AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

[deirdre]

Dr Hulsey is making that claim, and I believe it is made in good faith.
Have you seen the study to the extent that he has? NO

belief isn't proof. Have YOU seem the study to the extent that he has?

 

[gerrycan]

belief isn't proof. Have YOU seem the study to the extent that he has?

I believe what I see. I want to see the detail, and like so many others would love to have seen the progressive collapse model presented, just to see what it actually takes to replicate observed events.
NISt made an extraordinary claim, that fire can do what we previously thought only CD could. That claim is in shreds, even at this interim stage of the UAF study.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Column 79, and everything around it, right? So how did the girder end up wedged against the side plate?

And if that's just some abstract expansion of the composite system, then why did Hulsey compare that figure against the NIST figure for girder movement?

How has that been shown to your or anyone else's satisfaction? On top of the fact that we have a general dearth of info re Hulsey's methods, you are studiously avoiding the multiple, detailed posts Mick has made that seem to show Hulsey's methods, as described in his own slides, for determining displacement make little sense.

Mick, like you and other official story abiders, is talking gibberish hoping and trying to find any smidgen of a hook so he can try to take some luster off of Leroy Hulsey's work which shows the NIST WTC 7 report is invalid and that WTC 7 could not have collapsed due to fires.

I can't keep up with you and Mick and then take a moment out here or there to see what Oystein is crying about. Gerry Can seems to be taking care of Mick.

 

[Oystein]

Really.

Really.

it has now been shown that column 79 was pushed about 1.9" to the east.

Relative to some arbitrary point - a statement that is, in its loneliness, utterly devoid of meaning.
Hulsey did not apply a heating regime to floor below the 12th, do I understand that right?
That's why the floor 12-C79-C76 girder did not fail in his model.

His model is far too incomplete to yield ANY meaningful global motion.

It doesn't matter as the girder was trapped behind its side plate.

Says you because you STILL disregard the certain fact that the geometry of the columns relative to each other, and the geometry (and topology) of the floor framing has already been changed that Hulsey's model, because it is so pathetically incomplete, cannot possible get a grip on.

It sounds like you want to just say the building was on fire of course that had to cause its collapse. Well no that is not correct. The devil is in the details and NIST and others are wrong on details and their reports do not explain the collapse being due to fire.

Two of the details are that
a) The building was fully involved in catastrophic fires on multiple floor for several hours without any passive or active firefighting, to the point where collapse was expected by the experts on the scene
b) The building did in fact collapse.
These two teeny-weeny details affect the likelihood that fire can bring down this particular building to very near certainty - that's how Bayesian logic works in the real world.

So even if we never get near to finding out exactly how the fires did it - we just cannot ever have the full set of data that may be required for such a task - this in no way changes the assessment of what has to be the null hypothesis.

Which is exactly why the conclusion that Hulsey and AE911truth push is so central to your propaganda objectives: You MUST claim 100% impossibility. And since you know that you cannot prove a negative with such certainty, you MUST pretend that you did regardless.

But is has been firmly established, and at least gerrycan has been man enough to admit it outright (though he strangely doesn't own it firmly) that Hulsey's study simply does not and cannot prove this impossibility as it stands.


Tony, I understand that you are an agent of AE911Truth, and that the existence of AE911truth depends on successfully spinning this study into the predetermined propaganda line, so that the MONEY keeps flowing in. You cannot now admit that the study failed to deliver its objective, because you are AE911Truth. It's ok.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Mick, like you, is talking gibberish hoping and trying to find any smidgen of a hook so he can then claim he has shown Leroy Hulsey's work doesn't invalidate NIST and prove WTC 7 could not have collapsed due to fires.

I can't keep up with two of you and then take a moment out here or there to see what Oystein is crying about. Gerry Can seems to be taking care of Mick.

Uh huh. Great specific critique, Tony. And now you're fully on board with Hulsey's model of fire damage on a small portion of 2 floors being able to somehow prove WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fires?

And you're still avoiding addressing Mick's detailed "gibberish" re Hulsey's bizarre displacement calculations, just as you haven't yet addressed my "gibberish" re your factual and logical errors in support of Hulsey's obviously flawed conclusion.

 

[deirdre]

NISt made an extraordinary claim, that fire can do what we previously thought only CD could. That claim is in shreds, even at this interim stage of the UAF study.

no it's not.

