Tuesday, September 10, 2019

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



WTC 7 - Response to Mick West's Q.2


In this five-part series, I expose and disprove NIST's false claims in five critically important areas:

Part 2: Magical Thermal Expansion

Part 3: Missing Shear Studs

Part 4: Fictitious Debris Damage

Part 5: Non-Existent Diesel Fuel Fire

67 points·1 year ago·edited 1 year ago
I've dissected the official N.I.S.T. report and shared my thoughts for years. I find the report to be 
unscientific and invalid.
  1. N.I.S.T. omitted stiffeners in their analysis
  2. N.I.S.T. omitted shear studs in their analysis
  3. N.I.S.T. omitted steel-plates in their analysis
Their entire collapse theory is based upon models which omitted these crucial elements. 
The worst part is N.I.S.T. refuses to release their finite element model data for peer review:
No one can verify their findings. This makes their entire conclusion invalid. That's why the U.A.F. 
and the civil engineering department created their own FEA. The U.A.F. model data will be open 
to the public once they're complete, making it infinitely more trustworthy.
A former NIST employee of 14 years made his first public appearance this year speaking out 
against the official report with forensic engineer Dr. Leroy Hulsey from UAF:
NIST should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information

unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided.
Peer review is Science 101.
Release all the model data.

John Hunter 2 days ago (edited) 0:47 that is the dynamic analysis. It literally states that it's a dynamic analysis in the report. That's why the building is moving.

This would be a lot less embarrassing if you genuinely just asked these questions because you don't understand instead of pretending you have knowledge of structural engineering simulations. I myself don't fully understand why the simulations look the way they do and the questions you are asking are very good ones. 

I would also like to know the answer to these questions so I have a better understanding of what is going on. I wouldn't go pretending that I am experienced in this field like you are, that would just set myself up for embarrassment when they answer the questions. You're basically trying to "debunk" them when you don't even have any knowledge in this field. Just ask the questions instead of pretending you know what's going on to save yourself the embarrassment. 


They are also releasing the data so when people get their hands on it, they can see how it was set up themselves.

I have no experience with these simulations. It may look weird to us but it may actually be a perfectly acceptable industry practice to do them in this way.

 So I can't say if these are bad simulations or not. They may be perfectly acceptable for explaining the forces involved. 

These are questions we should be asking to get a better understanding. These aren't the kind of things I would try debunk since I have no knowledge of them. I wouldn't pretend to have experience and try to debunk them.

Luke Peters 2 days ago This 130 page report just came out 4 days ago. He has already 'debunked' a 4 year study in 2 or 3 days when the peer review process is ongoing. He never had the intention of looking at this objectively, he was going to (attempt to) 'debunk it' no matter what the results were. Mick is a pseudoskeptic.

Shane Carruth 2 days ago (edited) Hmmm... looking forward for more videos. Do you have any scientific backround? I'am also irritated by this kind of undynamic simulations, its 2019 and looks so oldschool and handmade?! ... but i can't still explain the fact of an 2x seconds freefall and this symmetrical type of collapse. This building is not build from firesticks and when i cut of one leg of a chair it has to tilt in this direction. 

M Fitz 2 days ago No need to explain 2.25 seconds of free-fall. It never happened and doesn't mean anything if it did. How fast something falls tells you nothing about why it fell. Symmetry is also not a thing and there was nothing symmetrical about the collapse of Building 7. Core went first, from east to west, then the exterior dropped. That is not symmetrical by any definition. 2 

John Hunter John Hunter 2 days ago (edited) @M Fitz Free fall is very important. If something is under freefall it means it is accelerating under earth's gravity with nothing that is resisting it. For example a skydiver will experience freefall as soon as he jumps out of a plane. When he reaches a high enough speed, the wind resistance will be so high that it counteracts the force of gravity and he will continue at a constant speed instead of accelerating. This is called terminal velocity.

The acceleration of the building at freefall indicates that there was almost no resistance from the structure of the building. You can see in failed building demolitions that the building will decelerate as they impact the ground. This is because the energy is going into breaking the structure and then it comes to a rest.

