James Ice
New Member
So you don't think he's being dishonest, and he isn't trying to fool people with no specialist knowlege.
I wonder do you think he is genuinely mistaken. Do you think you know better than this guy?
Last edited by a moderator:
AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project
- Thread starter Oystein
- Start date
- Status
So you don't think he's being dishonest, and he isn't trying to fool people with no specialist knowlege.
I wonder do you think he is genuinely mistaken. Do you think you know better than this guy?
He's got a bit of experience, but here he's had two graduate students set up a model using software they have not used before. There must be thousands of people more familiar with Abaqus.
James Ice
New Member
I'm sorry Mick, but can I ask you to clear up what you mean by this. You now seem to be saying that while Hulsey had 'a bit of experience', (I guess you deem it so), the other people working on the project were not really up to the task?
No. I'm saying what I said.
Why don't you read Zhili's work diary (that for some reason stopped in 2015)
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Work_Diary_from_Zhili.docx
You can see it's a great voyage of discovery for all three on how the use the software. I do not know if they were up to the task, but certainly there would have been many people better suited to that task. We will learn more if the remainder of the work diaries are released, as promised.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
One potential justification for the different treatment of the exterior walls is that NIST applied a much more precise and exacting fire model than Hulsey that included heating the floors from west to east over time, which means the internal elements would have been far weaker at the time the east-most beams began to expand. How do you know which simplifying choice would induce a greater degree of error into the model? Note that NIST also modeled fires across 16 floors simultaneously, while Hulsey only modeled fires across two floors (and its not clear if he even modeled them simultaneously), and NIST modeled the fire damage on larger sections of those floors than Hulsey. Were the other 14 floors that Hulsey didn't model perfectly rigid? Is Hulsey's report fraudulent for not undertaking as rigorous or expansive a heat analysis as NIST?
It's really a silly game you are playing because you have not yet fully come to appreciate the limits of these models. It of course doesn't help that Hulsey is dishonestly characterizing the certainty and superiority of his model, without spelling out to you its obvious limitations.
And Hulsey did (dismissively) address both the ARUP report and the Weidlinger Associates report in his presentation, but he didn't address the most important aspects of those studies vis-a-vis his stated conclusion that fires could not have caused the collapse (and the aspects that he did address, he did so imperfectly, as I noted above).
As I've noted at length, Hulsey has been, and still is, making a very specific technical claim when says fire could not have caused the collapse, and it is not a claim that has anything to do with whether NIST's model was perfect or not. Hulsey has absolutely, 100% failed to demonstrate he has proved this claim. Instead, he is intentionally conflating the potential identification of errors in the NIST report with having proved this claim. It is an error of logic so fundamental and obvious that it's hard to believe he is making it, and yet there it is. Do you understand his error?
Last edited:
This appears to be a new page:
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
Project Info
Lead Researcher(s)
Project Team
Project Dates
- Dr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral Researcher
- Zhili Quan, Ph.D. student
May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018
Funding
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Project Budget: $316,153
$316K is a chunk of change/ In their 2015 990 they mention the project and said they were committed to raising $214KArchitects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7 and to examine what may have occurred at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. Therefore, the UAF research team evaluated the structural response due to the reported fire. A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.
NoParty
Senior Member.
I also can deliver the expensive April 30, 2018 conclusion,
but I'm prepared to bring it in $100,000 under budget.
Oystein
Senior Member
I had also been under the impression that this was initially planned as a 2-year study, to end April 2017. Along the way they must have asked for more time and more MONEY.
Smart move, Dr. Hulsey
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
After years of reading of these various studies where enormous effort has gone into them... I can't help but think this is mostly a sort of garbage in garbage out problem.... or less severely stated... you get the results based on the assumptions and how much of the system you are analyzing. With respect to 7wtc it seems absurd to focus on a single connection at a single column on one floor when almost the entire building was under stress for hours. Buildings are complex systems and perhaps not that difficult to model in a static situation of merely gravity. But given what these buildings were up against and what can be observed without multiple transducers placed throughout the structure... these analysis seem self serving. It's a reductionism on steroids as it were.
It sure looks like Hulsey was tasked to dis prove NIST's thesis of a fire / heat cause of collapse. This appearance makes it almost impossible to even consider his results as meaningful.
It sure looks like Hulsey was tasked to dis prove NIST's thesis of a fire / heat cause of collapse. This appearance makes it almost impossible to even consider his results as meaningful.
