Witnesses: There is no way any person can look at orange metal in a molten or semi-molten state and insist it is steel. It is absurd for anyone to suggest that numbers of witnesses making this same assumption means it must be accurate. Non-witnesses: The great thing about science is that it works whether anybody is there or not. Steel still gets molten around temperatures much higher than copper, aluminum, zinc, tin, glass(!) and any one of a whole series of other substances. So when someone says "it looks like molten steel", I have a whole load of readily available data to question this. Do you deny that numerous metals (that must have been at ground zero) that melt at much lower temperatures are far more likely than steel, thus not melting surrounding concrete and steel? Objective: You don't get to dismiss anyone's objective because they legitimately question unreliable testimony, on the basis of established science and failed corroboration through any testing.
A rather blatantly inaccurate claim which is the crux of this big straw man(emphasis mine). There is insufficient evidence to even remotely suggest this as the cause for the collapse. But column displacement explains this - when the expansion from fire actually causes this locally and renders column 79 unstable, the remaining columns become displaced accordingly. For viewers able to objectively look at all evidence - HERE: "There are numerous problems with the claim that the study shows that WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire: The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation. The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged. The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models. The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210992/ The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/211186/ The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly. The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/ The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/ The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow. The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse. While it is possible that Dr. Hulsey's study will eventually yield some interesting results, it is factually incorrect to say that it proves that fire could not have caused the collapse." This is a direct response to his first claim, subsequent amendments to this still do not address these issues. This page finds numerous faults with his "Final" claims - HERE.
Perhaps my Google is not working correctly but can anybody point me to the peer reviewed work of Hulsey’s UAF paper? Did anyone actually peer review it?
Oh puhlease! Megabunk with slick Nickie West? The only people left on that board are his pals! Everyone that disagreed with him he banned! None of them have the software to check Hulseys work, in fact when Hulsey put up his work for 'constructive' criticism and error checking and to the best of my knowledge no errors were found. AFAIK he answered all questions asked except for dignifing the irellevant nonengineer cheap seat demands.Know why? Anyone knows their stuff knows its these guys are a bunch of cranks, not professional engineers, and they do not asking contextual questions or make points that drives to what they want to prove. He's a busy PhD not someone who is going to get into a bickerfest with a bunch of cranks! LOL None of those PhD's that did the study are going to get into a bickerfest or for that matter teach engineering to the clueless.
I posted the link a number of times so thanks for admitting you never bothered to read Hulsey's paper. Of course it won't matter, it's obvious you have no real interest. Regardless: https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...ollapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf The draft report was available for peer review for several weeks prior to publication of the final report and it certainly was peer reviewed, I even took part. Who didn't take part and had every opportunity to do so? NIST, you, Beta, everyone at Metabunk, especially Mick West who decided he's going to take a stab at criticizing the paper for his adoring cult but didn't have the balls to do so during the peer review process. This is truly laughable coming from someone who has obviously never read Hulsey's paper, hasn't a single clue what it's all about and only posts idiotic pretend nonsense from Metabunk (aka Mick West, Oystein et al) who equally haven't a clue, haven't done any research, haven't written any paper and don't have the education or background to come anywhere near challenging Hulsey and his team. But at least you're good at copy, paste and regurgitate whatever you think sounds like some kind of challenge. If you actually read the paper, you would know that there's no possible way column 79 could have been displaced via thermal expansion even if NIST did include all the structural components they deliberately and fraudulently omitted from their report. Furthermore, even if by some miracle column 79 could have been displaced via some magical thermal expansion, Hulsey proved that it would be impossible for that event to cause other columns to fail like a bunch of pick-up-sticks (i.e. a "progressive collapse"). And even if that somehow could have happened, there's not a chance on earth the building would "collapse" in its entirety into its own structure at free fall. That doesn't make sense in any way, free fall and progressive collapse are mutually exclusive. And finally what you posted that I won't bother to quote (other than the first 4 words) does not even reference Hulsey's final report, which was published in March 2020. So it's more than obvious you don't know what you're talking about and only come here to post anything and everything that opposes any challenge to the official 9/11 fairy tale no matter how ludicrous.
you seem to have lost subject matter connection. Its always a good policy to read what you are trying to respond to before posting What happens when structural support is not 'globally' removed for 100? ask mick! lols .
Hmmmm, well thanks for that bloviating noise. I missed where you addressed the content of my post. I've bolded the problem. Ditto. The art of debate or discussion involves actually saying something constructive.
