I seriously think that NIST's model had as its initiation mechanism the unseating of A2001 from column 79. This was a singular event. If this initiation was impossible, the rest of NIST's model fails.
NIST describe it as a probable sequence. Even if Hulsey's study shows this connection was not the first to fail, then that does not mean the building could not collapse from fire. Lots of damaged connections were identified. And if I remember correctly the macro simulations don't even show that girder falling first.
NIST describe it as a probable sequence. Even if Hulsey's study shows this connection was not the first to fail, then that does not mean the building could not collapse from fire. Lots of damaged connections were identified. And if I remember correctly the macro simulations don't even show that girder falling first.
It doesn't matter to me that NIST didn't claim certainty; what matters is that their probable sequence is built on the omission of key structural features whose inclusion would make their mechanism highly improbable. Once A2001 falls off, that floor cascades through the next, which then creates the instability needed in column 79 for it to buckle. This buckling brings down more structure, which transmits failures laterally. If column 79 didn't buckle, because A2001 didn't fall, we have a problem.
It's this plus the view that fire-protected, steel-framed high rises don't usually collapse in the manner witnessed, which gives the flaws of NIST's study as exposed by Hulsey the persuasive force that they carry for me.
I seriously think that NIST's model had as its initiation mechanism the unseating of A2001 from column 79. This was a singular event. If this initiation was impossible, the rest of NIST's model fails. Hulsey has already shown that this initiation mechanism was impossible. To disagree means claiming that the 'accidental' omission of the stiffeners, supporting beams, side plates and concrete friction as well as the fixing of the eastern supports made no difference. And if you step back from point-scoring, does it trouble you at all that the 7-year official study is so radically unconvincing?
Hulsey's "proof" of that single initiation scenario being "impossible" relies on (1) a heat model that we know differed from NIST's, (2) a model of far fewer floors than NIST's, (3) a whole series of incredibly important assumptions re modeling choices that we have not yet seen documented. And, even if Hulsey does ultimately show NIST got it wrong, why would I be troubled? An actual contribution to the literature and understanding of the event would be welcome, and it would also be interesting to see what design improvements and other recommendations Hulsey offers in light of its ultimate conclusions in such a scenario. But, again--and this is a really simple and fundamental point that I know you actually understand--even if Hulsey shows the NIST scenario was not the likely actual collapse scenario, he still will not have proved that fire did not collapse the building. Such a conclusion was wrong 1 year ago when Hulsey said it before he even modeled column 79, such a conclusion is wrong today based on everything Hulsey has modeled to date, and such a conclusion will be wrong in the future unless Hulsey greatly expands his study to consider all reasonable fire condition scenarios (which he has no intention of going, based on his comments to date). The fact that Hulsey has been and remains so fixated on espousing a patently false conclusion does give me great doubt as to whether he has done the underlying work properly to reach a true and honest conclusion.
It shows that G79-44 (in green) did not trigger anything, and in fact the video starts at the point where the floor above it has fallen onto it, and the girder is in place, just buckled or bowed.
I though "that's very odd, I thought that the girder falling was the initiating event". So I decided to read 1-9-Structural again, and I realized that they did not. It's been a huge misrepresentation. Sure they describe it as failed, but they also describe a lot of other girder and beams as failed, including the matching girder to the south, which failed around 30 minutes earlier:
(not to mention all the beams that had "loss of vertical support")
At which point I realized this entire argument about the stiffener plates has no significant impact on NISTs description of what happened.
Here's what I think happened, and I admit from the start it sounds a little silly, but that's only because it accounts for human failings in paraphrasing and reducing a description of huge complexity.
NCSTAR 1-9 "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7" is the comprehensive report on the collapse
NCSTAR 1-A "Final Report on the collapse of WTC7" is essentially a summary of this and other reports.
1-A-Final sums up about 100 pages of 1-9-Structural with a couple of paragraphs:
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of
Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the
building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west
on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This
movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.
The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a
cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and
stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of
Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column
buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.
