1. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I emailed Hulsey.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    About 2 weeks to go to the end of the comment period - unless it gets extended (no reply yet on that matter from Hulsey)

    Is anyone here going to submit a comment?
    What do you think about the idea to collect as many comments submitted to AE/Hulsey as we can? Such that we have a repository of what they SHOULD publish. I kind of predict that they would put my contribution in the bin, based on name recognition alone...

    This would mean to publish an email address and ask any would-be contributors to forward or Bcc their comment to it.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I was planning on submitting something, essentially a focussed summary of the issues raised here - mostly the inappropriate use of static analysis, and the lack of dynamic analysis. I was hoping to be able to at least look at their data set first. But they seem to be having difficulties uploading files to the internet.

    Just for the record, as of Oct 15, 2019, the page still says:
    This seems like a ridiculous excuse to me. Universities, even in Alaska, have quite adequate internet connections. So this suggests to me that it's not being handled by anyone at the University. The simplest way would be to upload it to a Dropbox account, which gives you 3TB, with 50 GB file sizes.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Hama Kavula

    Hama Kavula New Member

    Hello guys and gals. I'm new here but read for a long time. Thanks Mick for the great work.

    I just wanted to say that they just released the data.
  5. Hama Kavula

    Hama Kavula New Member

    Okey. I deleted my last comment regarding a problem with the download of the data. It stopped at 17.2 gigabytes. Then I tried to download it on a different computer. It downloaded past the 17.2 GB. So, I thought that my failed try was me and/or a problem with my computer or something, hence deleting of my comment. But now on the second attempt the download pauses(not stopped) at 97.7 GB.
    Does anybody else have problems?
  6. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Now for something different: What effect did the release of the Hulsey Draft, and its associated media reports, have on AE911Truths online engagement (which I offer as a rough proxy of change in public awareness)?

    As you know, for a long time I have been momitoring some online numbers from AE's web presences, among them
    • Their Facebook "Likes"
    • The number of Page Hits, as displayed on the bottom of the old homepage design ("Content View Hits")
    It's always been the case that those numbers/day increased on and around the 9/11 anniversaries every year. Much of this can be attributed to general popular interest about 9/11 peaking around those days, some of it may be attributed to the fact that AE themselves center some of their largest marketing efforts (such as press releases and new announcements, projects) around that date.

    The Hulsey report was released on September 03 this year (Alaska time - Sept 04 in most of the world), and in the days following, some independent media outlets carried the story, e.g
    I think I remember, but can't find it now, that Mick expressed some concern that such early news reports might have the power to transform the minds of many fresh people into Truthers. But how many?
    If that was such a huge influence on public awareness, then some of these newly recruited Truthers should come back to AE911Truth, look at their home page, and like their Facebook presence.

    Three graphics show that there is, if any, only a very small discernible signal in the data.

    1. Here is the development of "likes/day" to their Facebook page:


    What you see here is that they actually were losing a few likes almost every day until Sept 04, then (after the release),. three days just above 0, then (starting Sep07/08 - when news reports came out - a small jump to around 50/day. Then comes 9/11 proper, with a sharp 2-day peak follwed by about 10 days of deterioration back into negative territory.
    Then comes another, smaller peak that deteriorates over 3 days. Sinced then, they've been below 0 again.

    This seems to suggest that the Hulsey report and subsequent media echo has gained AE something like 5 extra Likes per day for a period of no more than 10 days - under 500 total.

    To illustrate that it is normal for "Likes/day" to start increasing a few days before 9/11, peaking and then deteriorating on 9/11 and ca. 10 following days, here is an overlay of the same thing for the years 2015-2019. Note that in some years I did not record the numbers daily, nor at regular intervals, so don't compare peak heights. The area under the graph is what counts in the end:


    What I claim is that the Hulsey report generated few, if any, extra "Likes" compared to the usual development in Septembers.

    2. Visitors to the ae911truth.org - the home page, as recorded on the old design http://www1.ae911truth.org/

    This data is very noisy from day to day, so I have now taken to record the numbers every 3rd day. Only from 9/10 onwards did I record daily for 6 days.