WTC 7 did experience free fall, even NIST themselves admits that in their report but doesn't bother to explain why. For a building to fall a free fall acceleration, there must be almost no structural resistance. To achieve this you must break a heap of columns simultaneously. 

Also when people say it feel symmetrically, they mean it feel with the walls being parallel and perpendicular to the ground. In failed building demolitions, buildings will normally tip over. This is because they are unbalanced. They won't fall straight down through themselves like in a controlled demolition.

. Shadi Gif 4 hours ago (edited) The debunking gods have definitely favored Mick west, but im still a little confused Dr Hulsey concluded fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7 so how can you explain how the failure of 1 column could caused the desertion of WTC7 as the fraudulent NIST study claims. im sure a lot of demolition companies would find this information quite useful and extremely profitable 2 

 12weasel100 12weasel100 2 hours ago Maybe you should actually read NIST. They explain the entire collapse second by second that clearly explains how the failure of one column resulted in the collapse of the towers. Why would a demo company find the collapse of WTC7 useful and profitable? Are you suggesting every single building in the world is built exactly like WTC7 so should all collapse the exact same way?

 Shadi Gif Shadi Gif 2 hours ago (edited) @12weasel100 yeah and im sure buildings are now demolished using fire aloneand did NIST explain the hundreds of reported explosions before the buildings collapsed?And high tech nanothermite found in WTC dust samples?

 Rinse-esniR Rinse-esniR 2 days ago Mick clearly shows that in the simulation, it's not girder a2001 that is initially failing.

Herei go hereigo 2 days ago (edited) Mick says different girders failed on Floor 13 and 14 before girder A2001 failed. Where in the NIST report does it say that? The LYSDNA model does not show what Mike claimed here on video. You can't just look at the model and presume different things occurred and not provide written evidence for it. 5

PapaOystein PapaOystein 2 days ago "different girders failed on Floor 13 and 14 before girder A2001 failed. Where in the NIST report does it say that?" The 16-story ANSYS model (Chapter 11) says that. Chapter 10 took the dynamic structural heating results from Chapter 9 and computed how this would stress the steel, and consequently which connections would be compromised as a result (partial or complete connection failures). The model found plenty of connections on many floors. These connection failures were then applied to the LS-DYNA model in Chapter 12 as part of the starting point. This is why the collapse progression in LS-DYNA, after all loads have been applied, starts with several local collapses at once.

 Herei go hereigo Herei go hereigo 2 days ago (edited) @PapaOystein Hey Genius- the girders are listed on each floor, be specific about the girders and beams that you think failed. Provide research about this new unknown failure mechanism for all of us? You can't ignore the trigger for progressive collapse and it occurred at A2001. Heating up steel what does that even mean? The connections still have to fail and Hulsey has already shown NIST that connection failure assumptions are fraudulent. NIST even left off lateral support beams, that would stop a collapse. They left off bearing stiffeners and left of side plates, no shear studs. NIST is claiming girder and beams were held by bolts only, that's a complete joke. 2

 1-9. They show numerous failures on every single page. NIST provides a huge wealth of results and data, actually. Try to read the report one day. "this new unknown failure mechanism" There is no new unknown failure mechanism. "You can't ignore the trigger for progressive collapse and it occurred at A2001." Or any of the one hundred or so other damaged locations. Arup and Weidlinger found different failure mechanisms or locations - so in the end, it is quite possible and they are all wrong, and the true "straw that broke the camel's back" was yet another connection failing by yet another mechanism. So what? The take-away is that the building withstood the gruesome fires for 5 hours, much longer than it was expected to, had accumulated lots of fire and other damage, and was doomed. It doesn't really matter which straw broke the camel's back - the camel had already carried far more straw than it was ever expected to, and was expected to break its back eventually. Perhaps A2001 did, perhaps some other connection did before A2001 could have, perhaps A2001 couldn't have but some other did.

