Debunking the Debunkers: Debunking Mick West on Hulsey WTC 7 Report

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Debunking Mick West on Hulsey WTC 7 Report - NIST vs. Reality vs. Hulsey

Posted by JM Talboo

@gerrycan1 debunks debunker Mick West's 2019 WTC 7 study analysis

Are there more problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report or the NIST WTC 7 Report? You Decide...

Debunking Mick West on Hulsey WTC 7 Report - NIST vs. Reality vs. Hulsey

Mick:
Modeling complex events is hard. Here's a comparison between the NIST simulation of the collapse of WTC7 (left), the actual collapse (center) and a new simulation from Professor Hulsey and his students at the University of Alaska. Notice how NIST is far more accurate in the initial phases of the collapse. The penthouse on the left is the most obvious difference. With NIST (left) the penthouse folds inwards, the sides pivoting at their bases, this matches reality. With Hulsey (right) the East penthouse (on the left) performs a weird pivot, the base spreading outwards. Very different from reality. Then when the longer west penthouse collapses, NIST and reality both show it deforming as it collapses. Hulsey's model just slides into the building with zero deformation. Then when the exterior collapses the NIST model deforms far more than reality, but the Hulsey model hardly deforms at all. NIST also shows a huge amount of interior detail. Hulsey does not seem to show ANY damage, and only shows the top 2/3 of the building.

John Hunter
You can really see how NIST's simulation doesn't match what is observed. NIST's building bends and warps before they stop the simulation. Hulsey's simulation falls straight down like what we observe, but he had to set it up where all the columns are separated simultaneously. The best part is Hulsey is going to release the data for his simulation. NIST refuses to release their simulation because it's "a danger to public safety". I have looked at Hulsey's draft report and it's very comprehensive. They look at the structure under heat due to the fires and show that heating couldn't have cause it to collapse. They look at what would happen if certain columns were removed like in NIST's simulation and the building tips over. They looked at multiple scenarios. All NIST did was look at a probably cause of collapse and didn't try to explain how the building came down in the manner it did.

Thomas Nørgaard
NIST modeled the area under the penthouse different from the rest of the building. That's the only reason the left side can crumble like that.

Herei go hereigo
Mike has not understood the southwest tipping. Hulsey explains it here. Based on this analysis, we found that a simultaneous failure of all core columns would cause the building to tip to the southwest. We attribute this behaviour to WTC 7 having fewer exterior columns on its south side than on its north side and on the reported damage to columns on the southwest corner caused by the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 — damage that we included in our model. We can also derive from this analysis that even if the horizontal progression of core column failures asserted by NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger had somehow occurred, leaving the exterior standing as a hollow shell momentarily, it would still not result in the observed straight-down collapse. Hulsey included the damage caused by the collapse of WTC1, some of the floors had damage on the Southwest side.

Hulsey Penthouse model splits at the base, and cuts in half. NIST model is broken at the top part, left side breaks. I see very different actions to Mike. NIST for some reason believes the split occurred at the top of the Penthouse.

It a simple experiment. Line up 4 fingers, on one hand, with the 4 fingers of your other hand. Make a roofline with all 8 fingers,- now bend, all 8 fingers downwards, and that's what you see in the Hulsey model. It makes perfect sense.

Mick West
But it does not match what happened. It does not even match his own simulations.

Herei go hereigo @Mick West It actually does, the breakage of the windows, on the east side shows the Penthouse came to a resting stop. Penthouse wreckage did not go from 46-45 floor to the bottom. There no sign of dust escaping through windows on the way down, and there was plenty of broken windows, below the floor 13th, on the northside during the day. So where did the dust go, it had a way out? Blue drawing is not a model, where you get that? Looks like it was done by hand?

FAQ #10: Does NIST's computer animation of the collapse of WTC 7 prove the building came down by fire?:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/362-faq-10-does-nist-s-computer-animation-of-the-collapse-of-wtc-7-prove-the-building-came-down-by-fire

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST:

http://911blogger.com/node/17794

A Message to the 9/11 Grand Jury - ATTENTION POTENTIAL 9/11 GRAND JURY MEMBERS! - The NIST 9/11 report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the *Daubert* standard + Listen to These Three NIST Whistleblowers:

https://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2019/02/attention-potential-911-grand-jury.html

Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on WTC 7

More on explosion sounds HERE.

Something worth noting. Some people are recycling the damage talking point as an explanation for the collapse since they don't like the results of the new study. NIST did not blame damage. They stated that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse."

Their report also concluded that the diesel fuel "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that it was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that they were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings."
https://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-demolition-company.html

More on foreknowledge and testimony about and visual evidence of the damage to the building...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

http://wtc7.net/damageclaims.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/unnecessary-freefall-revisit.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/11/does-new-footage-of-wtc-7s-collapse.html

Externally Reviewed Open Source (NIST WTC 7 Report Was Neither) University Study Lead by Civil Engineering Professor: Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11 - All its supporting columns needed to give way at the same time to cause the observed collapse.

Posted by JM Talboo

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Mysterious_Collapse_of_World_Trade_C.html?id=XaQDAQAAQBAJ

The Soon-to-Be-Released Building 7 Study: Structural Engineers Weigh In:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/559-the-soon-to-be-released-building-7-study-structural-engineers-weigh-in

Following the release of the UAF WTC 7 draft report on September 3, 2019, there will be a two-month public comment period ending on November 1, 2019. The final report will be released later this year.

During this period, the UAF research team and AE911Truth staff 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 AE911Truth 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.

More Info: https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7