AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oystein

Senior Member
And what exactly gives NIST any more credibility than that?
Remember the UAF project is at an interim stage. It's not done yet.
And yet, Hulsey as well as AE911Truth are already communicating the key, core, central conclusion without any ifs, buts and caveats: That WTC7 did not collapse from fire, period.
This is a global negative claim and as such entirely independent from anything NIST has or hasn't done.

So at this point in time you ought to be able to answer this obvious and relevant question: Do you, @gerrycan , find that this conclusion can be validly drawn from the study that has actually been carried out to-date by Hulsey and his team - YES or NO?

You can pretend that you don't see this post, or that you find the question entirely irrelevant, but with that you clearly admit tacitly that the main, key, core conclusion that Hulsey presented publicly is irrelevant and/or invalid. So with ever instance of you not answering the question, you add one instance of your tacit agreement that the study's conclusion is BUNK.

And I thank you, once again, for helping me/us DEBUNK Hulsey :)
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Bad cartoon.

Manipulated computer creates impossible actions that are convincing at regular speed, but easily recognizable when broken down frame by frame. Just one example. If you care to find the truth hidden in plain sight, break it down.
Why are you attempting to shift the focus away from AE911Truth's study?

The lead author of this study, which is the actual topic of this thread (I know this because I opened this thread), has communicated publicly his main, key, core conclusion, without any ifs, buts, caveats: That WTC7 did not collapse from fire, period. Since this is stated as a global negative, it is logically independent from anything NIST has or hasn't done.

So the obvious and extremely relevant question you are facing is: Do you, @kawika , think that this core conclusion, which we already find parroted in HEADLINE disseminated by AE911truth, follow validly from the study Hulsey has done to-date - YES or NO?

Again, your anticipated non-answer or evasion will be interpreted as your tacit but clear agreement with us that this conclusion, and with it the entire study as it stands today, are invalid.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
And what exactly gives NIST any more credibility than that?
Remember the UAF project is at an interim stage. It's not done yet.

so.. you're telling me I can't trust NIST. But I am supposed to trust you, when you make claims like
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

and Husley makes claims like
Did Building 7 Collapse from Fires?
• No (this is based on our calculations)

come on now.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
So at this point in time you ought to be able to answer this obvious and relevant question: Do you, @gerrycan , find that this conclusion can be validly drawn from the study that has actually been carried out to-date by Hulsey and his team - YES or NO?
Please stop asking this. He obviously isn't going to answer, which is an answer. And I'm sick of reading this same question over and over.
 

kawika

New Member
Mick West is afraid of competing arguments. He removed my illustration and most of the narrative without anyone objecting. Mick you are censoring legitimate debate.

Leroy's fire analysis concluded that girder A2001 did not fail. If girders, being the primary supporting elements (with columns), can't fail then the beams and floors can't fail.

If girders, beams and floors can't fail, then the columns can't lose lateral support and progressive collapse, as concluded by NIST, cannot happen.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
And yet, Hulsey as well as AE911Truth are already communicating the key, core, central conclusion without any ifs, buts and caveats: That WTC7 did not collapse from fire, period.
I would say that the project is on safe ground claiming to be able to dismiss NIST's walk to the west hypothesis. There is movement to the East and the whole thing moves together. These are clear issues for NIST that this project set out to get to. As it stands. There is no possible initiating event been suggested, or indeed, a reasonable evidence based case that a collapse such as this can progress in the way that has been claimed by NIST et al.

This is a global negative claim and as such entirely independent from anything NIST has or hasn't done.
The progression model has not been released by UAF, but Dr. Hulsey seems fairly sure, and he did mention that they were getting very close with the progressive collapse. Best guess there is that it probably is not that easy to get a building like WTC7 to collapse in the manner it did.

So at this point in time you ought to be able to answer this obvious and relevant question: Do you, @gerrycan , find that this conclusion can be validly drawn from the study that has actually been carried out to-date by Hulsey and his team - YES or NO?

