Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.
Yes, ASCE is as corrupt as the mainstream media.
As Roland Angle explains, when it comes to a choice between one's livelihood and integrity, the choice is almost always the former. Many of these people have strong ties to lucrative government contracts. This is why you'll find that most professionals who are 9/11 activists are also retired.
For those who are anxiously waiting and haven't noticed:
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7
J. Leroy Hulsey
Dr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral Researcher
Zhili Quan, Ph.D. student
May 1, 2015 - September 30, 2019
At the rate the legal actions are moving along, there will be plenty of time to submit the final peer reviewed version into the court records as supporting expert witness evidence.
I am anxiously awaiting 9/30/19 ...
The first draft of the Hulsey Report on WTC7 is scheduled to be released the first week of September 2019 according to AE911T. This version will be open for peer review for a 6 week period.
This September promises to be a momentous period for AE911Truth and the millions of people who have been fighting for a real investigation into the events of 9/11 over the past 18 years.
In the first week of September, AE911Truth will participate in releasing the draft report of the groundbreaking World Trade Center Building 7 Study by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).
The release of this report will include a livestreamed presentation by the study’s principal investigator, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, at UAF’s Schaible Auditorium on September 3, 2019, followed by a second presentation from Dr. Hulsey at the UC Berkeley Faculty Club on September 5, 2019. The draft report will be published that same week at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 — as well as at AE911Truth.org — and will be open for public comment for a six-week period ending October 15, 2019.
I'm anticipating that the final peer reviewed version will be published later this year and added to the list of exhibits filed with the Grand Jury petition and the lawsuit vs the FBI and the DOJ. Unless there are major conflicts within the scientific community, it will become settled science. That is, that the NIST report on WTC7 will be fully vetted and exposed as a scientific fallacy (to be kind). IMO, in a just world those responsible at NIST should be held criminally accountable and charged with perpetrating a massive fraud.
See Post #81 in this thread and:
Following up on the latest news, the first draft of Hulsey's WTC7 Report will be released on 9/3/19. According to AE911T:
In just a couple of weeks, the breakthrough Building 7 Study by Dr. Leroy Hulsey will be released, proving definitively that fire did not cause the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11.
Although I've known for years that fire could not possibly have been the cause for the complete destruction of WTC7 at free fall and near free fall acceleration (a virtual scientific and logical impossibility), proving that fire was not the cause is a whole other matter. That would be akin to proving a negative. It's one thing to prove that the NIST Report on WTC7 is a scientific fraud (that was proven long before I ever heard of Hulsey), but it's another to prove that fire wasn't the cause. IMO to do that, one would have to prove an alternate cause (e.g. controlled demolition). Unless I'm missing something, the preliminary report by Hulsey only shows that the NIST Report on WTC7 is filled with misinformation and is scientifically unsustainable. Hulsey avoids any attempt at pointing to any specific cause. But for me, Hulsey's Report does more than enough to prove that NIST not only failed to do their job but invented the cause of the destruction of WTC7 via reverse engineering. That is, they predetermined the cause and worked for 7 years to try to prove it. That is not science, that's fraud. This entire thread is devoted to exposing NIST's criminal fraud.
Having said all that, I'm anxiously awaiting the draft report so I can study it and read commentary from experts.
looking forward to it ...
According to Richard Gage (at 19:45) Hulsey models what could have brought down WTC7 (when you take out 8 stories of columns, 82 columns at once) and what could not have brought down WTC7 (using the same conditions as NIST). In the former case, Hulsey's model shows WTC7 coming down in the same manner seen in multiple videos. There is no question that fire cannot take out 82 columns at once, only a controlled demolition has that capability. NIST's stated hypothesis is that this was a "progressive collapse". Of course there's nothing progressive about 82 columns being taken out at once. In the latter case, WTC7 does not collapse at all.
Hulsey's collapse model vs the NIST collapse model, science and the scientific method vs sleight of hand. According to engineers who have already reviewed Hulsey's model, the claim is that the data and methodology is accessible to anyone so that they can replicate the model for themselves and verify the results (standard scientific method). NIST's model components and methodology, as anyone who has studied the issue knows, are not publicly available (per NIST) and therefore impossible to replicate (a strictly faith based study).
NIST's hypothesis is that the reason WTC7 collapsed in the manner seen on multiple videos (to simplify) is that thermal expansion caused the failure of one column which in turn caused a progressive cascading effect destroying the building in a "3 stage" manner, of which one of the stages was a free fall collapse. NIST's is the ONLY hypothesis that claims that fires are the root cause for the full destruction of WTC7. There is NO other scientific study that scientifically confirms the NIST hypothesis. Once Hulsey shows that the NIST hypothesis is fallacious and that the actual cause for the full destruction of WTC7 as seen on multiple videos is the simultaneous removal of all 82 columns (assuming it is supported by the scientific community), the prevailing standard will then shift from the NIST hypothesis to the Hulsey hypothesis. And that will beg the next question, how can all 82 columns be removed at once? And if fires can't do that, then fires were NOT the cause of the destruction of WTC7 and that in IMO is how and why Hulsey can make the claim that his study proves that fire did not cause the complete destruction of WTC7 as seen on multiple videos. So I answered my own question (see post #332).