 

[Oystein]

,NISt made an extraordinary claim, that fire can do what we previously thought only CD could. That claim is in shreds, even at this interim stage of the UAF study.

Given that
1. It is well understood and a matter of daily experience as well as established education of fire professionals that fire can and does destroy steel frame structures
2. WTC 7 suffered from HUGE and entirely unfought fires, on top of structural damage
3. WTC 7 did, in fact, collapse
the claim that it collapsed from fire is by no means "extraordinary", but the only plausible theory that's even at all on the table.

There exists no CD theory for WTC7.
Read that three times:
There exists no CD theory for WTC7.
There exists no CD theory for WTC7.
There exists no CD theory for WTC7.

"Fire" is the only actual theory that exists, and it is thus the null hypothesis. Given the facts enumerated above, it's likelihood of being true must be put at extremely close to unity.

The claim that fire did NOT cause the collapse is actually the extraordinary one, and Hulsey's pathetically limited heating scenary is too little by orders of magnitude to even begin "proving" this extraordinary claim.

Remember that you, gerrycan, already agreed that his study does not support that conclusion.

 

[gerrycan]

no it's not.

Yes it is.
NIST left out partial height stiffeners, did not account for column sideplates in their walk off hypothesis, and exaggerated expansion in the beams as well as leaving out the 3 lateral support beams to the north of the beam group.
Who did a better job of modelling the C79 connection as per the drawings - NIST or UAF ?

 

[deirdre]

NIST left out partial height stiffeners

I haven't looked into that part yet as this study is ultra boring.

did not account for column sideplates in their walk off hypothesis

there's excerpts in this thread that show they did.

and exaggerated expansion in the beams

how do you know? Husley did not model a progressive fire scenario.

Who did a better job of modelling the C79 connection as per the drawings - NIST or UAF ?

um.. so if I go to Second Life and make you a super accurate model of the C79 connections (which I can) and then tell you "they did blah blah blah", you will believe me over NIST too?

add: and I'm not an expert but NISTs doesn't look that bad. I see side plates and explanations for what they left out. Granted im trusting hundreds of thousands of qualified engineers who don't seem to have major concerns with their model... but still.

 

[Oystein]

Do any other professors do that when performing an analysis? I have never heard of any doing so.

What does any of this matter?
Full transparency, full data, and continuing updates were promised while MONEY was solicited.

Do you even have the software needed to view or work on the models? or are you just bellyaching because you want to make Leroy Hulsey look bad?

Me personally? No.
Hulsey does look bad, because he broke promises.

Unless you, Tony, who are AE911truth, in your capacity as AE911Truth, now declare officially that what AE911Truth meant when they promised continuing updates on EVERY aspect of the study and access to all the data was: Nothing really, except basically the same presentation once a year.

Or can YOU explain what YOU, i.e. AE911Truth, actually meant by promising these updates on EVERY aspect of the study? Can you please be very specific?

Why did you promise full data, when you now tell me, condescendingly, that I wouldn't have any use for it anyway?

 

[Oystein]

The level of data being demanded of this UAF project at this interim stage...

This "interim" stage is more than half a year AFTER the original end date of the project

NIST on the basis of no more than thin air

This "thin air" is thousands of pages of finished, peer-reviewed reports.

Hulsey is the one giving us thin air when full transparency was promised.

Your defending this promise-breaker is very disappointing.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What does any of this matter?
Full transparency, full data, and continuing updates were promised while MONEY was solicited.


Me personally? No.
Hulsey does look bad, because he broke promises.

Unless you, Tony, who are AE911truth, in your capacity as AE911Truth, now declare officially that what AE911Truth meant when they promised continuing updates on EVERY aspect of the study and access to all the data was: Nothing really, except basically the same presentation once a year.

Or can YOU explain what YOU, i.e. AE911Truth, actually meant by promising these updates on EVERY aspect of the study? Can you please be very specific?

Why did you promise full data, when you now tell me, condescendingly, that I wouldn't have any use for it anyway?

Nobody doing a research study provides what you want. You are being ridiculous.

The periodic presentations were all that was ever necessary and I think Dr. Hulsey was transparent with those.

 

[deirdre]

Nobody doing a research study provides what you want.

Nobody doing a research study promises that they will, like you guys did.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nobody doing a research study promises that they will, like you guys did.

[...]

Did you see Colin Bailey's declaration to the court about there being 30 shear studs on girder A2001? He said he found out just 7 months after NIST released their final WTC 7 report claiming there were none. What do you think about that?

