1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OClixCTdDw

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4

    The above two videos details some issues raised in the thread below (and in prior threads) regarding Professor Hulsey's study.

    Draft report and videos at:
    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf (mirror)
    Hulsey's Presentation on Sept 3 [Slides enlarges. Question Audio Fixed]

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAEHhDCTaBw

    Moderator deirdre

    This thread is to discuss the data within Leroy Husley's final draft report funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" released September 3, 2019.

    This thread should be viewed as an analytical and informational thread, written for outside readers looking for informed analysis. Links and quotes that support your comment, must accompany all observations and objections.

    This thread will be strictly moderated.

    • Off topic observations will be removed.
    • Circular arguments will be removed. If you disagree with someone, but have nothing NEW to add to your previous observations, then use the "disagree icon".
    • Long winded, gish gallop responses and comments are strongly discouraged and may be deleted.

    Please focus on the data WITHIN the report only.

    Last edited: Sep 24, 2019
  2. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    It appears the file has been moved to this location:

    Besides the already mentioned (in other threads) weaknesses of the report, the first thing I noticed quickly is it appears to me how they fiddled in the collapse of the penthouse (starting at page 93), but for now it is just based on my 'feeling', no hard data.
    e.g. look at the collapse comparison in the video at AE (from around 45 sec) :

    A bit of 'hard data' regarding the penthouse. According to the report it could only happen when the columns failed at the 45th floor. But this is clearly not seen in the image; We see failure of multiple windows being broken far below that where they don't give any explanation for (as far as I can now see).

    Now I'm getting a bit confused as to what they have been modeling. The (simplified, blue/red) animation doesn't show any internal damage, but it lets the penthouse just drop in. So I guess in this simulation more floors where failing?

    The damage to the windows I was talking to can be seen in this image:
    taken from this video:

    Indeed as somebody said before the windows aren't so much part of the structure of the building but I don't see how such a damage could have been caused in the UAF model simulation.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Moved and changed. Although a PDF compare only shows two very minor differences. A couple of black lines in the left margin were removed on pages 79 and 101.
    The originally uploaded version was dated 9/3/19 10:05:55 AM

    The new version dated 9/3/19 3:26:07 PM
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    If you're going to make a visual comparison, then please do not just describe it. If you are not replying to a post that included an image, then post an image that shows the comparison. If it's a comparison of the motion, then try to make a side by side video comparison. If you just give a verbal description it's wasting everyone's time.

    Also, embed full-sized images. Don't link to external images. Don't use thumbnails.

    9/11 Threads have historically become very messy and hard to follow. So expect moderation of this thread to be brutal and summary if your posts are at all unclear.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That also the first thing I really noticed from just looking at the videos. The difference between what they show and what actually happened are sufficiently dramatic that they cast serious doubt on their models.

    In a nutshell, the sides of the penthouse rotate around the TOP of the sides in their model, but in reality, they rotated around the bottom - which is exactly what you would expect.
    Notice here the corner closest to the camera - on the right, and highlighted in blue in the simulation. In reality, it pivots around the base, just falling into the building to the left. In the simulation, it does a bizarre, inexplicable pivot outwards.

    This is even clearer in the front view

    Notice nothing underneath the penthouse is moving. Not only is this motion radically different to observed reality, there's also no explanation for why their simulation would give this result.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luplz1zMU7g

    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon New Member


    In Hulsey's model to the right in the video above, does the penthouse looks like it springs back together after it has descended in the building? It starts off like someone breaking open an egg by pushing the middle of said egg with the thumbs and pulling the two halves of the egg apart with the finger. Then the penthouse contorts back the other way as it descends, almost looking like the two halves returned together and then bend in the opposite direction

    I don't even see the penthouse come apart at all.

    See screenshots from video below. Yellow outlines the approximate penthouse structure.