This summation of 1-A-Final give undue weight to the effects the 79-44 girder, giving the impression that the girder actually fell, and made the floors below it collapse. Hence the importance people place on how far it was pushed.
In fact the simulation and the information in 1-9-Structural show that the girder did not initially fall. What fell were the beams and girders affected by "other fire-induced local damage". Including on the floor ABOVE the girder.
The 79-44 girder was again given undue focus in the NIST WTC7 Tech Briefing. But again they did not say the girder fell. They did not say the falling girder triggered the collapse. https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST_WTC7_Tech_Briefing.pdf
And the actual technical briefing was very simplistic, and not very good.
So when we discuss what "NIST claims", we should look at their detailed claims, not the summary, and not a slideshow.
It doesn't matter to me that NIST didn't claim certainty; what matters is that their probable sequence is built on the omission of key structural features whose inclusion would make their mechanism highly improbable. Once A2001 falls off, that floor cascades through the next, which then creates the instability needed in column 79 for it to buckle. This buckling brings down more structure, which transmits failures laterally. If column 79 didn't buckle, because A2001 didn't fall, we have a problem.
When will anyone show the socalled omissions are a factor? Engineering is needed, not talk. Hulsey talks about it, but his work does not support his conclusions. The "problem" for CD; no evidence. Makes NIST work not a factor. If you or Hulsey have evidence it was CD, tell the FBI.
We don't have a problem, Hulsey pulled off a research coup, getting lots of money to do research, conspiracy theory research. I have worked in labs, we lived for funding, we fought for money. Hulsey won the money (is he playing to AE911t bias). Hulsey's conclusions, made up from the start to "win" the money, or he believes in the conspiracy theory and ignores zero evidence for CD. Hulsey has to downplay the fires. Are Hulsey fire models valid?
[off topic material removed]
Omissions? I have explained there are lots of omissions in the systems we all rely on for flight... How do you know it is safe to fly in a plane based on lots of omissions in the autopilot system? You call NIST out for omissions, but you can't explain why it would make a difference.
What caused the penthouse to collapse into WTC 7? Does Hulsey know the penthouse collapsed and then the interior continued failing, and the overall collapse took over 17 seconds? How does he explain the penthouse collapse? Is there a Hulsey probable collapse other than a CD fantasy.
In fact the simulation and the information in 1-9-Structural show that the girder did not initially fall. What fell were the beams and girders affected by "other fire-induced local damage". Including on the floor ABOVE the girder.
The 79-44 girder was again given undue focus in the NIST WTC7 Tech Briefing. But again they did not say the girder fell. They did not say the falling girder triggered the collapse.
Interesting post which gives more context to column 79. This strikes me as the key point. I will have to look into what they thought went on in that corner, as it's clear that something had to happen to take support away from column 79, even if it wasn't A2001 that gave way first. I still think that the first column to fail marked the initiation of the collapse by their account.
It shows that G79-44 (in green) did not trigger anything, and in fact the video starts at the point where the floor above it has fallen onto it, and the girder is in place, just buckled or bowed.
I though "that's very odd, I thought that the girder falling was the initiating event". So I decided to read 1-9-Structural again, and I realized that they did not. It's been a huge misrepresentation. Sure they describe it as failed, but they also describe a lot of other girder and beams as failed, including the matching girder to the south, which failed around 30 minutes earlier:
(not to mention all the beams that had "loss of vertical support")
At which point I realized this entire argument about the stiffener plates has no significant impact on NISTs description of what happened.
Here's what I think happened, and I admit from the start it sounds a little silly, but that's only because it accounts for human failings in paraphrasing and reducing a description of huge complexity.
NCSTAR 1-9 "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7" is the comprehensive report on the collapse
NCSTAR 1-A "Final Report on the collapse of WTC7" is essentially a summary of this and other reports.
1-A-Final sums up about 100 pages of 1-9-Structural with a couple of paragraphs:
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of
Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the
building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west
on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This
movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.
The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a
cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and
stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of
Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column
buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.