What you actually need here is a new fire based theory then. the whole thermal expansion leading to loss of lateral support to column 79 and then buckling of it one is no good. This project is already saying that the NIST got the direction of travel for the girder wrong. (maybe unidirectional Ansys element choice issues there around COMBIN37).
I don't think that the project has yet proven that fire didn't do it. But it is beyond the point of saying that it didn't do it the way that NIST supposed it might have.
What remains to be seen is just what level of support removal and where, will be required to reproduce real world observed events as results in a model for WTC 7. That could tell us a lot about what couldn't possibly have done it, and potentially rule out fire as a reasonable cause to cite for the failure. In this respect Dr Hulsey and his team will be more in the know than we are, but given that they are "close" they will have a far clearer view than we reasonably could at this stage.
You can pretend that you don't see this post, or that you find the question entirely irrelevant, but with that you clearly admit tacitly that the main, key, core conclusion that Hulsey presented publicly is irrelevant and/or invalid.
Correct I can pretend not to see something, which is entirely obviously there right in front of my face staring back at me. I can ignore it, avoid it, deride it or recognise it. This is a 2 way street, so do you think that UAF or NIST did a better job of modelling the C79 connection, as per the available drawings ?
So with ever instance of you not answering the question, you add one instance of your tacit agreement that the study's conclusion is BUNK.
You were having trouble dealing with the errors and omissions around this connection previously. It is hard to deny or justify something which is so obvious. This project is not making life any easier for you in that respect and I do believe that you should at least show it the respect it deserves.
And I thank you, once again, for helping me/us DEBUNK Hulsey :)
In what way do you believe to have "debunked" Dr Hulsey ?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Mick West is afraid of competing arguments. He removed my illustration and most of the narrative without anyone objecting. Mick you are censoring legitimate debate.

Leroy's fire analysis concluded that girder A2001 did not fail. If girders, being the primary supporting elements (with columns), can't fail then the beams and floors can't fail.

If girders, beams and floors can't fail, then the columns can't lose lateral support and progressive collapse, as concluded by NIST, cannot happen.

Hulsey claims to have shown that, in one single simplified temperature scenario, taking into consideration only fire damage on portions of two floors, and given many other key assumptions that he has not yet made public, that girder 79-44 would not have become unseated in the way predicted my NIST's model. You should adjust the logic that flows through the rest of your post accordingly.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Please stop asking this. He obviously isn't going to answer, which is an answer. And I'm sick of reading this same question over and over.
Is that a moderator directive?

I think the most interesting result of the debate so far is that none of the four "skeptics of NIST" active in this thread, including three with connections to AE911Truth (Tony Szamboti, gerrycan, kawika), the study's sponsor, agree with Hulsey's conclusion.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
so now professionals write "fairly sure" ideas as conclusive statements in their studies and in press headlines? and you all wonder why people don't take E911 seriously.
No. As was said in the presentation. The team are fairly close to getting to a progressive collapse in the model, and there is much that they did not share. Also worth noting that Dr Hulsey at one point mentions that the data presented is a few weeks example of a game they had played for 3 years.
Whatever he is seeing in the full model re progression doesn't seem to be causing a detectable lean toward NIST.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is given as an example of a STC.
He said STC was their term for the macro connection model. Did he say what it stands for?
You linked it way back in Sep 2013 to me here
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/71135/

Okay, that says Seated Top Clip, but the graph is for a fin connection.

20170912-101753-ipgwg.jpg

So what's the

15" inch displacement? The beam there, C4328 is a W16x26, meaning it's 16 inches high. So how exactly is it being displaced 15 inches at that connection? You said:
The girder and it's connection to C79 I would say. The point of failure.

So the graph is showing that this knife connection can move 15" from the connection point before it fails? Like this, but another 12" or so?

20170912-104225-dyq4z.jpg

And this connection isn't the one show in their diagram, What's that S-Shaped bit at the bottom?
 

kawika

New Member
Hulsey claims to have shown that, in one single simplified temperature scenario, taking into consideration only fire damage on portions of two floors, and given many other key assumptions that he has not yet made public, that girder 79-44 would not have become unseated in the way predicted my NIST's model. You should adjust the logic that flows through the rest of your post accordingly.

Leroy gave a summary. What would you like? A 20 hour presentation dealing with every analysis that they've done over the last two years?

He gave us the most important, door slamming evidence. Fire couldn't do what NIST says.

He points out certain inconsistencies that they were able to document, such as NIST only modeling the East connections while pinning the West. Those are glaring problems which many people are not willing to consider yet.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Leroy gave a summary. What would like? A 20 hour presentation dealing with every analysis that they've done over the last two years?

He gave us the most important, door slamming evidence. Fire couldn't do what NIST says.

He points out certain inconsistencies that they were able to document, such as NIST only modeling the East connections while pinning the West. Those are glaring problems which many people are not willing to consider yet.

