Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
So you think that, in order to determine whether fire could in any scenario cause a progressive collapse of the building, it was sufficient to test a single, unrealistic fire scenario (using a simplified heating curve that uniformly, and without any progression simulated, ramps area temperatures to certain temperatures pulled from a point in NIST's simulation when the area in question was cooling) in a limited model of part of less than half the floor space on two floors of the building? Well, good news--there may be an opening for you on the Titanic's PR team!

And, by the way, just a reminder that Hulsey announced his conclusion before he even finished the limited model described above.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY


Where did you get your information about the particulars of the fire scenario?
In particular - the claim that the area in question was cooling?

Your complaint that it was
a limited model of part of less than half the floor space on two floors of the building
is bogus because the collapse trigger took place within that area. What happened in the rest of the building is irrelevant to the triggering event. Without the triggering event there would be no collapse.
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY


Where did you get your information about the particulars of the fire scenario?
In particular - the claim that the area in question was cooling?

This was all discussed in the main thread on this topic, which everyone who comments on this thread has been asked to review. See here for a thorough explanation and keep reading the next few pages for more discussion. Hulsey pulled his temperatures from 6 pm in the NIST scenario, apparently not realizing that the area around column 79 had begun cooling around 5 pm in the NIST scenario because NIST, unlike Hulsey, actually did the work to build a realistic fire progression simulation.

Your complaint that it was

is bogus because the collapse trigger took place within that area. What happened in the rest of the building is irrelevant to the triggering event. Without the triggering event there would be no collapse.

Not only is Hulsey's approach here insufficient to demonstrate that the NIST scenario didn't occur (because he never even tested that scenario and instead tested a much more limited scenario), it does not come anywhere close to demonstrating that the building would never collapse due to fire.

There were large fires observes in over a dozen floors of WTC7 on 9-11, but Hulsey claims he could rule out fire bringing the building down by testing only a single, unrealistic scenario in a small portion of 2 floors in isolation. NIST, in contrast, ran a full fire simulation across 16 floors. There is no reason, logical or otherwise, to think that what Hulsey did disproves NIST's vastly more detailed and superior model, yet alone that it proves fire could not cause the collapse of the building in any reasonable scenario.

Note, for example, that WAI concluded that the collapse was most likely to have originated on floors 10 and 11, floors Hulsey didn't even test one of his contrived, fake fire scenarios. In Hulsey's model, floors 10 and 11 were perfectly pristine, untouched by any fire damage. How do you know the fire conditions on those floors wouldn't affect the surrounding floors, including the floors two small areas of the two floors (12 and 13) on which Hulsey ran his limited tests? On 9/11, those floors were fully involved in fires. You're telling me you are sure that the number of floors on fire could make no difference whatsoever as to whether fires could cause the collapse of the building. I'm not convinced.

And to reiterate, there were many other floors besides 10 and 11 that Hulsey ignored fires on and tested as perfectly pristine and, again, in any case, in the small area on floors 12 and 13 where he did test a heating scenario, he tested only a contrived uniform heating based on less than max-case figures that he incorrectly pulled from the wrong time in the NIST simulation; he never tested a traveling fire scenario with a progression model. In reality, however, we know that the fires traveled around the building, which is why NIST did build and test such a model. (And, in fact, in NIST's model, the area in question was cooling when it collapsed, with column 79 being pushed to the east by heating in the area in which the fire next moved to the west, so we know that the progression of the fires throughout the building could not have been more important to why the building the collapsed in NIST's model!) You're telling me that the order in which differential heating damaged the structure and ultimate temperature of the building components could make no difference whatsoever as to whether fires could cause the collapse of the building. I'm not convinced.

I would suggest you actually read the NIST report very carefully and then read the Hulsey report very carefully and think about these issues. The contrast of the comprehensiveness and thoughtfulness of NIST's approach versus Hulsey's is staggering. You should at least browse the main thread on this topic as many of Hulsey's errors are discussed at great length there.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mod Note
This thread was to discuss the 2017 presentation by Hulsey, and has been superseded by the publication of the draft report, discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.t10890/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
Pete Tar Debunked: Most recent NASA study shows ice growth in Antartica Science and Pseudoscience 15
MikeG Debunked: Mike Adam's Claims Regarding HPV "Shock Study" Health and Quackery 5
AluminumTheory Debunked: Infowars Study: Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile General Discussion 25
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto and USAF School of Aerospace Medicine chemtrail study 1977 Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 6
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 41
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 5
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top