The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A much improved version of Dr. Leroy Hulsey's presentation:



    And a PDF of the slides so you can study each one at your own pace:

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

    Please note that none of the above represents the scientific paper that Dr. Hulsey will distribute for peer review. That paper is still to be published. Once peer review is completed, it will be the definitive instrument that states in no ambiguous terms that the scientific community concurs with Dr. Leroy Hulsey and that NIST's official publication called Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 is absolutely false and invalid.

    http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you figure it out yet? If not, what are you having a problem with?
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You call yourself "Army Soldier" but real soldiers have a pair and aren't terrified of answering direct questions. Don't bother, you showed your colors and they are mostly a pale yellow.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Question for all the self proclaimed engineers/geniuses who defend the official narrative and especially those who defend NIST's analysis and conclusion as published in their Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (and/or the conflicting ARUP and/or Weidlinger analyses):

    1. Have you reviewed the recent Hulsey video (see post #225)?
    2. Have you also examined all the slides posted at #225?

    If the answer is yes to both, I invite comments (positive, negative or neutral), especially from those who disagree with Dr. Leroy Hulsey's analysis. Please explain why or how you believe Dr. Leroy Hulsey's findings are correct or incorrect so a technical discussion can take place. After reviewing the material and analyzing it, if you still agree with NIST's theory, please explain why or how you come to that conclusion.

    If there are no participants, I personally will take that (from OCT defenders) as either:

    1. You are not interested because you just want to support the official narrative and NIST no matter how much they are proven false.
    2. You really are not an expert on the subject but claim to be.
    (note, I'm not an expert either nor have I ever claimed to be one but I am certainly eager to learn)
    3. You're terrified that Dr. Hulsey's findings are correct so you just want to remain silent (and see highlighted at #1).
    4. You just write posts in this section of the forum for the purpose of trolling, so any genuine discussion with you is impossible (I have one particular poster in mind).

    Note, I'm certainly not excluding posters who do not defend the official narrative and/or NIST. Everyone is welcome to this discussion, just keep it genuine, intelligent, civil and preferably technical. Thanks.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It looks like I have to start the discussion on NIST vs Dr. Hulsey since no one wants to touch the subject other than toss out criticism of a subject they're clueless about. I invite all to review what I'm posting and correct anything I am mistaken about but please source your claims with supporting links. Any unsourced claims will be rejected as personally biased opinion (trolling IMO).

    INTRODUCTION

    Through FOIA, NIST was eventually forced to make the original Frankel drawings for WTC7 publicly available. Please note NIST would not have released them voluntarily without an official FOIA request. These drawings were used by NIST to assist them in their "investigation" of the "collapse" of WTC7 on 9/11 and eventual publication of their theory. (note I'm using quotation marks for a reason)

    Experts then reviewed the publication called the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 and meticulously tried to match some of the key diagrams from the report to the Frankel drawings. What they found was that NIST's publication failed to match up with the Frankel drawings in several ways. There were key structural components missing that, when correctly included, completely invalidated NIST's theory. There are several videos and papers on the subject and most are posted in this thread. To repeat for the purpose of this discussion, the primary ones appear in post #1 (posted end of May 2016):

    The above exposed NIST's theory as scientifically invalid 2 years before Dr. Hulsey began his study of NIST's WTC7 collapse theory. So all Dr. Hulsey's team did was to confirm what had already been concluded by other experts but on a much more detailed level using state of the art tools and of course, Dr. Hulsey's expertise. In the next post(s), I will go over the specifics of Dr. Hulsey's findings as I understand them. Again, I invite discussion on all these issues.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What is there to discuss?

    You have a building 300 feet wide and opposite ends come down at exactly the same time at exactly the same speed.

    That is too weird to be accidental.

    So the NIST comes up with a complicated explanation that is obviously stupid.

    Then years later an "expert" comes up with a complicated explanation of why the NIST explanation is obviously stupid.