Too many unknown variables to model it precisely.
Enough known variables to attribute it to fire instead of thermite or silent explosions.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
I think ALL these attempted proofs including NIST's are silly... there is no proof because these are too many assumptions and not even hard real data.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The last recourse in the maintenance of a cover-up, when its claims are accurately shown to be invalid, is to say "things are too complicated and we can never know".
This was done in the case of the Kennedy Assassination.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
I said there is no PROOF which is what people have been debating about and writing papers about... These were extremely complex events taking place in complex systems. The preponderance of evidence that is not in dispute leads to a NON CD explanation. NIST came up with what was touted as a possible fire explanation and they used made up assumptions for col 79 flr 13. It convinced some people... but not others.
Would you be happy with a random "proof" that demonstrated fire could lead to the collapse made from another set of assumptions? Probably not because the truther position is that a steel frame building cannot collapse from a fire cause. If so... go PROVE the CD case...
deirdre
Senior Member.
Husley discredited himself (and gave me a bridge phobia) by exclaiming [paraphrase:'proof fire didn't cause the building collapse']. Regardless of whether NIST is right about that one specific thing*, looking at one girder does not = 'not fire'.
He should have left that out of his presentation.
And UAF has a Computer Science Department, why didn't Husley get one of the computer geeks on his team to help with the software? 316,000$! dang.
* I still don't see a lip on that column as Husley claims.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
There are most definitely side plates on column 79 which protrude about 1.8 inches from each side and form what you call a lip. Let's go right to the drawing for it (Frankel 9114), which I have attached. Column 79's connection to girder A2001 is on the far left.
This drawing also shows the partial height web stiffeners on girder A2001, which the NIST WTC 7 report leaves off, which would have prevented the girder flange from folding upward had the web went beyond the bearing seat.
Last edited by a moderator:
deirdre
Senior Member.
so in this pic.. the lip is camouflaged by the fireproofing spray?
but your document is very helpful, thankyou. I think it shows that husley is wrong. in point A we see the girder is not straight into the column at all. It is resting on a plate.
and point B shows there is a backer plate spanning over the lips. So Husley's premise that a moving girder would get stuck on the lip is wrong, from what I can see.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Tony please explain how these small web stiffener worked. Web stiffeners that I am familiar with reach from flange to flange and are usually placed where there is a large concentrated load. This stiffener is not performing that function here is it?
https://www.buildingsguide.com/calculators/structural/SBWSA/
https://www.buildingsguide.com/calculators/structural/SBWSA/
Last edited:
I think Hulsey partly wasted his time and other people's money by making a review of the NIST report far too long after the facts.
I would have hoped he had a solid theory about how he thought how WTC 7 came down, supported with evidence.
Constructive research instead of destructive research. (where constructive means making your own report and destructive means criticizing some one else their report)
@Tony Szamboti, do you think that Hulsey's study has proved that WTC7 could not have collapsed by fire?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Of course it is performing the function you mention in that the girder is seated over a narrow 2" wide x 14" deep support plate below the seat. It keeps the web from suffering from local buckling due to a load concentration.
However, the stiffeners also tremendously strengthen the flange against bending by about 80 times. The flange of girder A2001 at column 79 could not have folded the way the NIST WTC 7 report claims if the web stiffeners shown on the drawing had been in place in their analysis model.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
I am not interested in what NIST claimed. Thank you.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The girder will get trapped by the column side plate when it is heated with the beams and pushed by them. There is no way around it.so in this pic.. the lip is camouflaged by the fireproofing spray?
but your document is very helpful, thankyou. I think it shows that husley is wrong. in point A we see the girder is not straight into the column at all. It is resting on a plate.
and point B shows there is a backer plate spanning over the lips. So Husley's premise that a moving girder would get stuck on the lip is wrong, from what I can see.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
It depends on the sequence of the heating and many other parameters, as you well know. Also, as you know, ARUP demonstrated, and WAI confirmed, that the girders around column 79 could also become unseated in the cooling phase of the building. So it doesn't take much imagination or knowledge to realize there are, in fact, many ways around that specific girder trapping scenario.
Did Hulsey even model NIST's exact heating scenario on the only two floors he did model?
And feel free to answer Mick's question any time:
Should be an easy yes or no question. I haven't seen anyone actually defend Hulsey's affirmative answer (because its indefensible), but it'd be helpful for other would-be truthers if you could add more clarity on this.
