# AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am going to presume that you are referring to NIST's ANSYS model here.
Here is how the parameters were applied.
You show a Figure from Chapter 12. This is the LS-DYNA model, not the ANSYS model.

[...]

Fire is not a simple thing. It changes over time, so it heats different things at different times. Differential heating leads to larger differences in expansion between adjacent members. So a more accurate simulation would account for that.

Fire induced thermal expansion is not a simple force either. To extend your analogy, suppose you were removing a screw, you stick in your Hole Hawg with a screwdriver bit and you strip the head smooth. Or you take a handheld screwdriver and apply pressure firmly and remove the screw. The "worst case force" did not remove the screw.

The variations over time need to be considered. Hulsey does not even seem to have considered differential heading rates for steel and concrete in one spot, let alone the spread of the the fire.

On the screw thing I would use a reverse thread, is that what a "Hole Hawg" is ?

On the part of your text that I bolded, how does that square with the application of load, damage temp etc illustrated below ?

And YES, this is the global model and how the forces were applied to it.

ETA
NIST
The fire-induced damage estimated from the ANSYS model was, therefore, input to the LS-DYNA model as the final step before analyzing the structural response. The damage was applied immediately after the temperatures were applied, by a sudden removal of damaged or failed elements calculated in the ANSYS analysis.
Content from External Source
I know what model this is, and made it clear I was presuming that Bentham was talking about ANSYS where the damage was analysed. this is how that damage was applied to the global model.

Last edited:
I know what model this is, and made it clear I was presuming that Bentham was talking about ANSYS where the damage was analysed. this is how that damage was applied to the global model.

The issue here is how the temperatures were applied to Hulsey's model to determine connection failures. So your graph of the LS-DYNA global model is not relevant. In that model the initial connection damage was imported from the ANSYS model.

Connection failures will vary based on time of application of heat at various locations. Global collapse happened over seconds AFTER connection failure.

Hulsey Says he used this data:

He makes no mention of using time varying temeratures, which is what you need to get actual connection damage:

He really seems unfamiliar with fire, as evidenced by his constant mentioning of how much paper would be on desks in financial companies, as if that's a relevant factor.

Last edited:
Here is the video of Prof. Hulsey talking about the project to his students. I'm not terribly optimistic about his approach. He intersperses his slides with many talking points directly from the AE911Truth website (symmetrical collapse, emphasis on the free fall period, claim that there wasn't much fire, etc.) and even uses the misleading post-utility shed collapse video snippet to represent the entire collapse. Moreover, his approach is really no different than NIST's (i.e., running multiple computer simulations), though he is incredulous about NIST's efforts while, at the same time, ascribes much more certainty to the ability of his model to find "the truth" than NIST ever did to their model ("if I can't make [column 79 initiate the collapse as NIST said], then it didn't happen"). But it seems like he is only dealing with a model of two floors of the building (12 and 13) with a somewhat arbitrary load (1000 kips) on column 79, and, in those floors, seems to only be heating column 79 and assuming the rest of the floor is unchanged. He also never mentions that the NIST work was peer reviewed by and republished in the JSE, nor does he talk about any of other published research pertaining to WTC 7, much of which I listed here. In fact, he really doesn't even talk about NIST's report in any detail at all and, when he does, it is mostly in terms of AE911Truth talking points, even though the Q&A session presented multiple opportunities for him to do so (e.g., instead of acting like the fire loads were a mystery and quoting AE911Truth's dubious "fires could only burn in one place for 20 minutes" claim, he could have discussed how NIST modeled the fires and what shortcomings he saw with that approach). At one point, he even states that it would have been impossible for WTC 7 to have collapsed "symmetrically" (as it did) due to fires.

All in all, he didn't seem terribly informed or come across as trying to step back and tackle the problem from an objective point of view, in my opinion. It seems like he is just building a very limited model of select areas to prove that column 79 wouldn't become unseated given some arbitrary inputs.

...