    Should I pay enough attention to this to get a headache or should I go back to sleep? :sleeping:

    psik
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why did you even bother to post that? If you don't want to participate in the discussion, simply stay out of the thread and go back to sleep, it's that simple. Apparently thousands of others are interested enough to use Dr. Hulsey's findings to support and introduce the Bobby McIlvane Act to Congress, including at least 25 9/11 family members. Stupidity is not what this is all about, it's about getting at the truth about what really happened on 9/11 and NIST's findings are NOT what happened but it is being used as the official US government position as to what happened.
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What findings, it isn't even released yet.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are findings and there are preliminary findings. If you went through the video presentation and/or the PDF I gave you the link to you wouldn't be asking that question.

    Findings: The summary of Dr. Hulsey's findings are that NIST's theory that the initiating factor for the complete collapse of WTC7 due to thermal expansion from fire, causing column 79 to fail is IMPOSSIBLE on all counts, even when taking NIST's known data into full consideration and leaving out all the structural elements NIST omitted.

    Preliminary Findings: The complete details supporting Dr. Hulsey's findings (see above), which are scheduled for publication and peer review later this year.

    Please review the video and the PDF slides before asking questions so you have the facts to base you questions on. I am re-posting the video as it seems the link is broken.



    This is a PROGRESS REPORT from a 2 year study. It is ongoing and will continue with other related studies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
    Eleuthera likes this.
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You said:

    So I threw my 2 cents in. I emailed Hulsey months ago about the Twin Towers. He did not respond.

    psik
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is nothing of any significance with respect to the discussion I started and am looking for participants to lend their opinions about. I was looking for a technical discussion, not what is obvious to you or weird, stupid, your headaches or your sleep habits. You often write intelligent technical posts on the subject so please try to keep that up if you're interested in this topic and honor my request. Thanks.

    I am not speaking for Hulsey but his research is strictly about NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, not the Twin Towers so I can understand his non-response.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Before I get into some of Dr. Hulsey's findings, the one thing that keeps catching my attention is on PDF page 7, the map that shows WTC7 in relation to the other buildings. If you note, WTC7 is a trapezoid shaped building wedged between the Verizon building on the west and the Post Office building on the east. The debris field from the "collapsing" North Tower had to reach both the Verizon and Post Office buildings but only WTC7 caught fire. WTC6 is situated between the North Tower and both the Post Office building and WTC7. It also caught fire that fully engulfed the entire building but did not collapse ... at all. In addition, at about the same distance as WTC7 from the North Tower lies the Winter Garden. It too was heavily damaged but did not catch fire. So WTC7 was unique for buildings at a similar distance from the North Tower in that it was the only one that caught fire.

    upload_2017-9-18_23-16-46.png

    As already well noted, NIST did not conduct an arson investigation and did not support its theory with any evidence that WTC7's fire(s) were caused by the debris.

    The above has nothing to with Dr. Hulsey's study except that it would not exist and neither would the controversy exist had WTC7 not caught fire (unless it was demolished regardless of course). So this is just a side observation to keep in mind.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were so many issues that were incorrect/fabricated/assumed with the NIST "investigation" that it's difficult to find a place to begin. What it looks like and what some experts have claimed is that NIST reverse engineered its "investigation". In other words, NIST started with a conclusion (fire caused the collapse of WTC7) and then set about creating a scenario that would support their conclusion, liberally creating/deleting/modifying data and structural components to try to fit a square peg into a round hole. NIST's own documentation and public announcements claim they did not investigate for any other cause than fire and structural damage. They did rule out structural damage as the cause:

    Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.
    ...
    Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.


    NIST NCSTAR 1A - Page xxxvii (PDF page 39)

    So by their own claim, fire was the sole cause of the collapse of WTC7.



    Some of the key structural components that were excluded from NIST's "investigation" are:

    1. The column 79 side plates (see slide 30). These would have trapped Girder A2001 so that it could not move beyond its seat.
    2. Multiple Shear Studs (see slide 16). There were 30 equally spaced Shear Studs along Girder A2001 according to the original Frankel drawing. NIST claimed there were none.
    3. Lateral support beams S3007, G3007 and K3007 that were simply left off by NIST (see slide 36).
    4. Web Stiffeners that were welded to Girder A2001 (see slides 39-43 and 54-55).