This summation of 1-A-Final give undue weight to the effects the 79-44 girder, giving the impression that the girder actually fell, and made the floors below it collapse. Hence the importance people place on how far it was pushed.
In fact the simulation and the information in 1-9-Structural show that the girder did not initially fall. What fell were the beams and girders affected by "other fire-induced local damage". Including on the floor ABOVE the girder.
The 79-44 girder was again given undue focus in the NIST WTC7 Tech Briefing. But again they did not say the girder fell. They did not say the falling girder triggered the collapse. https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST_WTC7_Tech_Briefing.pdf
And the actual technical briefing was very simplistic, and not very good.
So when we discuss what "NIST claims", we should look at their detailed claims, not the summary, and not a slideshow.
Case B temperatures of course being the highest of the 3 scenarios. Case A being 10% less and case C being another 10% less. Regardless, the analysis was based on a very skewed understanding of the C79 connection and an alleged attempt at modelling it which just happened to omit elements all in favour of their own chosen hypothesis, every time. Their models are nothing more than cut and spliced animations. There's girders and beams flying all over the place in them. That was the point of the "tracking the C44-79 girder" video.
The issue of NIST's claims in terms of the detailed story that they chose, it is stated unambiguously by Shyam Sunder, one of NIST's lead investigators here from the same channel.... As for the accuracy of the NIST animations that the tracking girder video was produced from, see same video here at 18:29 for some good shots of the NIST releases. We do not know the input data that NIST alleges these animations were produced from, so NIST are demanding that we trust them. Shyam Sunder is very clear in exactly what claims he is making in the technical briefing. Taking one of three cases (Case B, the high temp one) that did not model the connection or the building generally to anything like the detail or standard that UAF has just reapplies the same structural misrepresentation of the connection and the building generally as per the available drawings. The UAF study remedies these shortcomings in NIST's analysis and shows what difference that has made.
Don't you think that NIST would address this if they had any confidence on what they could bring to the table to back up their contrary analysis ? I think that they should, don't you ?
Interesting post which gives more context to column 79. This strikes me as the key point. I will have to look into what they thought went on in that corner, as it's clear that something had to happen to take support away from column 79, even if it wasn't A2001 that gave way first. I still think that the first column to fail marked the initiation of the collapse by their account.
And by the visuals, since that was under the Penthouse.
My point here is that even though NIST did suggest A2001 walkoff as a probable initiating event, it wasn't an event in their simulations of the global collapse. So saying that Hulsey's or Gerry's studies prove it could not have walked off is not saying the NIST's report is invalid.
When people say this is the case it seems like they have simply not read NCSTAR 1-9 and 1-9A, and are perhaps going by NCSTAR 1-A or some other summary.
We do not know the input data that NIST alleges these animations were produced from, so NIST are demanding that we trust them. Shyam Sunder is very clear in exactly what claims he is making in the technical briefing. Taking one of three cases (Case B, the high temp one) that did not model the connection or the building generally to anything like the detail or standard that UAF has just reapplies the same structural misrepresentation of the connection and the building generally as per the available drawings. The UAF study remedies these shortcomings in NIST's analysis and shows what difference that has made.
Well all we've seen from Hulsey is a slideshow. NIST gave us 1000+ pages of detailed reports, and several videos of the simulation results. There's lots of questions about Hulseys report.
For example: what's the failure criteria in the nonlinear spring modeled connections? What does the 15" displacement refer to here:
Well all we've seen from Hulsey is a slideshow. NIST gave us 1000+ pages of detailed reports, and several videos of the simulation results. There's lots of questions about Hulseys report.
For example: what's the failure criteria in the nonlinear spring modeled connections? What does the 15" displacement refer to here:
This is given as an example of a STC. I would expect much more detail for a peer review, but as for the connection itself, how do you rate it up against NIST's in terms of representing the connection as shown in the drawings available to both NIST and UAF?