 

[benthamitemetric]

Are you pouting and crying like Oystein?

Did you see Colin Bailey's declaration to the court about there being 30 shear studs on girder A2001? What do you think about that?

What do you think about it, Tony?

Evidence discovered after June 15, 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed on each floor on the girder running between columns 79 and 44. This was done to increase the ability of this part of the structure to support an additional 10 psf load above the original design load. As a result, only 30 shear studs were installed, which, in my opinion, was not sufficient to transfer thermal thrusts. For a fully composite girder a total of 96 shear studs would be required, which would have transferred the thermal thrusts.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What do you think about it, Tony?

Evidence discovered after June 15, 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed on each floor on the girder running between columns 79 and 44. This was done to increase the ability of this part of the structure to support an additional 10 psf load above the original design load. As a result, only 30 shear studs were installed, which, in my opinion, was not sufficient to transfer thermal thrusts. For a fully composite girder a total of 96 shear studs would be required, which would have transferred the thermal thrusts.

I think the NIST WTC 7 report authors lied about it, like we now know they did about many things.

 

[gerrycan]

Given that
1. It is well understood and a matter of daily experience as well as established education of fire professionals that fire can and does destroy steel frame structures
2. WTC 7 suffered from HUGE and entirely unfought fires, on top of structural damage
3. WTC 7 did, in fact, collapse
the claim that it collapsed from fire is by no means "extraordinary", but the only plausible theory that's even at all on the table.

From NIST's own publicity video. 7s in the narrator deals with the fact that collapse primarily due to fire is unprecedented. That is by any standard "extraordinary" - very unusual or remarkable.
@44s Shyam Sunder states - "in fact we have shown for the first time that fire can induce a progressive collapse"
These are by their nature, and the source's own admission "extraordinary" claims.

There exists no CD theory for WTC7.
Read that three times:
There exists no CD theory for WTC7.
There exists no CD theory for WTC7.
There exists no CD theory for WTC7.

There is no question that CD has the capability of producing the observed events. There is no fire based theory that has been able to replicate the events that NIST claim at C79, even with parameters exaggerated.
There is serious doubt on the veracity of NIST's extraordinary claim that they have indeed "shown for the first time that fire can induce a progressive collapse" <say that once, but slowly. Let it sink in.

"Fire" is the only actual theory that exists, and it is thus the null hypothesis. Given the facts enumerated above, it's likelihood of being true must be put at extremely close to unity.

Fire would be an "extraordinary" cause to have done this. That requires an extraordinary explanation. None has been forthcoming from you, NIST or anyone else.

The claim that fire did NOT cause the collapse is actually the extraordinary one, and Hulsey's pathetically limited heating scenary is too little by orders of magnitude to even begin "proving" this extraordinary claim.

So do you agree that a true and accurate FEA model of this building can be subjected to exaggerated conditions to an extent that would prove reasonably that fire did not cause the observed events ?

Remember that you, gerrycan, already agreed that his study does not support that conclusion.

I think there needs to be more meat on the bones yes. But neither you or I have seen the finished study and there are undoubtedly some simulations that will be very relevant to the issues discussed in this thread.
At this interim stage, I can see why you are so keen to try and pick holes in this study. I don't think that's a bad thing in and of itself, and I would encourage you to contact the project team with your suggestions/questions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I understand that you are an agent of AE911Truth, and that the existence of AE911truth depends on successfully spinning this study into the predetermined propaganda line, so that the MONEY keeps flowing in. You cannot now admit that the study failed to deliver its objective, because you are AE911Truth. It's ok.

You apparently don't understand much, although you do seem to assume a lot. I am not an agent for anyone and do not receive any remuneration in any form from AE911Truth.

I am nothing but an American citizen, who also happens to be an engineer, and I am calling things the way they are. WTC 7 did not collapse due to fire and neither did the Twin Towers. The official political story of what happened in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 is a lie and a scam which has caused a great deal of unnecessary harm to Americans and other people in the world, and it needs to stop.

 

[benthamitemetric]

I think the NIST WTC 7 report authors lied about it, like we now know they did about many things.

Evidence that they lied about it as opposed to instead relying on the other source, as Bailey originally did?

In any event, is this "lie" (about an element Bailey believed to immaterial) better or worse than Hulsey claiming he had proved fire could not collapse WTC7 a year ago before he even finished modeling the elements around column 79?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Evidence that they lied about it as opposed to instead relying on the other source, as Bailey originally did?

