Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Investigate what? Look where? What new data can be now revealed? Was it hidden? This going on ad infinitum...
AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project
- Thread starter Oystein
- Start date
- Status
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the biggest pieces of garbage ever put on paper and that has now been shown in no uncertain terms. Given that, I find it incredible that some here don’t seem bothered in the least that they aren’t being forced to redo it.
How has this been shown in no uncertain terms?
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
There is a reasonable debate to be had about whether the shortcoming's of NIST's report merit us asking NIST to spend millions to do it all again. I vote no given all the other work that has been independently done on this issue, but reasonable people can disagree.
But Hulsey isn't just claiming that NIST is wrong and therefore needs to rerun its models with some different parameters--he is claiming that fire could not, under any circumstances, have caused the collapse of the building. This is a completely dishonest conclusion based on the work Hulsey has done to date. It is far more suspect that NIST's original conclusion, especially given all the other independent professional work to date that serves to reinforce NIST's conclusion.
Perhaps you should ask Hulsey to redo his model given how his conclusion is obviously horribly flawed? You could ask him to actually test NIST's heating scenario while he's at it (and maybe a wide range of fire scenarios on more than 2 floors???). Once Hulsey has redone his investigation properly, we'll be closer to the truth! Seems to make sense for the people who care most about this issue (incidentally, none of whom are actually high building experts who deal with these issues in their professional lives) to pay for the study instead of the US taxpayers.
(Your use of bald assertions of unproven claims does nothing for your argument, by the way.)
Last edited:
It would be nice, and possibly useful, to do a more detailed analysis. However I do not think there's a compelling evidence of a need. I would love to see a hyper-rigorous analysis, but I certainly would not supporting spending public money on it.
Think of it from the perspective of Congress. They work in government, so they know what a lumbering beast the power structure is, and how there no way an explosive demolition could have been pulled off without them being aware it it. They know the entire FBI was put on investigating 9/11. WTC7 was just another building that fell that day. NIST said it was fire, so that's fine by Congress.
Now we've got another study, financed by 9/11 Truthers who make a bunch of outlandish claims about nanothermite tossing multi-ton girders around. This Hulsey study looks legit on its face, but so far, and assuming the presentation is accurate, it really just shows that one key connection that NIST says failed, did not fail under the Hulsey model. This finding is somehow warped into "the NIST WTC 7 report is invalid" (by you) and "WTC7 did not collapse due to fire" (Hulsey and AE911).
MikeC
Closed Account
which "insidious points" are those?
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Tony do you really think that any model based on the unreliable heat data, absent any other quantifiable mechanical issues could develop a definitive conclusion looking at one single node?
What is the compelling evidence that there was a cause which was not fire? THAT would be worthy of an investigation de novo.
What is the compelling evidence that there was a cause which was not fire? THAT would be worthy of an investigation de novo.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The heating in the models was a maximum for office fires, so unreliable data is not an objection. The nature of the collapse (simultaneous free fall of all four corners) with no asymmetric exterior column deformation in separate parts of the building is evidence that asymmetric fires were not the cause.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You can contact Leroy Hulsey yourself and tell him what you think should be done. You have already contacted his graduate students separately, so it is obviously something you know how to do.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Based on what? No matter what the cause was, the occurrence of the collapse was unprecedented. You build a bridge way too far by assuming so much without any evidence. Moreover, we cannot tell how much exterior deformation occurred on the vast majority of the building during the collapse due to limited video evidence, but we know from firefighter testimony that the exterior on the south side was significantly deformed even prior to the collapse due to fire damage to the structure.
Are you going to call on Hulsey to state an actual reasonable conclusion and to redo his study to actually test a broader range of fire scenarios? Wouldn't it be better for him to do that work than NIST in your worldview, anyhow?
More non-responsive and personalized deflection.
Don't blame me for the fact that Hulsey and the organization with which you affiliate yourself are out there stating absolutely ridiculous conclusions that you cannot defend.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You haven't made a definitive case against what Leroy Hulsey has said. Your points are all a form of innuendo with no legitimate basis. If you want him to change something you will need to explain what it is you want yourself, and when he asks for a basis you need to provide it. Unlike what you have done here.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
There was a lot of fuel stored in the building down near the sub station and I believe on some upper floors which has back up generators. The Coddington building was pretty messed up by fire... why not 7wtc?