Last edited:
I would also like to see other more technical members of the 9/11 Truth community weigh in on this precise point. The study is being promoted on Facebook as if it proved that WTC7 could not have collapsed fire. But is anyone actually willing to either clarify or defend this seemingly false characterization. @gerrycan? @Tony Szamboti?
The question is not if you personally think that WTC7 could not have collapsed by fire, but rather if you think that Hulsey has proved this, and if so, how?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
ARUP has a fatal flaw in that it cannot break through the next floor down. NIST has this flaw also. Weidlinger shouldn't even be discussed until they justify the steel temperature extremes they claim and in addition to that show how they could occur simultaneously on two floors which are next to each other vertically.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, I am not going to play semantics with you. I think Leroy Hulsey has shown the NIST WTC 7 report is invalid and that we don't have a legitimate answer for how it collapsed.
I think you now need to show support for a new investigation into just how it did collapse.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
WAI explicitly corrected for Nordenson's floor failure miscalculation (ARUP did not model the floor collapse propagation) and still found the floor collapses propagated. NIST also separately modeled the floor collapses and found they propagated. I guess the flaw wasn't fatal after all. And those floor collapse propagation calculations have nothing to do with the initial girder failure considerations. Why are you arguing that we should ignore the former in light of the latter? It makes no sense, even if there weren't extant propagation collapse models that demonstrate it can occur (which there are). Can you even bring yourself to admit it has been demonstrated reasonably well that the girders around column 79 could be unseated in certain fire scenarios (including scenarios Hulsey has not even tested)? It's obviously true.
You also ignored my point about the sequence of heating and my question about whether Hulsey even tested NIST's exact heating scenario (we both know he didn't, but only one of us is willing to state it).
Why can't you just be honest about the exact basis on which you are requesting a new collapse investigation? Is it because you realize that basis is far less compelling if you just tell the truth about what Hulsey has actually demonstrated to date (i.e., not much)? This isn't just a semantic point. Why is Hulsey intentionally overstating his conclusions in a manner that is at odds with reality and basic logic?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Your sequence of heating point is not legitimate. You seem to be trying to inject something in the argument that has no significance but sounds good. Maybe you actually think it does, but there is no chance the beams could be hot without the girder also being so.
You are also wrong about the propagation. Neither NIST or ARUP could get there and Weidlinger also pointed this out about ARUP. If ARUP's analysis is ultimately flawed later then it needs to be discarded regardless of what it said earlier. In addition, the ARUP girder unseating is to the opposite side from NIST's. The NIST unseating scenario is impossible and proves their claim to be impossible.
Weidlinger did not exhonerate ARUP floor propagation. It excoriated ARUP for it. Weidlinger then claimed a different location with extreme heating on two floors caused collapse propagation but it can't justify its steel temperatures.
I think you would be the one with the honesty problem. I know you are a lawyer and you are certainly acting like it by trying to twist words and picking on insignificant points.
The bottom line is we do not have a legitimate explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 and none of your lawyerly exhortations can change that. A new investigation is required. Goodbye. I don't have the time for this type of nonsense.
Last edited:
If Hulsey had in fact proved that it could not have collapsed by fire then I would agree with you. The problem here is precisely that though, people are going to THINK that Hulsey proved that, because AE911 are basically saying that:
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/10154832293711269/
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth...59185411268/10154834611906269/?type=3&theater
I don't see them correcting this anywhere. Call it semantics if you like, but I think this is disingenuous.
Hulsey's model might be better than NIST's in some aspects like the macro models for some connections. It might contain errors. It might be flawed at the micro level or at the macro, or both. It's certainly glossing over a number of uncertainties - most significantly the actual fire behaviour, the debris damage, and differences in the field construction and modifications vs. the drawings. It absolutely does not prove that collapse from fire was impossible. AE911 tacitly agrees with the Daily Mail headline above, and that's pure spin.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
You don't think the application of the most important independent variable is important? Interesting. Last time I checked, we were talking about models that respond to changes in temperature, so I would think it would be important to establish what temperatures each part of each model was at any given time. You cannot assert your way out of the fact that the sequence in which the temperatures are applied to the model is of course going to effect the performance of the modeled elements. It's why NIST ran several different heating models and each time the results were *drum roll* different!