Hey gave a summary of the analyses he has done and they were exactly as I said. You are trying to draw conclusions that do not follow from the analyses he has done. If you disagree with my characterization of the analyses he has done, please point out exactly what you disagree with.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Okay, that says Seated Top Clip, but the graph is for a fin connection.

20170912-101753-ipgwg.jpg

So what's the

15" inch displacement? The beam there, C4328 is a W16x26, meaning it's 16 inches high. So how exactly is it being displaced 15 inches at that connection? You said:


So the graph is showing that this knife connection can move 15" from the connection point before it fails? Like this, but another 12" or so?

20170912-104225-dyq4z.jpg

And this connection isn't the one show in their diagram, What's that S-Shaped bit at the bottom?
This is the loading. Dr Hulsey discusses it here. Source: https://youtu.be/4H5jjDa4tV8?t=53m16s
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
He gave the same presentation he gave a nearly year ago (Oct 19 2016). Same slides, same conclusion.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKN4qilUOfs


What exactly is going on here?

Worth noting again too that it was in the Oct. 19, 2016 presentation where, despite the fact he had already announced the study's conclusion a month earlier, he also admitted that his team had not finished modeling the movement of the girders around column 79, as I noted here (with a full quote). I just realized they are still using the same slides too. Odd, to say the least.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did you realise that the girder was moving to the East as opposed to West in the UAF study ?
Before last week, I mean.

So he must have made a pretty bad mistake the first time he announced "No (this is based on our calculations)"?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hulsey seems remarkably unscientific in his interest in the fires. At 20:20 in the video he asks where's the combustibility in a steel structure. Then at 1:12:19

72:24 [I have a slide] showing an every floor
72:28 what kind of activity was going on. You
72:31 know there's almost all financial. So
72:34 one has to ask yourselves,
72:36 I don't believe people's investment
72:38 portfolios would be out on the tables
72:40 I think they'd be locked in a safe. So how
72:43 much paper was out there I just don't
72:45 see where there was a lot of combustibility

72:47 going on in that structure. So, to be on fire for
72:51 seven hours which, over that period of
72:53 time, probably not very high temperatures were developed
73:59 And that in that period of time, now I don't
73:04 know this to be the truth, but I'm told
73:06 that two o'clock in the afternoon
73:08 the fire department left and
73:11 laughed and said it was it was not a
73:13 problem
and yet [?] happened. So that's that's a bit
73:17 disturbing in itself

Now I know Hulsey had a narrow brief, but since the goal of his study was to disprove the fire hypothesis, then it's a bit bizarre that he talking such uninformed nonsense about the fire.

The slide he is referring to showed up in his Jan 2017 presentation at AE911:
20170912-111434-y9hun.jpg
After giving that list, he then goes on to list what his study will look at, and combustibles isn't one of them. So that all seems rather off-topic to his study. A suspicious person might think he was trying to suggest areas of motive.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
The slide he is referring to showed up in his Jan 2017 presentation at AE911:
20170912-111434-y9hun.jpg
After giving that list, he then goes on to list what his study will look at, and combustibles isn't one of them. So that all seems rather off-topic to his study. A suspicious person might think he was trying to suggest areas of motive.

Hang on Mick. Your point was that this was just a repeat performance, and I asked if you were aware of the East movement in the girder before last week. you won't answer.

Had you seen that the sideplate was an entrapment issue for the girder whatever direction it went ? You won't answer.

Why. Because you would have to try and deny the same obvious realities that you denied back in 2013. Only this time, you can't hide behind the official story like you did previously. It fell down.
Why not state a specific objection to Dr Hulsey's use of equivalents in stead of dancing around it ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I really don't see the point you are trying to make here. he misspoke. So what ?

Sorry I thought you mean that in an earlier version of his study he miscalculated the direction motion of a grider?

Did you realise that the girder was moving to the East as opposed to West in the UAF study ?
Before last week, I mean.

What do you mean he misspoke?

My point was that in BOTH presentations he shows the same slides, Oct 2016, and Sept 2017, saying that his calculations showed it did not collapse from fires.

Here he is saying it again in January 2017
20170912-112159-l4i2m.jpg

So has anything significantly changed in the last year? What has he been doing for a year?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Which of my conclusions do not follow Leroy's analyses? Cite one at a time.

Let's see:

...