I was looking over the thread yesterday, and I feel like it's worth quoting a post I made almost 2 years ago. Even going back that far, it is remarkable how much the progress at that time is mirrored in the purported "conclusions" presently presented.

To Mick's point on Hulsey's unfamiliarity with fire science, I even noted back then how odd it was that he was regurgitating AE911Truth's claim that "fires only burned in place for 20 mins," which statement has little actual relevance to how the fires actually progress and heated things over periods of 5-6 hours in an office building fire scenario (as NIST demonstrated not only with its simulations, but with actual extensive real world tests that are documented in the WTC1 & 2 reports).

It really reinforces the notion that this project was always heading towards Hulsey's foregone conclusions (which still aren't supported) and raises the question of what exactly they did in the two years since preparing the initial presentation materials and discussion points. \$100k/year is a lot of money in Fairbanks and should have essentially supported both graduate assistants working on this full time--so I would expect drastic progress, and yet they only wound up modeling small portions floors 12 and 13, which they had begun in 2015, as I noted at the time.

In re-watching Prof. Hulsey's 2015 presentation, I noticed a few slides of background information:

The first two slides above are text directly copied and pasted (typos included) from a conspiracy theory blog found here. (Archived here.) [add: published 2008 ]

The two points on the third slide are text directly copied and pasted from another conspiracy theory blog found here. (Archived here.) [add: published 2010] [add: earlier version found 2008 BBC ]

So, Dr. Hulsey, a university professor, established the main background facts regarding his study from two anonymous conspiracy theory blogs and, in fact, plagiarized those blogs without attribution. And this is all while he was claiming he was reading as little as possible about the event in order to maintain a neutral, scientific view. Hmmmmmmmm...

Last edited by a moderator:
Hulsey Says he used this data:

He makes no mention of using time varying temeratures, which is what you need to get actual connection damage:

He really seems unfamiliar with fire, as evidenced by his constant mentioning of how much paper would be on desks in financial companies, as if that's a relevant factor.

I can't really make sense of the heatmap between 2:00 and 2:30 PM in regards to this picture at 2:11 PM

Source: https://imgur.com/go85ag3

And that's slab and beam temps, not precisely correlated with the fire intensity. Here's the simulation of the floor 12 gas temperatures

Again we see significant movement over time. heating, cooling, heating different areas. For a really accurate simulation of the connection failures and collapse then this needs to be accounted for.

The flames are coming from floor 12 there. Around here in the simulation:
So after 20 minutes of flames the temp is only risen to around 200C, that is what i find a bit low
If the beams act like a heatsink i would think i would see a higher temp on the beam picture

So after 20 minutes of flames the temp is only risen to around 200C, that is what i find a bit low
If the beams act like a heatsink i would think i would see a higher temp on the beam picture
Based on what?

Based on what?
Based on 6 windows with high flames that reach 2-3 meters higher then the window top, and give them 20 minutes to heat their surroundings.
This when a flame is around 1500 to 2000C minimum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature)
In the study of combustion, there are two types of adiabatic flame temperature depending on how the process is completed, constant volume and constant pressure, describing the temperature that the combustion products theoretically reach if no energy is lost to the outside environment.
Content from External Source

Last edited by a moderator:
Based on 6 windows with high flames that reach 2-3 meters higher then the window top, and give them 20 minutes to heat their surroundings.
This when a flame is around 1500 to 2000C minimum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature)
Flame temperature out a window is not slab/steel temperature.
Also, it's a simulation, so the timing, and the size and shape of the fire, is not going to match exactly.
We are getting off topic though. If you really think this is an issue then start a new thread.

Flame temperature out a window is not slab/steel temperature.
Also, it's a simulation, so the timing, and the size and shape of the fire, is not going to match exactly.
We are getting off topic though. If you really think this is an issue then start a new thread.

Not much of an issue for me, but i just think the temp map NIST might be a bit too cool, and that is what Hulsey's is based on.