    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's rather strange yes, I think it's a result of the overly simplistic model they used. Why it would neatly stop like that is inexplicable, however, they could have explained it. They could very easily have rendered multiple views - and specifically a view with the exterior columns invisible - which would show what is going on.

    They describe their tests of removing columns 79-81 as:
    They have a model of this:
    Metabunk 2019-09-04 11-39-25.
    That is viewed from the South, but if we flip it we can compare it to their video:
    Metabunk 2019-09-04 11-44-01.

    It's totally different. There's also a lot more realistic deformation. This makes me think that the videos they posted on YouTube were manually animated, and not genuine simulations.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. mudr0

    mudr0 New Member

    Wouldn't parts of the internal structure had to have already collapsed and hollowed out (as per NIST) below these broken windows, for air to be pushing smoke out during the external structure collapse?

    WTC 7 air forceed out windows.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 3
  11. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, it seems highly unlikely this is an actual simulation of the global collapse. The west penthouse falls like a Super-Mario platform, and none of the interior beams even move anywhere as much.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In the paper, and in video there's Figure 4.16:
    Metabunk 2019-09-04 14-35-11.

    This proports to show that the NIST hypothesis is false by showing the building tipping over. However, in order to do this, they appear to have also removed one entire floor of columns at around the 11th floor.

    Metabunk 2019-09-04 14-37-45.

    The video then shows the building tipping over in a bizzare manner with ZERO DEFORMATION OF THE EXTERIOR, the top simply passes through the bottom.

    via GIPHY

    Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/VCn5AOzBAr2kgkkTcY/html5

    Same thing for 4.20

    This is obviously complete nonsense. Not a simulation at all.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The falling top of the building is not only not affected by the bottom, it is also not affected by the ground! It seems to fall right through the ground, as if there were none!

    When I first saw the videos, I thought it strange that the building would start to roll over like this, it seemed unrealistically stiff - but know I know one more reason why:

    As soon as the lower column ends of the falling top part run into the ground, they would encounter extreme resistance, and that extreme resistance would get communicated through all available load paths to the structure above - and buckle, break, and decelerate it. This would be a mechanism to stop, or at least slow, the rotation. But without a solid ground, there is nothing to resist the structure once it has passed magically through the bottom, and it keeps rolling.
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Two more Hulsey visualization of the NIST hypothesis (fig 4.14 and 4.15)
    Metabunk 2019-09-04 16-17-39.

    Just a different angle.

    Metabunk 2019-09-04 16-18-05.

    These look like different models. Why no videos of these?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So reading the paper a bit more it seems like the two different models (or at least different visualizations) are a linear static analysis and a dynamic analysis.

    As I understand it, static analysis ignores time, and hence ignores momentum. It simply takes the building and lets it settle into equilibrium. The building is color-coded based on how much each element is deflected from its original position.

    For example, here's the Hulsey/Szamboti hypothesis of removing Columns 79,80, and 81 at floor 45 to the penthouse
    Metabunk 2019-09-04 16-56-47.
    The caption reads: "Figure 4.7: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 45 to the penthouse. Tilting of the
    building is now negligible. The penthouse now collapses, as demonstrated from the significant amount of deflection given in the figure."

    It seems to me that static analysis is not appropriate for the sudden removal of a column. Notice in the static analysis no connections are broken. Static analysis would not take momentum or impacts into account. However it seems like static analysis is commonly used to test building designs, at least for smaller buildings. The rationale and process is described here.

    Summary: Redistribute the loads, calculate deformation, if something breaks then remove it, repeat until things settle down.

    Problem: Hulsey says: "The penthouse now collapses, as demonstrated from the significant amount of deflection given in the figure"

    That does not appear to be how it works. The Penthouse may well be just hanging there in a deformed state. We need to see the actual acceptence criteria of the members, and if they have been violated - not just an eyeballing. And again, the sudden collapse of a column is a fast-moving event, really needing dynamic analysis.

