Institute of Northern Engineering University of Alaska: Fires did not bring down WTC 7

a reply to: democracydemo

Pointless post, ignoring the lies and falsehoods of your sources.

You posted this statement from your source...

Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain

But you contradict your own source with:

The debris field of almost null for WTC 7 is hard to simulate.

Then you post pictures of structural steel with no context, no cited source, only showing broken welds / flanges / bolting.


Pictures that are very similar to the fire related structure failures in WTC 5 steel, connections, bolting.













Or the broken welds of twin tower columns.



Pictures of steel with no indication/ signs of being worked on / impinge on by explosives, with no evidence of a process creating demolition shrapnel. With no indication of being cut by pyrotechnics.

Your argument is a sad state, based on a crap study, while you cannot address questions about that crap study, while you yourself contradict your own sources, and still ignore “ That the debate of WTC 7 was already argued in signed depositions involving a lawsuit over the responsibilities why WTC 7 collapsed? ”

a reply to: democracydemo

Didn’t you already try to push those photos out of context to create false innuendo of “explosives” in another thread?

———-

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

Stange seems like this was posted.

That
Or the columns sat butt to butt and the plates holding the columns inline sheared.



originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting idea, but we are still short on WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data yes?

No. It’s right there in the pictures you posted with zero evidence of columns being worked on by planted pyrotechnics.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I would think parts of an actual truth movement argument would outline what connections were in the columns, what charges were specifically used, how many, and how the supposed changes interacted with actual connections.

It’s like the truth movement doesn’t wasn’t to model an actual specific CD theory that is easily proven to be BS. It’s like they want to stick to the shadows of shady innuendo of CD.


———-

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Again....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Now. For the argument, questions, and observations you are ignoring because you have no valid argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

From you picture



Looks like thinner sheet metal.

There is no melting, charring, shrapnel holes from being in a building where in your fantasy supposedly over six hundred charges of explosives/thermite cut columns? Ending up right by the columns in your fantasy was supposedly cut by thermite/explosives?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

WTF? There is no evidence columns were actively cut at the WTC. None.

The is no evidence of six hundred charges doing the below.


There is no evidence of over six hundred thermite fueled fires when even Architects and Engineers said the fires at the WTC 7 were no hotter than normal office fires.

There is no possibility that controlled demolition systems would have survived jet impacts, the shower of debris, and the building wide fires to carry out the precise and sophisticated fantasy of the truth movement. Let alone thermite itself doesn’t burn fast and consistent enough to carry out the fantasy.

There is is no evidence that valuable and expensive rental space was encroach upon by the installation of planted pyrotechnics.

How many strikes is that against the controlled demolition fantasy

a reply to: democracydemo

It’s like conspiracists have no memory. Why do they post and argue debunked crap like it’s the first time every time?

a reply to: neutronflux

Pointless post, ignoring the lies and falsehoods of your sources.

In situ photograhic evidence is the source. Lies and falsehoods, is where NIST comes in.

I do not see these images in NIST WTC7 reports, or any close-up evidence for that matter, and yet they exist!

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2
Section shown on page 651, not close up.

You posted this statement from your source...

"Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain"

But you contradict your own source with:

The debris field of almost null for WTC 7 is hard to simulate.

How is this contradictory? What logic drives such a statement?

Are we looking at the same debri field here?

a reply to: democracydemo

You

The debris field of almost null for WTC 7 is hard to simulate.

How is this contradictory? What logic drives such a statement?

Trying to be dishonest about my actual post.

The actual argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Pointless post, ignoring the lies and falsehoods of your sources.

You posted this statement from your source...

Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain

But you contradict your own source with:

The debris field of almost null for WTC 7 is hard to simulate.

a reply to: neutronflux

Your source claimed nothing about anything being hard. Your cited source claimed, “ Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain”

Yet, the study / modeling was not “exactly matched.”