In any event, is this "lie" (about an element Bailey believe to immaterial) better or worse than Hulsey claiming he had proved fire could not collapse WTC7 a year ago before he even finished modeling the elements around column 79?

Get real. NIST left the stiffeners off which would have prevented the girder flange from ever failing, they ignored the column side plates which would trap the girder, they claimed there were no shear studs on the girder when there were etc., etc., etc.

and you don't seem concerned about it in the least. Wow! That seems to say where you are.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Get real. They left the stiffeners off, they ignored the column side plates which would trap the girder they claimed there were no shear studs when there were etc., etc., etc.

So no evidence that they lied about the shear studs, then?

 

[Oystein]

The girder temperature of 500 C is given in section 8.8 of the NIST WTC 7 report.. ...

Something is going terribly wrong here. And by "here" I mean "everywhere": You posts, Tony, Hulsey's presentation, and even Mick has caught this desease:

All these references to Chapter 8 are irrelevant!

Chapter 8 is NOT the actual simulation of the events that lead to failure and global collapse in the final analysis!

Chapter 8 is merely a preliminary assessment of the possible failure modes to look for in a certain area of interest!

So whether or not any plates, welds, studs etc were in place in Chapter 8, none of that matters, for none of that applies to the fire sim (Chapter 9), the structural heating (Chapter 10), the Structural Analysis of Initial Failure Event (Chapter 11) or the Global Collapse Analysis (Chapter 12). The temperatures in Chapter 8 are NOT the temperatures in the models that matter. The failures shown in Chapter 8 are NOT the failures that initiated the collapse. The movement of the girder in Chapter 8 is NOT the movement of the girder in the 16-story ANSYS model.

Etc.


Does everybody understand this? Do you all agree? This is crucial. I have a hunch that nobody here understands NIST's modelling approach. Nobody. Not Tony, not Hulsey, not gerrycan, not even Mick.

 

[deirdre]

Are you pouting and crying like Oystein?

No. I couldn't care less about men breaking promises. I don't think that is relevant to whether the study has any useful information or not.

And control your emotions. Rudeness will get you a temporary ban.

Did you see Colin Bailey's declaration to the court about there being 30 shear studs on girder A2001? He said he found out just 7 months after NIST released their final WTC 7 report claiming there were none

I did see that. and thank you for supplying me with the information. ( I gave you an "informative" rating) But I also saw the footnote that [96] would be needed to be of any relevance. So I'm not sure what relevance the studs have. I am focusing on parts I can understand, like the fact that Husley did not in any way shape or form model the fire. I would think how and when parts of beams and girders etc heat up and cool off matters.

I'm also now curious with Mick's information. Comparing apples to oranges, kinda negates Husley's move to the east information for me. In 3 more years when Husley actually finishes and if he can get any qualified engineers to actually look at his study, then that will be that.

In the meantime, you lose all credibility claiming his study proves fire couldn't cause the collapse. You guys should have just said "study proves NISTs probable initiation cause wrong". It's like your sabotaging yourselves on purpose.

 

[Oystein]

...
The question is this. Is there a level of FEA exaggeration of conditions that you believe that this model can be subjected to, in order to reasonably rule out fire as the proximate cause of collapse ?

This should have been answered by Hulsey about two years ago, if that was his plan - to use FEA to prove a global negative.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No. I couldn't care less about men breaking promises. I don't think that is relevant to whether the study has any useful information or not.

And control your emotions. Rudeness will get you a temporary ban.


I did see that. and thank you for supplying me with the information. ( I gave you an "informative" rating) But I also saw the footnote that [96] would be needed to be of any relevance. So I'm not sure what relevance the studs have. I am focusing on parts I can understand, like the fact that Husley did not in any way shape or form model the fire. I would think how and when parts of beams and girders etc heat up and cool off matters.

I'm also now curious with Mick's information. Comparing apples to oranges, kinda negates Husley's move to the east information for me. In 3 more years when Husley actually finishes and if he can get any qualified engineers to actually look at his study, then that will be that.

In the meantime, you lose all credibility claiming his study proves fire couldn't cause the collapse. You guys should have just said "study proves NISTs probable initiation cause wrong". It's like your sabotaging yourselves on purpose.

Glad you looked at what Bailey said about the shear studs. Hulsey did not need to model the fire. He used NIST's fire simulation results.