Why are steel frames sprinklered? And what is the consequence of raging fires in unsprinklered buildings?
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
So you think that Hulsey's model proves that the building could not have collapsed from fire??? What exactly do I need to "prove" to demonstrate that is ridiculous other than what I have written for months in this thread (documenting in exacting detail how Hulsey's model is a very limited one that, at best, only demonstrates some aspects of NIST's model may have been in error), in your mind?
He said that WTC7 did not collapse doe to fire. However his study does not prove this.
It's really that simple. You yourself won't say his study proved the collapse was not due to fire. So are you okay with AE911 claiming that?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The reason large steel framed buildings never failed due to office fires in them is that there is not enough fuel to heat the large steel members to the point where there would be a problem.
Diesel fuel had nothing to do with it as the main diesel fuel tanks which were under WTC 7 were found to be intact and close to full.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I am saying that he showed the NIST report is invalid and that we don't have a valid explanation for the collapse. You seemed to agree but want to parse what should be redone.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
I'm saying Hulsey's stated conclusion that, based on his limited model, "fire could not have caused the collapse of the building" is obviously wrong. Your intepretation of his report as "invalidating" NIST's report, is similarly logically flawed, but, by degree, it is better than Hulsey's clearly erroneous conclusion.
Do you support Hulsey proclaiming a clearly false conclusion? You are affiliated with this study through your work with AE911Truth, which is also proclaiming that false conclusion, so you should have an opinion. Or are you just going to hew and haw and try to avoid answering directly?
It is not semantic parsing to point out that Hulsey's own stated conclusion clearly does not follow from the work he has done to date. If I told you that NIST proved that WTC7 would have collapsed from any fire, what would you say about the validity of that conclusion?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You obviously want to walk away from the fact that Leroy Hulsey showed the NIST WTC 7 report is invalid and that we do not have a legitimate explanation for the collapse of the building? It is clear that you are trying very hard to find a way to distract from that. I think his work has added to the already serious doubt that fire was the cause. He showed that NIST did not properly consider how the heating would affect the structural members relative to the slabs and other members.
Like I said, if you think you have a complaint contact him. I don't think he would refuse what you are saying if it had merit. The problem here is you haven't shown any merit. You obviously just want to discredit his work based on your belief that he didn't specifically show to your satisfaction that fire could be completely ruled out. You are doing this while excluding the elephant in the room that the NIST report on WTC 7 is invalid and non-explanatory. Your argument is not credible.
Last edited:
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
the explanation is fire caused structural failure... there is nothing else which makes sense and has evidence to support it.
Showed where?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
How did it do that Jeffrey? I am all ears.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
It sounds like you haven't seen his presentation?
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Excuse me for focusing on Hulsey's stated conclusion, which conclusion he stated several times explicitly in his presentation last week. It also is the single top take away that AE911Truth has chosen to highlight in its press releases. Why can't you simply say you disagree with that conclusion? Is it so hard to be intellectually honest when you want to believe? Everyone in this thread knows it is a patently false conclusion based on the work Hulsey has done to date (just as it was a patently false conclusion when Hulsey was making it last fall before he even modeled column 79 at all, as I have documented).
You've been making that same tired claim about NIST being invalidated for years, including before Hulsey even started this study. Maybe Hulsey identified one or more significant issues with NIST's model, maybe he didn't. From his presentation, his model was very limited compared to NIST's in many respects and didn't even test the same fire scenarios. Was it similar enough for it to show NIST got it wrong in some material respect? Again, maybe, maybe not. But your claim that it "invalidates" NIST is premature and unsupported, as is Hulsey's ridiculous conclusion, which you have avoided even addressing for 4 hours straight now. Do you think we all forget what Hulsey is claiming if you don't type the words?
So you are not going to address the question?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Oh, I think most people would think it is a much bigger issue that the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid and non-explanatory than your complaint that Leroy Hulsey hasn't provided enough evidence to satisfy you when making his claim that fire could not have been the cause.
It is not premature to say NIST's WTC 7 report is invalid. Their hypothesis does not work. It is simple as that.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I did. You need to watch his presentation. That is where he showed NIST's WTC 7 report was invalid.
Have you watched Dr. Leroy Hulsey's Sept. 6, 2017 presentation discussing his study of the WTC 7 collapse?
