Hulsey's collapse model vs the NIST collapse model, science and the scientific method vs sleight of hand. According to engineers who have already reviewed Hulsey's model, the claim is that the data and methodology is accessible to anyone so that they can replicate the model for themselves and verify the results (standard scientific method). NIST's model components and methodology, as anyone who has studied the issue knows, are not publicly available (per NIST) and therefore impossible to replicate (a strictly faith based study). NIST's hypothesis is that the reason WTC7 collapsed in the manner seen on multiple videos (to simplify) is that thermal expansion caused the failure of one column which in turn caused a progressive cascading effect destroying the building in a "3 stage" manner, of which one of the stages was a free fall collapse. NIST's is the ONLY hypothesis that claims that fires are the root cause for the full destruction of WTC7. There is NO other scientific study that scientifically confirms the NIST hypothesis. Once Hulsey shows that the NIST hypothesis is fallacious and that the actual cause for the full destruction of WTC7 as seen on multiple videos is the simultaneous removal of all 82 columns (assuming it is supported by the scientific community), the prevailing standard will then shift from the NIST hypothesis to the Hulsey hypothesis. And that will beg the next question, how can all 82 columns be removed at once? And if fires can't do that, then fires were NOT the cause of the destruction of WTC7 and that in IMO is how and why Hulsey can make the claim that his study proves that fire did not cause the complete destruction of WTC7 as seen on multiple videos. So I answered my own question (see post #332). The following is an interview with Kamal Obeid and Casey Pfeiffer, both of whom are structural engineers:
Be sure to watch NIST's scam exposed in all its glory, presented by a real expert using real science. A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (Fairbanks) A Presentation by Civil Engineering Professor J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E. September 3, 2019 6:00 PM Alaska Time / 10:00 PM Eastern Schaible Auditorium University of Alaska Fairbanks Livestream: https://media.uaf.edu https://www.ae911truth.org/news/543...years-later-september-2019-schedule-of-events If you miss it, the video will always be available. The draft report will also be available for all to review and comment on.
Hulsey's draft report is now available: http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222438/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf As well as several computer simulations: http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ I will study these and comment once I've completed reviewing these.
A brief summary based on an initial reading of the report and listening to Hulsey's presentation. 1. The NIST report is based on an enormous amount of false/invented/wishful data and methodology. 2. What happened to WTC7 according to NIST could not have happened using NIST's own fabricated data. There would not have been a collapse. 3. Even if NIST was correct in its hypothetical collapse initiation hypothesis (the failure of a single column 79 due to thermal expansion at floor 13), Hulsey's collapse model shows WTC7 would have tipped over. 4. The ONLY collapse model that actually simulates the manner of WTC7's descent seen on videos is the simultaneous removal of 82 columns, at about the 16th floor. 5. The Penthouse collapse (a separate event) was initiated at about the 45th floor, which was not on fire. 6. Hulsey was asked if could hypothesize what could have done that and he responded "I'm not going there". Hulsey's report does make the claim that not all possibilities have been explored, however 2 things are true: 1. NIST's WTC7 collapse model and hypothesis are based in pseudo-science (to be kind) and are unsustainable. 2. While Hulsey's model may not be the only possible scenario, it is the only one that has been shown to nearly accurately simulate the collapse of WTC7 and is available for reproduction.
Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11, New Study Finds On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction. Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building's debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires. Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The UAF WTC 7 report concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7 All the available material is available at the above link and at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc and several gigabytes of additional data will be made available in the second half of this month. Comments may be submitted until November 1, 2019 and the final peer reviewed report will be published later this year.
Here's your big chance to be heard. You have a unique opportunity to send your comments and explain to Hulsey about your "as-built" fixation. Have you read this part yet? As Table 2.3 illustrates, we took several steps in our modeling of WTC 7 that NIST did not take. These steps enabled us to more accurately simulate the building’s behavior and to consider conflicting assumptions regarding the as-built condition of the building. In summary, based upon our analyses, we found the following: 1. During our nonlinear connection study, we discovered that NIST over-estimated the rigidity of the outside frame by not modeling its connections, essentially treating the exterior steel framing as thermally fixed, which caused all thermally-induced floor expansion to move away from the exterior. The exterior steel framing was actually flexible, while the stiffest area resistant to thermal movements, i.e., the point of zero thermal movement, was near the center of the building. 2. Therefore, during our analysis of WTC 7’s response to fire loading, we found the overall thermal movement at the A2001 base plate support near Column 79 was not sufficient to displace girder A2001 to the point that it walked off its seat. Whereas NIST asserted that the differential westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 was 5.5 inches and later revised its calculation to 6.25 inches, we found that the westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 would have been less than 1 inch under the fire conditions reported by NIST (Figure 2.66). The little relative displacement is justified as the building was constructed as a composite-beam structure where the concrete slabs and the steel elements were connected with nelson studs. Therefore, even if the connections between some steel elements were broken, the steel elements were still held together by the studs to the concrete slabs. PDF Page 73.
NOTE: I uncovered a typo in the above: "we found that the westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 would have been less than 1 inch under the fire conditions reported by NIST (Figure 2.66)." That should be Figure 2.65, there is no "Figure 2.66". I will send Hulsey a notification for correction.