You will have to take up what Dr. Hulsey chose to say regarding the results of his study with him.

 

[gerrycan]

This "interim" stage is more than half a year AFTER the original end date of the project

Punctuality does not equate to accuracy. It's late. Your point ?

This "thin air" is thousands of pages of finished, peer-reviewed reports.

Who exactly peer reviewed NIST's analysis? I mean, who OUTSIDE OF NIST ?

Hulsey is the one giving us thin air when full transparency was promised.

What is it that you need to know - the model inputs ? Will NIST release theirs ? NO

Your defending this promise-breaker is very disappointing.

I promised myself that I would wait until the full project was completed and released before I came to any solid conclusions specific to it.
Interesting to see the conclusions that those who formerly supported NIST's walk off theory are in such a hurry to reach though, on the basis of what is admittedly, a few weeks worth of a 3 year game.

 

[Oystein]

Nobody doing a research study provides what you want. You are being ridiculous.

The periodic presentations were all that was ever necessary and I think Dr. Hulsey was transparent with those.

No.

 

[deirdre]

Who exactly peer reviewed NIST's analysis? I mean, who OUTSIDE OF NIST ?
What is it that you need to know - the model inputs ? Will NIST release theirs ? NO

this thread is not about NIST. Trying to excuse Husley by pointing out the same behavior in others, that Truthers have been complaining about (rightfully so imo) for years, doesn't help your case.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The journal of structural engineering peer reviewed NIST's WTC7 report. How can truthers still be ignorant of this? I've even already posted it in this very thread.

They also rejected two legitimate Discussion papers about it saying the papers offered no new information. I know as I was one of the authors. It has been clear for a while that some top people at the ASCE journals are involved in the cover-up of what happened to WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. Kaspar Willam was an editor of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and had been involved in the NIST reports.

 

[benthamitemetric]

They also rejected two legitimate Discussion papers about it saying the papers offered no new information. I know as I was one of the authors. The only answer I have for it is that some top people at the ASCE journals are involved in the cover-up of what happened to WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.

Or that an august panel of individuals who are actually experts in structural engineering rightly recognized that your submission wasn't worthy of publication in their respected journal.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Or that an august panel of individuals who are actually experts in structural engineering rightly recognized that your submission wasn't worthy of publication in their respected journal.

They are not august and are clearly involved in a deception of the public. Have you ever read the story Professor Richard Johns and I told at the below link regarding our treatment by the JEM?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf

 

[Oystein]

You apparently don't understand much, although you do seem to assume a lot. I am not an agent for anyone and do not receive any remuneration in any form from AE911Truth.

Strawman.
You are presented by AE911truth very prominently as someone who "is" AE911truth.
And we know that you gave active input to this AE911truth study.
That makes you, objectively, an agent of AE911Truth.
That you choose not to get money (even though it is well known that several of Gage's minions are paid agents) is you prerogative which I have no opinion on.

You may not even be aware of the strategic goals here.

I am nothing but an American citizen, who also happens to be an engineer, and I am calling things the way they are. WTC 7 did not collapse due to fire and neither did the Twin Towers. The official political story of what happened in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 is a lie and a scam which has caused a great deal of unnecessary harm to Americans and other people in the world, and it needs to stop.

And you are, sadly, wrong. One of the very tiny minority of people who are dead wrong on this issue.

Although, if that is a consolation, I agree that the US response to the attacks has been harmful in many ways that nees to stop. Quite independent of wether girder A2001 fell first or some other.

 

[Oystein]

Punctuality does not equate to accuracy. It's late. Your point ?

That the word "interim" is Orwellian newspeak to confuse the fact that Hulsey missed many actual interim opportunities for transparency.

If we are actually at an interim stage, why do they already produce headlines with the final top level conclusion?

Who exactly peer reviewed NIST's analysis? I mean, who OUTSIDE OF NIST ?

The ASCE flagship journal.

What is it that you need to know - the model inputs ?

Full transparency.
Like dump your work into a public cloud every so often.
Gerrycan, you cannot really be this thick: Early in the project, AE911Truth published an almost daily video of Hulsey and his assistants, and they put the asistants' work diaries on public download. We knew what they were doing day to day, their learning curve, their progress.

Then this all stopped. Completely.

You know this.
So stop the excuses.

Will NIST release theirs ? NO

NIST did not ask me for money while promising any of this like Hulsey did.
Sheesh, your defense of broken promises becomes weirder and weirder. Own it, man!