Leroy's fire analysis concluded that girder A2001 did not fail. If girders, being the primary supporting elements (with columns), can't fail then the beams and floors can't fail.

If girders, beams and floors can't fail, then the columns can't lose lateral support and progressive collapse, as concluded by NIST, cannot happen.

Hulsey did not show that girder A2001 did not fail. He claimed to have shown that it would not fail under only one very specific scenario using a simplified heating model and only modeling fire damage on portions of two floors, and subject to the very specific assumptions that we have not seen. Do you understand the difference between the limited claim Hulsey's claimed model actually supports and the absolute claim you think it supports? If you understand that, then you see how the whole chain of reasoning in your post is broken: Hulsey didn't show that specific girder couldn't fail; he didn't show other girders couldn't fail; he didn't show columns couldn't fail; and he didn't show the building couldn't fail.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hang on Mick. Your point was that this was just a repeat performance, and I asked if you were aware of the East movement in the girder before last week. you won't answer.
I don't remember Hulsey mentioning it before? Did he?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Sorry I thought you mean that in an earlier version of his study he miscalculated the direction motion of a grider?



What do you mean he misspoke?

My point was that in BOTH presentations he shows the same slides, Oct 2016, and Sept 2017, saying that his calculations showed it did not collapse from fires.

Here he is saying it again in January 2017
20170912-112159-l4i2m.jpg

So has anything significantly changed in the last year? What has he been doing for a year?

I think this warrants some clarity here just to keep us right.
In the UAF study, both SAP2000 and ABAQUS showed the movement of the girder to be to the east wrt the centre of stiffness for the building. NIST had previously said West.
In the UAF study, when the rate for thermal expansion was increased by 40% in an attempt to induce a NIST like scenario, the removal of the C79 sideplate was needed to allow the girder to travel, the sideplate however would also inhibit failure.
The UAF study found that with the sideplate included, the 2 beams from the east framing closest into C79 buckled.

These are not insignificant. What of the above were you aware of before last week ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
72:24 [I have a slide] showing an every floor
72:28 what kind of activity was going on. You
72:31 know there's almost all financial. So
72:34 one has to ask yourselves,
72:36 I don't believe people's investment
72:38 portfolios would be out on the tables
72:40 I think they'd be locked in a safe. So how
72:43 much paper was out there I just don't
72:45 see where there was a lot of combustibility

72:47 going on in that structure. So, to be on fire for
72:51 seven hours which, over that period of
72:53 time, probably not very high temperatures were developed
73:59 And that in that period of time, now I don't
73:04 know this to be the truth, but I'm told
73:06 that two o'clock in the afternoon
73:08 the fire department left and
73:11 laughed and said it was it was not a
73:13 problem
and yet [?] happened. So that's that's a bit
73:17 disturbing in itself

Now I know Hulsey had a narrow brief, but since the goal of his study was to disprove the fire hypothesis, then it's a bit bizarre that he talking such uninformed nonsense about the fire.

And with the second part, he says something similar in a Nov 4 2015 presentation:

19:41 NIST said there was a fire that burned
19:46 for around seven hours but the it's
19:49 our understanding that the fire
19:52 department came and looked at it and
19:54 left and said it was not a big deal and
19:56 so why was there a problem?
Content from External Source
So Hulsey was asking about the fire-fighting efforts two years ago, and he STILL thinks the fire department "left and laughed and said it was it was not a problem".

He goes on list lots of other things he does not know about the fire.

This seems odd to me. Like he personally feels the fires were not hot enough regardless, and that's where his "zero percent chance" statement comes from.
 

kawika

New Member
Let's see:



Hulsey did not show that girder A2001 did not fail. He claimed to have shown that it would not fail under only one very specific scenario using a simplified heating model and only modeling fire damage on portions of two floors, and subject to the very specific assumptions that we have not seen. Do you understand the difference between the limited claim Hulsey's claimed model actually supports and the absolute claim you think it supports? If you understand that, then you see how the whole chain of reasoning in your post is broken: Hulsey didn't show that specific girder couldn't fail; he didn't show other girders couldn't fail; he didn't show columns couldn't fail; and he didn't show the building couldn't fail.

He made a claim about A2001 on F13. That is an absolutely specific girder. Your statement that he didn't show this is false. Stop making false statements.

All I said was that Leroy determined A2001 could not fail. "Leroy's fire analysis concluded that girder A2001 did not fail." What comes after that is my logical thought process.