Further re Hulsey's 2015 presentation, it appears to support Mick's interpretation of the error in current presentation re Hulsey's comparison of the displacement of column 79 with the movement of girder 79-44 relative to column 79. Hulsey has gotten this comparison wrong from the get go.

Accepting that this work was preliminary and may have been updated or redone, let's look at the issues with his approach starting at 30:11 in the video.

First he shows us a simplified approach to heating of 1/4th of the floor. As with his current presentation, there is no indication that he was taking into account fire progression concerns.

Second, he shows how such heating would have vertically displaced the floor system taken as a whole:

Third, he shows the horizontal displacement of column 79 in such a scenario:

In describing this slide, he says:

So here's column 79. Here's the movement, and we can see that it's supposed to move about 6 inches and it only moved about 2.9 and 1.6, not enough to move it off the bearing.
Content from External Source
As Mick has pointed out, this line of thinking makes no sense in relation to what NIST did. NIST's measure of 6 inches of displacement was the end of girder 79-44 relative to column 79, not the movement of column 79 relative to the building. And it looks like this same mistaken thinking and false comparison has survived in the study to the present.

AE911 promoted the study on their 9/11 announcement of the Bobby McIlvaine Act.
We at AE911Truth have funded a two year \$300,000 finite element analysis computer modelling study of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 by researchers at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, in order to determine conclusively whether office fires could have brought the building down or not. Last week the World Trade Center 7 study lead investigator Professor Leroy Hulsey, a practicing forensic and structural engineer of more than 50 years, announced in the progress report the study's main finding. What was that? Office fires did not bring down the World Trade Center Building 7.
When the final report is published a few months from now we'll take it to every member of congress and urge them to enact the Bobby McIlvaine Act, given the failure of NIST to enact the scientific investigation mandated by congress, the burden is now upon congress to launch a new investigation.
Content from External Source

So, Dr. Hulsey, a university professor, established the main background facts regarding his study from two anonymous conspiracy theory blogs and, in fact, plagiarized those blogs without attribution. And this is all while he was claiming he was reading as little as possible about the event in order to maintain a neutral, scientific view.

That's interesting, immediately reminded me of something I'd seen in the diary.

From "Work diary by Zhili", 10/08/2015

Several emails sent by Dr. Hulsey were read and the articles that came with the emails were studied. One of the articles concluded it was very unlikely that WTC7 collapsed due to the fire burned out of control.
Content from External Source
Ray Von

I am going to address this to the last few posts collectively.

If UAF got it so wrong, how then did their model show results to within 0.4" of NIST when they ran a simulation with rigid outer walls and no composite floor system ?

He really seems unfamiliar with fire, as evidenced by his constant mentioning of how much paper would be on desks in financial companies, as if that's a relevant factor.
Paper is combustible. If there is more paper, there is more combustible material. If there is more combustible material, fire can burn longer, and possibly hotter. It is likely that there would be paper in the office of a company that specialized in financial transactions.

The amount of this paper and where it was located is highly relevant.

Global collapse happened over seconds AFTER connection failure.
There are countless videos of the actual collapse. Global collapse occurred when all remaining columns ceased to provide support simultaneously.

Q. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
A. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.
What computer modeling data has NIST provided to support their claims? As far as I know, the answer is nothing. They have denied requests citing "public safety" as a reason.

Do their computer models match what was observed? No. It's not even close.

The question is, "What caused all remaining support columns to collapse at the same time?" NIST's answer is illogical, and it's based on incomplete or erroneous data.

AE911T has a new site layout. Under "What you can do" - "Membership", I found the following:
www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015/^

Be part of our ambitious 2015 agenda

1. New Research Initiatives - Read More >>

• Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition controlled more readily replicates the observed destruction.
Content from External Source

That link has been modified. Do you have an archive of the original that matches what you have posted above?

Based on the information found at wtc7evaluation.org, "WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse."

I don't see any wording that says the purpose of the investigation was to disprove NIST. It appears that the true purpose was to evaluate the possible causes.