Bob went through the trouble of posting it again. I would not have since you did not bother to read it the last 5 times he posted it any more than you read my posts before you put up a strawman response. The art of debate is to perform a constructive cross examination of the facts and as everyone can see you failed to do so. You ignored my question entirely which is typical of people that dont understand the material they are attempting to argue. .
Nice try Bob, but that's not peer review. A co-author on another paper and a fellow "911-truth" writer don't actually count. If you can't see this is a problem you really are lost in your own rabbit hole. That's not what peer review is Bob! You took part? You think you are a peer? Remember what Carlin said about US college education. Lots of arm waving here Bob, intermingled with some ad hominem statements. Rather evasive of you. Another list of problems and you just ignored them again. The whole lot of them! Part of that list details major problems - here's one : The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly. Yet his final report STILL does not address any of the raised 8ssues you ignored. You're just waving your arms around and stomping your feet. You simply have no understanding about ANY of this. There was never any way that you were actually going to address this list because you neither understand any of it or care. So long as it fits in with your conspiracy claims, it just therefore be true. Now Bob, address the list instead of evading it: The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation. The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged. The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models. The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210992/ The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/211186/ The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly. The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/ The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/ The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow. The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse.
Bob just evaded my entire post, as did you. And you just did again. Not deliberately. Repeat your question and make it clear.
which are? This project was undertaken to answer the question: Did fire cause this building to collapse? The study concluded it did not collapse due to fire. seems it is finished? What happens when structural support is not 'globally' removed for 100? tell us the sequence of events that take place if the question is not glaringly in your face obvious enough....
So what!? NIST are made up of more experts, they say it did. We're back to this playground nonsense about your 1 expert and his "peers" suggesting that NIST are wrong when the study carried out is replete with omissions, pointed out above and STILL ignored! 100 what! Is this some sort of comedy routine? You totally ignore glaring problems and then demand an answer to a poorly framed question that requires information about the interior of WTC7 that is unknown. See NIST report for a reasonable assessment given the unknowns about the interior.
Another source that comprehensively models the situation with state-of-the-art tools that actually properly validate the fire effects, unlike Hulsey! PDF analysis of collapse - undertaken by Weidlinger (now Thornton Tomasetti) So we had NIST, a government agency driven analysis, then we had Hulsey "sponsored" by AE911Truth. Creating a false dichotomy of "which is correct", then we get the above, from what appears to be a defense of claims against the building designers. "We have also conducted our own independent analyses to assess the structural stability of WTC 7 and to determine the entire causal chain that led to the building’s collapse. This study has involved thousands of hours of analysis by my team over the course of five years. We have reviewed all of the available construction documents, shop drawings and review documents from the construction of WTC 7. Using state-of-the-art computational tools, specifically validated for fire effects on structures and collapse analyses, we were able to use these documents and plans to create a three-dimensional computer model of the WTC 7 building, which accurately reflects the conditions and responses of the WTC 7 structural system to the events of September 11. These computational tools and Weidlinger’s analyses are routinely relied upon by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies in the extreme loading assessment and design of many critical structures, including U.S. embassies of recent vintage for example. All of our analyses were conducted with the level of care and requisite detail needed to address the specific issue being examined. In doing all of this work, I have drawn on my and Weidlinger’s cumulative experience in the development of computational techniques and the evaluation of the performance of structures undergoing extreme loading, supported by several decades worth of large-scale experimental validation for such phenomenology. Based on our analyses and critical review of the analyses, data and engineering judgment of plaintiffs’ experts, we find all of the design errors asserted as a cause of collapse to be either unfounded or based on erroneous, and even contrived, analyses. Our analyses clearly establish that the attacks of September 11 set-off an unstoppable chain of events, given the circumstances of the day, of such magnitude as to exhaust the capacity of the building structural system over the course of seven hours leading to the ultimate collapse of WTC 7. As discussed herein, the claimed “defects” featured in plaintiffs’ experts’ reports are not defects at all. And none of the changes advocated by plaintiffs’ experts would have prevented the collapse." Hulsey dismisses this due to temperatures he claimed never occurred, which is quite remiss, since he didn't do proper fire modelling in the first place. The point here, which I have already stated is that none of the 3 analyses can be 100% accurate, since there is too much unknown about the state of the building relating to the internal damage. But using algorithms specifically designed for fire-modelling is going to give a pretty good result.
political rhetoric is evdence of precisely nothing as discussed wherein? ....AND AGAIN you did not respond to the question asked, it is you who is not debating in good faith. I accept your failure to respond as a concession.