    PageHits 20190812-20191011.

    Almost every year, they see more traffic in September than in the preceding and following month, due to the heightened interest that the anniversary creates.
    You see: Traffic peaks somewhat (roughly +40% over the average of preceding and following months) for no more than 4 days. There's a more prominent peak at the end of September that I have no explanation for.

    The page hits after the press releases and before 9/11 are unremarkable.

    September totals have been higher than August's and October's almost every year. Comparing the August-October averages of the last 5 years...

    PageHits Aug-Oct 2015-19.

    ...2019 does'n stand out at all - in fact, other Septembers have stood out more markedly in recent years.


    It seems that the press coverage of the Hulsey Draft has benefitted AE911Truth's online engagement only marginally, if at all. It is difficult to discern a signal.

    (Post Scriptum: I have not seen, nor spent serious time looking for, explanations for the "FB Likes" peak of Oct 5, nor for the "Conetent View Hits" peak between Sep 28 and Oct 01. They also do not coincide with each other, which indicates they have different origins, which makes it unlikely that media reports about the Hulsey study would have caused them)
  7. Hama Kavula

    Hama Kavula New Member

    The spikes of Oct 5, Sep 28 and so on are probably certain truther website refering to AE9/11truth after they put something out. Just the usual around that time, I guess.
    It sure has nothing to do with the public news only with the filter bubble. In my opinion.
    So, 300'000$ for nothing.
    Even the hardcore conspiracy theorist I once followed, did not use the study in his subsequent articles when he was summarizing 9/11 and his proof for a false flag. Maybe after I pointed out to him, that it is hugely flawed and biased(thanks to Mick as well).
    That means it perhaps did not even convince the target group, much less so the common public.
  8. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  9. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Hi all, as I am wrapping up my comments to be sent to Hulsey, I have a couple of questions:


    I am reading back and forth in the NIST report as well (NCSTAR 1-9, primarily), and here is something I can't find at the moment - does anyone know this, or better yet, can help me find where this is said explicitly - this:

    In Chapter 10 (structural response to heating), the Figures with color-coded heat distributions have the floors at 0:30 hours intervals, labeled by the time on the clock: "12:30 pm" through "6:00 pm"
    In Chapter 11 (ANSYS model - connection failures), the damage patterns are recorded after a number of hours: "3.5 h" and "4.0 h".
    How did they map time on the clock to hours passed? "4.0 h" = "4:00 pm", or "5:00 pm"?

    The reason I ask is that Hulsey copied the temperature distribution at "5:00 pm" (Figure 2.53), and I remember having seen someone say that this was an ill choice, for some steel temperatures were already decreasing at that time.


    Same issue - Hulsey took the "5:00 pm" temperatures in the floor 12 and 13 slabs and steel as input to his SAP2000 model, and makes transforms them thusly:
    But how? These temperatures correspond to 655, 505 and 20 °C. NIST's Chapter 10 temperature charts are color coded with about 20 °C increments. How did Hulsey translate, e.g., 250 °C, 450 °C and 580 °C to his three base temperatures? It's not explained in the Draft, afaics, but perhaps he talks about it in the presentation?

  10. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 Member

    In the first video "WTC 7 Report Problems and Questions"
    Hulsey is not confused. He is aware of the way the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models were used.
    From "WTC 7 Report Problems and Questions"

    That’s not a problem. Figure 2.5 is to show where the red dot-dash line in the ANSYS model is in the LS-DYNA global model (red dot line).
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's a problem because Hulsey thinks there's a difference on either side of the line in the LS-DYNA model. There is not.
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    His mistake is more clearly stated in the presentation he gave after the draft report was released. 40:04
    Metabunk 2019-11-23 21-10-17.
  13. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    what IS ls-dyna? it's not like Blender?

    I'm confused by what Husley is even claiming. wouldn't the ls-dyna model fall instantly (the right hand side) if no connections were modeled?