Last edited:
This thread contains substantial scrutiny of Hulsey's research.

Why is the same level of scrutiny not being applied to NIST? It's clearly apparent there is an obvious double-standard being applied. NIST's findings are supported with minimal scrutiny. Hulsey's research is scrutinized to absurd levels.

Why is this?

This thread contains substantial scrutiny of Hulsey's research.

Why is the same level of scrutiny not being applied to NIST? It's clearly apparent there is an obvious double-standard being applied. NIST's findings are supported with minimal scrutiny. Hulsey's research is scrutinized to absurd levels.

Why is this?
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

thank you.

It appears that the true purpose was to evaluate the possible causes.
I don't know if you're joking there.

In case not, by now you've seen the so-called "modified" copy linked to in post #744...
which one assumes would give you a less charitable view of how open-minded an "inquiry" it was.

I am going to address this to the last few posts collectively.

If UAF got it so wrong, how then did their model show results to within 0.4" of NIST when they ran a simulation with rigid outer walls and no composite floor system ?
How does that fix the various problems listed?

You answered my question with a question, again.
How does that fix the various problems listed?
They ran a simulation based on NIST's values and element choice, and the girder moved to the West by 5.1".
The difference in their model was the connections on the rest of the area, and they modelled the floor system.
Do you think that NIST should have considered the floor system ?

You answered my question with a question, again.

They ran a simulation based on NIST's values and element choice, and the girder moved to the West by 5.1".
The difference in their model was the connections on the rest of the area, and they modelled the floor system.
Do you think that NIST should have considered the floor system ?

They can feed any stuff into their flawed model, the output will still be garbage. If a few results look reasonable or comparable, it does not mean they really are.

Ex falso quodlibet.

They can feed any stuff into their flawed model, the output will still be garbage. If a few results look reasonable or comparable, it does not mean they really are.

Ex falso quodlibet.
They replicated NIST, so yeah the output was garbage, because the NIST model did not consider a composite floor system and left out many crucial elements.
However, when they replicated the building as per the drawings, the result changed.

Where specifically do you think the UAF model is flawed in comparison to NIST's ?

It is clear that the argument by some here that the UAF WTC 7 study isn't sound because it doesn't consider all temperature variations over the full time history of the fire is an unsupported attempt to sow doubt.

This argument is quickly reduced in stature by the fact that the failure occurred at 5:20 PM.

The fact that the columns never got hotter than 300 C quickly eliminates direct column failure, leaving only dislodgement of horizontal member connections from columns and removing their bracing to leave them slender enough to buckle, as a possible natural mechanism.

It is known that there were a limited number of girder connections which could possibly be considered susceptible to dislodgement ("walk-off") and they were the girders in the northeast and southeast corners framing into columns 79 and 81 from the north and south, respectively.

The southeast corner is eliminated because the fire on floor 12 there had burned out well before 5:20 PM.

In addition, if the 6:00 PM temperatures used from the NIST fire simulation are in the same northeast corner area, but slightly hotter, that would be a worst case which envelopes the slightly earlier time.

Scrutiny of the connection of girder A2001 to column 79 showed it was not susceptible to walk-off, as NIST claimed, due to the column side plates and girder web stiffeners, which the NIST WTC 7 report needed to ignore and omit to maintain plausibility.

It has also been shown that even if the girder did somehow come off its seat (as the ARUP analysis claims it could to the east due to beam sagging) it could not break through the next floor down and a loss of one story of lateral support is far from sufficient to cause column buckling.

Finally, if the columns can't be shown to fail due to direct heating, or horizontal member dislodgement caused by fire, there can be no collapse due to fire.

Last edited:
Paper is combustible. If there is more paper, there is more combustible material. If there is more combustible material, fire can burn longer, and possibly hotter. It is likely that there would be paper in the office of a company that specialized in financial transactions.

