AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

Status
Not open for further replies.

deirdre

Senior Member.
@benthamitemetric I'm not understanding you either. Hulsey says there was no failure because he moved all the parts together. He isn't trying to show why the building fell down.. he is trying to show the building didn't fall down to support his theories
 

Oystein

Senior Member
He compares his output result to NIST's.
The difference is that we know where ALL the elements are in Dr Hullsey's relative to one fixed point.
For NIST we only know where they are relative to each other.
But Hulsey mixes and matches the output of two different FEAs, which you said in your previous post is a no-no.

Ok. Forget for a moment the results that Hulsey presented. Assume instead that in his presentation, Column 79 moved 39.445 inches to the east (yes, i know, that's more than 3 feet) relative to CoS.
Would that fail the connection? Yes or No. Give reasons!

No that would be the COMBIN37 element in NIST's model that you're getting confused with there. It is unidirectional.
Silly Tu Quoque/derail/evasion/obfuscation/flippant whataboutism! :(

You said "The floor is actually what moves the whole thing. The girder is not free in that analysis to move West"
I asked: Hold on - is that a model input? Is the model defined such that "the girder is not free in that analysis to move West"?

That is a fair question. Why is the girder not free to move to the west?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
@benthamitemetric I'm not understanding you either. Hulsey says there was no failure because he moved all the parts together. He isn't trying to show why the building fell down.. he is trying to show the building didn't fall down to support his theories
But to show that all parts move together, you need not present numbers for displacement relative to CoS. These numbers are meaningless! "All parts move together" is plain English for "local displacements were exceedingly small in every local coordinate system".
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
But Hulsey mixes and matches the output of two different FEAs, which you said in your previous post is a no-no.

Ok. Forget for a moment the results that Hulsey presented. Assume instead that in his presentation, Column 79 moved 39.445 inches to the east (yes, i know, that's more than 3 feet) relative to CoS.
Would that fail the connection? Yes or No. Give reasons!


Silly Tu Quoque/derail/evasion/obfuscation/flippant whataboutism! :(

You said "The floor is actually what moves the whole thing. The girder is not free in that analysis to move West"
I asked: Hold on - is that a model input? Is the model defined such that "the girder is not free in that analysis to move West"?

That is a fair question. Why is the girder not free to move to the west?
The girder is not free in that analysis to move to the west because it has expanded into the inside of the column side plate lip.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
@benthamitemetric I'm not understanding you either. Hulsey says there was no failure because he moved all the parts together. He isn't trying to show why the building fell down.. he is trying to show the building didn't fall down to support his theories.

I know that Hulsey's analysis is faulty. The question I asked just presents a quick and easy thought process by which anyone, including gerrycan, can better understand why it's faulty on the comparative measurement point, especially in comparison to what NIST did. Hopefully anyone asking the question would then realize they needed more information than what Hulsey provided (i.e., information re the movement of A2001) to determine whether A2001 failed given Hulsey's stated figure for the movement of column 79 relative to the center of stiffness. Once they realize that, then they realize why Hulsey's stated figure is irrelevant. They can then question why Hulsey is using an irrelevant figure or, like gerrycan, assume that his use of the irrelevant figure isn't something to be pondered and just continue to accept all of Hulsey's conclusions as sound regardless.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The girder is not free in that analysis to move to the west because it has expanded into the inside of the column side plate lip.
Aha!

But since it started with a gap of - oh I don't know, an inch or so? - an inch, in order for the girder to even touch the side plate lip, it must have moves west relative to Column 79, right? So Hulsey's slide should indicate a disontinuity there: Column 79 moves at least 1 inch further east than the girder does!
It also means that either the floor slab was seriously crumbled on C79, or that A2001 moved relative to the floor slab. Which is it?

But if some beams and girders did move relative to the slab, what does Hulsey's lateral displacement slide show - slab, or steel? Can't be both, can it?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Aha!