I would imagine that the 15" would represent the displacement at the end of the analysis. Bottom left of the drawing that we were discussing lists it as 150k also notes that the sideplates were 3", 2" and 1" in the note below. Quite an important thing for NIST to ignore and engineer out of their analysis. Good on UAF for representing what the drawings actually show.
Interesting. I quickly went through the last pages and there is a question whether Hulsey's work says fire could lead to the collapse or not. And specifically for building 7 of course with a very detailed model. I remember in an older video he had to give it a chance from 1 to 100 and he replied with zero, but haven't seen the latest video yet. I thought this was the whole point of his research. Let's see what will be said when it is really finished.
@Tony Szamboti if you have nothing constructive to add to this thread, perhaps you can go do your griping about being asked for details to another forum
@benthamitemetric please help keep this thread on specific topic details.
I have given plenty of details here. Maybe I could have made my point in a more polite way. Below I will try.
It is strange to me, and probably others here, that NIST can hand us a report claiming it explains the WTC 7 collapse, and when it is proven that inappropriate manipulative steps were taken to generate their conclusion, that is highly improbable given the observations, that those bringing up those points and questions are labeled with pejoratives like "conspiracy theorist", "truther" etc. I will admit it occurs less often here on Metabunk.org, and that there seems to be a legitimate effort to maintain civility, but some mild form of it still exists here.
The last time I looked I was an American citizen and didn't think it was a requirement of my citizenship to blindly accept something as an explanation that has obviously been inappropriately manipulated and is non-explanatory and to then be called names like "truther" if I don't agree with it.
I also find it highly unusual that when a government agency is shown to have produced an investigative report's conclusion by inappropriate manipulation that some on this site, as well as others, want to say that anyone who is demanding a new investigation should pay for it themselves.
I apologize for the earlier posts which were not necessarily as polite as they should have been.
As far as I can see, you still haven't proven anything was inappropriately "manipulated".
But you are absolutely free to discuss very specific details of this concern of yours. But I personally feel we need to see Husley's actual model data and inputs.. although I'm biased as I can't understand why he didn't as the Computer Science Department for help with the unknown software.
I also feel Husley not modeling the fire adequately is very inappropriate. Of course you cant take one snapshot of a fire scenario!
I personally think that most tax payers do not want to pay for an investigation that doesn't need to be done. So far Husley has not shown in anyway I can see that a new investigation needs to be done. As I know you know, what Husley has presented so far (ie. nothing much), does not -in anyway shape or form -prove fire could not have been the cause of the collapse.
Perhaps you have inside data and you are forgetting that we, the general public don't have it. So you commenting on (alleged) data we don't have, isn't going to work well.
Whether he eventually comes out with something that shows his theory, re: collapse scenarios, is another story and not worth discussing now as he hasn't released any data on that claim.
His claim of "proof the building could not have collapsed from fire" is at this point in time, as far as any information he has released.. total bunk.
And apparently NIST never claimed the girder between column 79 and 40 falling was the cause of initiation or ultimate collapse.
Now...From a building safety point of view only.. if actual qualified engineers (who work on skyscrapers or steel framed buildings) want more data to insure safer building construction, then you really need to be ONLY taking your claims to the proper engineering boards, not trying to convince laymen with youtube videos to insist on a new investigation. Why would the engineering boards listen to a bunch of youtube laymen?
They DID list it as a "probable cause", and investigated in some detail how it might have occurred, but it did not seem to be the actual cause in any of the full scale collapse simulations they carried out.
This summation of 1-A-Final give undue weight to the effects the 79-44 girder, giving the impression that the girder actually fell, and made the floors below it collapse. Hence the importance people place on how far it was pushed.
In fact the simulation and the information in 1-9-Structural show that the girder did not initially fall. What fell were the beams and girders affected by "other fire-induced local damage". Including on the floor ABOVE the girder.
The 79-44 girder was again given undue focus in the NIST WTC7 Tech Briefing. But again they did not say the girder fell. They did not say the falling girder triggered the collapse. https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST_WTC7_Tech_Briefing.pdf
And this might just be me, but I found it astonishing that he did not know that the iconic image of the building collapsing showed the North side. At 34:10.