The amount of this paper and where it was located is highly relevant.
When I've taken fire awareness courses, the risks identified regarding "loose" paper have always primarily been the ones on starting fires; discarded cig ends (back when smoking wasn't banned) in waste bins, things like that. Areas where there were large amounts of paper in concentration (archive rooms, libraries etc) were obviously identified as areas where fire could rapidly spread and grow.

So if we're talking about a fire that's already well established, not being fought and is consuming "normal office combustibles", which would likely in this case and era include lots of wooden desks, chairs, cubicle dividers, storage units, plastics, floor coverings and adhesives, suspended ceilings, how relevant is it whether there's paper on those desks?

I completely agree that those offices would contain paper, and very likely a lot of it, which is why I find Hulsey' statement so odd:

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
Content from External Source
Given this was 2001, before digital agreements, when the primary means of distributing legal and financial documents was still hard-copy and offices had herds of laser printers and print rooms, stacks of manuals and files, what is he basing that on? Why would he think an office in 2001 wouldn't still contain lots of paper? Why would he make a point of bringing up sheaves of paper on desks when those desks themselves (and pretty much everything else) would be combustible?

It's such an odd statement on so many levels.

Ray Von

Last edited:
So if we're talking about a fire that's already well established, not being fought and is consuming "normal office combustibles", which would likely in this case and era include lots of wooden desks, chairs, cubicle dividers, storage units, plastics, floor coverings and adhesives, suspended ceilings, how relevant is it whether there's paper on those desks?

What I find more telling is Hulsey's comment:

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
Content from External Source
Given this was 2001, before digital agreements, when the primary means of distributing legal and financial documents was still hard-copy and offices had herds of laser printers and print rooms, stacks of manuals and files, what is he basing that on? Why would he think an office in 2001 wouldn't still contain lots of paper? Why would he make a point of bringing up sheaves of paper on desks when those desks themselves (and pretty much everything else) would be combustible?

It's such an odd statement on so many levels.

Ray Von
This argument is moot because the UAF study used the NIST fire simulation temperatures. All Hulsey was saying there is the fuel was not unlimited.

Last edited:
[QUOTE="

Given this was 2001, before digital agreements, when the primary means of distributing legal and financial documents was still hard-copy and offices had herds of laser printers and print rooms, stacks of manuals and files, what is he basing that on? Why would he think an office in 2001 wouldn't still contain lots of paper? Why would he make a point of bringing up sheaves of paper on desks when those desks themselves (and pretty much everything else) would be combustible?

It's such an odd statement on so many levels.

Ray Von[/QUOTE]

The building was used by financial Solomon and similar operations who presumably had lots of paper documents. That is to say not all offices are equal in terms of the combustibles per unit of volume. This would vary depending on the business and their operations. If it was back office "banking" for example it likely was pretty dense with paper records BACK AT THAT TIME. Contracts, load docs, mortgages and so forth with signatures are still paper for the most part today.

The entire fire load thing is assumption driven and highly variable.

Ergo a proof of anything about the structure is a fantasy.

Hulsey is grasping at straws... NIST is not much better.

They replicated NIST,

Why do you think that? Wasn't Hulsey pretending, he wanted to build his own model and his own opinion and keep away from reading too much about other peoples findings?

so yeah the output was garbage, because the NIST model did not consider a composite floor system and left out many crucial elements.
However, when they replicated the building as per the drawings, the result changed.

Where specifically do you think the UAF model is flawed in comparison to NIST's ?

This thread is full of problems and flaws of Hulsey's model and approach in general, no need to reiterate them over and over again. If you don't recall, this posting from Mick has a nice summary. ;-)

On the screw thing I would use a reverse thread, is that what a "Hole Hawg" is ?

On the part of your text that I bolded, how does that square with the application of load, damage temp etc illustrated below ?

And YES, this is the global model and how the forces were applied to it.