    Later on, we have a more dramatic result of static analysis:
    Metabunk 2019-09-04 17-11-59.

    This seems like rather a reach for static analysis. Unless this was moving at a slow creep, and then stopped at this angle, this something that needs to be modeled dynamically.

    Of course they DO some dynamic analysis. But the results, as discussed above, are ludicrous.
    Metabunk 2019-09-04 17-17-26.

    Conclusion: Their global collapse analyses are worthless and misleading.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    and what is happening here? they added stretchy columns to their physics model? this isn't normal in a model right?

    • Like Like x 1
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think it's the result of pushing a static analysis far beyond what it was intended to do. Clearly those columns would have failed long before that point, but for some reason, they are still there, all stretched out.
  19. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Any collapse "model" which shows a basically intact upper part.... 30-40 stories in the case of 7wtc would rely on extensive damage below that block rendering it unstable, unsupported and so it would drop down (crush up)

    The pre descent of the block and "descent"/collapse of the EPH would have had to have been a local event up at the 46th floor... or one somewhere below it in its supporting columns (which is what appears to be what happened).

    How this event led to a global collapse is curious for any CD scenario unless the columns below the EPH down low were CD in advance of the others required for the collapse of the top block. Hardly seems intentional or part of some engineered sequence.
  20. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Ok, now that I have read a first pass through the full report, I'll try a few preliminary answers to the questions I raised:
    1. "Do they make ALL data available"
      -> Promised now for later in the month
    2. "Did they test any CD dynamic full collapse scenarios with accumulated damage to the structure - from hours of fire (weakend and failed connections on all fire floors, impact damage from WTC1 collapse, ...)?"
      -> Hulsey says in Section 4.2, page 93:
      "For all collapse models and analyses, we included the debris damage assumed by NIST, which involved six exterior columns on the southwest face of the building reportedly being
      severed by falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1.
      So yes, impact damage is included, but I do not see if and how any accumulated fire damage is considered - it appears Hulsey found NO damaged connections or other structural elements.
    3. "Did they expand the area in which they looked for fire damage to more than just the two floors we know they considered earlier in the project?"
      -> No.
    4. "any instance of making a global claim without covering (enveloping) the entire space of possibilities[?]"
      -> Yes. E.g., he dismisses the Weidlinger results out of hand.
    5. "Do they reference and discuss all the other studies (ARUP, Weidlinger, ...)..."
      -> Yes - briefly.
      "as well as the literature that builds on the NIST report - such as the papers that NIST's lead authors (McALister, Gross) themselves placed in prestigious journals?"
      -> No.
    6. "Any unscientific references, any text passages copied&pasted from Truther works without proper attribution"
      -> Yes (ignoring "unscientific"), e.g. Szamboti's calculation of the dropped floor 13 segment in Section 3.3.1. - Hulsey writes on page 87:
      "To determine the stiffness of the falling Floor 13 beam and girder assembly, a finite element modal analysis was performed...",
      and this analysis found that
      "[T]he natural frequency of mode 2 in the vertical direction is 0.51693 hz"
      This ridiculously precise number (5 relevant digits!) has a source: T.Sz. @ Metabunk: Post #200 in this thread, where Tony Szamboti wrote:
      "Attached is a pdf with views of the FEA results. In case you are wondering the information on the upper left says 5.1693e-01 Hz"
      - the precise same 5 relevant digits. Later, in Post #231, relates how he computed the mass to be input to the FEA by hand:
      "I was doing the 20,000 pounds from memory while writing the post. I think I checked the mass in the FEA, which would have been very accurate. By hand I get ... [snipped detailed tally] ... So I get 5,850 + (4 x 2,915) + 2,288 + (3 x 76 lbs.) = 20,026 lbs."
      And later on he explains how he fiddled a bit with the model input, to demonstrate how increasing the mass a bit has no significant influence on the natural frequency.
      So I walk away from that thread convinced that Tony is the author of that FEA and the values that Hulsey presents - but Hulsey does so without acknowledgement of Tony's authorship; the string "Szamboti" appears nowhere in the Draft.
      Will have to look for more uncreditet Truther input. In the introductory sections, Hulsey attributes several general claims vaguely to anonymous "independent researchers" or similar attributions.
    7. Do they provide estimates how many and how large CD charges would have to be to effect that?
      -> No. Except that ALL columns, core and perimter, are involved. Page 111:
      "4.7 Summary and Conclusion ... It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the nearsimultaneous failure of all columns in the building" (my bolding)
    8. Are these charges placed in areas where there were fires? Any suggestions how they would survive the fires?
      -> Yes. Almost certainly. Pages 109/110:
      "It should be noted that we conducted two separate simulations involving the failure of the core columns and exterior columns over 8 stories ... Based on our subsequent review of video footage, we found that Floor 16 is the uppermost floor where the collapse could have initiated"(my bolding)
      This means that Hulsey hypothesises that columns, core as well as perimeter, were removed on several (at least 4) of the fire-affected floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13.
    9. Any estimates about the other effects of such charges, such as making loud sounds or blasting out windows, that can be compared to observations?
      -> No - and I fear they pre-emptively rule out that question on the current AE project page:
      "[We] welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report."(my bolding)
      This sounds a bit like they rule out comments about findings not already contained in the report - this would apply to any talk of "demolition" or "devices", words which are not "contained in the report".
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Section 3.3.1, "Discussion of Arup and Nordenson’s Analysis" on pages 86-89 is mostly a presenattion of Tony Szamboti's FEA that Tony presented in January 2016 here at Metabunk - but Tony is not acknowledged by Hulsey.