That doesn't necessarily change anything, it just struck me as odd. Maybe it's just his perspective has been on the building by itself, and not so much in the context of its surroundings.
I noticed this too. But I was not astonished. He says first, this is the north side, and I think he gets a bit muddled with the fact that the view of the building is taken from a position north of the building by a camera facing south, so we are facing south looking at the north side of the building.
I think he gets a bit muddled with the fact that the view of the building is taken from a position north of the building by a camera facing south, so we are facing south looking at the north side of the building.
Hulsey can attempt a rather difficult goal and prove that steel high rise buildings cannot collapse due to fire cause.... which I think is the underlying AE911T claim. In try to prove the universal case... he seems to be focusing on one connection and demonstrating that NIST may have erred in their model. Of course this model uses assumed inputs not actual data. So even if he does find NIST in error in their presentation it would simply show that they made a mistake and not that a steel building cannot collapse due to fire.
Regardless of where these models go... they are based on what we are told are reasonable assumptions and most models simply cannot handle all the building's beams and columns and nodes which almost certainly are "synergistic" in contributing to the destruction of the frame.
AE911T has also questioned that the speed and form of the collapse are such that they could not be explained by the affect of gravity alone. Is this a claim that Hulsey will attempt to prove? That is will his model attempt to show a different form and speed of collapse?
Come on Jeffrey, reasonable assumptions need to reflect reality and ignoring essential parts is not reflecting reality. if you leave everything out then eventually each building will collapse. we are talking about wtc7. Even if you can prove the essential key column gives way then with a realistic model you can wonder if it will lead to the observed collapse.
7WTC collapsed because virtually all the axial supports very low in the building "failed" to support the loads from the tower bear on those axial supports... columns and transfers.
This was not a single column joint failure... but there likely was a "straw that broke the camel's back" and the failure to provide support rapidly propagated through the lower part of the tower. This is evidence by the SEQUENCE of the falling/descending parts up on the roof.... the northeast side (interior then the center and then the west side of the interior)... finally the support of the shell/facade down below gave way and that too descended. We can't tell what was still attached to the exterior moment frame as it came down.
Focusing on one connection failure on the 13th floor does not make a coherent presentation matching the observed collapse.... nor can be prove or disprove what caused the entire axial system to fail.
I have given plenty of details here. Maybe I could have made my point in a more polite way. Below I will try.
It is strange to me, and probably others here, that NIST can hand us a report claiming it explains the WTC 7 collapse, and when it is proven that inappropriate manipulative steps were taken to generate their conclusion, that is highly improbable given the observations, that those bringing up those points and questions are labeled with pejoratives like "conspiracy theorist", "truther" etc. I will admit it occurs less often here on Metabunk.org, and that there seems to be a legitimate effort to maintain civility, but some mild form of it still exists here.
The last time I looked I was an American citizen and didn't think it was a requirement of my citizenship to blindly accept something as an explanation that has obviously been inappropriately manipulated and is non-explanatory and to then be called names like "truther" if I don't agree with it.
I also find it highly unusual that when a government agency is shown to have produced an investigative report's conclusion by inappropriate manipulation that some on this site, as well as others, want to say that anyone who is demanding a new investigation should pay for it themselves.
I apologize for the earlier posts which were not necessarily as polite as they should have been.
No one is saying it is a requirement of your citizenship to blindly accept anything. And, in the same vein, no one here is required to blindly accept claims from Hulsey that have no basis in his underlying work. This is a forum that is focused on specific claims. The arguments you have raised in this thread have been responded to in detail by me and others. If you have any issue with any of those responses on the merits, you can explain why. As it stands, I agree with Deirdre that Hulsey's stated conclusion--that he has proven fires could not cause the collapse of WTC7--is clearly bunk. What he actually has proven, if anything, remains an open question subject to knowing more about the assumptions of his model, though we do know that his model differed from NIST's in some potentially significant ways (even aside from the purported accuracy in design improvements he added).