Just his cronies apparently. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-98685-8_13 "A similar breakthrough was made after rigorous investigations on the tragic collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on September 11, 2001, which, by contrast, has shown the system-level vulnerability of modern designed structures. Had the towers not been hit by the aircraft and only set on fire, comprehensive investigations showed that they would have still collapsed. With the decades of research, many fundamental mechanisms of structural behaviour in fires have been identified. The advance of modern technologies and techniques has been utilised in understanding the structural behaviour in fires and ultimately preventing the fire induced failure and collapse." This paper cites the Abboud paper. http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf
"I did not respond to your question" he says as he ignores my entire post and the subsequent ones. Did you not read what I said!? 100 what!?
LOL Compare for us what we will see happen if 1) a building loses global structural support, and 2) a building losses structural support but not globally. As discussed wherein? I didnt see a model in there anywhere? How can you do an assessment without a model? Crystal ball maybe?
"Opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those of the funding agency." ~WTC7 Re-evaluation Authors Seems they made it pretty clear that is not the case. Can you offer any proof of your malfeasance claim? Wow! Are you about to concede to 5 consecutive points?
We can see the demolition sequence of wtc7 in dark mode then look closely in normal light mode. Fire in the hole! Light er up! and they thought they were being clever! lmao (short flashes are explosions and long flashes are thermate.)
first time you ever seen a real demolition huh? When you see flashes of light and the building drops to the ground, thats what a demolition looks like They are fun to watch, at least when its not mass murder. Light em up! Fire in the hole!
Nope. Breaking windows twinkling light. Nope. Did they put soundproofing in so nobody could hear the demolition charges that amazingly survived hours and hours of fires. Amazing. But here's the kicker, why in any world would they place charges on the outskirts of a building, up in the top section when they only needed to drop the support columns down below. Wow, that's an amazing gif, you can see all the charges going off. Shame it doesn't have any sound. Oh wait! You can even hear the damn explosions OVER the top of a distant helicopter! Unlike WTC7. Try to keep up, this is referring to his "peer review" - these are co-authors to other papers or people who have posted similar "911-truther" nonsense.
This thread is devoted to exposing NIST's fraudulent scam that is in essence part of a criminal conspiracy to attempt to cover up and support the mass murder of over 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 and the ensuing genocide that has affected and continues to affect millions of lives worldwide following 9/11. It's also important to note that there are posters in this forum (and referenced at other sites such as Metabunk) who rabidly defend and support this criminal scam and attack and insult anyone and everyone who challenge it. These same posters never question any part of this monstrous scam. They instead attempt to justify the scam perpetrated by NIST, often by claiming that whatever eyewitnesses saw, heard and felt on 9/11 (as denied and/or ignored by NIST) were anything but what they claim they saw, heard and felt on 9/11. PDF analysis of collapse - undertaken by Weidlinger (now Thornton Tomasetti) It's important to note that there were a number of engineering studies conducted that all contradict each other (see 1 example above and another following this paragraph). These were NIST, Arup, Nordenson, Weidlinger and Dr. Hulsey and his team. Only NIST and Hulsey actually mentioned the free fall of WTC7 and went beyond "collapse" initiation. NIST reduced their analysis to some kind of artificial "3 stages of free fall" in order to pretend that WTC7 somehow dropped at a longer rate and Hulsey's report went into the problem quite extensively, including computer modeling. Hulsey's report also analyzes the Arup, Nordenson and Weidlinger studies in Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 and details their invalid conclusions (see Pages 87-91). https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...ollapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf Furthermore (since my post was deleted), I will re-post the Request for Correction document that, in addition to Hulsey's final report, goes into great detail in its analysis of NIST's fraudulent report on the "collapse" of WTC7. Please note that pages 95-104 list all the Requesters (about 10 per page), which include structural engineers, architects and 9/11 family members. https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf
Yeh they simply pretend those nonsense studies do not exist or present that bunk as reliable because most of them never read any of it and are simply parroting others with no academic knowledge beyond the quips to defend their positions. Hulsey is the only one on the planet that created a comprehensive model and put it out in the public. NIST the government agency charged with investigating why the structures collapsed did a slap happy throw together politically aligned job and both lied about the structure and omitted critical elements from their model and refused to release their model in a pinnacle of grandiose asinine reasons that it would: "JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY" They tried to cover up their fraudulent analysis! Now we have it and no buildings have collapsed as a result and PUBLIC SAFETY is perfectly in tact. Im shocked that after 20 years people exist that still try to legitimize such nonsense. I thought they were embarrassed into extinction! lol
The objective of a NORMAL controlled demolition is to Minimize Collateral Damage. If the people in CONTROL don't give a damn then how does that affect their options?