    From the Draft, page 87:
    Here is said Figure 3.15:

    HulseyDraft Fig 03-15 The relevant 0.52 Hz mode of the falling beam and girder assembly.
    This Figure is lifted without changes (except for adding a caption, obviously) from the 2nd page of this PDF, which Tony Szamboti uploaded as part of Post #200 on Jan 22, 2016 in the old "Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything?" thread. Note the "Mode2" value of "+5.1693E-01", which Tony reproduced in said post #200 in all its 5-relevant-digits glory - and so does Hulsey on the next page:
    In context of the old discussion here (e.g. Post #231) it is clear that Tony implies this FEA is his work.

    Yet Hulsey does not mention Szamboti at all in all of the Draft.

    [I cut this text on edit, thinking I was in the wrong thread, but I wasn't ^^ so pasted back]
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    Regarding the fires I noticed this in the draft on page 22:

    However I can't find any answers on the questions they raise in the rest of the pdf?
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I realize now why they do this. It's because the top part of the building is simply being rotated manually. If they left those columns in they would stretch between the top and the bottom.

    There's no dynamic analysis going on here.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    That has to make you wonder why they would end up deciding to come out with dramatic conclusions backed up by what seems rather like a made-up cartoon. In going against the official report, they needed to at least match the detail of NIST's graphics. Instead their presentation looks super cheap and wonky. They needed to blow people away on first sight, instead it looks embarrassingly low budget. Considering how rapidly software advances, how old the NIST report is and how long the Fairbanks project took, they should have exceeded the graphical presentation of NIST. Instead, their graphics look like they're from software 10 years older than NIST used.

    The best path of critical examination to take would be to acquire their software and plug in their data.
  25. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Hulsey presents two of his models side-by-side with the real event, and they appear to be timed very well here:

    In his second model, the penthouse portion falls further. I get the feeling they have numerical models and then just crudely translate them by manual manipulation to a low-budget graphical 3D program. In other words, their numbers for a model say the penthouse falls x distance, so then someone with a 3D program just moves it x distance by hand. In short, there's not a seamless automated interface between the number-crunched modeling and the 3D model.
  26. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The progressive failure which likely occurred which he dismisses... was likely very rapid and conceptually not much different from a simultaneous column failure he claims accounts for the collapse form.