    Another key NIST data "flaw" was the initial width of the column 79 bearing seat was claimed to be 11". NIST was later corrected and modified it to 12". The significance of that measurement is that NIST originally claimed that Girder A2001 was pushed laterally 5.5" (due to fire induced thermal expansion) and fell off the column 79 bearing seat (the one with no side plates - see #1 above) as a result. However, that had to be changed to a 6.25" lateral movement with a 12" wide bearing seat (see slide 21).
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From their collective silence, it looks like all the OCT hugging "engineers" in this forum are full of dung. The reality is that there isn't one single OCT hugging "engineer" that ever posted in this section of the forum, just a bunch of obvious liars. But I think most intelligent posters figured that out long ago. I am not an engineer and never claimed to be one. The only association I've ever had with engineering is a few courses I took as an engineering major a few decades ago, before I switched my major to mathematics.

    Having said that, no one needs to be an engineer to understand Dr. Hulsey's study, the logic is inescapable. The extent of NIST's scam is quite obvious. When Shyam Sunder, NIST lead engineer and spokesperson, was backed against the wall by a physics teacher, you could see by the body language and stammering that the guy didn't know how to worm his way out of his BS.



    Anyway, just a side note.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of these resident "engineers" claims (without any detail, support or justification):

    There were actually 2 independent analyses conducted after NIST's publication of their WTC7 report. Both of these disputed NIST's "probable collapse initiation" theory in different ways and the Weidlinger analysis disputed ARUP's analysis, but both concluded that WTC7 "collapsed" as a result of fire alone. Neither conclusion was a study of the "collapse", they were both strictly limited to collapse initiation analysis. And that also contradicts this claim (although I am not aware and haven't been told what claim of mine is being referred to, I presume my agreement with Dr. Hulsey):

    For an earlier discussion of ARUP's analysis, please review the following thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/tony-szamboti-discusses-his-wtc7-discovery.456693/

    and this thread beginning at post #57.

    For an earlier discussion of the Weidlinger analysis, please review the following thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ow-wtc-7-could-collapes-by-fire-alone.482938/

    This is what Dr. Leroy Hulsey finds:

    Slide 44: NIST & ARUP claimed that the falling beam & girder assembly from floor 13 impacted and broke through floor 12 resulting in an 8 floor cascade.

    Slide 45:

    • These calculations are relevant to the report prepared by Arup for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought by Con Edison and Aegis Insurance Co. against WTC 7 Properties and Cantor Engineering.

    • The ARUP report claimed, similarly to NIST, that the girder at floor 13 came off its seat and initiated a cascade of floor failures, leaving Column 79 laterally unsupported for 9 stories.


    Slide 48: This 215,211 lb. impact force is only 34% of the 632,000 lb. force required and thus insufficient to shear the girder bearing seat support welds. The northeast corner of floor 12 would not have collapsed if a girder at floor 13 came off its seat at column 79 and fell onto it. Thus the ARUP analysis does not show a basis for propagation, even if the girder were to fall off its seat at column 79. These findings illustrate that ARUP’s explanation is invalid.

    Slide 49-50:

    Weidlinger Associates Report

    • The 2010 Weidlinger Associates report was prepared for the defendant in the lawsuit brought by Con Edison and Aegis Insurance Co. against WTC 7 Properties and Cantor Engineering.

    • The Weidlinger report examined the ARUP report and showed ARUP’s claim of the falling beam and girder assembly at the 13th floor breaking through the next floor down was not possible.

    • The Weidlinger report claims that the failure occurred at the 9th and 10th floors on the east side of the building between columns 79 and 80, which were simultaneously heated to extraordinary temperatures (approximately 750 °C).

    • Structural steel member temperatures of 750 °C due to office fires can be considered unusually high and be substantiated. At this point there is no evidence to illustrate the validity of those temperatures.

    i. Brief discussion and Discussion of the WTC 7 report by Weidlinger Associates

    The 2010 Weidlinger Associates report was prepared for the defendant in the lawsuit brought by Con Edison and Aegis Insurance Co. against WTC 7 Properties and Cantor Engineering. It was not entered into the court record, although the judgement was ultimately for the defendant with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the plaintiff’s negligent design claim.