The following is an interview with Kamal Obeid and Casey Pfeiffer, both of whom are structural engineers:
Be sure to watch NIST's scam exposed in all its glory, presented by a real expert using real science.
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (Fairbanks)
A Presentation by Civil Engineering Professor J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E.
September 3, 2019
6:00 PM Alaska Time / 10:00 PM Eastern
University of Alaska Fairbanks
If you miss it, the video will always be available. The draft report will also be available for all to review and comment on.
Hulsey's draft report is now available:
As well as several computer simulations:
I will study these and comment once I've completed reviewing these.
A brief summary based on an initial reading of the report and listening to Hulsey's presentation.
1. The NIST report is based on an enormous amount of false/invented/wishful data and methodology.
2. What happened to WTC7 according to NIST could not have happened using NIST's own fabricated data. There would not have been a collapse.
3. Even if NIST was correct in its hypothetical collapse initiation hypothesis (the failure of a single column 79 due to thermal expansion at floor 13), Hulsey's collapse model shows WTC7 would have tipped over.
4. The ONLY collapse model that actually simulates the manner of WTC7's descent seen on videos is the simultaneous removal of 82 columns, at about the 16th floor.
5. The Penthouse collapse (a separate event) was initiated at about the 45th floor, which was not on fire.
6. Hulsey was asked if could hypothesize what could have done that and he responded "I'm not going there".
Hulsey's report does make the claim that not all possibilities have been explored, however 2 things are true:
1. NIST's WTC7 collapse model and hypothesis are based in pseudo-science (to be kind) and are unsustainable.
2. While Hulsey's model may not be the only possible scenario, it is the only one that has been shown to nearly accurately simulate the collapse of WTC7 and is available for reproduction.
Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11, New Study Finds
On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction.
Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building's debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.
Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The UAF WTC 7 report concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
All the available material is available at the above link and at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc and several gigabytes of additional data will be made available in the second half of this month. Comments may be submitted until November 1, 2019 and the final peer reviewed report will be published later this year.
Here's your big chance to be heard. You have a unique opportunity to send your comments and explain to Hulsey about your "as-built" fixation. Have you read this part yet?
As Table 2.3 illustrates, we took several steps in our modeling of WTC 7 that NIST did not take. These steps enabled us to more accurately simulate the building’s behavior and to
consider conflicting assumptions regarding the as-built condition of the building.
In summary, based upon our analyses, we found the following:
1. During our nonlinear connection study, we discovered that NIST over-estimated the rigidity of the outside frame by not modeling its connections, essentially treating the exterior steel framing as thermally fixed, which caused all thermally-induced floor expansion to move away from the exterior. The exterior steel framing was actually flexible, while the stiffest area resistant to thermal movements, i.e., the point of zero thermal movement, was near the center of the building.
2. Therefore, during our analysis of WTC 7’s response to fire loading, we found the overall thermal movement at the A2001 base plate support near Column 79 was not sufficient to displace girder A2001 to the point that it walked off its seat. Whereas NIST asserted that the differential westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 was 5.5 inches and later revised its calculation to 6.25 inches, we found that the westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 would have been less than 1 inch under the fire conditions reported by NIST (Figure 2.66).
The little relative displacement is justified as the building was constructed as a composite-beam structure where the concrete slabs and the steel elements were connected with nelson studs. Therefore, even if the connections between some steel elements were broken, the steel elements were still held together by the studs to the concrete slabs.
PDF Page 73.
NOTE: I uncovered a typo in the above:
"we found that the westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 would have been less than 1 inch under the fire conditions reported by NIST (Figure 2.66)."
That should be Figure 2.65, there is no "Figure 2.66". I will send Hulsey a notification for correction.
Those people that want to claim that NIST's model do not reflect reality should also say the same for Hulsey's models show an the link below.
Below are the YouTube links.
Figure 4.16 Hypothetical Failure of Columns 76 to 81 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report
No deformation or disconnecting of the structural components as the tilting upper section just FALLS THROUGH the lower section and then through the ground.
Figure 4.20 Hypothetical Simultaneous Failure of All Core Columns — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report
Same thing for this video. No deformation or disconnecting of the structural components as the tilting upper section just FALLS THROUGH the lower section.