My logic: Leroy's analysis of the girder connection at C79 (F13) would hold true at other floors where the same type of connection is used (quite a few).

Again, this is NIST's claim which has been proved false by computer analysis. Twist my words any way you like, you can't get away from it. He said, she said won't work here. It's black and white simple.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In the UAF study, both SAP2000 and ABAQUS showed the movement of the girder to be to the east wrt the centre of stiffness for the building. NIST had previously said West.
In the UAF study, when the rate for thermal expansion was increased by 40% in an attempt to induce a NIST like scenario, the removal of the C79 sideplate was needed to allow the girder to travel, the sideplate however would also inhibit failure.
The UAF study found that with the sideplate included, the 2 beams from the east framing closest into C79 buckled.

These are not insignificant. What of the above were you aware of before last week ?

None of it. I haven't been paying attention to Hulsey, as I figured I'd wait for some actual results to come out. Seems like I'm still waiting.

Are you telling me these are new discoveries since the 2016 and early 2017 presentations?

Does that mean he was being a bit premature in announcing his conclusion in 2016?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
All I said was that Leroy determined A2001 could not fail. "Leroy's fire analysis concluded that girder A2001 did not fail."

Did not fail in that specific scenario, with with that specific model.

What about other scenarios? Other models?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
On pages 19 and 20 of his presentation, Hulsey shows the floor area inside which NIST modeled connection failures, and outside which they did not. This is from the 16-story ANSYS model, Hulsey shows NIST's "Figure 11–9. Area of the floor where connection failures were modeled" on page 476 of NCSTAR 1-9 (Although, weirdly, his presentation actually references NIST 2004 - why would they do that? I imagine that he took recourse to a very old AE911Truth presentation given to him). NIST provides an explanation for their choice:
The extent of the area with detailed connection models was based on the results of single floor fire simulations, where connection damage west of Columns 73 through 76 were not found to contribute to an initial failure event on the east side of the structure. The area where break elements were modeled was selected to reduce the model size without biasing the results for simulating the initial failure event.
Content from External Source
Hulsey does not address this. Instead, he claims:
1. Outside the selected area, connection failures were not modeled (NIST used fixed or pinned connections).
Content from External Source
This omits what NIST actually did to model damage to the western part (which is not entirely irrelevant, IMO):

Outside the selected area, structural damage–such as buckling of the steel frame and crushing and cracking of the concrete slab–was modeled over the entire floor, but connection failures were not modeled.
Content from External Source
More importantly, Hulsey claims that "2. Connections were not modeled for the exterior moment frame". I think he misconstrues this as "exterior moment frame was totally rigid". But read the NIST report in context: You find this all in section "11.2.5 Modeling Connections", which starts on page 473. On the same page, they start discussing "Modeling Failure with Break Elements". The critical sentence is on page 475:
The floor area where failure of floor framing connections and shear studs was modeled with break elements on Floors 8 to 14 is shown in Figure 11–9. This area is east of the north-south line passing through Column 76 and the core area east of Column 73.
Content from External Source
Bolding mine: It's not that they didn't model the connections at all - they probably did! -, they just didn't allow for the connections in the wall or west of the selected area to fail under the modelled loads. I thus assume that particularly the east wall was allowed to respond laterally to the pressure of expanding floor beams. I have not found explicit confirmation of this, but hints such as on page 490 (my bolding):
Interior columns were not thermally restrained and were free to expand. Exterior columns had some thermal restraint due to the moment framing, but their temperatures remained low. Axial column stresses remained essentially constant because (1) interior column temperatures were less than 200 ºC and exterior column temperatures were less than 150 ºC, except for a few columns in the 12th and 13th floors which were less than 300 ºC; and (2) the failure of girders in a floor did not noticeably decrease the column load.
Content from External Source
Also, Section "11.2.7 Boundary Conditions and Loads" does mention how the top and bottom of the 16-floor model were fixed, but do not mention that the walls or the western part are fixed, so I assume they were not.

(Page 21 of the presentation presents a quote attributed to "NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525, 2008" - but it's neither on the actual page 525, nor on page 525 of NIST's PDF. I again wonder if he lifted this from some very old AE911Truth presentation).

To summarize: Hulsey tries to convince us that the 16-floor ANSYS model of Chapter 11 was modelled with the exterior and the western part made rigid, when in fact NIST had only decided not to model connection failures outside the east floor framing. They did allow the exterior and the western part to respond laterally to what the beams did when heated.