    The Weidlinger report examined the ARUP report and showed ARUP’s claim of the falling beam and girder assembly at the 13thfloor breaking through the next floor down was not possible. This confirms the error in the ARUP analysis that was also determined in the work done for this report.

    The Weidlinger report claims that the failure occurred at the 9th and 10th floors on the east side of the building between columns 79 and 80. Here Weidlinger posits the structural steel members of both floors were simultaneously heated to extraordinary temperatures (approximately 750 °C). Weidlinger argues that due to these extremely high temperatures the 10th floor fell onto the 9th floor which failed because it was already thermally weakened. The steel temperatures claimed are said to be from a 2010 thermal analysis by a Dr. Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. However, the details of that report are not shown in the Weidlinger report and this thermal analysis has not been made public. Structural steel member temperatures of 750 °C due to office fires can be considered unusually high and be substantiated. At this point there is no evidence to illustrate the validity of those temperatures.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
    Eleuthera likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Besides NIST's failure to use the physical evidence available and lying by claiming it wasn't available, failure to conduct any forensic/chemical analysis, failure to use all the data and the exact data it had at its disposal, failure to use a model including a majority section of WTC7, failure to interview many eyewitnesses, failure to acknowledge many corroborating eyewitness accounts of explosions and molten metal/steel and lying by claiming they had no knowledge it exists, failure to use standard investigation techniques and protocols (specifically NFPA standards), failure to use the scientific method (especially transparency and availability for peer review) and other failures too numerous to list, NIST was also severely deficient in its approach. Dr. Hulsey's chart (slide 82) displays a comparison of the UAF approach vs NIST's approach (sorry I can't copy the image):

    COMPARATIVE STUDIES

    ITEMS

    Floor Framing - Steel Connections (springs): UAF, NIST (partial)
    Exterior steel framing connections included (springs) - UAF only
    Girder to column Stiffener Plates @ Col 79 - UAF only
    Floors (composite with beams, not girders) - UAF & NIST
    Floors (composite with beams & girders) - UAF only
    Thermal expansion of the concrete deck - UAF only
    Thermal conductivity & expansion for matl. properties - UAF only

    RESULTS

    Thermal horizontal movement @ Col 79 - (NIST: 5.5”; UAF: < 2”)

    UAF - Based on NIST Column Temperatures Col 79 did not buckle under gravity loading.
    NIST - Column 79 buckling precipitated the total collapse of WTC7.

    GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

    Did Building 7 Collapse from Fires?

    No (this is based on our calculations)
    • This contradicts findings by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
    – The NIST Approach
    – UAF Research Team approach and findings

    UAF Conclusions:

    • The concrete floor diaphragm stiffness is significant and even with no shear connectors, frictional resistance to thermal expansion is not trival.

    • The thermal expansion of the concrete deck cannot be ignored and it is likely less than steel (the value is highly dependent upon the type of aggregate).

    • The research team evaluated fire by considering the air space below the beams in the space between the drop ceiling and the structural steel framing. The result is that a fire underneath will likely burn through the drop ceiling quickly and its resistance to heat transfer is likely not available to help.

    • The NIST vertical collapse was not consistent with that of the actual collapse. The difference was primarily influenced by not modeling a significant portion of the structural framing connection details.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Professor Hulsey's Interim Report Undercuts NIST WTC 7 Study

    Thermal Expansion Shown to Push Opposite Direction From NIST
    Written by Wayne H. Coste, PE

    On September 6, 2017, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, provided his September 2017 progress report on a project undertaken by the University of Alaska Fairbanks' (UAF's) Institute of Northern Engineering and the College of Mines. He presented his findings and conclusions during a live stream event analyzing the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). WTC 7 was a 47-story office building that fell nearly seven hours after the collapse of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers on Sept 11, 2001. In a 2008 report, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attributed the collapse to office fires in the lower stories of the building. During his presentation, he muses, "The first thing I would have thought about when I got involved here is the columns obviously got really, really hot and then lost strength and we would have ended up losing the building. However, nobody seems to think that ever happened." Instead, the collapse of WTC 7 has been ascribed to fires that created enormous stresses within the structure building structure which caused bending, buckling and then eventually led to an eight floor cascade that led to a progressive collapse of the entire structure. Central to the NIST analysis was their assumption that the east exterior wall was fixed in space and absolutely immovable (e.g. no east exterior wall deformation). This assumption then allowed thermal expansion of the structure only to the west where it then jammed into the rest of the structure.

