UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

a reply to: Jesushere

Your trying to create a false argument.

Again...

neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Mike thinks the images don't look alike. The first image is not meant to be an exact representation or drawing of the Penthouse collapse.

Is that what the study cites? Or is that your own assertion. What does the study claim?

It's a building tilt analyses graphic, to just show what happened when Hulsey took out Columns 79, 80, and 81 on different floors. It basically a linear static analysis test.

Is that the discussion of the stretchy columns at metabunk

By deirdre

and what is happening here? they added stretchy columns to their physics model? this isn't normal in a model right?
www.metabunk.org...

You said

Mike wrong. Hulsey Penthouse breaks at the base and splits there. It doesn't do a pivot outward, it splitting and doing a diving motion behaviour and starts falling down through a hole in the roof. It matches the actual collapse on 9/11. NIST penthouse model is less accurate, it breaks at the base, but splits at the top, and then breaks open.

I asked
Please show this in a side by side comparison. Your assertion is wrong.

This is the quote from Mick West

By Mick West

www.metabunk.org...

Notice here the corner closest to the camera - on the right, and highlighted in blue in the simulation. In reality, it pivots around the base, just falling into the building to the left. In the simulation, it does a bizarre, inexplicable pivot outwards.

This is even clearer in the front view

Notice nothing underneath the penthouse is moving. Not only is this motion radically different to observed reality, there's also no explanation for why their simulation would give this result.

Your not getting the penthouse argument. Something in WTC 7 failed to make the penthouse a falling load. Or dynamic load. Floor connections have a maximum dynamic load rating. What was the dynamic load rating for the floor connections below the falling penthouse. What was the dynamic load caused by the falling penthouse. How much were the dynamic load ratings of the floor connections degraded by the fires. Where in the modeling does it show the dynamic load ratings of the floor connections are sufficient to stop the falling penthouse. What specs were entered into the modeling. Where did the values for the floor connections come from?

Firefighters reported WTC 7 was failing. How would a failing building stop a falling penthouse.

Much debated on the collapse of the penthouse. The way WTC 7 distorts when the penthouse falls is proof the penthouse fell father that what Hulsey attests to.

More here

wtc7-penthouse-falling-window-wave.t9398/
www.metabunk.org...

Now....

Now the one burning fundamental question. Where is the actual physical, video, audio, seismic, photo proof of something causing all the columns supposedly failing at the same instance. Hint there isn’t.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
I answer more tomorrow or the next day when I get a chance. Off now. Mike West is clueless, don't waste your time.

Feel free to sign up on Metabunk and explain exactly what it is he's getting wrong. He'll appreciate the input

I chatted with Mike West yesterday and blew apart his arguments. Go on his Youtube page I posted there. He was forced to respond to me as I showed how silly his arguments were. Mike will still leave up his posts on Metabunk, he too cowardly to admit his wrong.

What does that have with...

The model has no explanation what stopped the penthouse once it fall into WTC 7. With no evidence the WTC 7 floor connections could arrest such a dynamic load once it was in motion.

That Hulsey only modeled two floors of static fires, ignoring at least seven floors of traveling fires

The presented modeling of the penthouse collapse does not match the video evidence.

That Hulsey had to force his modeling into a global collapse with no explanation what force would have caused all the columns to fail in the same instance, with no evidence such an event occurred in the video, audio, seismic evidence.

False.
Notice Mike avoids this- fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.

Hulsey discussed why all this was not possible due to fire. Mike pretends Hulsey jumped through hoops and created a finite element model out of nothing.

Hulsey debunked NIST thermal expansion heat failure.
Hulsey actually did show why the Penthouse would stop where it did.
Mike does not debunk Hulsey connection analyse assumptions
Mike West failure, one model is hypothetical, and not a representation of the actual collapse on 9/11
Mike Penthouse debunk, is plain wrong. I explained it to him yesterday. After that, he tried to switch it and said the linear static analyse image does not look like his global sim. It not meant to, Mike an idiot.

a reply to: Jesushere

Notice Mike avoids this- fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.

Based on what study vs Hulsey only modeling static fires on two floors. Vs there was at least 7 floors with traveling fires.

And you have not addressing anything asked of you.

Especially...

That Hulsey had to force his modeling into a global collapse with no explanation what force would have caused all the columns to fail in the same instance, with no evidence such an event occurred in the video, audio, seismic evidence.

There is zero physical evidence to support Hulsey’s fabricated modeling. Or can you name the mechanism that would cause the outcome of Hulsey’s global collapse assertions and point to the video, audio, seismic evidence that supports such a mechanism.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
I answer more tomorrow or the next day when I get a chance. Off now. Mike West is clueless, don't waste your time.