Now on to a big blunder in Hulsey's presentation, which he hasn't corrected since a year ago - and it is a pity that AE911truth as well as other Truther sites actively censored me:

Please turn to page 24:
  • On the left, he again shows Figure 11–9. Area of the floor where connection failures were modeled, only upside down now. Notice: This is a boundary within the ANSYS model.
  • On the right, he shows a snapshot from LS-DYNA animation, a model introduced in Chapter 12.
  • The page is captured with this statement: "Connections were not modeled; outside selected blue space."
That statement is UNTRUE for both the ANSYS and the LS-DYNA model!!
  • It misconstrues what Figure 11–9 actually shows - "Area of the floor where connection failures were modeled"
  • More importantly: This distinction simply does not apply to the LS-DYNA model!
In other words: Dr. Leroy Hulsey, as of September 06, 2017, has not understood the NIST models!
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
He made a claim about A2001 on F13. That is an absolutely specific girder. Your statement that he didn't show this is false. Stop making false statements.

All I said was that Leroy determined A2001 could not fail. "Leroy's fire analysis concluded that girder A2001 did not fail." What comes after that is my logical thought process.

My logic: Leroy's analysis of the girder connection at C79 (F13) would hold true at other floors where the same type of connection is used (quite a few).

Again, this is NIST's claim which has been proved false by computer analysis. Twist my words any way you like, you can't get away from it. He said, she said won't work here. It's black and white simple.

Again, he did not in any way show that the girder could not (or did not) fail in reality. He claimed to show it would not fail under a very specific scenario he modeled, given the various modeling assumptions he made for such scenario. He did not even definitively show that the girder would not have failed in NIST's scenario as he modeled a temperature scenario different than NIST's and used various other assumptions different from NIST's. Even assuming for argument's sake Hulsey's study is generally accurate (or even just generally more accurate than NIST's), Hulsey did not model any other scenarios (including but not limited to the scenarios already modeled by Arup or WAI) and cannot say categorically that the girder could never fail from fire. Accordingly, neither can you.

I am not twisting anything you are saying. I merely pointing out that you are taking away from Hulsey's study a conclusion that does not follow from it.
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
What do you mean by "equivalents"?
The make up and reaction of a connection element in the model being quantified, as shown in the graphs you refer to, and replicated as an equivalent connection in the model to save processing time for simulation runs. Talking of element models, it is interesting to note from the 2013 thread, that we discussed the COMBIN37 element in NIST's ANSYS model which is a unidirectional element. We don't know what conditions were applied to this element by NIST, ie the FSLIDE% for example, but we know it's unidirectional. Whereas with the UAF study we know what was tried. We know that the friction was reduced to zero, and tried at various increased levels to learn the difference it could have made.

None of it. I haven't been paying attention to Hulsey, as I figured I'd wait for some actual results to come out. Seems like I'm still waiting.

Are you telling me these are new discoveries since the 2016 and early 2017 presentations?

Does that mean he was being a bit premature in announcing his conclusion in 2016?

So these are new to you. As are many other points, such as the 3 small lateral support beams preventing what would otherwise be a buckling in the Northernmost of the beams framing into the girder from the East. Dr Hulsey clearly is a long way further down this road, and as he said, this is a few weeks of a game they have been playing for 3 years now.
Given what we have learnt from a few weeks worth of 3 years of results, it's difficult to imagine just how any fire based theory for this collapse might look from the perspective of being three years into that game. After all, UAF have looked at this building in the most modern, accurate and realistic way thus far.

So, in the absence of a possible failure of this girder at C79, where would your next best guess be for initiation of collapse. The transfer trusses maybe ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
A AE911 New Collapse Hypothesis 9/11 245
econ41 AE911's Response to Mick West's Iron Microspheres Talk. 9/11 17
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West Why Didn't the WTC Fires Ignite AE911's Supposed "Nanothermite"? 9/11 28
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
qed Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Oxymoron Discussion: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 16
Mick West Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used! 9/11 62
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 10
Mendel The 10 tactics of fascism - Truth General Discussion 53
Oystein Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 174
Mick West TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Nada Truther How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Mick West Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Mick West Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 24
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
SR1419 NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
TWCobra Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 67
C 9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
M 9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
SpaceCowboy Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
TWCobra Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
Tony Szamboti Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds 9/11 245
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Mick West Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
T Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
HappyMonday Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Mick West Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
S NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection 9/11 73
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top