Come on Jeffrey, reasonable assumptions need to reflect reality and ignoring essential parts is not reflecting reality. if you leave everything out then eventually each building will collapse. we are talking about wtc7. Even if you can prove the essential key column gives way then with a realistic model you can wonder if it will lead to the observed collapse.
Has it been established from field reports / survey if the connection in question was erected as precisely shown on the shop drawings. How do we know if it was done exactly as shown?
But presumably he's got a model of the entire building now, which he's going to release and let people A) validate, and B) use to simulate various scenarios?
Mick, why are you attempting to shift the focus away from NIST's point of initiation?
The narrative and figures repeatedly deal with C79, C44 and the northeast sector at floor 13.
The animations do not follow the narrative, suggesting a disconnect between ARA and the report writers. The animations are supposed to be based upon some sound data, but how do you explain girders that fall while the beams that they support stay up?
How do beams disconnect and then reconnect, dangling by themselves on a lower story?
How do elements bounce from floor to ceiling and back again?
The animations are bad cartoons not science.
NIST admitted they left critical structural elements out of their analyses, AFTER they were caught red-handed. Multiple figures which should rightly show them do not show them.
They talk about actions (walk-off and failure) that cannot happen when the models include all the critical structural features.
Their animations look nothing like the videos and are purposely abbreviated so you can't see beyond a few seconds.
Presumable because
A) This thread is first and foremost about Hulsey's study, not NIST's, so moving the goal posts towards the NIST study would actually constitute "attempting to shift the focus away" from the actual thread topic
B) Hulsey claims - and this is the core, key, main, big, focused on Hulsey-conclusion that AE911Truth (notice: The thread title says "AE911 Truth ... Project" - so what AE911Truth makes of the project conclusions is core, key and central to this particular thread) puts in the very HEADLINE of their communications is that "fire did not make WTC7 collapse". This claim, this statement, has to be read as an absolute one - and is thus 100% independent of what NIST may or may not have done.
So why are you attempting to shift the focus away from AE911Truth's project and the main, core, key, central conclusion they draw from it and put in the headline?
So I am asking you, kawika: The statement that WTC7 did not collapse from fire, is that a valid conclusion from Hulsey's work - YES or NO?
I will interprete your excpected non-answer or evasion as an implicit answer of "NO". Thank's already for agreeing with us.
Whatever error NIST may have made.... calling it *fraud*... is nonsense.
Truthers claim that a fire/heat collapse was impossible. All they seem to do is re examine whether one node/connection failed or not. NIST attempted to show it could fail from heat...if they erred... this does not become an affirmative case or proof that the building's collapse was not a fire or heat cause... or that it was a CD.
I think proving fire cannot lead to collapse a building like 7wtc... is not only difficult, but it may be impossible.
Get on with it... ignore NIST. Make your own case.
perhaps they think that it IS impossible for the private sector. so they are trying to 'invalidate' NIST, because then the gov will have to redo the investigation. But if NCSTAR 1-9 has the actual detailed data/models (and the summary report is wrong or misleading for whatever reason), I think Husley needs to remodel NCSTAR1-9. <right? or no?
(I'm a little confused now that I know the summary report NCSTAR-1, doesn't reflect very well NCSTAR1-9)
@Tony Szamboti I'd like to point out this statement, as I was thinking about your prior question of why you need to be labeled "Truther" just for disagreeing with NIST. Several members on this thread, who are not Truthers, disagree with [parts of] NIST or other studies...the difference, to me, is one set of people disagree and consider them mistakes. Truthers call these alleged mistakes: fraud, purposeful deception or manipulation. (which maybe it is, although Truthers haven't proven this yet).
Did Building 7 Collapse from Fires?
• No (this is based on our calculations)
Page 84:
UAF Conclusions:
• The concrete floor diaphragm stiffness is significant and even with no shear connectors, frictional resistance to thermal expansion is not trival.