    UAF researcher Leroy Hulsey was the project manager and was assisted by two Ph.D. graduate students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks: Feng Xiao (who now has earned his Ph.D.) and Zhili Quan. A draft report of the two-year study will be issued later this fall, followed by a six-week public comment period, with a final report scheduled for release in early 2018. This article provides a summary and transcript of his talk. The UAF project was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    Professor Hulsey reviewed the NIST analysis and expressed his findings in a presentation that could be understood by both technical and non-technical audiences. The most unexpected observation that Professor Husley made during his presentation was that the fire induced thermal expansion and movement of the floor was to the west of column 79. NIST had claimed that the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by expansion and movement of the floor to the east of column 79. Professor Hulsey further explains why the visualization of NIST's incomplete finite-element analysis of the building, results in the collapse looking so lopsided. Watching Professor Hulsey's review will help the public identify numerous errors and omissions in the NIST report. Ultimately Professor Hulsey concludes that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7.


    Read the rest, it includes a transcript of Dr. Hulsey's video presentation:

    https://www.911tap.org/557-news-rel...y-s-interim-report-undercuts-nist-wtc-7-study
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From the article/transcript:

    On Slide 12, Professor Hulsey posits: "So did WTC7 collapse from fires? Our study shows the fire is not the cause. I'm not going to tell you about what did it– I'm just going to tell you that it wasn't that. … This contradicts findings presented by NIST."

    So understandably, Dr. Hulsey's analysis does NOT show the cause of the "collapse" of WTC7 and his team has not yet studied any possible causes. That is another project that Dr. Hulsey claims he will tackle in the future. His study concludes that fire was NOT the cause. Again, if fire was not the cause and structural damage due to debris damage from WTC1 was ruled out by all studies, what are the other logical possibilities?

    On Slides 21 to 25, he then reviews the NIST animated visualizations of their progressive collapse and describes how the difference in modeling the connections (detailed vs. fixed pin) which results in one side of the building behaving so differently than the other. He then shows a side by side video of the actual collapse vs the simulated collapse, and posed the question, “Is that the same thing?” and “why is it so much different on one side than the other?”



    So anyone with a functional brain and pair of eyes can see that NIST's animation model does not match the video of the actual "collapse" of WTC7. What Dr. Hulsey is saying is that NIST's model attempts to replicate the "collapse" as NIST modeled only part of WTC7 (the part outlined in blue (see slide 19):

    upload_2017-9-22_10-7-31.png

    What Dr. Hulsey will not say (because by his own claim he's not going to criticize NIST) is that NIST's animation model is a gross insult to one's intelligence.

    To be continued ...
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In Slides 26 to 35, he describes the connection at column 79 where NIST claims the failure originated. He describes the construction of column 79 as an “H” beam with side plates welded on to it. He notes the dimensions of the side plates were larger than the width of the beam and this created a lip on either side of the beam, into which the bearing seat would have been inset. With this construction, the bearing seat that would have restrained the motion of the girder (A-2001) that NIST said was pushed off of its seat – thus initiating the progressive collapse. NIST did not represent this lip in their model of the connection at column 79. Furthermore, NIST understated the width of the bearing seat. Professor Hulsey then states, “It is not possible to move the girder web beyond the seat as claimed by NIST.”

    In Slides 36 and 37, Professor Hulsey reviews three steel members that provided lateral support to a critical beam that NIST did not include in their analysis. The NIST collapse initiation hypothesis requires that these three members be ignored. He concludes, “[Our analysis] shows that that girder does not buckle when you have them in.”

    In slides 38 to 43, Professor Hulsey describes the effect of NIST neglecting the partial height web stiffeners that are shown in the erection drawings. The omission of these web stiffeners was required for the NIST collapse initiation. With them included, “[Our UAF analysis] shows that the girder will not fail with the partial height web stiffeners installed.”