Which part? Answer the question.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Fixed that for you. Still nothing to say about Hulsey's actual conclusion? Why can't you simply say that it is wrong to conclude from Hulsey's work to date that fires could not have caused the collapse of the building? It is painful to watch a grown man twist himself in knots to try to evade stating a very simple and patently obvious truth.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
Yes I would have thought that the easiest way to show NIST's analysis is invalid is to show that some of the premise are not correct, or their conclusions do not follow from the premise.....
creating an entirely different test that does not show the same things at all seems a particularly poor way of going about it.
creating an entirely different test that does not show the same things at all seems a particularly poor way of going about it.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
He did it during his presentation. Do you want the slide numbers? If so, watch the presentation.
Yes I would like the slide numbers as wandering through nonsense is tiring.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You should not be re-writing the post of another. That is not appropriate in a debate, especially when you misspell words you added like IMCOMPLETE.
I do have to get to bed, but before I do I will say that Dr. Hulsey apparently looked at the NIST, ARUP, and Weidlinger analyses and found they all had flaws and could not prove what they claimed to. He apparently also looked for ways himself that the building could collapse by fire and could not find any. Thus he is saying it was not possible due to office fires and some other mechanism must have been in play.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Did you watch the presentation? If not, you need to, as there is context you will miss and you then won't have a full appreciation for what was said.
I am not going to do the work for you. Sorry, but if you want to debate and be taken seriously you will have to do some work yourself.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
I clearly indicated where I marked up your post and it was a wholly appropriate way of showing how disconnected from reality your bald assertions are. Feel free to mark it up again and show me where my mark-up was incorrect.
So you are satisfied that Hulsey having "looked at" other detailed reports that concluded the building could collapse as a result of fire has thus proved his stated conclusion that the building could not have collapsed from fire? Come on, Tony. You can't possibly believe this tripe you are typing. You are the guy who for years said NIST's conclusion was wrong because it didn't model certain elements to your satisfaction, and now you are going to claim you are satisfied that Hulsey proved wrong several collapse scenarios he didn't even actually model at all just by "looking at them"? All he said in his presentation about ARUP was that Nordenson got the collapse propagation calculation wrong. He didn't even address ARUP's failure model at all. It's the same mistake you made just a few hours ago in this thread, which I corrected here. Re WAI, all he said was that the heating in their model was too intense, but, as you know, his team didn't even do any fire modeling, so how did he reach that conclusion exactly?
Hulsey's claim that he proved fires could not have brought down WTC7 is absolutely unsupported by the work he has done to date and you know it.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I don't know that and neither do you. You just think that.
Why don't you write to him and complain that he didn't support his conclusion to your satisfaction?
Last edited:
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Finish this sentence for me then, Tony: Hulsey has proved that WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fires by virtue of having done the following: _______.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
My main interest in what he was saying was what he said about the NIST WTC 7 report. You will have to personally ask him to prove to your satisfaction his conclusion that fire could not have been the cause of the collapse.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
And around in circles we go. I'm asking you, not Hulsey. You are allowed to state your opinions on what Hulsey has presented to date, including his stated conclusion. (You have no problem stating your opinions on other aspects of his study, in fact.) But I'm beating a dead horse here and you won't be intellectually honest any time soon. If you have something to say in defense of Hulsey's stated conclusion (other than the weak tripe I refuted above), feel free to post it. I know that it's clear to you and everyone else that Hulsey's limited model of portions of two floors under only a single set of temperatures (not even a real fire simulation) is not a sufficient basis for concluding that fires could not have caused the collapse the building.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
OK - how about this -
Hulsey's conclusion about the NIST report being invalid is proven by ...............
deirdre
Senior Member.
I don't understand why your energy is primarily spent on arguing with non-Truthers. AE911 has had 16 years to convince the public, qualified engineers and the gov to reinvestigate the fire; you haven't been able to accomplish that.
So at this point your only hope is to convince the general public, ie. non-Truthers, ie. me, to support the reinvestigation cause. regardless of what you think of Huxley's presentation, the truth is he hasn't proven anything so far regarding whether NISTs report was invalid or not.
If you think this conclusion by non-Truthers is wrong, then you should perhaps spend your energy in explaining the details to non-Truthers vs utilizing an argument that lacks any details what-so-ever.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