Figure 4.24b Near-Simultaneous Failure of All Columns Persp. 2 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report
And what's this crap? The east penthouse looks like someone cracked an egg using their thumbs and then pulling the shells apart with their fingers only to have the penthouse deform back in the opposite direction with the two halves coming back together as it descends through the building. Again, where are the component collisions between the penthouse and the interior structural components? Where are the disconnections between components?
my as-built fixation is still valid ... Was the building constructed per the original plans or was there value engineering involved to cut corners and costs? ... it is a very common practice ...
Nelson studs ... really ... Nelson studs are set in drilled and inserted anchors into concrete slabs with the exposed stud above the slab runs through either a beam or column ... I am pretty damn sure that they would have held to the steel ... however, the concrete slabs would have been under extreme pressure during collapse and the concrete probably shattered releasing the anchors with the studs still connected to steel ...
In other words, the Nelson studs cannot be called into play as any proof that they would have supported the steel framing at the area of collapse inititation ...
Not really for several reasons. First the NIST model does not even come close to simulating the collapse of WTC7 (it is a gross distortion) whereas Hulsey's computer simulation is nearly identical when exhibiting what would happen if all 82 columns are removed simultaneously. Second, a computer model does not reflect exact reality (in this case) in the sense that the program cannot account for interaction with everything so all it is is a SIMULATION (look up the definition). Third, all the other computer models only reflect a hypothetical collapse direction based on the available data and nothing more (note the use of the word HYPOTHETICAL - you can look that up too). As to the Penthouse collapse, there is no way of knowing what might have happened to it once it drops into the interior of the building, no computer model can account for that, especially when one does not know exactly what and where the point of destruction occurred beneath it. So once again, it's also a SIMULATION.
But all the above is strictly my opinion, I didn't create the computer simulations or participate with Hulsey's team or take part in writing the draft report and I'm certainly not the expert. If you still have questions or contradictions, you do have the opportunity to:
1. Recreate all the computer models for yourself using Hulsey's data. You will probably need access to a fairly powerful computer and SAP2000 and ABAQUS software. See if you get a different result. Unlike NIST, ALL the data is publicly available, there is nothing hidden or "classified" because it might "endanger public safety".
2. Send Hulsey an email explaining your concerns at publiccomment@AE911Truth.org as I did with respect to Figure 2.66. Post the response here. Oh wait, I'm still waiting for you to post the response from your email to the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department, so I guess I'll be waiting forever.
So aside from all the above triviality (in comparison), what do you make of the really important findings by Hulsey?
In other words you only read the piece I posted and haven't read the entire draft report despite your claim that:
I read the entire draft report and will go through it again when I get a chance, as well as review the video again. So you were never really "anxious", but I knew that.
I will give you the same advice I gave Gamolon:
And ask you the same question:
I will give you my opinion though for what it's worth:
Except what Hulsey describes with respect to the studs is PRE-collapse (displacement due to thermal expansion), not collapse or even collapse initiation, which couldn't have occurred because the displacement was calculated at less than 1 inch. And it wasn't just the studs that prevented expansion beyond 1 inch. I think you're confused or have a reading comprehension problem, but then again you read what you want to read. And remember that NIST omitted the studs altogether (too inconvenient for their phony hypothesis I suppose). So even NIST thought the studs were significant, otherwise why deliberately omit them? Mistake? Yeah right, they specifically said there weren't any, despite claiming there were in an earlier report. Like I said, check with the expert, don't take my word for it.
I was alerted that the link to the draft report I posted here does not work, so here's another link:
You can find all the material below and note the following:
The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019.
There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 1, 2019, with the final report will be released later this year. During this period, we 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 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 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.
I'd like to address this too. Of course you can wait to answer after you've read the draft report.
Let's say for argument's sake the "as-built" construction differed (even significantly - which is seriously doubtful) from the original plans.
1. How would that change Hulsey's hypothesis that:
a. The collapse of WTC7 was a global collapse and not a progressive collapse? (NOTE that Hulsey's hypothesis is not dependent on NIST's hypothesis being incorrect).
b. That the most likely manner that WTC7 collapsed was the simultaneously removal of ALL of WTC7's columns?
2. If it does significantly change Hulsey's hypothesis or even invalidate it, shouldn't that equally be true for NIST's hypothesis?
3. And IF #2 above is true, then there is still NO valid hypothesis that supports the least likely probability, a collapse due to fire as the root cause, correct?
Did Hulsey's report actually find that ALL possible fire scenarios have been ruled out as the above headline implies or just the "OCT's" claim?
How can anyone recreate his models when his data hasn't been released. I wonder why it wasn't released with his report. Funny that he's given 2 months, from September 3rd to November 1st for folks to examine his report and we're already past one week and none of his input data has been released yet.
Separate names with a comma.