    So with ANY single one of these structural components included, it is IMPOSSIBLE that NIST's Column 79 failure could have failed as described by NIST in their official report. Again, Dr. Hulsey will not criticize NIST but neither I nor any other reader is restricted because we are just observers. So IMO, since NIST worked with the exact same original Frankel drawings as Dr. Hulsey and I'm quite sure all these NIST experts who participated in the "investigation" were not blind, it is IMPOSSIBLE that they ALL failed to see these components detailed in the original drawings. Therefore, it is without a doubt true by default that these components were DELIBERATELY and FRAUDULENTLY omitted in order to try to make NIST's theory viable.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If anyone is still "confused" as to why this NIST "investigation" seems illegitimate to me, please ask questions. If you have no questions I have to assume you understand exactly why the NIST "investigation" IS illegitimate, not just to me but to anyone with minimal intelligence. And if you've gotten that far, you should have also wrapped your head around that since NIST was the ONLY entity commissioned by the US government to investigate the collapse of WTC7, that the NIST "investigation" is worthless (null and void) and that there never was a legitimate investigation into the "collapse" of WTC7 on 9/11. Further, if you are a true American and not just a US government stooge, you should be demanding a legitimate investigation into the collapse of WTC7 and questioning the same about the twin towers. In other words, if NIST's investigation into WTC7 is a fraud, why would you believe it was legitimate for the twin towers? In fact, NIST admitted they did NOT investigate the collapse of the twin towers in a footnote. So that investigation doesn't exist either. Perhaps all 3 towers collapsed naturally as a result of the events of 9/11, anything is possible. But the likelihood is extremely remote so it absolutely requires a legitimate investigation and at least 25 9/11 family members agree. Still confused?
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one wants to discuss the content of Dr. Hulsey's Interim Report, not even to criticize any part of it. So I will take the initiative and criticize one major piece of it. NIST claims that WTC7 "collapsed" as a result of thermal expansion due to fire alone. The claim is NIST's and therefore the burden of proof is on NIST to substantiate their claim. As anyone can see who has done the research and as fully detailed in this thread, NIST has never legitimately proven that this is true. Dr. Leroy Hulsey's team has done a masterful job of showing in meticulous detail the illegitimacy of NIST's theory. He also disputes the result of NIST's findings as impossible given NIST's selective data and also when the correct data is used.

    However, Dr. Hulsey also makes the global claim (see slides 4 and 12) that fire was not the cause of the "collapse of WTC7" and that his study shows it wasn't the cause. I don't know if he misworded his claim or not but Dr. Hulsey's study only shows that NIST's conclusion is fallacious based on NIST's illegitimate approach. To my knowledge, Dr. Hulsey's study is NOT about proving that fire was not the cause or there is no evidence thus far (peer review publication pending) that Dr. Hulsey's team has actually proven that fire was not the cause (NIST's study aside). Hulsey made the claim that fire was NOT the cause so the burden of proof is on Dr. Hulsey. Or, it is up to Hulsey to re-word his claim if that's not what he meant.

    This is of course also open for discussion. I personally have no doubt that fire was not the cause but that's just my personal assessment based on the evidence.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moving on:

    In slides 44 to 48, Professor Hulsey reviews the impact of the falling girder onto the floor below. This is another critical part of the NIST collapse hypothesis -- that the falling girder destroys the floors below and leaves column 79 unsupported for 8 floors. He observes that by using a modal analysis with a 0.52 Hz frequency mode, he observes that, “[The ] impact force is only 34% of the 632,000 lb. force required [to break the connections on the lower floor(s)] and thus insufficient to shear the girder bearing seat supporting welds [on the lower floors].”