    Is he saying they just "solidly glued" the girders and beams connections together on that side and on the exterior frame (39:45) when they built the ls-dyna model?
  14. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The most benign interpretation I can come up with for Hulsey's drawing a line in the LS-DYNA model is the true fact that floors 8-14 have plenty of failed and damaged connections in the east, but none in the west (where there were fires, too, capable of damaging connections), which would make the west floors 7-14 more stable than they actually were.

    But that would be rather incincere coming from a guy who totally ignored all the devastating fires below 12, and who started his global model from an entirely pristine state (zero connection damage)
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 Member

    I checked out the video and it appears that you are right. I notified the AE911Truth team of this and our mutual concerns about the unrealistic collapse models. The info has been forwarded to Dr. Hulsey. There will be a response to these and other questions/criticisms but it may take a while. Thank you for your observations. They will help Dr. Hulsey make these things clear.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 Member

    Rebuttal to comments in “Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report”

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=793&v=7OClixCTdDw&feature=emb_logo

    Incorrect. NIST most certainly did use the collapse of the A2001 girder collapse in their global collapse analysis. (as you acknowledge at 13:08) According to NIST, the collapse of girder A2001 on the 13th floor triggered a cascade of floor failures which left column 79 without horizontal support. Without the failure of A2001 on the 13th floor column 79 would not have lost horizontal support and buckled. And there would have been no progressive collapse.

    The whole report is about the “probable” cause of the collapse so that is misleading. There were no other “probable” collapse initiation events.
    In the Tech briefing, Shyam Sunder uses the phrase "probable collapse sequence" nine times.

    Incorrect: As noted above.

    NIST has the failure data and you don’t.

    And they say that it was the failure of A2001 on the 13th floor that triggered the cascade of floors that left column 79 horizontally unsupported in 3 directions over 9 floors. Even though there were other girder and floor failures, they did not leave column 79 horizontally unsupported in 3 directions over 9 floors.

    The failure of girders to the south of (not around) A2001 on floor 13 did not cause it to fail. According to NIST, A2001 was pushed off of its seat by thermally expanding beams.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You are misunderstanding what I'm saying, and I'm not really sure why. Watch that section again and look at the green girder.

    The green girder is A2001.

    The green girder, in NISTS global collapse analysis, does not start to fall until AFTER the floors around it are collapsing - triggered by the failure of several other similar sized girders.
  18. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Assuming the area around col 79 was engulfed in flames there is no way to know what "failed" first. Why not the beams supported by the girder leading to the loss of bracing of the girder and weakening it?
  19. Christopher 7

    Christopher 7 Member

    I understand that you are trying to imply that A2001 on floor 13 was not the event that “triggered” the total collapse of the building. According to NIST, it was. And they have the failure data.

    I have studied the video with A2001 on floor 13 in green. (Nice work. My compliments.)

    While it is true that other failures occurred before A2001 on floor 13, they did NOT cause A2001 on floor 13 to fail. That failure was supposedly caused by the thermal expansion of the floor beams to the east of that girder which supposedly pushed it off of its seat. That is the NIST explanation of the “trigger” event (actual initiating event) that led to what they call the initiating event, the buckling of column 79.

    The floors “around” A2001 on floor 13 did not collapse before it collapsed.

    The floors to the South of column 79 on floor 13 collapsed due to the failure of girders on the 14th floor which started a cascade of floor failures to the South of column 79. But the floors and girders to the west of A2001 on the 13th floor did not collapse until it failed. And the floors to the east of A2001 did not collapse on the 12th-8th floors until column 79 buckled.

    NIST says that the failure of A2001 on floor 13 set of a cascade of floor failures that left column 79 unsupported in three directions. At that point it only had lateral support in the north direction.

    Since the collapse of floor 14 caused the collapse of the floors to the south of column 79, and the floors to the east of column 79 did not collapse on floors 12-8 until column 79 buckled, then all that’s left is the floors and girders to the West of A2001 of floor 13 that could have collapsed due to the failure of A2001 on floor 13. This, according to NIST, is the last straw that left column 79 unsupported in three directions over nine floors – and it buckled.