Those people that want to claim that NIST's model do not reflect reality should also say the same for Hulsey's models show an the link below. http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ Below are the YouTube links. Figure 4.16 Hypothetical Failure of Columns 76 to 81 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report No deformation or disconnecting of the structural components as the tilting upper section just FALLS THROUGH the lower section and then through the ground. Figure 4.20 Hypothetical Simultaneous Failure of All Core Columns — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report Same thing for this video. No deformation or disconnecting of the structural components as the tilting upper section just FALLS THROUGH the lower section. Figure 4.24b Near-Simultaneous Failure of All Columns Persp. 2 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report And what's this crap? The east penthouse looks like someone cracked an egg using their thumbs and then pulling the shells apart with their fingers only to have the penthouse deform back in the opposite direction with the two halves coming back together as it descends through the building. Again, where are the component collisions between the penthouse and the interior structural components? Where are the disconnections between components?
my as-built fixation is still valid ... Was the building constructed per the original plans or was there value engineering involved to cut corners and costs? ... it is a very common practice ... Nelson studs ... really ... Nelson studs are set in drilled and inserted anchors into concrete slabs with the exposed stud above the slab runs through either a beam or column ... I am pretty damn sure that they would have held to the steel ... however, the concrete slabs would have been under extreme pressure during collapse and the concrete probably shattered releasing the anchors with the studs still connected to steel ... In other words, the Nelson studs cannot be called into play as any proof that they would have supported the steel framing at the area of collapse inititation ...
Not really for several reasons. First the NIST model does not even come close to simulating the collapse of WTC7 (it is a gross distortion) whereas Hulsey's computer simulation is nearly identical when exhibiting what would happen if all 82 columns are removed simultaneously. Second, a computer model does not reflect exact reality (in this case) in the sense that the program cannot account for interaction with everything so all it is is a SIMULATION (look up the definition). Third, all the other computer models only reflect a hypothetical collapse direction based on the available data and nothing more (note the use of the word HYPOTHETICAL - you can look that up too). As to the Penthouse collapse, there is no way of knowing what might have happened to it once it drops into the interior of the building, no computer model can account for that, especially when one does not know exactly what and where the point of destruction occurred beneath it. So once again, it's also a SIMULATION. But all the above is strictly my opinion, I didn't create the computer simulations or participate with Hulsey's team or take part in writing the draft report and I'm certainly not the expert. If you still have questions or contradictions, you do have the opportunity to: 1. Recreate all the computer models for yourself using Hulsey's data. You will probably need access to a fairly powerful computer and SAP2000 and ABAQUS software. See if you get a different result. Unlike NIST, ALL the data is publicly available, there is nothing hidden or "classified" because it might "endanger public safety". 2. Send Hulsey an email explaining your concerns at publiccomment@AE911Truth.org as I did with respect to Figure 2.66. Post the response here. Oh wait, I'm still waiting for you to post the response from your email to the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department, so I guess I'll be waiting forever. So aside from all the above triviality (in comparison), what do you make of the really important findings by Hulsey?
In other words you only read the piece I posted and haven't read the entire draft report despite your claim that: I read the entire draft report and will go through it again when I get a chance, as well as review the video again. So you were never really "anxious", but I knew that. I will give you the same advice I gave Gamolon: And ask you the same question:
I will give you my opinion though for what it's worth: Except what Hulsey describes with respect to the studs is PRE-collapse (displacement due to thermal expansion), not collapse or even collapse initiation, which couldn't have occurred because the displacement was calculated at less than 1 inch. And it wasn't just the studs that prevented expansion beyond 1 inch. I think you're confused or have a reading comprehension problem, but then again you read what you want to read. And remember that NIST omitted the studs altogether (too inconvenient for their phony hypothesis I suppose). So even NIST thought the studs were significant, otherwise why deliberately omit them? Mistake? Yeah right, they specifically said there weren't any, despite claiming there were in an earlier report. Like I said, check with the expert, don't take my word for it.
Wednesday is the 18th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on the US in modern history. 18 years later we still haven't been told the truth about what happened that day. We've been lied to by the US government and its puppet propaganda media. Because of a meticulous scientific study by Dr. Leroy J. Hulsey and his team, we now know what most of us have suspected for many years, that at least one of the towers (WTC7) was control demolished on 9/11. No other hypothesis has been published that nearly duplicates the global collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 than the one modeled by Dr. Hulsey where all the columns are removed simultaneously. And such an event obviously can only be achieved via a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition of WTC7 would have required weeks or months of planning and implementation, indicating a foreknowledge of the event of 9/11, for at least that period of time and much longer.
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
Some schools are better than others.. I wouldn't put much faith in Hulsey. Some of these quacks just want to be the center of attention.
You have no clue who he is, you haven’t read one single word of any of his reports or watched any of his presentations, you don’t have any expertise never mind the least bit of standing and have not one idea what this is all about yet you insinuate one of the world’s leading forensic structural engineers is a “quack”. Who is really the quack here? I’m so sorry you’re having difficulty finding employment Margot.
I'm retired.. but I did know Minoru Yamasaki and his work. I also know lots of serious structural engineers so I am not impressed with your half assed wannabees who never built anything. Anyone can run their mouth.
And you're doing a fine job of that. No one cares who you know or don't know, no one cares about whether you're impressed or not impressed, you are no one who matters and have posted nothing that means anything other than your personal opinion, which is equally meaningless. Science and facts are all that matter. Please post here any peer reviewed scientific study that either supports or refutes NIST's report AND any peer reviewed scientific study that either supports or refutes Dr. Hulsey's draft report for all to examine, especially Dr. Hulsey's team.
7 SEP 2019: Franklin Square & Munson Fire District Commissioner Christopher Gioia Speaks at Lawyers’ Committee 9/11 Event in NYC
I was alerted that the link to the draft report I posted here does not work, so here's another link: http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf You can find all the material below and note the following: The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 1, 2019, with the final report will be released later this year. During this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report. Designated reviewers external to UAF and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to publiccomment@AE911Truth.org. http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7