Re collapse propagation, again, ARUP did not even model collapse propagation. You should refamiliarize yourself with these materials. ARUP was retained by Nordenson to model girder failures scenarios. ARUP ran many simulations and found a number of girder failure scenarios, both in heating and cooling scenarios. It identified several of those scenarios in an appendix that is attached to Nordenson's expert report (which scenarios were chosen because they demonstrated what Nordenson believed to be failures due to negligent design/construction). Nordenson then separately did hand calculations re collapse propagation. Those hand calculations contained an error. That error has nothing to do with ARUP's girder failure analysis, NIST's girder failure analysis or floor collapse propagation failure analysis, or WAI's girder failure or floor collapse propagation analysis. In fact, WAI even explicitly identified and corrected for Nordenson's error and still found that the floor collapses propagated. You are confusing these various models, likely on purpose, but that confusion does not change the reality that there are multiple models of girder failures that Hulsey has not addressed and multiple models of floor propagation that Hulsey has not addressed. (And given that he has not even modeled NIST"s heating scenario, it's really a big leap to say he's even addressed NIST's girder failure model, which model was dependent upon such scenario.)
You can attack me for being someone who thinks carefully about these issues all you want (thanks!), but you should maybe think about criticizing Hulsey for apparently not caring to think so carefully about them.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
If Hulsey had in fact proved that it could not have collapsed by fire then I would agree with you. The problem here is precisely that though, people are going to THINK that Hulsey proved that, because AE911 are basically saying that:
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/10154832293711269/
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth...59185411268/10154834611906269/?type=3&theater
I don't see them correcting this anywhere. Call it semantics if you like, but I think this is disingenuous.
Hulsey's model might be better than NIST's in some aspects like the macro models for some connections. It might contain errors. It might be flawed at the micro level or at the macro, or both. It's certainly glossing over a number of uncertainties - most significantly the actual fire behaviour, the debris damage, and differences in the field construction and modifications vs. the drawings. It absolutely does not prove that collapse from fire was impossible. AE911 tacitly agrees with the Daily Mail headline above, and that's pure spin.
All you are doing Bentham is telling us fairies can dance on pins sometimes and that is what might have happened here. In fact, your argument needs numerous fairies to be dancing on numerous pins simultaneously.
It doesn't work like that in the real world and you can rightfully be criticized for using this kind of silly argument. You might try it to defend a client and hope a jury is sympathetic for other reasons and your argument gave them some doubt, but it should not be used in a situation that has major public interest.
The real bottom line is that there has yet to be a legitimate explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 and there needs to be one.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Your lack of a specific response to any of the points I raised is noted. Are you going to be on Hulsey's "peer review" panel, Tony?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I answered your insidious points. You just don't want to be seen to accept my answers because you want to keep things up in the air so no judgement can be rendered. You can't because it is now clear as day that the NIST WTC 7 report is invalid and a new investigation by a government entity is needed.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
I'm happy to let your grumpy ramblings stand as your response to my specific points, but I don't consider them actually responsive (and nor, I suspect, would anyone who actually follows this dialogue).
Are you going to be on Hulsey's peer review panel, Tony?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You are clearly trying to keep things from being settled. It doesn't matter whether or not you admit it.
I have not been asked to be part of the formal peer review panel for Leroy Hulsey's report.
Invalid? All of it? Of just the bit where A2001 was pushed off the seat?
And for any part of the the NIST report to be shown to be invalid, does it not require that Hulsey's report be A) published, and B) shown to be valid?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I think NIST needs to redo their analysis for the collapse initiation with the items they ignored and omitted (column side plates, web stiffeners, lateral support beams) included. That obviously won't work and they will need to go back to the drawing board.
I also want to see analyses, and not just claims, for things like floor break through, girder connection breakage etc. They did not do this in their first attempt.
Of course, Leroy Hulsey's report needs to be legitimately scrutinized also.
Do you support NIST redoing their analysis Mick?
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
If by "things" you mean "Hulsey's report on WTC7" and by "settled" you mean "have its results completely misrepresented by Hulsey", then, yes, I don't think I will let things be settled any time soon. Neither should you, if you can summon some intellectual integrity. You've already acknowledged (albeit tacitly) in this very chain that you cannot support Hulsey's chief stated conclusion that fire did not cause the collapse of the building.
I also am not about to let you misconstrue the importance (or lack thereof) of Hulsey's work by mischaracterizing and/or hand waving away all of the other professional work that has been done on this issue, most of which Hulsey does not address and you also seemingly cannot address.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