Feel free to sign up on Metabunk and explain exactly what it is he's getting wrong. He'll appreciate the input

I chatted with Mike West yesterday and blew apart his arguments. Go on his Youtube page I posted there. He was forced to respond to me as I showed how silly his arguments were. Mike will still leave up his posts on Metabunk, he too cowardly to admit his wrong.

What does that have with...

The model has no explanation what stopped the penthouse once it fall into WTC 7. With no evidence the WTC 7 floor connections could arrest such a dynamic load once it was in motion.

That Hulsey only modeled two floors of static fires, ignoring at least seven floors of traveling fires

The presented modeling of the penthouse collapse does not match the video evidence.

That Hulsey had to force his modeling into a global collapse with no explanation what force would have caused all the columns to fail in the same instance, with no evidence such an event occurred in the video, audio, seismic evidence.

False.
Notice Mike avoids this- fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.

Hulsey discussed why all this was not possible due to fire. Mike pretends Hulsey jumped through hoops and created a finite element model out of nothing.

Hulsey debunked NIST thermal expansion heat failure.
Hulsey actually did show why the Penthouse would stop where it did.
Mike does not debunk Hulsey connection analyse assumptions
Mike West failure, one model is hypothetical, and not a representation of the actual collapse on 9/11
Mike Penthouse debunk, is plain wrong. I explained it to him yesterday. After that, he tried to switch it and said the linear static analyse image does not look like his global sim. It not meant to, Mike an idiot.

So get yourself over to Metabunk and lay all this out for everyone

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Notice Mike avoids this- fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.

Based on what study vs Hulsey only modeling static fires on two floors. Vs there was at least 7 floors with traveling fires.

And you have not addressing anything asked of you.

Especially...

That Hulsey had to force his modeling into a global collapse with no explanation what force would have caused all the columns to fail in the same instance, with no evidence such an event occurred in the video, audio, seismic evidence.

There is zero physical evidence to support Hulsey’s fabricated modeling. Or can you name the mechanism that would cause the outcome of Hulsey’s global collapse assertions and point to the video, audio, seismic evidence that supports such a mechanism.

Examine what your saying please? Did you read the report?

Hulsey
"Under our third approach, we simulated a number of hypothetical scenarios in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore, the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column 79 could trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid,

What your evidence the global; collapse began somewhere else? Hulsey is producing evidence for a separate collapse in the building?

Hulsey methodically looked at every connection NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger suggested caused a collapse and debunked it. There evidence in his report to why their assumptions are wrong. Has Mike touched this yet and provided a rebuke?

Hulsey sim model looked like the actual collapse on the day. He has pinpointed successfully what would need to happen for the building to come straight down like it did on 9/11.

Final conclusion. Do you not have to provide an alternative version of events, if you believe, fire can cause this?

The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse

a reply to: Jesushere

Your not getting it

What study and temperature profiles did Hulsey use? Did Hulsey apply all the temperature profiles for all the listed floors from a specific study? Or did he cherry pick and conduct a limited modeling.

How many floors actually had fires at WTC 7 vs how many floors did Hulsey model as having fires? Were the modeled fires representative of the actual fires based on what data set?

Again. WTC 5 proves fire induced failures were very possible at the WTC.



And, you still have not addressed...


That Hulsey had to force his modeling into a global collapse with no explanation what force would have caused all the columns to fail in the same instance, with no evidence such an event occurred in the video, audio, seismic evidence.

There is zero physical evidence to support Hulsey’s fabricated modeling. Or can you name the mechanism that would cause the outcome of Hulsey’s global collapse assertions and point to the video, audio, seismic evidence that supports such a mechanism.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Your not getting it

What study and temperature profiles did Hulsey use? Did Hulsey apply all the temperature profiles for all the listed floors from a specific study? Or did he cherry pick and conduct a limited modeling.

How many floors actually had fires at WTC 7 vs how many floors did Hulsey model as having fires? Were the modeled fires representative of the actual fires based on what data set?

Again. WTC 5 proves fire induced failures were very possible at the WTC.

And, you still have not addressed...


That Hulsey had to force his modeling into a global collapse with no explanation what force would have caused all the columns to fail in the same instance, with no evidence such an event occurred in the video, audio, seismic evidence.

There is zero physical evidence to support Hulsey’s fabricated modeling. Or can you name the mechanism that would cause the outcome of Hulsey’s global collapse assertions and point to the video, audio, seismic evidence that supports such a mechanism.

Same heat limits NIST used. Hulsey checked it. Yes, of course, he reviewed every study done.
Fire anyways could not have caused a girder failure or column failure.
Hulsey methodically provided details to why the girder could not expand.
None of your here- are debunking Hulsey connection failure assumptions.
Fact is Hulsey 100 per cent proofed the NIST study was rubbish, provided new information, as of yet Skeptics have not yet commented on.