    So according to Dr. Hulsey's calculations, it doesn't even matter if NIST's column 79 failure theory is 100% fact, its failure cannot cause a catastrophic cascading progressive collapse of of WTC7 (which is not what is seen on video anyway). Does that answer my question (see prior post) as to how and why Dr. Hulsey claims he has proven that fire was not the cause? I'm not sure but I sure would like to read the actual publication. Perhaps someone (preferably an honest poster) wants to chime in on this point? But that's a really small point, for me there are 2 primary highlights:

    1. That NIST's WTC7 hypothesis published as fact, is impossible (i.e. fiction).

    2. That WTC7 could not possibly "collapse" as the result of the failure of one major column connection at a lower floor due to thermal expansion caused by the heat from the fire (which had burned out anyway at the floors around column 79 about an hour prior to WTC7's demise).
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This video is worth posting. There's no sound so you'll have to imagine a narrative. Those who bought the official narrative will love this, it makes NIST's animation look childish. I have to hand it to the author, great job, it comes much closer to merging NIST's "collapse" theory with the actual video of WTC7 being destroyed although it still doesn't quite match up.



    It goes to show almost anything can be done with great CGI. One of my favorite CGI movies is Avatar.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And it gets interesting.

    Slides 51 through 53 address the issue of the characteristics of the concrete used to create the floors such as their thermal expansion characteristics and their connection to the steel beams and girders using shear studs. The presence of shear studs determines whether the floor system acts as a composite system or non-composite system. A non-composite floor system has no connections and the floor can expand independently of the beams and girders. The absence of shear studs in the NIST analysis was another omission that was required for their collapse hypothesis to proceed. Later in the presentation Professor Hulsey shows that the shear stud issue was irrelevant because of the direction of the thermal expansion -- if the exterior walls were not arbitrarily assumed to be fixed and immovable.

    NIST was creative with its data but on a simplistic level because I have no idea how they figured they could get away with their shenanigans (i.e. get it past their peers). The Hulsey study is actually the 3rd significant WTC7 "collapse" study undertaken by a team of experts (ARUP and Weidlinger) other than NIST. The difference is the Hulsey study is being done on much more sophisticated and detailed level and independent of the legal system and is an investigation of all 3 studies (NIST, ARUP and Weidlinger). Both the ARUP and Weidlinger studies were conducted within the context of litigation.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one wants to chime in with their opinions on the technical issues so I'll post an opinion from another blog that I found perfectly on point (except for the last 3 arguable claims).

    Actually, slide 32 is where NIST's theory of collapse initiation stops dead in its tracks.
    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

    If you give NIST almost everything they claim,

    1. East wall infinitely stiff, immovable
    2. Four hours of heating
    3. Beams shear studs broken
    4. Shear studs non-existent on girder A2001
    5. Beams G3005, A3004, B3004, C3004 and K3004 heated to 600C
    6. Beams expand due to heating, pushing girder A2001 to the west
    6. Girder stiffeners not necessary because they pre-determined no web crippling

    Girder A2001's web cannot move far enough across the bearing seat at C79 because the 1.8" overlap of side cover plates on C79 lock the girder in after only ~3.7" of westerly travel.

    NIST originally concluded that the beams could push the girder west 5.5". Once this happened, they claimed, the eastern bottom flange of girder A2001 would fold upwards and the girder would crash onto the F12 slab.

    In June 2012 after they were forced to correct their claim that the bearing seat was just 11" wide, they revised the 5.5" to 6.25" citing typographical errors [never explained where the extra beam expansion came from],

    Hulsey's team proved there is simply no way for the girder to walk off the bearing seat.

    Without this the following NIST theorized events CANNOT take place:

    1. Girder A2001 impacts the floor 12 slab, unseating a similar girder supporting F12, which falls to F11, causing a chain reaction all the way down to F6.
    2. C79 becomes laterally unsupported for eight stories
    3. C79 buckles
    3. C79 drags down all eastern floors from F14 to the roof.
    4. A westerly progression of floor collapses ensues, leaving the exterior shell without support
    5. The exterior shell collapses at free fall acceleration (for the first 2.25 seconds) as seen in the videos.

    COULD NOT HAPPEN.
    FIRE COULD NOT DO IT.

    Therefore something else did it.

    I posted the blog as is (the erroneous numbering included lol). However, in an objective world, according to the evidence, "could not happen" should only mean it could not happen as NIST described it. It also does NOT mean the evidence proves "fire could not do it". It also doesn't prove "something else did it". A legitimate investigation would necessarily incorporate ALL possible causes, not reject uncomfortable ones.
     

Share This Page