    It's likely that the central structure rapidly failed progressively for East to West. This led to the core/interior collapsing and that undermined the perimeter moment frame which appears to rotate and distort at the vertical kink... which he ignores. That kink is a tell and should not be ignored. As there were some perimeter curtain wall on top of the debris pile this too is a tell that it came down a bit after the interior.

    The issue is how were the initial failures driven by fire. Because once they failed the REMAINING progressive collapse did not involve FIRE or HEAT as a driver... it was all mechanical overload and failures.

    Heat can fail steel frames by several mechanisms... weakening, expanding and then contracting, warping and shearing failing member connections.. displacing column to column connections to the point of crippling and buckling. Load redistribution and failure will progress rapidly once it gets going.

    Model that Hulsey!
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  27. drommelsboef

    drommelsboef Member

    It is very good to be critical about a simulation. The only thing that annoyes me is that double standards are used. The Nist simulation was far from perfect but good enough to conclude that fire explained everything. what Hulsey does is to remove some columns to fit with the observed collapse. The fact that he places the cut at column 79 at a higher place is to get something that looks more like the observed collapse which seems very reasonable to me.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It would be reasonable if he actually showed a dynamic analysis, using a validated model, of the different column removals. He does not - he shows a static analysis of each one. You can't do static analysis of a building that's already experiencing a highly dynamic collapse. That's basically like saying if you really carefully removed part of C79, then gently lowered the upper part down, then it would not collapse.

    His "dynamic analysis", again, is just a manual animation of a rotating block.

    via GIPHY

    Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/W5OZ23LhP9ZVokbiNh/html5

    Compare this to NIST who did an actual dynamic analysis. Note this is supposedly the SAME simulated situation.

    via GIPHY

    Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/QZsmWIwXMzAPBSbjEo/html5
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Something that's entirely redundant in the report - or even counter-productive:

    In the Introduction, Section 1.1 "Background", Hulsey writes on page 11f, to justify the study and its objectives:
    IMO, this entire page does not belong in this report, in addition to being chock-full of errors. Point by point:

    a) He says "many" independent researchers, but goes on to only reference two: Chandler and Jones.

    b) Freefall acceleration and rotation/bending are not mutually exclusive. WTC7 DID rotate and bend (kink) while it also exhibited FFA. He thus fails to justify why FFA is noteworthy. He makes bare assertions as to what "a typical building collapse" would look like.

    c) The building, even according to Figure 1.7,, was no contained inside the footprint - it spilled beyond its premises on all sides, and severely damaged at least two buildings across 2 different streets:
    - "Fiterman Hall was heavily damaged from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11." (across Barclay St) (Wikipedia)
    - "The south and east facades of the Verizon Building were heavily damaged in the September 11 attacks, from the collapse of the adjacent 7 World Trade Center" (across Washington St) (Wikipedia)
    Hulsey failed to justify why dropping the way WTC7 did was remarkable.
    Hulsey failed to demonstrate that his best fit collapse progression model (Section 4.6) resulted in a debris distribution similar to Figure 1.7, and had large wall segements hitting Fiterman Hall and the Verizon Building. Without such a demonstration, and without explaining why the debris distribution is remarkable, the whole point is moot.