But since it started with a gap of - oh I don't know, an inch or so? - an inch, in order for the girder to even touch the side plate lip, it must have moves west relative to Column 79, right? So Hulsey's slide should indicate a disontinuity there: Column 79 moves at least 1 inch further east than the girder does!
It also means that either the floor slab was seriously crumbled on C79, or that A2001 moved relative to the floor slab. Which is it?

But if some beams and girders did move relative to the slab, what does Hulsey's lateral displacement slide show - slab, or steel? Can't be both, can it?
page 43 of the pdf. ABAQUS analysis you can see the stress point at the bottom east *girder* flange. Also note the stiffener plate redistributing the stress extremely efficiently.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
page 43 of the pdf. ABAQUS analysis you can see the stress point at the bottom east flange. Also note the stiffener plate redistributing the stress extremely efficiently.
Can we keep the goal post where it was, please? Which is stating displacement relative to CoS vs. local coordinates. Thanks.
That would be slide 77 and 78 still.
Page 78 has the color codes in increments of 0.569 inches. Column 79 is stated with an eastward displacement of 1.85 inches, and its color code goes from 1.470 " to 2.039". In page 43, which you recommend looking at, the girder has moved more than 6.25 inches west relative to C79. In Hulsey's coordinates, that would be more than (6.25-1.85=4.4) inches west, the girder should be shown with the color code "dark blue", but it isn't.
But page 43 is the wrong page to refer me to anyway :/
You had better pointed me to page 32, where the girder is caught by the lip - and displaced several - perhaps 4? - inches west relative to C79, or about 2 inches west relative to CoS - and should be shown in "medium blue" in page 78. But it isn't.

So either the girder was indeed not free to move relative the floor slab - which raises the unanswered question: Why?
Or slides 77+78 simply do not show the steel, only the slab.
Or both.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Can we keep the goal post where it was, please? Which is stating displacement relative to CoS vs. local coordinates. Thanks.
That would be slide 77 and 78 still.
Page 78 has the color codes in increments of 0.569 inches. Column 79 is stated with an eastward displacement of 1.85 inches, and its color code goes from 1.470 " to 2.039". In page 43, which you recommend looking at, the girder has moved more than 6.25 inches west relative to C79. In Hulsey's coordinates, that would be more than (6.25-1.85=4.4) inches west, the girder should be shown with the color code "dark blue", but it isn't.
But page 43 is the wrong page to refer me to anyway :/
You had better pointed me to page 32, where the girder is caught by the lip - and displaced several - perhaps 4? - inches west relative to C79, or about 2 inches west relative to CoS - and should be shown in "medium blue" in page 78. But it isn't.

So either the girder was indeed not free to move relative the floor slab - which raises the unanswered question: Why?
Or slides 77+78 simply do not show the steel, only the slab.
Or both.
The analysis reproduced NIST's stated conditions. that was made crystal clear in the presentation.
Nobody is moving goalposts, apart from you.
Mixing and matching from FEAs again.
Adding East from the column when the connection remains intact with West in the girder in a different analysis when the connection has broken. Naughty.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The analysis reproduced NIST's stated conditions. that was made crystal clear in the presentation.
Nobody is moving goalposts, apart from you.
Mixing and matching from FEAs again.
Who? Me? I am mixing FEAs when I am not talking about anything NIST-related AT ALL?!? Seriously?
You just in this very post which I am quoting right now re-introduced NIST's FEA - and promptly accuse ME of mixing and matching? This is unbelievable! :O

Adding East from the column when the connection remains intact with West in the girder in a different analysis when the connection has broken. Naughty.
YOU referred me to Slide 43! Now you blame me for talking about what is shown in it?!? That is unbelievable!!

All the while evading the simple question that I asked - about slide 78 of the Hulsey presentation, and the Hulsey FEA (and not anything even remotely NIST related):

You said "The floor is actually what moves the whole thing. The girder is not free in that analysis to move West"
I asked: Hold on - is that a model input? Is the model defined such that "the girder is not free in that analysis to move West"?