 Hulsey did NOT EVEN TRY to find that connection - he failed to model almost all of the fire development and temperature changes and thus guaranteed that he would only ever spot at most a small percentage of the "straw".

Based on such an incomplete analysis, you logically cannot have provided the global negative "fire didn't do it".

 "Heating up steel what does that even mean?" I see you are lacking the very basics of knowledge about the world to competently discuss this.

 Herei go hereigo Herei go hereigo 1 day ago @PapaOystein I just read a bunch of nonsense. Structural failures subsequently after the collapse already started! You have not read the NIST report. You read 1-9 and assumed these failures occurred before the initial trigger. Hulsey has already meticulously shown this trigger event cannot be caused by fire. Weidlinger released a research paper to rebuke private engineering studies findings of the collapse - including NIST. Hulsey discussed the Weidlinger report and found it inadequate to explain the collapse.

 PapaOystein PapaOystein 1 day ago @Herei go hereigo You just WROTE a bunch of nonsense ;) "You read 1-9 and assumed these failures occurred before the initial trigger." Yes, indeed of course. "Hulsey has already meticulously shown this trigger event cannot be caused by fire." LOL. Hulsey modelled only a tiny percentage of the fire effects - only two floors where NIST modelled 16, only one snapshot heat distribution, not the dynamics of hours of wandering fires. There is nothing "meticulous" about this failure. Little wonder - Hulsey has exactly ZERO experience in forensic fire dynamics studies. Zero. "Weidlinger released a research paper to rebuke private engineering studies findings of the collapse - including NIST." Not quite true - but so what? Doesn't make Hulsey's nonsense one bit more sensible. "Hulsey discussed the Weidlinger report and found it inadequate to explain the collapse." I wonder if he ever asked Weidlinger Associates for the unreleased parts of their report? Hulsey simply rejects out of hand the work of engineers far superior to him.

The whole Hulsey report boils down to "I can't find the cause, so there is none". Which is dumb, illogical nonsense.

 But keep up with your Holy Faith in the Infallibility of the Grand Masters of The Truth. :)

Herei go hereigo Herei go hereigo 1 day ago (edited) @PapaOystein https://www.911facts.dk/?page_id=9194&lang=en 15-18: the photographic evidence does not support the fire collapse theory Ok, the modelled floor collapses after the trigger event. You easily impressed by this way?.. The trigger event was a scam- and yet you still believe everything else they did was alright? NIST theory is the collapse began from east to west. It backwards. Hulsey theory is the collapse began from west to east It makes more sense west to east column failure caused the Penthouse to fail.

Herei go hereigo 19 hours ago (edited) Just noticed something. Hulsey model is tipping Southeast instead I think it should be opposite direction Northwest. Is Hulsey saying if you took away columns 76 to 81- it tip this way? I'm confused since the support column 79 is on the Northeast side.

Tony Szamboti Tony Szamboti 17 hours ago If you study the report and the figures you will see that the exterior columns in the southeast corner become overloaded when core columns 76 thru 81 are removed. There were more exterior columns in the northeast and it would not become overloaded earlier than the southeast corner.

M Rede 5 hours ago "Doesn't seem to show dynamic analysis." Ask them for the source code and data. It's open, unlike the NIST simulation. Who pays you?

...

Only one of the WTC 7 studies denied that these reports about and audio of  WTC 7 explosion sounds exist, because only one of the theories can accommodate their existence...

NIST Lies EXPOSED WTC 7 FOIA Footage Captures Blast Sound Seconds BEFORE Collapse



A Record of the Explosions Heard Before the Collapse of WTC 7



Early Reports of WTC 7 Demolition Explosions



Related:

Nobles claims that that the explosion in the 'Seven’s Exploding' video is fake. John-Michael Talboo shows otherwise.

Pat Curley misrepresents the firefighter testimony and then accuses 9/11 truthers of doing the same thing.

Pat Curley attempts to use the firefighter testimony to prove WTC7 was engulfed in flames. John-Michael Talboo shows why he is wrong.