NIST was tasked with investigating what caused the 3 buildings to collapse. For WTC 1 and 2 they stopped short, basically saying it just fell down. For building 7 it seems NIST sold us a wooden nickel. Hulsey and 2 PhD students each using different modeling software accounted for every connection throughout the whole building. NIST set the outside columns as immovable, left out the welded web stiffeners and the welded plates to the H column completely, both of which completely lock the beam into place preventing it from slipping anywhere much less too far. Even if they web stiffeners were missing completely the beam would still have been locked and not able to slip off NIST further did not put in their model the 'buckle prevention' stiffeners around the welded to the perimeter. The only way to match what we actually saw that day was to remove, get this, support for 8 floors! Any other scenario the building tipped over or wrinkled or produced some result other than what we saw that day!
pg 78 Given that the Column 79 side plate prevents the girder’s web from traveling beyond the bearing seat, it appears that the structural analysis performed by NIST either minimized the side plate protrusion on Column 79 (nominally 1.79 inches) or ignored it altogether.
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Final Report Authors J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., University of Alaska Fairbanks And Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation And Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor Nanjing University of Science and Technology Department of Civil Engineering https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...ollapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf thats what NIST said happened .
This is kind of a duplicate thread. All the above has been posted in the "The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory" thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ But of course I agree with what you posted. Beginning at Page 105 (Illustrations/Diagrams omitted): 4.6 Results of Core Column/Exterior Column Failure Analysis Finding that NIST’s scenario of horizontal progressive core column collapse was not feasible, and would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories. Dynamic time history finite element analysis results for this simulation are shown in Figure 4.17, in which the simulation is presented side-by-side with two videos of the actual building collapse. The simulated collapse was examined in two different perspectives to match the perspectives of two different videos. Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The computer time history model accounted for mass and acceleration during collapse in which an acceleration time dependent function accounted for impact resistance over time. Specifically, the simulated velocity and acceleration of the building in our SAP2000 model, shown in Figure 4.18, matches almost exactly with the motion measured by David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall, shown in Figures 4.19 and 4.20 below. It should be noted that we conducted two separate simulations involving the failure of the core columns and exterior columns over 8 stories: One was the failure of all columns from Floor 12 to Floor 19; the second was the failure of all columns from Floor 6 to Floor 13. The two simulations were identical in terms of the downward velocity and acceleration of the northwest corner at the top of building. We therefore found that the collapse could have started at various floors. Based on our subsequent review of video footage, we found that Floor 16 is the uppermost floor where the collapse could have initiated, because the video shows Floor 17 to Floor 47 falling uniformly as a unit (see Figure 4.21 below). Although some floors below Floor 17 are somewhat visible in the video, it cannot be determined with confidence that they are falling as a unit with the floors above. 4.7 Summary and Conclusion In summary, several findings were made from the analyses above: 1. Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse. 2. The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore, the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column 79 would trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event. 3. Even if we assume the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 could lead to the failure of the next row of core columns, the hypothetical failure of Columns 76 to 81 would overload the exterior columns around the southeast corner of the building, rather than overloading the next row of core columns to the west, which would result in the building tipping to the southeast and not in a straight-down collapse. 4. The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior. It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building. Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior. http://bit.ly/Hulsey-WTC-report-Org
NIST deliberately omitted several structural components besides the side plate on column 79. They also omitted stiffeners, shear studs, beams, the fact that the fires were out long before the alleged "thermal expansion" took place at the alleged failure point, the fact that any "thermal expansion" that allegedly could have taken place would have to expand in the exact opposite direction, eyewitness reports of explosions, eutectic corrosion of steel, a valid analysis of the fact that WTC7 dropped at free fall, as well as many other factors which would have invalidated their phony hypothesis. In fact, their hypothesis was not scientifically valid even if many of these omitted facts were actually non-existent.
NIST's phony hypothesis is detailed quite explicitly in the Request for Correction which I posted in the "The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory" thread. But it's well worth a re-post: https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf There has also been a lawsuit filed demanding that NIST validly responds to the Request for Correction. https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...AE+et+al+v+NIST+et+al+1-main+filed+090721.pdf
the proverbial really hits the ole fanola starting on page 23! These briefs are very well composed. What I find shocking is the lengths the people of this nation have to go through to petition the government. they put up all the data proving their case beyond a doubt and even congress simply thumbs their noses at us.
The First Amendment's protected right to petition the US government for redress is being tested in the Supreme Court. I wouldn't be shocked if SCOTUS denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. From the lawsuit: 11. AE has submitted a petition to the U.S. Congress, signed by more than three thousand verified architects and engineers, calling upon the U.S. Congress to open a new investigation of the causes of the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 on 9/11. 535 members of CONgress ignoring over 3,600 architects and engineers who know what they're talking about.
In explanation of the credulity of the American people, they have been the victims of massive and incessant propaganda efforts. As Casey noted in 1981, when everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.