That is a fair question. Why is the girder not free to move to the west - in the Hulsey FEA?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Who? Me? I am mixing FEAs when I am not talking about anything NIST-related AT ALL?!? Seriously?
You just in this very post which I am quoting right now re-introduced NIST's FEA - and promptly accuse ME of mixing and matching? This is unbelievable! :O


YOU referred me to Slide 43! Now you blame me for talking about what is shown in it?!? That is unbelievable!!

All the while evading the simple question that I asked - about slide 78 of the Hulsey presentation, and the Hulsey FEA (and not anything even remotely NIST related):

You said "The floor is actually what moves the whole thing. The girder is not free in that analysis to move West"
I asked: Hold on - is that a model input? Is the model defined such that "the girder is not free in that analysis to move West"?

That is a fair question. Why is the girder not free to move to the west - in the Hulsey FEA?
I am going to advise you to go and watch the presentation again, presuming you have watched it before now already.

There is more than one UAF analysis in the presentation.
Page 43 UAF analysis with NIST conditions, but the stiffener plates on the girder. No fail.
Page 77 SAP 2000 UAF analysis Floor 13
Page 78 c79 east by 2" @ floor 13.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick seems to have worked out the bit of the building that Dr Hulsey was referring to when he said
"The SAP and ABAQUS seem to be measurements of the region around Column 79 relative to a "thermal centroid" near the lower middle of the plan." (my emphasis)

We all know where he is talking about. It's on the presentation. I believe he misspoke. I will find out if and when I can.

Worked out? When was this ever even a question? I've not worked anything out since I noted that he was incorrect comparing an absolute (global) movement of the C79 region to a relative (local) movement within that region (more specifically between two connected parts)

What has changed? I've still not seen ANY valid clarification or objection from you.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Worked out? When was this ever even a question? I've not worked anything out since I noted that he was incorrect comparing an absolute (global) movement of the C79 region to a relative (local) movement within that region (more specifically between two connected parts)

What has changed? I've still not seen ANY valid clarification or objection from you.
Mick do you agree that we know where ALL the C79 elements are in Dr Hulsey's model relative to the CoS, and that we know where the elements are only relative to each other in NIST?
I asked before but you didnt actually answer.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I am going to advise you to go and watch the presentation again, presuming you have watched it before now already.

There is more than one UAF analysis in the presentation.
Page 43 UAF analysis with NIST conditions, but the stiffener plates on the girder. No fail.
Page 77 SAP 2000 UAF analysis Floor 13
Page 78 c79 east by 2" @ floor 13.
This does not answer or address the question I actually asked:

You said "The floor is actually what moves the whole thing. The girder is not free in that analysis to move West"
I asked: Hold on - is that a model input? Is the model defined such that "the girder is not free in that analysis to move West"?

That is a fair question. Why is the girder not free to move to the west - in the Hulsey FEA?

Please try to answer the question, and do not send me on a wild goose chase. It would save you time, too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick do you agree that we know where ALL the C79 elements are in Dr Hulsey's model relative to the CoS, and that we know where the elements are only relative to each other in NIST?
I asked before but you didnt actually answer.

The model knows where they are relative to the ground, or any other point you need. But those numbers are not relevant, because they don't contribute to connection failure.

The position relative to the center of stiffness is not relevant to individual connection failure.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
The model knows where they are relative to the ground, or any other point you need. But those numbers are not relevant, because they don't contribute to connection failure.

The position relative to the center of stiffness is not relevant to individual connection failure.

So let me get this right. You think that their position relative to each other counts. But their overall position collectively having not failed relative to the CoS doesn't count.
You surely can't mean that.
With Dr Hulsey's you know where the column is relative to a fixed point.
With NIST you don't.

Can you at least bring yourself to admit the last 2 sentences there ?
It's obvious.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So let me get this right. You think that their position relative to each other counts. But their overall position collectively having not failed relative to the CoS doesn't count.
You surely can't mean that.
With Dr Hulsey's you know where the column is relative to a fixed point.
With NIST you don't.

Can you at least bring yourself to admit the last 2 sentences there ?
It's obvious.

What does it matter where things are relative to a fixed point? In what way does that affect anything? Please give a specific example that does not involve calculating a relative displacement.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
do you agree that we know where ALL the C79 elements are in Dr Hulsey's model relative to the CoS,
I just want to clarify again Gerry, that is one moment in time, as far as we can tell. where was this "CoS" at 3pm? at 2pm? at 5pm? at 4pm.? at 4:30pm?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Accuracy.

Proves UAF is more accurate. They did it right.

Accuracy? There no more accuracy, it's just adding or subtracting a vector.

NIST has a 3D model, right? It has the positions of all the parts. They run a simulation, the parts move. They are in new positions. These are numbers, stored in the computer, right? Probable 3D vectors of double precision floats, relative to some fixed origin, like in the ground at the center of the building (or floor).

So from that you can calculate the relative change in positions of nodes on parts, like C79 and A3001. If that relative displacement is more than a certain amount in a certain direction, then the connection fails.

You could also calculate the motion of all the nodes relative to a non-moving point simply by subtracting the start positions from the end positions. That given you their global displacement.

If you want to find their displacements relative to some other point, like the CoG or CoS or some other centroid, then you just subtract the global movement of that point.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Accuracy.

Proves UAF is more accurate. They did it right.

I don't need an example. We have the 2 analysis there.

ADD - In fact, I think my point has been made sufficiently. We can move on.

You haven't made any point. "Accuracy" is not an answer to Mick's question. Do you think that the distance from column 79 to Hulsey's claimed center of stiffness could not be calculated at any given time in NIST's much more detailed model? Of course NIST calculated that distance inherently by running its model and could have stated it if there was any reason to. (In fact, NIST, unlike Hulsey, could have told you that distance on any of the first 16 floors of the building at any time during an actual fire simulation.) NIST didn't state that measurement in its report, however, because NIST understood the actual issue it was evaluating and the distance of column 79 to the Hulsey's calculated center of stiffness was no more relevant to analyzing that issue than was the distance from column 79 to the empire state building. Simply stating an irrelevant measurement in the context of a false comparison does not make Hulsey's model more accurate; it just makes it look like Hulsey had no idea what he was doing.
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I don't know, but A) it's in the model, and B) it does not matter. The important number is the relative displace of end of the girder on the seat.
It doesn't have the positions of ALL the parts then, does it ? Because you "don't know" where the C79 is.
I don't see why you can't just admit that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It doesn't have the positions of ALL the parts then, does it ? Because you "don't know" where the C79 is.
I don't see why you can't just admit that.

I personally do not know where C79 is in the NIST model.

However that information is IN the NIST model.

And it is irrelevant to to the connection failure, because you need the relative position of the connected parts, not just the absolute position of one of them.

This is getting tiresome. You are repeating the same thing over and over again, making me say the same thing in different ways. Unless you make an actual point then I'm going to put a stop to it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It doesn't have the positions of ALL the parts then, does it ?
you're not making sense. it's a computer model of a building. comprised of parts. that move. of course, it has the positions of ALL the parts (except the stiffener and a few shear stags etc).


This discussion is becoming extremely circular.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
you're not making sense. it's a computer model of a building. comprised of parts. that move. of course, it has the positions of ALL the parts (except the stiffener and a few shear stags etc).


This discussion is becoming extremely circular.
I agree it is becoming circular yes. And as I said, I am happy with my point made.
"where's column 79" - "I don't know"
 

Oystein

Senior Member
As far as I can see it is a model OUTPUT.
Then your wording was really wrong: The girder is free to move, it just just doesn't.

Why would anyone want to prevent movement in a particular direction/axis in a FEA for any element ?

you would object to that right ?
Make a specific claim. I know what you are snarkily alluding to, but your question is based on a premise that is probably FALSE, at the very least you have not shown it to be true.
So make the claim, and present evidence to show it's true. You will find that you have no such evidence.
But don't do it here, for this is not the thread to discuss NIST's model! And this element that you are snarkily alluding to apparently has no counterpart in Hulsey's model, nor does he seem to mention it!
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
It doesn't have the positions of ALL the parts then, does it ? Because you "don't know" where the C79 is.
I don't see why you can't just admit that.

Where was column 80 relative to the center of stiffness on floor 13 in Hulsey's model at the end of his simulation? Do you know? What's the implication of you not knowing? Where was column 79 relative to the center of stiffness on floor 13 in Hulsey's model 2 hours earlier in his simulation? Do you know? What's the implication of you not knowing?

If Mick knew exactly where column 79 was in NIST's simulation relative to Hulsey's calculated center of stiffness, what would that change? Knowing that value wouldn't change NIST's model or results. It also wouldn't make Hulsey's false comparison to NIST's results any more sensible.

Bonus Questions:
Where was column 79 relative to the center of stiffness on floor 11 in Hulsey's model? Oh, that's right, no one knows because he didn't model that floor or any floors below it in his damage analysis.

Where was column 79 relative to the center of stiffness on floor 14 in Hulsey's model? Oh, that's right, no one knows because he didn't model that floor or any floors above it in his damage analysis.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I agree it is becoming circular yes. And as I said, I am happy with my point made.
"where's column 79" - "I don't know"

Where is it on Hulsey's model? You don't know because you don't know how much the CoS moved.

And if the center of stiffness never moves, then what's the point of expressing movement relative to it? That's just absolute movement.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Last post for tonight - just a summary of points I wish everyone would understand:

1. All orthogonal coordinate systems are equivalent. None is more accurate than any other. Some are more practically useful for a given task due to their reducing computational complexity.

2. The Center of Stiffness is a concept that is dealing with the torsion a structure exhibits when its Center of Mass experiences a lateral force, e.g. wind or a seismic event. It is a point about which a rigid plane rotates once you subtract the translations.
2a. Hulsey's model and presentation do not look at any torsion that any WTC7 floor experiences. Therefore, Center of Stiffness is irrelevant in our current context.
2b. The CoS changes within the floor plane as well as relative to the fixed ground over time as the structure heats, deforms, and elements change their elastic modulus due to heating. It is thus a poor choice as origin for Hulsey's coordinate system: Any displacement of an element in that system might capture the motion of the CoS, not of the element.

3. Hulsey really says that, as the structure is heated and it expands, a Center of Thermal Expansion emerges, which he locates vaguely in the region where he observes the least lateral movement. This is something that his model is actually concerned with, and so this is what he actually means, even when he switched to the term "center of stiffness".
3a. However, I do not believe that "the point that does not move relative to the fixed ground" is the same as CoTE. So you can't identify the CoTE by this property.
3b. As a corrolary, I am totally convinced (and betting a 20-pack of beer) that Hulsey's actual coordinate system for slides 77ff is locked to the ground. Any and all talk of these centroids is thus technobabble, irrelevant, perhaps designed to confuse and bamboozle.

4. The structure of the NIST models - it's not understood by Hulsey, and not understood by his fans.
Chapter 8: Some preliminary models to find parameters, areas to look more closely into, get a feel for how the structure might behave. The lessons-learned flow into the following chapters, not the models themselves!
Chapter 9: Fire model - how fire moves around the floors, consumes fuel, releases heat accordingly, and spreads hot gas. The output of this Chapter is the input for Chapter 10.
Chapter 10: The heat distribution through time from Chapter 9 is taken as input and a model computes how the structural elements - steel and concrete - heat up and cool down over time, individually element by element, and within elements. The output of this Chapter is the input for Chapter 11.
Chapter 11: The 16-story ANSYS model: It is pinned to the ground, pinned to the floor above (the 17th?), and otherwise modelled completely. Only within a region in the east of the building does NIST model connections such that they are susceptible to various failure modes developed in Chapter 8. Outside that area, the model is of course complete and flexible and responds to heat and gravity and changing loads, the only thing is that connections cannot fail. It is difficult to see why this should be a problem to Hulsey, who confirms that no connections fail. Anyway, Chapter 11 takes the element temperature histories over several hours from Chapter 10 as input. Its output is information of which connections HAVE failed due to heat-induced stresses. The output of this Chapter is the input for Chapter 12.
Chapter 12: Full 47-story LS-DYNA model. This model is initiated with the accumulated damage from Chapter 11, the heat pattern from Chapter 10 after 4 hours for Case B fires, two or three different scenarios of structural damage from the WTC1 collapse, and gravity. Note: At the time the LS-DYNA simulation actually starts, all damage from heating has already occurred! (This means: Immediately upon starting the sim run, all beams and girders not vertically supported start falling from where they had been connected). This model needs not take heating histories into account, because it only models the rapid collapse phase - 18 seconds or so - during which no element is expected to cool or heat significantly! This model then computes how the dynanic impacts of rapidly moving members affect other members that may be weakened by heat or damage accumulated in the ANSYS model.​

I hope that helps.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
4. The structure of the NIST models - it's not understood by Hulsey, and not understood by his fans.
Chapter 8: Some preliminary models to find parameters, areas to look more closely into, get a feel for how the structure might behave. The lessons-learned flow into the following chapters, not the models themselves!
Chapter 9: Fire model - how fire moves around the floors, consumes fuel, releases heat accordingly, and spreads hot gas. The output of this Chapter is the input for Chapter 10.
Chapter 10: The heat distribution through time from Chapter 9 is taken as input and a model computes how the structural elements - steel and concrete - heat up and cool down over time, individually element by element, and within elements. The output of this Chapter is the input for Chapter 11.
Chapter 11: The 16-story ANSYS model: It is pinned to the ground, pinned to the floor above (the 17th?), and otherwise modelled completely. Only within a region in the east of the building does NIST model connections such that they are susceptible to various failure modes developed in Chapter 8. Outside that area, the model is of course complete and flexible and responds to heat and gravity and changing loads, the only thing is that connections cannot fail. It is difficult to see why this should be a problem to Hulsey, who confirms that no connections fail. Anyway, Chapter 11 takes the element temperature histories over several hours from Chapter 10 as input. Its output is information of which connections HAVE failed due to heat-induced stresses. The output of this Chapter is the input for Chapter 12.
Chapter 12: Full 47-story LS-DYNA model. This model is initiated with the accumulated damage from Chapter 11, the heat pattern from Chapter 10 after 4 hours for Case B fires, two or three different scenarios of structural damage from the WTC1 collapse, and gravity. Note: At the time the LS-DYNA simulation actually starts, all damage from heating has already occurred! (This means: Immediately upon starting the sim run, all beams and girders not vertically supported start falling from where they had been connected). This model needs not take heating histories into account, because it only models the rapid collapse phase - 18 seconds or so - during which no element is expected to cool or heat significantly! This model then computes how the dynanic impacts of rapidly moving members affect other members that may be weakened by heat or damage accumulated in the ANSYS model.​
The real techno-babble is what you are mentioning here. They can't even get girder A2001 past the side plates on column 79 (which only allows the girder to travel about 3.6 inches and it needs about 6.3 to have the web past the seat). And if the side plates weren't there, then the girder stiffeners they left off would have precluded failure. It is hard to understand how you expect us to listen to all of this as though there is still any credibility. C'mon.
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
The real techno-babble is what you are mentioning here. They can't even get girder A2001 past the side plates on column 79 (which only allows the girder to travel about 3.6 inches and it needs about 6.3 to have the web past the seat). And if the side plates weren't there, then the girder stiffeners they left off would have precluded failure. It is hard to understand how you expect us to listen to all of this as though there is still any credibility. C'mon.