Your quoting lies....

a reply to: neutronflux

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Why would you simulate something clearly evident, i.e debris field? The whole 47-story building is in a neat pile.

What Hulsey simulates are the seconds leading to such pile:

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.

A Structural Reevaluationof the Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Page 108

Count the floors with FEMA


Full circle to my link:

Technical Activity Committee formed to investigate steel framed building safety

IMECHE reads Hulsey.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

Why would you simulate something clearly evident, i.e debris field? The whole 47-story building is in a neat pile.

False statement










Again you not reading the post.


Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

And you didn’t answer to:


The statement by Kostack Studio?


The basic statement is the Hulsey programmed the simulation for the structure not to collide, or not to interact with itself. The Hulsey modeling was made public, can you prove otherwise from the released data.

Which gives credibility to Oystein‘s comment.

Plus, our criticism is that the models behave in unreal ways (no deformation; falling through the ground). This shows that the simulations he presents cannot possibly represent a realistic collapse. So even if they result in features that resemble features of the real collapse, this is contrived. The simulations do not offer an explanation for WHYT the building would fall like that. NIST's simulations do.

What do you not understand the Hulsey report was bought Richard Gage propaganda junk science?

And you still ignore

That the debate of WTC 7 was already argued in signed depositions involving a lawsuit over the responsibilities why WTC 7 collapsed?



And you still ignore

One. The controlled demolition fantasy is dead on arrival. The controlled demolition systems would not have survived the jet impacts for WTC 1 and 2. For WTC7, being hit by debris from the collapse of the twin towers. For all WTC buildings, the fires. For WTC 7, the hours of unchecked fires.

Two. For the twin towers. The core columns collapsed after the floor systems were completely sheared away. Whole lengths of core columns stood whole seconds before tumbling down. The floor connections were either sheared by over loading, or bent down wards. Not cut. Supporting the floor system was sheared from the vertical columns while they still stood. What structural members did the fantasy explosives work on?


Three, If fire brought down the twin towers, then it proves its not impossible WTC 7 could collapse due to fire

a reply to: democracydemo

In short.


Your spreading falsehoods of the collapse of WTC 7

The Hulsey model does not accurately simulate the actual collapse as on video, or the physical damage to adjacent buildings.


The Hulsey modeling used impossible parameters like ignoring collisions firing the collapse.

There is no evidence of cut columns.

There is no physical evidence of hundreds of pyrotechnic setting off on scores of columns in the same instance with it being impossible such a CD system would maintain the integrity to do so after being hit by debris from the twin towers, and hours of fires.

So the Husky report is meaningless and crap.

a reply to: democracydemo

Also
You

Why would you simulate something clearly evident, i.e debris field? The whole 47-story building is in a neat pile.

Then this by you cited source “ Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain” is false.

a reply to: neutronflux

Let's see who you bring to the table:

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

The statement by Kostack Studio?

Which gives credibility to Oystein‘s comment.

It's comments made by Oystein the plumber and Kostack the photographer you absorb and spread as truth.
Vs
Hulsey, Structural Engineer

Boggles the mind how you suppress and reject any contradicting, but relevant data based on...well...whoever.

a reply to: democracydemo

Please. By all means quote their claims. Then provide a detailed explanation why they are right or wrong.

a reply to: neutronflux

Now, back to:

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Also
You

Why would you simulate something clearly evident, i.e debris field? The whole 47-story building is in a neat pile.

Then this by you cited source “ Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain” is false.


Why do people in support of the Hulsey report have to lie about the report and modeling?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Please. By all means quote their claims. Then provide a detailed explanation why they are right or wrong.

Claims you quoted so many times, just scroll up and down in this forum.

You support Oystein the plumber, and Kostack the photographer as THEY understand the physics involved vs. Hulsey.

Credentials and competence for Oystein and Kostack if will you please neutron...

originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Please. By all means quote their claims. Then provide a detailed explanation why they are right or wrong.

