A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

[...]
The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
[...]

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Here is the full report. I'll need a while to work through the material.

That's all for now, good day!

a reply to: PublicOpinion
This tells me all I need to know.

Funding
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Project Budget: $316,153

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 [email protected].

a reply to: stosh64

Surprise! A perfect ad hominem fallacy, who would've seen that coming?

Have fun ignoring the work then, I'll try to ignore your posts as well.

I can give you $130,000 answer from Clemson University where my son just graduated with a masters in Civil Engineering, in one year. He is not from a foreign country like most of the masters kids were. Just straight up moral hardworking intellectual American. My son told me that the building was not designed to have a plane crash into it and be held up. The heat of the fire after impact further caused building number one to collapse. The second and third building fell because the earth was shaking from building number one collapsing. Just like a major earth quake. These kids design buildings, bridges, tunnels, etc. to be structural. It's real simple in his mathematical mind filled with laws of physics what went on there.

a reply to: frugal

Except the buildings were designed to withstand a larger plane hitting them..oops

a reply to: frugal

Have you seen buildings collapsed only by earthquakes/fires ?

They don't look like WTC7 after it collapsed.

a reply to: frugal

To be clear, I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy (though I do think that some things were covered up like Saudi ties, and maybe some agencies did't do all they could to prevent it). But I think your comment had a few things that are off.

My son told me that the building was not designed to have a plane crash into it and be held up.

Both towers were engineered to survive a plane strike, but not from planes that big.

The heat of the fire after impact further caused building number one to collapse. The second and third building fell because the earth was shaking from building number one collapsing.

The official report was building 7 fell due to office fires that resulted from debris.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: frugal


The official report was building 7 fell due to office fires that resulted from debris.

Which would make it the most uniquely constructed building ever, as that has only happened once...

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: frugal

Except the buildings were designed to withstand a larger plane hitting them..oops

Except they were both still standing an hour after impact. Oops

originally posted by: frugal
I can give you $130,000 answer from Clemson University where my son just graduated with a masters in Civil Engineering, in one year. He is not from a foreign country like most of the masters kids were. Just straight up moral hardworking intellectual American. My son told me that the building was not designed to have a plane crash into it and be held up. The heat of the fire after impact further caused building number one to collapse. The second and third building fell because the earth was shaking from building number one collapsing. Just like a major earth quake. These kids design buildings, bridges, tunnels, etc. to be structural. It's real simple in his mathematical mind filled with laws of physics what went on there.

The second building fell for the same reason as the first, and the third was hit by the first and then seven hours later collapsed for the same reason as the first two

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

[...]
The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
[...]

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Here is the full report. I'll need a while to work through the material.

That's all for now, good day!

Mick West has released a preliminary evaluation and has a few questions that maybe you could answer as you work through the material

1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??
3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.
4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)
5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.

From www.youtube.com...

WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: frugal


The official report was building 7 fell due to office fires that resulted from debris.

Which would make it the most uniquely constructed building ever, as that has only happened once...

For your point to be valid you will need to provide examples of buildings of a similar design that suffered similar damage from impact and fire and DIDN'T collapse

a reply to: mrthumpy

A ytube influencer? LOL, how... "scientific".

Looks like damage control to me, and like redundant nitpicking given the overall presentation. But I'll look into that, thanks.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Precisely.



To remind you guys:
"The smartes thing to do is pull it"

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: mrthumpy

A ytube influencer? LOL, how... "scientific".

Looks like damage control to me, and like redundant nitpicking given the overall presentation. But I'll look into that, thanks.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Precisely.

 

To remind you guys:
"The smartes thing to do is pull it"

Surprise! A perfect ad hominem fallacy, who would've seen that coming?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Looks like damage control to me, and like redundant nitpicking given the overall presentation. But I'll look into that, thanks.

Damage control from what? The Hulsey report gives no conclusion on what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Hulsey modeling seems to be manually drawn. Not computer driven analysis.

Even by removing columns magically from his modeling, which is not representative of any real world model, Hulsey is still missing key features from the video of WTC 7’s collapse.

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...

The only thing Hulsey really proved was you can make a model behave a certain way if you remove items based on no real world scenario or evidence.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST