AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think this is great. But might I ask you attemept to put your arguments to Gerrycan in a similar way? It seems you are clear there is nothing so hard to grasp about relative motion, so why are you making out that this is such a big thing and has bearing upon Hulsey's claims?

Can you explain it to the layman?

Hulsey says both the girder and the column move together. So they don't have any relative motion. He says they both move about 2" away from (approximately) the center of the building.

NIST says the girder moves 6.25" relative to the column, and so it fails. They don't say how much either the girder or the column moves away from the center of the building.

Hulsey compares the 6.25" to the 2", but that's the wrong comparison. Since he's saying the girder does not move relative to the column, then the comparison should be 6.25" to 0"

This is significant, because he also seems to have 0" EVERYWHERE, and nobody really thinks that there's zero relative movement between connected parts anywhere in the building.

So his comparison is wrong, and his general finding of 0" is highly suspect.

James Ice

New Member
I like as an example.. you are walking on moving walkway at the airport, holding hands with your 3 year old. he let's go of your hand and runs 3 feet in front of you. Did he move 3 feet?

He moved 3 feet in relation to you. But because he and you are on a moving walkway, he probably moved 4 to 5 feet relative to his actual position in the airport.

I confess I don't know quite what you mean, but it's nice to see on this occasion you feel that attempting to elucidate is not necessariluy off topic, and good for all that you didn't delete your post the moment after it was posted.

James Ice

New Member
Hulsey says both the girder and the column move together. So they don't have any relative motion. He says they both move about 2" away from (approximately) the center of the building.

NIST says the girder moves 6.25" relative to the column, and so it fails. They don't say how much either the girder or the column moves away from the center of the building.

Hulsey compares the 6.25" to the 2", but that's the wrong comparison. Since he's saying the girder does not move relative to the column, then the comparison should be 6.25" to 0"

This is significant, because he also seems to have 0" EVERYWHERE, and nobody really thinks that there's zero relative movement between connected parts anywhere in the building.

So his comparison is wrong, and his general finding of 0" is highly suspect.

OK, thanks for putting it simply.

I think I see where you are going wrong. As you say, the two inches thing Hulsey is on about is movement from the ‘centre’ of the building. The zero inches thing is the relative distance between the points where the girder and the column connect.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think I see where you are going wrong. As you say, the two inches thing Hulsey is on about is movement from the ‘centre’ of the building. The zero inches thing is the relative distance between the points where the girder and the column connect.
I agree, so where am I going wrong?

James Ice

New Member
I agree, so where am I going wrong?

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't see what the objection is. Hulsey is saying the building expanded as whole, but the girder and the column stayed together, because they were fixed together.

So it seems to me the misunderstanding is that we can claim Hulsey is having it both ways - saying there is thermal expansion, and movement, but at the same time saying there is no movement.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't see what the objection is. Hulsey is saying the building expanded as whole, but the girder and the column stayed together, because they were fixed together.

So it seems to me the misunderstanding is that we can claim Hulsey is having it both ways - saying there is thermal expansion, and movement, but at the same time saying there is no movement.

The objection is:

A) Hulsey compares 6.25" to 2", instead of to 0"
B) It is unrealistic to get 0" everywhere

deirdre

Senior Member.
The objection is:
I would personally also add that Hulsey several time stresses "east, not west" (around 55 min mark in current presentation)

55:24 "we have a movement of that section right there. of almost 2 inches. but not west. it went east. totally different.
The floor moved east at column 79. not west.
55:39 and by the way, they moved together. They didnt move separately.
Content from External Source
to me, implying that NIST is saying the column and floor moved west. but NIST doesn't say that.

Oystein

Senior Member
...
to me, implying that NIST is saying the column and floor moved west. but NIST doesn't say that.
And as a matter of fact, NIST does say column 79 is pushed east, at least on floor 12 (benthamitemetric showed this a few pages ago), so it seems reasonable to assume it also moved east on floor 13, given that it had lost its lateral bracing to the east.
NIST doesn't say by how far column 79 was pushed east by the time girder walk-off was observed, but that is not of interest anyway.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wayne Coste, founder and - I believe - leader of "9/11 Truth Action Project", has written a lengthy article on Hulsey's presentation, including a full transcript. I haven't checked if the transcript is accurate and complete, but expect Coste to do a useful job about it:

https://www.911tap.org/557-news-rel...y-s-interim-report-undercuts-nist-wtc-7-study

Fails to spot Hulsey's conflation of absolute and relative motion here here:
Slides 77 to 81 show, the movement of floors 12 and 13 in respect to the thermal centroids. Professor Hulsey states, “So notice that our results in the SAP2000 model [shows] column 79 [moving] 1.92 inches to the right and; 1.85 inches to the right in the ABAQUS model. We did [the analysis in] two different ways and got very close answers. NIST said the movement was 5.5 inches to the left; which they revised to 6.2 inches to the left.” NIST's key assumption was completely undercut.
Content from External Source

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some intereting perspective from someone who claims to know Hulsey and one of the students.

fathairybeast 2 points 14 days ago

Hmmm, I can ask them about it. It wouldn't be for a few days though, I won't see either the professor or the researcher for a few days at least. I'll ask them if there are any updates. In the meantime, let me just explain the current situation:

The project has essentially been completed insofar as they've completed their part of the agreement with 9/11 architects and engineers for truth (sorry if I murdered the proper title). However, the PhD student (sure not sure I should say his name, even though there's only two of them and he's the primary mapper) is still mapping and fleshing out the system - trying to find any loose ends they missed or further leads to investigate. That said, I think the bulk of the updates have already been provided, I don't think you'll find much more. Keep in mind, this was all going on last fall and spring, the conclusion linked was officially pronounced some 6 months ago or so, this is old hat.

Still, as I said, my buddy is still working in SAP2000, pecking away at his virtual model, attempting to gain an intimate knowledge of the whole system - Note: I think he's using SAP2000 but I haven't asked about the program in some months, it might be RISA. So he may have some new insights. If he does, I'll find an appropriate place in this sub to post it.

....

fathairybeast 2 points 14 days ago

It sounds like I haven't asked enough questions. I was taking a course from Hulsey when he gave the big unveiling: a webinar to some 2000 people or so defining their primary conclusion. I assumed that was the end-all to the project. A lot of what you said is new to me and I plan to do a little questioning when I get back to campus tomorrow.

Hulsey gave my class a very terse overview. He mapped out the column in question (the column which, according to the NIST, was the proverbial straw), and he told us their basic conclusion. He invited us to the speech you can find on the web (the one in a classroom with what are clearly students present) - i regret not going, most of the kids in that room were my classmates.

His PhD student told me that the NIST claims that thermodynamic expansion blew a load-bearing column out of alignment and that destabilized the structure which then lead to a total failure of the structure. Common sense can tell you that theory is bullshit... a lot more structural resistance would have occurred than the literal free-fall seen in the videos of the actual event. His student told me there was no way, not even under unlikely but conceivable circumstances, that the theory holds up.

For the layperson, thermodynamic expansion is the sudden expansion of, say, expanding gasses (e.g., an explosion). The student created a model where the column in question was removed completely and the structure held strong. That's not surprising because Factors of Safety essentially build redundancies into ANY stamped plans. In other words, you would need a lot more to bring that building down. The last I spoke with the student, he told me he was trying to find breaking point situations - what IS needed to destabilize the structure enough to bring it down. The way I interpret that is this: he was attempting to remove enough structural members to find the line which need be crossed in order to compromise the integrity of the building.
Content from External Source
So it really does not seem like they are really finished their brief, which was (in part) to demonstrate how explosives could have brought the building down.

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The so called "straw" whatever and wherever it is has to begin a cascade of failures in order for the entire structure to collapse. We saw it didn't collapse in an instant.. It began with the EPH collapsing and the whole thing was something like 20 seconds or so and included the collapse of the screen wall portion then the WPH and finally the facade moment frame descends. There was PROGRESSION... SEQUENCE and a CASCADE of failures over TIME.

Even if the girder was "first" to become disengaged... that would likely have to lead to loss of axial support for floors which crashed down and took out the transfers below and with them displaced and destroyed the columns beneath the EPH... and so on.

Oystein

Senior Member
Just a reminder:
The project website http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ has been saying since late August that a "draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017", while an AE911Truth Newsletter dated Aug 24, 2017 optimistically stated that "a draft report of the study is now on course to be issued in mid-October".

Mid-October passed three weeks ago, while it is still November.

Waiting.......................

Oystein

Senior Member
Just a reminder:
The project website http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ has been saying since late August that a "draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017", while an AE911Truth Newsletter dated Aug 24, 2017 optimistically stated that "a draft report of the study is now on course to be issued in mid-October".

Mid-October passed three weeks ago, while it is still November.

Waiting.......................
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project homepage has changed that text - it now reads:
WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent study. A draft report will be released in the fall of 2017 along with all data related to the study, and there will be a six-week public comment period.
Content from External Source
When does "fall 2017" end in Anchorage?

I think they changed the wording to erase the embarrassment that all of October and most of November have passed with no draft report. Next, I guess they'll scratch "fall" to grab another month.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project homepage has changed that text - it now reads:
WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent study. A draft report will be released in the fall of 2017 along with all data related to the study, and there will be a six-week public comment period.
Content from External Source
When does "fall 2017" end in Anchorage?

I think they changed the wording to erase the embarrassment that all of October and most of November have passed with no draft report. Next, I guess they'll scratch "fall" to grab another month.

That's not a change, it said both things back in september

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
We are into December now. I wonder why the delay?

John85

Member
I expect Hulsey is simply cramming all the final tasks in as fast as possible to get the project finished. Ask the same question about the length of time it took NIST to report.

Oystein

Senior Member
I expect Hulsey is simply cramming all the final tasks in as fast as possible to get the project finished. Ask the same question about the length of time it took NIST to report.
This is silly.

Hulsey has decades of experience finishing reports and writing papers. The idea communicated in early September was that he'd be done by mid-October, and just to be safe, they said "fall", or "October or November". This soon before the due date, he should have had a clear idea how long it would take.

Having said that, I am not terribly worried about the delay. I'd like to know why there is a delay, but more interesting is the draft itself. More interesting is also why Truthers aren't asking where the draft is! I see no comment on AE911T's Facebook, nothing at 9/11 Blogger, nothing on any of the other blogs I follow.

John85

Member
Having said that, I am not terribly worried about the delay. I'd like to know why there is a delay, but more interesting is the draft itself. More interesting is also why Truthers aren't asking where the draft is! I see no comment on AE911T's Facebook, nothing at 9/11 Blogger, nothing on any of the other blogs I follow.

I'm not worried either, and also looking forward to the draft, as well as media interest. Particularly important will be skeptics' engagement and criticism. I hope people on here put forward their questions.

Tomi

Member
Hi Johny,
The media weren't very interested in the Arup report or the Weidlinger report although the latter won the ASCE grand prize. From what I have seen the Hulsey report is a lot less scientific.

So I suspect the media interest will be more a reflection of the hype that Ae911truth can jazz up rather than its scientific worth. A bit like Donald Trump's tweets

John85

Member
The media should be, quite clearly. If NIST's account is wrong and the building didn't collapse from fire, the political implications are wide-reaching. An engineering professor of good reputation is putting his neck on the line to say the official explanation is wrong. There's little to gain if he's doing so insincerely - he'll come in for ridicule and scorn, people will say he's unpatriotic, that he's betraying the memory of those who were killed on 9/11, that he's an apologist for terror. He isn't pocketing the \$300k project budget for himself either (assuming that were his price, anyway). He has done the study because he sincerely believes that the account of WTC 7's collapse is wrong. It's uncomfortable to consider, but we've had the Piazza Fontana massacre, Watergate, Iran-Contra, nonexistent WMDs, unconstitutional data collection; we've possibly even had Russian collusion. Make use of the stated openness of the study and put your questions to him when the report is released.

Oystein

Senior Member
The media should be, quite clearly. If NIST's account is wrong and the building didn't collapse from fire, the political implications are wide-reaching. An engineering professor of good reputation is putting his neck on the line to say the official explanation is wrong.
From the point of view of the media, this study should rightfully remain far below their radar until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal of major repute and has captured the interest of the relevant scientific community - both will not happen. This is a minor effort by an obscure professor at an average institute pushing a fringe opinion - no media outlet with a sense of quality should take notice.

There's little to gain if he's doing so insincerely - he'll come in for ridicule and scorn, people will say he's unpatriotic, that he's betraying the memory of those who were killed on 9/11, that he's an apologist for terror. He isn't pocketing the \$300k project budget for himself either (assuming that were his price, anyway). He has done the study because he sincerely believes that the account of WTC 7's collapse is wrong.
You are prematurely lining up a bunch of strawmen. Since neither any relevant media nor the relevant professions or academics will take serious notice, he will not suffer any such ridicule from those relevant stakeholders. He will of course suffer some sort of ridicule from us, the weird fringe of hobbyists who are indeed interests, but for none of the reasons you invent, but for simply being wrong. Hulsey may be 100% sincere, he is still wrong.

He has demonstrated already that he formed a preconceived, invalid conclusion long before doing the actual study based on a faulty, or absent, understanding of what NIST did. His interim presentation contains a number of weaknesses and errors that should prevent any competent peer-review board from publishing this crap. Your best hope may be that Hulsey was made aware of the weaknesses we found, and that the delay is due to him trying to make amends.

It's uncomfortable to consider, but we've had the Piazza Fontana massacre, Watergate, Iran-Contra, nonexistent WMDs, unconstitutional data collection; we've possibly even had Russian collusion.
And?
Lots of crimes have been perpetrated by lots of people. That alone doesn't make the next accusation credible. I could accuse you of any crime I could pick citing many cases of that crime having happened before - would that justify investigating you, or even featuring you as a suspect in the media? Just so? Obviously not. I don't understand this resort to whataboutism.

Make use of the stated openness of the study and put your questions to him when the report is released.
That stated openness was a promise made years ago and broken for years, and now they are silent on why the draft is overdue. I am baffled that you would still bring this promised but non-existent openness up on the positive side of issue!

NoParty

Senior Member.
He has done the study because he sincerely believes that the account of WTC 7's collapse is wrong.
Which is really the foundation of science isn't it?
Have a sincere belief that x is true. Then conduct an objective investigation that concludes that x is true.

John85

Member
Which is really the foundation of science isn't it?
Have a sincere belief that x is true. Then conduct an objective investigation that concludes that x is true.

Hulsey's project is delayed because he not only looked at whether the column in question would have failed, having corrected NIST's inputs, he also looked at the most obvious alternative hypothesis - controlled demolition. It looked like a controlled demolition, and for it to have happened by fire would indeed have been exceptional, as NIST admits. Science starts with common sense, and its foundation is observation and evidence. NIST on the other hand spent 7 years trying to support a politically-motivated conclusion.

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Hulsey's project is delayed because he not only looked at whether the column in question would have failed, having corrected NIST's inputs, he also looked at the most obvious alternative hypothesis - controlled demolition. It looked like a controlled demolition, and for it to have happened by fire would indeed have been exceptional, as NIST admits. Science starts with common sense, and its foundation is observation and evidence. NIST on the other hand spent 7 years trying to support a politically-motivated conclusion.
What evidence can you provide that supports your claim that is why he is delayed? As far as I know the only one talking about the delay is you.

John85

Member
What evidence can you provide that supports your claim that is why he is delayed? As far as I know the only one talking about the delay is you.

I expect it was in his most recent presentation, in September, that Hulsey said what the final bits were that he was still working on. The report will include an assessment of what didn't cause the collapse, as well as what could have done.

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I expect it was in his most recent presentation, in September, that Hulsey said what the final bits were that he was still working on. The report will include an assessment of what didn't cause the collapse, as well as what could have done.
Link to the particular piece that supports your assertion.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I expect it was in his most recent presentation, in September, that Hulsey said what the final bits were that he was still working on. The report will include an assessment of what didn't cause the collapse, as well as what could have done.

This is what he said was next:

At the time the release was slated for oct/nov. There has been no explanation given for the delay.

And while they may welcome input, they have not acknowledged any input.

John85

Member
The above is exactly what I was going to add. At the time of the Sept update, the draft report was not ready. Their next tasks are listed, and given that the draft report is still not ready, we can presume that the outstanding tasks have not yet been finished. Outstanding tasks include modelling what could actually have caused the collapse.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The above is exactly what I was going to add. At the time of the Sept update, the draft report was not ready. Their next tasks are listed, and given that the draft report is still not ready, we can presume that the outstanding tasks have not yet been finished.

So exactly how many seconds would it take to give a status update of that nature? Why just leave the web site hanging?

John85

Member
So exactly how many seconds would it take to give a status update of that nature? Why just leave the web site hanging?

Well yes, the website is behind. Presumably he's spending his time teaching and finishing the project. The previous deadlines have been missed so, frustratingly, it's not surprising that this has been missed too.

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Well yes, the website is behind. Presumably he's spending his time teaching and finishing the project. The previous deadlines have been missed so, frustratingly, it's not surprising that this has been missed too.
How about, "hey, we're working on the last minute calculations and we'll have it out in xxx." That took less than a minute.

John85

Member
How about, "hey, we're working on the last minute calculations and we'll have it out in xxx." That took less than a minute.

Maybe you should do PR for AE911 Truth

deirdre

Senior Member.
Maybe you should do PR for AE911 Truth
It's the University of Alaska, and the researchers specifically, who are responsible.

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Maybe you should do PR for AE911 Truth
This is basic stuff and further evidence that there is nothing there.

NoParty

Senior Member.
...the most obvious alternative hypothesis - controlled demolition.
Boy, I just don't see that as "obvious" at all.
It seems closer to the "most far-fetched" theory one could possibly spin and then try to prop up.

It looked like a controlled demolition...
Again, it didn't look "like a controlled demolition" to me, at all. Even more importantly, it absolutely
sounded nothing like any controlled demolition on record. Why is that "common sense" to be ignored?

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
It looked like a controlled demolition
NIST on the other hand spent 7 years trying to support a politically-motivated conclusion.
As opposed to the 9-11 conspiracy crowd who have been been pushing the same old and debunked many times over 'looks to me like CD so it must be' mantra with nothing solid to really support the claim for the past 16 years?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Replies
245
Views
9K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
58
Views
3K
Replies
73
Views
10K
Replies
183
Views
63K
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
AE911 New Collapse Hypothesis 9/11 245
AE911's Response to Mick West's Iron Microspheres Talk. 9/11 17
Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Why Didn't the WTC Fires Ignite AE911's Supposed "Nanothermite"? 9/11 28
AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Discussion: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 16
Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used! 9/11 62
Debunked: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 10
The 10 tactics of fascism - Truth General Discussion 53
Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 174
TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 24
Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 67
9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds 9/11 245
Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection 9/11 73
Related Articles