Ben Swann's New Report On 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

Education

1976 Ph.D. Structural Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla
1968-1971 Post Graduate, University of Illinois
1966 M. S. Civil Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla
1965 B. S. Civil Engineering, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy

Feng Xiao, Associate Professor, has a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering.

Zhili Quan, Bridge Engineer, South Carolina Department of Transportation, is also listed on the draft report as having a Ph.D. (it doesn't specify the area of study).

So it looks like the lead researcher and both members of his project team all have Ph.D.'s.

My whole point is that rather than doubting the study because another group (AE for 9/11 Truth) funded it, shouldn't we be taking a look at the methods, analysis, models, data, conclusions, etc., contained in their report?

a reply to: Gandalf77

Which many individuals have at Metabunk....


So far, discovered by members of Metabunk.

www.metabunk.org...


The modeling software used by Hulsey can generate more advanced models than what Hulsey showcased.

Hulsey’s models seem manually animated. Not computer generated.

Hulsey’s modeling relies on static modeling when dynamic modeling would be appropriate.

Hulsey’s collapse and deformation of the penthouse does not match the video evidence.

Hulsey’s modeling misses key elements seen in the video evidence of the building collapse. Like the”kink”, building rotation.

The model claims ”simultaneous” failure of columns with no evidence of a real life mechanism that would cause such an event.

The modeling relies on magically removing columns to achieve a desired outcome that is missing important characteristics of the collapse captured on video.

Hulsey supposedly mixed and match NIST data sets that should be exclusive to one or the other of two models to make his claims of discrediting one of the NIST modeled connection failures.

Then you have this..

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

Thank you to the individuals at Metabunk and Kostak Studios providing fact filled debate......

a reply to: Gandalf77

It’s sort of hard to analyze the computer modeling data from Hulsey’s efforts when that data has not been released.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thanks, I appreciate the link and the points you raise.
I'm reading the UAF draft (still in public comment phase) now, but I will definitely take a look at those responses.

a reply to: Gandalf77

So it looks like the lead researcher and both members of his project team all have Ph.D.'s.

But did they actually touch and examine the physical evidence?
Did they cross examine the fire fighters on the scene?
Did they even talk to the people who used the survey equipment as the building leaned?

Or was it all building plans and youtube videos?
I'm sure you have heard the term kangaroo court.

This study will go nowhere,
This fire department means nothing.

Well lets get a roll call of the usual suspects, Sam .... Yep, Fire ....... ever present, Neutron, lol of course .......... good to go. Well the band's all here and yet again another (that's all for you people keeping score at home) 9/11 thread has gone down at free fall speed. Good job gentleman.

Working my way through the UAF's study.
It's interesting to see just how many questionable assumptions NIST made.
From the Executive Summary:

Approach 1 findings

During our nonlinear connection study (Section 2.1.3.2), we discovered that NIST overestimated 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 elevator shafts.

• Therefore, during our analysis of WTC 7’s response to fire loading (Section 2.6), we found the overall thermal movements at the A2001 base plate support near Column 79 were not sufficient to displace girder A2001 to the point that it walked off its seat (the initiating failure alleged by NIST). 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 3 relative to Column 79 would have been less than 1 inch under the fire conditions reported by NIST.

Approach 2 findings

Under our second approach, we used a solid element model to evaluate the validity of NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis, introducing a number of assumptions made by NIST that we considered to be invalid or, at best, questionable (Section 3.1). These assumptions included assuming the east exterior wall to be rigid and thermally fixed, assuming shear studs on several beams were broken due to differential thermal movement, assuming no shear studs were installed on girder A2001, and assuming that the bolts fastening girder A2001 to its seats at Columns 44 and 79 were broken (Section 3.1.1). Allowing for these overly generous assumptions, we found the following:

• When girder A2001 is heated to the temperatures assumed by NIST, it expands such that it becomes trapped behind the side plate on the western side of Column 79 as it is pushed to the west by thermally expanding floor beams. This prevents the girder’s web from traveling beyond the bearing seat, thus preventing the girder from walking off its seat (Section 3.2.1).

• NIST, by its own admission, did not include the partial height web stiffeners known to be on girder A2001. In addition to stiffening the web, these stiffeners significantly increase the bending resistance of the flange. In a subsequent analysis where we removed the side plate described in the previous analysis in order to allow for further westward travel of girder A2001, we found that the stresses in the girder flange and stiffener would not be sufficient to cause the flange to fail, thus preventing the girder from walking off its seat (Section 3.2.2).

• In a preliminary collapse initiation hypothesis, NIST posited that beam G3005 buckled because its thermal expansion was restrained by girder A2001. We found that this can happen only 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 4 the model(s) used in the thermal and structural analysis shown in the report (Section 3.2.3).

a reply to: Gandalf77

Are you sure Hulsey has his NIST straight?

By Mick West
www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

www.metabunk.org...

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. www.metabunk.org...
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. www.metabunk.org...
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. www.metabunk.org...
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. www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: Gandalf77
Excellent thread--S&F.

Once again, news about WTC7 casts the entire 9/11 story into doubt.
It's difficult to put your head in the sand in the face of scientific analysis like that, but people will still try; confirmation bias has a powerful effect. People just don't want to think about the implications here. We've been programmed by our schools, churches, and the media to not question our government. It's 'unpatriotic' and 'unAmerican' to even remotely suggest we're being lied to.

A good friend of mine is a structural engineer, and I'm going to refer him to this study. He's skeptical about the whole 9/11 truth movement, so I'm very interested to get his professional take on this.

Everything casts the entire 911 story into doubt. The only way it could be true would be to have the laws of physics suspended that day.

Impossible engineering demands, impossible cell phone calls, impossible aeronautical demands. As the 911 Commission noted 63 times, "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the official narrative.

The American people were deceived, and a substantial number of them still don't realize it.

a reply to: Salander

Corrected your paragraph

Everything casts the entire WTC NUKE story into doubt. The only way it could be true would be to have the laws of physics suspended that day.

Care to go on about your pet theory of nukes at the WTC?

a reply to: Gandalf77

West talks more about Hulsey confusing the NIST LS-DYNA and the ANSYS models. West finds it troubling for what’s it worth. Statement starts at 20:20

Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report

m.youtube.com...

The points are further drive home by Oystein

www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/

www.metabunk.org...

To summarize: Hulsey tries to convince us that the 16-floor ANSYS model of Chapter 11 was modelled with the exterior and the western part made rigid, when in fact NIST had only decided not to model connection failures outside the east floor framing. They did allow the exterior and the western part to respond laterally to what the beams did when heated.


Now on to a big blunder in Hulsey's presentation, which he hasn't corrected since a year ago - and it is a pity that AE911truth as well as other Truther sites actively censored me:

Please turn to page 24:

On the left, he again shows Figure 11–9. Area of the floor where connection failures were modeled, only upside down now. Notice: This is a boundary within the ANSYS model.
On the right, he shows a snapshot from LS-DYNA animation, a model introduced in Chapter 12.
The page is captured with this statement: "Connections were not modeled; outside selected blue space."
That statement is UNTRUE for both the ANSYS and the LS-DYNA model!!
It misconstrues what Figure 11–9 actually shows - "Area of the floor where connection failures were modeled"
More importantly: This distinction simply does not apply to the LS-DYNA model! Hulsey conflates two distinct models!
In other words: Dr. Leroy Hulsey, as of September 06, 2017, has not understood the NIST models!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77

Are you sure Hulsey has his NIST straight?

I'm just going by the study, and I'm certainly not an engineer, so definitely at a disadvantage in that regard.
Hulsey's study is still in the draft phase, though, and public comment period will be open.
I would imagine the objections you're pointing out will be sent to his team?

Lets not forget about the scientific evidence. The full report from the University of Alaska Fairbanks can be viewed using the link below.


UAF Study

originally posted by: Emerys
Lets not forget about the scientific evidence. The full report from the University of Alaska Fairbanks can be viewed using the link below.


UAF Study

Would you care to quote the report on what mechanism they state brought down WTC 7?

a reply to: Emerys

As in the truth movement likes to say something is “impossible”. Then they never provide a more credible cause/case/mechanism.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Unfortunately, this will get nowhere. Any of the puppet politicians who support this will be ruined or worse.


They don’t give a dam about the fire and policemen they easily murdered them too.

The sinister devils who did 911 are still around and still doing their evil manipulations

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77

West talks more about Hulsey confusing the NIST LS-DYNA and the ANSYS models. West finds it troubling for what’s it worth. Statement starts at 20:20

Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report

m.youtube.com...

The points are further drive home by Oystein

www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/

www.metabunk.org...

To summarize: Hulsey tries to convince us that the 16-floor ANSYS model of Chapter 11 was modelled with the exterior and the western part made rigid, when in fact NIST had only decided not to model connection failures outside the east floor framing. They did allow the exterior and the western part to respond laterally to what the beams did when heated.


Now on to a big blunder in Hulsey's presentation, which he hasn't corrected since a year ago - and it is a pity that AE911truth as well as other Truther sites actively censored me:

Please turn to page 24:

On the left, he again shows Figure 11–9. Area of the floor where connection failures were modeled, only upside down now. Notice: This is a boundary within the ANSYS model.
On the right, he shows a snapshot from LS-DYNA animation, a model introduced in Chapter 12.
The page is captured with this statement: "Connections were not modeled; outside selected blue space."
That statement is UNTRUE for both the ANSYS and the LS-DYNA model!!
It misconstrues what Figure 11–9 actually shows - "Area of the floor where connection failures were modeled"
More importantly: This distinction simply does not apply to the LS-DYNA model! Hulsey conflates two distinct models!
In other words: Dr. Leroy Hulsey, as of September 06, 2017, has not understood the NIST models!

Mick West and "Oystein".

Who, might i ask, are these fellows by backround? Do they know what they are talking about?

I doubt it.

What happened to Ben Swann. He kind of disappeared.

Chances are they will not let him be around long on YouTube.

A dying breed. The last of the truthful conspiracy theorists.

Copy these because this information won't be here for long