Here it is. How the beams buckle? The modelled the wrong beam spec! Go on Metabunk and let Mike Respond and see what he says?

3.2.3 Lateral Support Beams Prevent Beam Buckling Figures 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 show our evaluation of NIST’s preliminary hypothesis, which NIST used to determine whether the shear studs on the floor beams would fail when the floor system was heated. The NIST report posits that beam G3005 buckled because its thermal 83 expansion was restrained by girder A2001. Our analysis found that this can only happen when the three lateral support beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 spanning from beam G3005 to the north exterior wall are not included in the model. While these short beams are observed in some of the figures in the NIST report, they are missing from the model(s) used in the thermal and structural analyses shown in the report. It is important to realize that the lateral support beams have a significant effect and therefore should not have been omitted from the model(s). In addition, the NIST report describes the response of beam G3005 based on the wrong size beam. Erection drawing E12/13 (Frankel Steel Limited, 1985) shows a W21x44 for G3005 and a W24x55 for the four adjacent beams (K3004, C3004, B3004, and A3004). The erection drawing shows G3005 framing into the wind girder. However, the NIST report shows analysis results for G3005 based on a W24x55, not a W21x44

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Your not getting it

What study and temperature profiles did Hulsey use? Did Hulsey apply all the temperature profiles for all the listed floors from a specific study? Or did he cherry pick and conduct a limited modeling.

How many floors actually had fires at WTC 7 vs how many floors did Hulsey model as having fires? Were the modeled fires representative of the actual fires based on what data set?

Again. WTC 5 proves fire induced failures were very possible at the WTC.

And, you still have not addressed...


That Hulsey had to force his modeling into a global collapse with no explanation what force would have caused all the columns to fail in the same instance, with no evidence such an event occurred in the video, audio, seismic evidence.

There is zero physical evidence to support Hulsey’s fabricated modeling. Or can you name the mechanism that would cause the outcome of Hulsey’s global collapse assertions and point to the video, audio, seismic evidence that supports such a mechanism.

Forced it' not the right word.
He used a tried and trusted scientific method, to rule out scenarios, for collapse.
This was a long process of checking work, over 4 years.
When Hulsey team removed-- 8 floors of core columns cores and 8 floors of exterior collapses, their model, began to look like the real collapse on 9/11.
Fire-based collapse- causing it ruled out.. The best explanation is controlled demolition. If someone else has a better one provide a body of work to check?

a reply to: Jesushere

Stop....
Your not answering the question.

How many floors had fires over the seven hour time span for WTC7?

How many floors did Hulsey model as having fires? And over what time span? Cooling and contraction is as important as heating and expansion?

How do yo create a “global” model but only model two of the several floors that had fires? For a limited time. ignoring fires moved over time and created cycles of expansion, contraction, and stress from uneven heating over the whole structure.

a reply to: Jesushere

You

When Hulsey team removed-- 8 floors of core columns cores and 8 floors of exterior collapses, their model, began to look like the real collapse on 9/11.

No it does not. There is zero evidence there was a mechanism that caused in the same instance that removed “ 8 floors of core columns cores and 8 floors of exterior collapses,“ in the actual video, audio, seismic evidence.

So Hulsey fabricated a scenario that is backed by zero actual evidence which he has no explanation of what that mechanism is. With no explanation what supposedly stopped the falling penthouse. With you not able to link to Hulsey’s work showing where his modeling actually looks like the video of the penthouse collapse.

I give a flag and make a comment just so I can come back later..... I'm a bit foggy minded, so I can't exactly string together my thoughts into anything resembling coherency.......

But I'll be back... I tend to be on the side of AE911; generally all of the "debunking" that is done against them, conveniently ignores most physics and science. Remember when someone with no knowledge in physics won a contest against, among other people, a NASA engineer?

Pepperidge farm remembers... www1.ae911truth.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Stop....
Your not answering the question.

How many floors had fires over the seven hour time span for WTC7?

How many floors did Hulsey model as having fires? And over what time span? Cooling and contraction is as important as heating and expansion?

How do yo create a “global” model but only model two of the several floors that had fires? For a limited time. ignoring fires moved over time and created cycles of expansion, contraction, and stress from uneven heating over the whole structure.

13 floors.
There only video and still photographs of fires on these floors.
He modelled the floors that had fires throughout the day.
Not about time span- NIST said the girder expanded due to fire and coming off its bearing seat.
The floors had fire protection, for a specific period of time.
If fires were truly going for seven hours nonstop- how come it took till 5.20pm for the girder to fail at column 79?
We have plenty of photographs showing fires going out at different times of the day.
NIST sim is progressive collapse model. Hulsey sim is global collapse scenario, radically different, it occurred when columns were taken out on 8 floors ( 80 columns in total) on these 8 floors
Hulsey model there no fire scenario causing collapse.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

When Hulsey team removed-- 8 floors of core columns cores and 8 floors of exterior collapses, their model, began to look like the real collapse on 9/11.