    HulseyDraft Fig 01-07 WTC 7 debris pile (NOAA, September 23, 2001).
    (Note: Debris spilled across Barclay St (bottom of the photo), Washington St (right), Vesey St (top) and West Broadway (left))

    d) Hulsey does not justify why the hypothesized presence of "thermate incendiaries" etc, even if true, would be remarkable, especially as Hulsey has chosen not to speculate at all, in conclusions, on what may or may not have caused the unexplained removal of all columns almost simultaneously, or how the hot corrosion documented by FEMA Appx C would help explain such a sudden removal. He ignores that Jones subsequently, as co-auther of Harrit et al 2009, no longer hypothesizes "thermate" with sulfur as hypothetically present at the WTC and responsnible for the destruction - the exact opposite is true: He speculated in 2009 that any sulfur in the suspected material would be sulfur.
    So this entire point comes down to old speculation, that Hulsey's study ends up shedding on no light at all.

    e) Even if it is true that no tall building has collapsed due primarily to fire before 09/11/2001, this has happened subsequently - and even if it had not happened subsequently, there is no reason and argument whatsoever why a tall building should not be able to collapse from fire: It is well known that non-tall structures collapse from fire all the time. There is no height above which some magic protects structures from fire-induced collapse.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  30. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Page 91:
    a) Why are these, and only these, singled out as "key" features? Why not the rotation of the building, the acceleration profile before and after the FFA, the window breakage, the kink, the impact into Fiterman Hall and the Verizon Building?

    b) He says western roof structures began to fall 0.5 to 1 seconds prior to north wall descent, but in their prefered simulation, Section 4.6, page 106, they do it 1.3 seconds later - why? -> "...we then simulated the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories."
    Why model the core columns as failing simultaneously, when the roof structures were observed to fail sequentially from east to west?

    c) "[no] visible differential movements" - why did they not measure this? Is visual appreciation sufficient?
  31. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    NIST and Hulsey attempted to demonstrate things with a fundamentally different logical structure: NIST showed that a collapse sequence they found resulted in a fairly similar visual result - knowing the limitations of modelling, and of was known about the conditions of the building, I think this was sufficient to establish plausibility, even if it was not possible to match perfectly.
    Hulsey's goal was, primarily, to prove a global negative - which requires different standards of proof.
    His Section 4.6 simulation conjures up a totally unexplained disappearance of columns - and manages to replicate only one feature of the collapse - the FFA. Which is entirely trivial: If you make something fall freely, it will fall freely.
    But he didn't replicate...
    • the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
    • the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
    • the flectures
    • the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
    • the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
    Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

    Plus, our criticism is that the models behave in unreal ways (no deformation; falling through the ground). This shows that the simulations he presents cannot possibly represent a realistic collapse. So even if they result in features that resemble features of the real collapse, this is contrived. The simulations do not offer an explanation for WHYT the building would fall like that. NIST's simulations do.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Attached Files:

  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Let's try motion tracking the corner of the building
    Metabunk 2019-09-06 10-10-39.

    Plot of Y velocity.

    Metabunk 2019-09-06 10-22-25.

    Rather noisy, but essentially constant acceleration for a bit over 2.5 seconds. Which, of course, was both what they were going for, and the obvious result of removing enough columns to make that happen.

    Attached Files:

    • Informative Informative x 1
  35. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    Indeed I did notice it also earlier today, weird since the clip is called "Near-Simultaneous Failure of All Columns", but no failing of any column is shown.
  36. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    My idea of what they are doing to "fail" the columns is this:
    They simply make all columns literally disappear.
    Then the building falls at free fall.
    Of course, after falling one floor, floor slab runs into floor slab - what happens then is a guess: Either the falling floor slab disconnects from its columns, or the slab pass though each other without interaction.
    Either way, there is no deceleration - jolt. Someone call T.Sz.!
  37. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Mick, have you archived the simulation videos?

    Have you archived the presentation video at the UAF media center? https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_xf8c7khp
    Has anyone watched this presentation? Is it worth 72 minutes?
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    In the presentation (UAF, September 3rd), at 10:58 minutes, Hulsey says this - an eye-opener IMO:

    Say what? They intentionally made sure they were surrounded by uncritical voices?? Is that why those of who signed up with the study in 2015 never heard back from Hulsey?
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  39. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    That’s a very strange quote indeed. It sure doesn’t sound like science to specifically exclude the previous body of evidence and critical voices from the process.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 1