperatures, etc.

    Modeling is a useful tool when one remembers the models limits and assumptions.
     
  3. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 New Member

    That is incorrect.

    NIST said that the girder between columns 79 and 44 was pushed of its seat and that set off a chain of cascading floor failures that left column 79 unbraced on 3 sides over 9 floors which led to its buckling and that led to the total collapse of the building. NIST offers no other explanation for what started the collapse. Without that initial failure of the girder at column 79 there would be no collapse. Therefore, the NIST report does not establish that the probable cause of the collapse was fire as they posit.

    NISTSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 page 611 [PDF page 677]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2017 at 1:56 PM
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What you quote is just NIST's description of the "probable initiation event". NIST identifies several failed connections from the ANSYS simulation, and these were the ones used for the global collapse LS_DYNA simulation. It's the black connections here:

    20170916-135154-8lgb9.

    Note, that's just one floor, failed connections were also found on other floors.
     
  5. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 New Member

    Yes, there were many failed connections but none of them triggered the collapse around column 79 which caused a cascade of floor failures and led to its buckling. It was the walk-off of the girder on the north side of column 79 that triggered the collapse and without it column 79 would not have lost lateral support over 9 floors and buckled.
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This was the damage case used by NIST to create their LS-DYNA simulations that showed the building collapse.

    Yes, they discussed the C79/A2001 seat push-off as a possible initiating event, but they did not use it in their global analysis, and they certainly did not say it was the only possible trigger for collapse.
     
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    if that were definite, they wouldn't use the word 'probable' in their paper title. That's the point; if Husley proves eventually NIST was wrong about that, then all Husley proved was that NIST was wrong about that.

    Proving a mistake in the NIST report, does not equal 'proving fires did not cause the collapse'.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 New Member

    NIST said that it was the (not the possible) initial failure that led to the collapse. Here is the whole paragraph.


    NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 page 611 [PDF p. 677]

    On page NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 page 572 [PDF p. 638] they refer to this
    in their global analysis. Just because they didn't spell it out again doesn't mean that they didn't use it in their global analysis.

    It's the only trigger NIST mentioned or used. There was no need to have more than one trigger so that argument is moot.
     
  9. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 New Member

    NIST used the term "Probable collapse sequence" because they know that they did not prove that fire caused the collapse.

    Although proving that NIST did not provide a valid "Probable Collapse" scenario does not prove that fires did not cause the collapse, Hulsey's analysis may well do so.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    maybe, but he has a LONG way to go based on what he seems to have accomplished (and not accomplished) so far. Not sure what proving terrorists planted bombs in wtc7 will help anything, but it certainly can't hurt to check out all possibilities.
     
  11. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    You say that Mick's claim "The study only focuses on one connection" is incorrect, but then, to explain this, ...

    ...you focus on that one connection!

    Creating memes is not my thing, but you know the guy I have in mind with this:

    I am not saying the study focuses on one connection

    but

    it focuses on one connection!
     
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's a simplification of the differences in the studies, based on Hulsey saying everything moves together 2"
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 New Member

    Hulsey was incorrect when he compared the 2" of eastward movement of column 79 with the westward movement of the girder. They are two separate issues.

    As for your animated graphic, [Discussion here: https://www.metabunk.org/nist-sideplates-feasibility.t9069/#post-211936]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2017 at 6:47 AM
  14. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    Doesn't Husley's example of everything moving (assuming that Mick's interpretation is correct) indicate that there are OTHER connections that might be stressed, instead of column 79? If this is the case, couldn't there be failures elsewhere that led to the collapse? I have been trying to keep up on the other thread, but I don't know how people are able to keep that going so intently. I know what he is trying to say is that NIST is wrong, but how much movement could the other connections handle? Maybe they were wrong and it wasn't 79 due to heat, but it might have been a different column that failed due to movement at 79... and that was due to heat!!

    Sorry if I am chiming in way late with info that has already been discussed. like I said, I am trying to keep up, but most of the discussions are way above my pay grade. Or just back and forth argument about semantics.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Hulsey shows a chart of displacements that is smooth.
    Floor 13 ABAQUS displacement map.
    There's no indication in that chart of discontinuities. He explicitly states that the area around C79 "all moves together". He does not discuss any connection failures. It's not clear at all if he even modeled failure criteria.