No it does not. There is zero evidence there was a mechanism that caused in the same instance that removed “ 8 floors of core columns cores and 8 floors of exterior collapses,“ in the actual video, audio, seismic evidence.

So Hulsey fabricated a scenario that is backed by zero actual evidence which he has no explanation of what that mechanism is. With no explanation what supposedly stopped the falling penthouse. With you not able to link to Hulsey’s work showing where his modeling actually looks like the video of the penthouse collapse.

Yes there is- controlled demolition
Yes there is observed behaviour, building seven underwent a freefall condition ( this is evidence of remote-controlled demolition)
Progressive collapse theory is unworkable. What makes you think it happened?
You can not fabricate a scenario here Hulsey input data will be released 100 gigs of data, it testable, and can be verified by engineers outside the truth movement.
NIST did not release their input data so their simulation was never tested.
There video online here.media.uaf.edu... to see the Penthouse matched his simulation.
There long section in his report where he discussed why the Penthouse stopped at the upper floors.

originally posted by: Jesushere

There long section in his report where he discussed why the Penthouse stopped at the upper floors.

WHY ?



Why did the evil US government, use magic silent explosives, on the 45th floor, to blow out the columns supporting the penthouse letting it fall ? Then they magically stopped the penthouse on the 45th floor for some reason? Then they used even more magic silent explosives to evaporate 8 floors somewhere in the lower part of the building so it could accelerate at free fall.

What was the purpose of dropping the penthouse a few floors 6 seconds before the rest of the building. Can you explain it?

originally posted by: Jesushere

Yes there is observed behaviour, building seven underwent a freefall condition ( this is evidence of remote-controlled demolition)

There is this thing in physics called Momentum Transfer. It's real. You can't deny its existence. The inside of the of the building started falling 6 seconds before the exterior. Can you explain to us how the interior could collapse without transferring momentum to the exterior.

a reply to: Jesushere

What do you not get the Hulsey animations are manually generated. They are not 3d models driven by collapse data?

From metabunk

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.

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.
www.metabunk.org...

By Mick West

It would be reasonable if he actually showed a dynamic analysis, using a validated model, of the different column removals. He does not - he shows a static analysis of each one. You can't do static analysis of a building that's already experiencing a highly dynamic collapse. That's basically like saying if you really carefully removed part of C79, then gently lowered the upper part down, then it would not collapse.

His "dynamic analysis", again, is just a manual animation of a rotating block.

www.metabunk.org...

Sooooo

So no crap Sherlock. If you make columns disappear in a “model” the building is going to fall.

One. That is not even real world. In the real world... When columns are cut by cutting charges, they are often used with a kicker charge to misalign the cut column. Is that false? To prevent columns getting hung up. Is that false. So, to make columns just disappear is not indicative of any real world situation.

Two. Can you cite which Hulsey animations are computer created from modeling data vs manually generated animations.

The Hulsey project is useless. It only models a couple of floors with static fires, ignores at least seven floors of traveling fires, it uses a totally unrealistic scenario of just removing columns, the Hulsey free fall model is based on no actual observed mechanisms, the Hulsey free fall modeling does no match important collapse features from the video evidence, and you cannot cite which models are computer interpolations of modeled data vs manually animated.

a reply to: neutronflux

Public Comment Period

Following the release of the UAF WTC 7 draft report on September 3, 2019, there will be a two-month public comment period ending on November 1, 2019. The final report will be released later this year.

During this period, the UAF research team and AE911Truth staff 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 AE911Truth will also review the report during this period.

Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to [email protected].

Instructions above and crystal clear for you & the boys and girls @ Metabunk.org.

a reply to: democracydemo

Comment on what? If you remove columns from a model, the modeled building will fall? Like duh?

a reply to: democracydemo

And if one models less floors with less fires than what was witnessed at WTC 7 In a static model, you get different results? Like duh?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Public Comment Period

Following the release of the UAF WTC 7 draft report on September 3, 2019, there will be a two-month public comment period ending on November 1, 2019. The final report will be released later this year.

During this period, the UAF research team and AE911Truth staff 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 AE911Truth will also review the report during this period.

Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to [email protected].

Instructions above and crystal clear for you & the boys and girls @ Metabunk.org.

I am sure they will. I wonder if each received comment will be publicly published with responses by Hulsey? Or his team? Wonder what process Hulsey will use to show full transparency?