I promised myself that I would wait until the full project was completed and released before I came to any solid conclusions specific to it.

You are a free man.

Interesting to see the conclusions that those who formerly supported NIST's walk off theory ...

Please try to quote me as "supporting" NIST's walk off theory
If you search deep, you may find me saying on JREF, when it was still JREF, that perhaps this particular walk-off theory is not what initiated the global collapse.
And that it doesn't matter.
Which I still stand by.

are in such a hurry to reach though, on the basis of what is admittedly, a few weeks worth of a 3 year game.

The AE911Truth Propaganda Machine lost no time and was in an EXTREME hurry to shout out and publicise to a maximum audience the core conclusions they ordered and payed for, even though this conclusion cannot follow from what was released. So either AE911Truth knows significantly more than the public does, or they are LYING about the conclusions.

Why do you excuse AE911truth's extreme hurry to spread lies?

 

[Oystein]

THAT is why you end up getting ignored.
I came to this forum in 2013 and made this case, not at this level, not with these resources. You couldn't defend NIST then, and you are less capable of it now.
Call that thick if you like. I can understand why you would be frustrated.

NIST is still not the subject of this thread - AE911Truth and Hulsey are
And I am not defending NIST. I am criticizing AE911Truth and Hulsey.

The study was announced with promises, which were made when MONEY was solicited. True or false? True of course.

You know what they did in the first weeks to try to establish that transparency: Videos, work diary... I didn't actually care for the videos (write-ups are the professional and academic way to communicate), but clearly, AE911Truth raised an expectation that this sort of transparency, showing the progress from week to week, was the content of the promise.

And that simply stopped, in 2015, two years ago. True or false? True of course.

Whatever AE911Truth promised there while soliciting MONEY (never forget that the promises were attacjed to requests for you and and me to give the MONEY!), they did not follow through - and now you and Tony want to convince us that the promise was empty from the start anyay?! And that is an excuse?


Ok, back to topic:

• I showed in several posts how Hulsey misunderstands NIST's modelling approach - this results in FALSE claims in his presentation.
• I showed where Hulsey conflates two distinct models and transfers a distorted claim about one to the other - demonstrating he doesn't get what NIST did.
• I showed you that the idea that the east wall in NIST's ANSYS model was rigid and fixed is plain FALSE. You need to correct for this mistake, and Hulsey needs to stop misconstruing NIST's model.
• I just explained to y'all that discussing the fine details of NIST's Chapter 8 is totally a fool's errand, as NOTHING they did there actually shows what they did in the actual simulation sequence (Chapters 9-12).

Did you understand any of that?

 

[benthamitemetric]

Maybe you just don't know much about it and just feel free to spout off how wonderful these people are without knowing much about them


You apparently don't know much about them.

The JSE and JEM both belong to the ASCE journals group and come under the same Engineering mechanics Institute Board of Governors.

Name one person on the panel who isn't an accomplished engineer who is qualified to be there.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Name one person on the panel who isn't an accomplished engineer who is qualified to be there.

It has nothing to do with technical qualifications. It is about ethics and morality.

I have had experience with some of these people and it wasn't good and they were highly unethical. There are people at the top of the ASCE who are involved in the 911 deception of the public.

 

[benthamitemetric]

It has nothing to do with technical qualifications. It is about ethics and morality.

I have had experience with some of these people and it wasn't good and they were highly unethical. There are people at the top of the ASCE who are involved in the 911 deception of the public.

Ok.

 

[Mick West]

You never answered my question though. And let's presume that the model is verifiable and true if that suits you better. Can such a model be subjected to exaggerated conditions to the extent that fire could be reasonably ruled out as a proximate cause?

Sure, if the model reflects reality, then just heat it up in various ways, see what happens.

Of course, all models only reflect reality to a degree. But that gives you a similar degree of confidence in interpreting the results.

 

[gerrycan]

Sure, if the model reflects reality, then just heat it up in various ways, see what happens.

Of course, all models only reflect reality to a degree. But that gives you a similar degree of confidence in interpreting the results.

So if for example we removed C79 an it's supporting elements completely over say, 8 storeys and the main beef of the building just stood there, that would be cause to state that a lack of lateral bracing and the buckling of C79 is reasonably proven not to be the proximate cause of the collapse?
We agree so far ?

 

[Mick West]

I would encourage you to contact the project team with your suggestions/questions.

Which email address would you suggest I use?