Claims you quoted so many times, just scroll up and down in this forum.

You support Oystein the plumber, and Kostack the photographer as THEY understand the physics involved vs. Hulsey.

Credentials and competence for Oystein and Kostack if will you please neutron...

Your trying to distract from the actual argument...


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

The comment by Oystein is about the actual video evidence anyone can watch.

Is this false:


———-
Your source, Which is a blatant lie.

Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain

From
Metabunk thread: Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis

Post 31, www.metabunk.org...

By Oystein

His Section 4.6 simulation conjures up a totally unexplained disappearance of columns - and manages to replicate only one feature of the collapse - the FFA. Which is entirely trivial: If you make something fall freely, it will fall freely.
But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

The statement by Kostack Studio?


The basic statement is the Hulsey programmed the simulation for the structure not to collide, or not to interact with itself. The Hulsey modeling was made public, can you prove otherwise from the released data.

Which gives credibility to Oystein‘s comment.

Plus, our criticism is that the models behave in unreal ways (no deformation; falling through the ground). This shows that the simulations he presents cannot possibly represent a realistic collapse. So even if they result in features that resemble features of the real collapse, this is contrived. The simulations do not offer an explanation for WHYT the building would fall like that. NIST's simulations do.

———————
Then you total ignore this if you want professional depositions.

That the debate of WTC 7 was already argued in signed depositions involving a lawsuit over the responsibilities why WTC 7 collapsed?


———

But it’s all pointlessly. Because.

One. The controlled demolition fantasy is dead on arrival. The controlled demolition systems would not have survived the jet impacts for WTC 1 and 2. For WTC7, being hit by debris from the collapse of the twin towers. For all WTC buildings, the fires. For WTC 7, the hours of unchecked fires.

Two. For the twin towers. The core columns collapsed after the floor systems were completely sheared away. Whole lengths of core columns stood whole seconds before tumbling down. The floor connections were either sheared by over loading, or bent down wards. Not cut. Supporting the floor system was sheared from the vertical columns while they still stood. What structural members did the fantasy explosives work on?


If fire brought down the twin towers, then it proves its not impossible WTC 7 could collapse due to fire


——————

Stop changing the subject, and address the questions asked of you.

originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Please. By all means quote their claims. Then provide a detailed explanation why they are right or wrong.

Claims you quoted so many times, just scroll up and down in this forum.

You support Oystein the plumber, and Kostack the photographer as THEY understand the physics involved vs. Hulsey.

Credentials and competence for Oystein and Kostack if will you please neutron...

He’s not understood many classical physics ideas for ages and yet nevertheless here posting away unconcerned. It is basic material for individuals with open and impartial minds and are not tied down here.

Blatant the NIST view is. Case is the denied Freefall originally at Seven, very revealing here. They even asserted Freefall was a physical impossibility for a natural building collapse. A statement the debunkers ignore or simply don’t consider. NIST maintained that particular perspective in the draft report.

NIST broke a physic acknowledged law and principle here and lied to the public. There was no potential energy there to buckle columns. NIST rumberstamped the freefall event in the final report yet with no clear explantation how it was brought about.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

He’s not understood many classical physics

Blatant lie by you

The problem is, the twin towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance. The vertical columns toppled after the floor system was stripped away from loss of lateral support.



The Richard Gage narrative is the lie.

Like Gage using columns cut during clean up with thermal lances as “evidence” of thermite.

At least I go off the video, audio, seismic evidence.

While you believe any false hood and / or lie by the truth movement.

Richard Gage is nothing more than a con artist selling mythology to a target audience.

originally posted by: democracydemo
And back to topic:

Technical Activity Committee formed to investigate steel framed building safety

“We expect to complete our work by Summer 2021.

Update for the curious mind:

Completion is now expected by Summer 2022.
IMechE; Institution of Mechanical Engineers will be publishing an update on the website early next year.

Via email from IMechE.

SPAM