• The thermal expansion of the concrete deck cannot be ignored and it is likely less than steel (the value is highly dependent upon the type of aggregate).
• The research team evaluated fire by considering the air space below the beams in the space between the drop ceiling and the structural steel framing. The result is that a fire underneath will likely burn through the drop ceiling quickly and its resistance to heat transfer is likely not available to help.
• The NIST vertical collapse was not consistent with that of the actual collapse. The difference was primarily influenced by not modeling a significant portion of the structural framing connection details.
The last bullet point on page 84 apparently refers exclusively to the C79-44 connection.
We see that indeed the top-most conclusion is this "Did Building 7 Collapse from Fires? No" thing, which Tony Szamboti, kawika, gerrican and John85 are so studiously avoiding, thereby giving the impression that all four of them agree with us that this conclusion cannot validly follow from the study Hulsey did.
Which at this point invalidates completely the presentation and the study.
What about we call it this. A series of errors and omissions made by NIST, each of which just happen to favour their pre-selected hypothesis ? Because THAT it what this is.
In order to dismiss the official story, yes. As you can see from the UAF study, they demonstrated that the relative movement experienced by the girder was not even in the same direction that NIST supposed. So it certainly is impossible for this connection to fail the way NIST's report said it did. NIST chose the most likely area for failure.
NIST attempted to show it could fail from heat...if they erred... this does not become an affirmative case or proof that the building's collapse was not a fire or heat cause... or that it was a CD.
It means that NIST still owe the American public a proper scientific report, and they owe to public safety a report which seeks to enhance same, not jeopardise it, as they are in danger of knowingly and provably doing now.
Proving that negative could be tricky yes. However, for example removing the whole inside of the core column structure and seeing what happens could help. ie, cause more serious damage to the building than fire conceivably could, and see what happens.
The girder expands to the inside of the sideplates and is at that point stuck. The sideplates and stiffener plates are crucial and should have been included in NIST's analysis. This IS the case that has been being made to you for over 4 years now. That hasn't changed, but the level of evidence to back it up has changed.
its just honest from NIST, as I understand it; they dont sell it as proof, but its highly likely that the failing girder *might* be the last straw that was leading to the final collaps, hence a *probable* cause. not confusing at all.
What deirdre said - "Truth" is the label you group chose for itself.
Again, on https://beta.ae911truth.org/ they show your name and portrait photograph, Tony Szamboti, under the headline "Who We Are".
I asked before, and perhaps your answer got removed before I could see it: Are you featured on this page with your expressed consent? In other words, do you proudly declare yourself to "be" AE911Truth? Then it would be fair to call you an "AE911Truther" as shorthand, wouldn't it? Which is merely a special case of "Truther". Ii's difficult to understand why you feel this is a pejorative. If you call me a "Debunker", based on my active participation here on Metabunk, that would be an entirely fair label which I will happily own.
But you're not debunking anything. You're not dealing with the science of the report, even at this interim stage. Yet, you will defend a NIST report and conclusion which if anything, even with UAF at this incomplete stage, has less veracity.
Wouldn't it be fair to call that double think ?
What about we call it this. A series of errors and omissions made by NIST, each of which just happen to favour their pre-selected hypothesis ? Because THAT it what this is.
But you're not debunking anything. You're not dealing with the science of the report, even at this interim stage. Yet, you will defend a NIST report and conclusion which if anything, even with UAF at this incomplete stage, has less veracity.
Wouldn't it be fair to call that double think ?
Thanks for not answering the question whether or not you agree that the main, key, core, central conclusion that Hulsey and AE911Truth present follows validly from the study, namely the absolute negative claim, stated 100% independent of NIST's work, that WTC did not collapse from fire, period.
As I said, I will, and now do, interprete your expected non-answer as your tacitly agreeing with me that this main conclusion, abd with it the entire study, is invalid at this point in time. Thank's for this clear communication!
And with this, you and I have debunked the Hulsey study
I give up, you boys can figure it out.