Have any more bare assertions you'd like to sell us on today? After all the distractions from gerrycan re Hulsey's indefensible false comparison, it still stands that, among other glaring issues, Hulsey's model did not properly model the fire progression and did not model all involved floors. And it may turn out, as his false comparison seems to imply, that he didn't even model connection failures correctly at all as between discrete elements. Hulsey has proven only that he has a lot more work to do to develop a model that is actually worth paying attention to at all. If you talk to him, tell him to actually read and think about the NIST report and stay away from plagiarizing conspiracy theory blogs going forward. It sounds like he only planned on working on the global model from here, but there is a lot of work needed on his damage model first. It's becoming clear why he planned to stack the deck with a peer review panel as opposed to submitting his work to a reputable journal (such as JSE).
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Have any more bare assertions you'd like to sell us on today? After all the distractions from gerrycan re Hulsey's indefensible false comparison, it still stands that, among other glaring issues, Hulsey's model did not properly model the fire progression and did not model all involved floors. And it may turn out, as his false comparison seems to imply, that he didn't even model connection failures correctly at all as between discrete elements. Hulsey has proven only that he has a lot more work to do to develop a model that is actually worth paying attention to at all. If you talk to him, tell him to actually read and think about the NIST report and stay away from plagiarizing conspiracy theory blogs going forward. It sounds like he only planned on working on the global model from here, but there is a lot of work needed on his damage model first. It's becoming clear why he planned to stack the deck with a peer review panel as opposed to submitting his work to a reputable journal (such as JSE).
I stand by my point, which you helped me make.
NIST did not specify exactly where C79 ended up. Dr. Hulsey did.
You actually said that they did not specify how far East it moved yourself. That is way less accurate than this study.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I stand by my point, which you helped me make.
NIST did not specify exactly where C79 ended up. Dr. Hulsey did.
You actually said that they did not specify how far East it moved yourself. That is way less accurate than this study.

It has nothing to do with accuracy. Stating some arbitrary measurement does not make the underlying calculation that produced such measure more accurate or even accurate. NIST didn't state that number because it is irrelevant to the actual issue it was evaluating. This shows NIST understood the issue it was evaluating. Hulsey, in contrast, stated that number in a false comparison to NIST's measurement of the displacement of the south end of A2001 relative to the bearing seat of column 79. Why did Hulsey do so? Who knows, but it doesn't make any sense and it certainly doesn't make his underlying calculations any more accurate. What we know makes his underlying calculations less accurate, in any event, is that he failed to model an actual fire progression or any fire damage outside of small areas on 2 floors.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It has nothing to do with accuracy. Stating some arbitrary measurement does not make the underlying calculation that produced such measure more accurate or even accurate. NIST didn't state that number because it is irrelevant to the actual issue it was evaluating. This shows NIST understood the issue it was evaluating. Hulsey, in contrast, stated that number in a false comparison to NIST's measurement of the displacement of the south end of A2001 relative to the bearing seat of column 79. Why did Hulsey do so? Who knows, but it doesn't make any sense and it certainly doesn't make his underlying calculations any more accurate. What we know makes his underlying calculations less accurate, in any event, is that he failed to model an actual fire progression or any fire damage outside of small areas on 2 floors.
Dr Hulsey stated where the elements ended up in his analysis.
He contrasted that with where the elements ended up in NIST's analysis.
What exactly is your objection again ?
 
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
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
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 151
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 32
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 16
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 66
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 9/11 242
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
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top