    NIST’s scenario depends on A2001 on the 13th floor triggering the “initiating” event. Without that failure, there would be no global collapse.
  20. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    In the context of the Hulsey draft report, which is the context, the topic currently, this is all the facts we need.

    It is clear, and you acknowledge, that, in the NIST simulation, WTC7 had suffered multiple structural failures from the fires by the time A2001 on floor 13 started to fall.

    Once we have this down, any analysis of A2001 and C79 that does not take into account the state of the surroundings (other girders framing into C79, floor slabs all around, situation on adjacent floors) is necessarily incomplete and invalid.

    I think NIST's approach can be criticized, even doubted. They apply all the connection failures from ANSYS at the same moment - that's unrealistic, of course. Failures occurred over the course of quite some time. Ideally, each time a total vertical connection failure occurred, they should have stopped the ANSYS simulation, imported the entire ANSYS situation into LS-DYNA, let LS-DYNA run its course until all motion arrests, then import the resulting LS-DYNA situation back to ANSYS.
    Better yet, return to the fire modelling with the LS-DYNA result, etc

    Loop and repeat this circle with every new vertical failure observed in ANSYS, until either global collapse has occurred, or all fires are out and steel is cool.

    Obviously, such mutual feedback looping between the various modelling devices would have been exceedingly complex, and most likely computationally infeasible (and far too expensive).

    So NIST settled on a somewhat simplified strategy - let damage accrue in ANSYS until enough has accumulated to result in LS-DYNA collapse progression.

    This is then NOT (exactly) what happened in reality, but perhaps a "good-enough" approximation.

    In that view, as was as in reality, the collapse was not the result of one and only one connection failure, but of a multitude of accrued failures. Perhaps (in hindsight, with a view to accommodating Truthers) it was not smart by NIST to pick out one failure as THE one.

    The Truth Movement for a long time has put blinders on and focused solely on a single connection - and implicitly assumed all the rest of the structure to be pristine.

    Hulsey has followed that pattern. It's one of the reasons why his report FAILS completely all its purported objectives.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm not "implying" anything. I try not to imply. I try to clearly state what I want to convey.

    What I'm conveying is that in the LS-DYNA global simulation, the one that NIST gave us as the end result of their investigation, the push-off of A2001 is not what makes the building collapse. We don't know what happened in real life (and we probably never will, as there are unresolvable unknowns, like exact fire spread patterns), but we know what the result of this particular run of the LS-DYNA model shows us.
    The idea for this came from a video that @gerrycan posted years ago. Seeming to show how bad the NIST simulation was (which seems rather ironic now, given Hulsey's rubber-band model canned animations).

    I then did this more detailed version. I encourage you to single-step through it (pause, then use the < and > keys) at around 0:02 where A2001 is first visible. (Note there are lots of repeated frames, as I uploaded it in a higher frame-rate than the original, so you need multiple presses to advance)

    I have also attached the original .MOV file I made, which you might find easier to scrub trough

    If you look at A2001 when if first become visible, you will see three things.
    1. The end of the girder attached to C79 does not fall.
    2. The middle of the girder bows downwards due to applied fire damage (removal of segments)
    3. The fall of A2001, and the floor area attached to it, is arrested by Floor 12. i.e. it's not, in this simulation, causing the floor stripping that leads to C79 buckling over floors 5-14

    So I think it is very clear that, in this simulation, the A2001 push-off is not occurring, and hence not causing the collapse.

    A similar discussion (with you, about two years ago) around the focus on this connection by both NIST and AE911 can be found here:
    • Informative Informative x 1
  22. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    While there undoubtedly were many "failure processes" ongoing... there would / could be one failure which was the last one before a part of the building descent was observed. How many failures would it take for the EPH movement to be observed? Surely it had to include all the axial supports on the floors below the EPH... But how far down were those failures to produce the observation of the EPH descent? And how many column lines had to fail?