ETA
NIST
The fire-induced damage estimated from the ANSYS model was, therefore, input to the LS-DYNA model as the final step before analyzing the structural response. The damage was applied immediately after the temperatures were applied, by a sudden removal of damaged or failed elements calculated in the ANSYS analysis.
Content from External Source
I know what model this is, and made it clear I was presuming that Bentham was talking about ANSYS where the damage was analysed. this is how that damage was applied to the global model.
Benthamitemetric was talking about how the heating history of each element as derived from Chapter 10 was applied to the ANSYS model in Chapter 11 - a different step, and a step that Hulsey neglected to even consider. The ANSYS model is what we are talking about when considering if, when and how structural elements failed due to fire.

Tensions arise in a structure not just from the being hot at some point in time, but also from heating up or cooling down at different rates in different parts.

For example (and I am not sure this is what Hulsey did, so correct me if he didn't; just by way of example): IF Hulsey applied NIST's Chapter 10 temperature from a point in time after maximum temperatures were reached in both beams and concrete floors, to his two floors, and only looked at deformations after these temperatures are applied, then he will find that steel and concrete have expanded by about the same extent, because they have similar expansion coefficients (correct the term if you like, the English escapes me at the moment); and consequently, he would find little stress between beam and slab, and this might result in floor still acting as composite. However, true temperature history might be that the steel heets up faster (or, due to SFRM, slower) than the concrete - then in the intermediate stages, both expand at different rates, a larger stress is induced, and that may more likely disrupt whatever makes them composite (stud shear, concrete crumbling...).

Also, as beams and/or slab expand and contract at different rates across different floors, they affect the columns they tie into in different ways. If two adjacent floors move in unison, they push a column out of plumb in unison, while if they expand/contract in opposite directions, they induce additional stress on the connections.

Hulsey cannot control for these effects because he does not apply heating histories at all, and because he does not even heat any other floors at all. Thus, his equivalent to NIST's Chapter 11 ANSYS model will miss many deformations, movements and failures that NIST found, and his results would therefore be "wrong".

All of this before the global dynamic LS-DYNA model, or Hulsey's equivalent thereof, even comes into to play. So how NIST and Hulsey apply the damage accrued by differential heating to the global collapse model is irrelevant if the damage output is not properly derived. GIGO.

This thread is full of problems and flaws of Hulsey's model and approach in general, no need to reiterate them over and over again. If you don't recall, this posting from Mick has a nice summary. ;-)

So you should have no problem telling me in what way NIST were more accurate specifically with how their model was put together.

Mick West said:
He really seems unfamiliar with fire, as evidenced by his constant mentioning of how much paper would be on desks in financial companies, as if that's a relevant factor.
the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels
Content from External Source
You are missing the point.

Hulsey seems to think that paper lying around on the desks is an important variable. But in an average office, whether financial or any other industry, the papers actually on the desk would be only a small percentage of the total paper in the office and an even smaller percentage of the fuel load. So it is in insignificant variable. A variable, by the way, that Hulsey idly and vaguely speculates about - no values given, no research cited, and at this point it is appropriate to point out that Hulsey has ZERO (0) experience with fire investigations. In fact, this Hulsey remark is just another reinforcement of the general perception that he is really out of his league with this study.

So you should have no problem telling me in what way NIST were more accurate specifically with how their model was put together.
We are discussing the Hulsey study. When that study has plenty of problems, not a single one of them is healed by pointing out that some other study also has flaws.

The building was used by financial Solomon and similar operations who presumably had lots of paper documents. That is to say not all offices are equal in terms of the combustibles per unit of volume. This would vary depending on the business and their operations. If it was back office "banking" for example it likely was pretty dense with paper records BACK AT THAT TIME. Contracts, load docs, mortgages and so forth with signatures are still paper for the most part today.

The entire fire load thing is assumption driven and highly variable.

Ergo a proof of anything about the structure is a fantasy.

Hulsey is grasping at straws... NIST is not much better.
On what basis do you say Hulsey is grasping at straws? [...]

Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
245
Views
46K
Replies
47
Views
12K
Replies
58
Views
10K
Replies
45
Views
7K