Forensic engineer/university prof to run an open evaluation of the NIST WTC 7 collapse model

[JohnyCanuck]

World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation is an engineering study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. The study is being conducted by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. Professionals from the fields of structural engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture, building design and construction, physics, math, and science, as well as everyday citizens, are invited to get involved. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted on http://WTC7Evaluation.org. The study is being crowd-funded by the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Also more background on this project here:

About Dr. Hulsey

Dr. Hulsey is a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and the Chair of UAF’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He brings decades of experience in failure analysis and modeling of structures.

In May, he and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process of modeling WTC 7. Using the sophisticated computer models they are developing, Dr. Hulsey and his team will evaluate the probability of various hypothetical causes of WTC 7’s collapse.

AE911Truth, backed by our 2,390 architects and engineers, is funding Dr. Hulsey’s research because it is imperative to our mission that WTC 7 finally be modeled in a transparent and unbiased process — and that the findings be disseminated to every corner of the engineering community. Already we’re seeing tremendous interest in the study, as several local engineering groups have invited Dr. Hulsey to speak about his work.

When awareness of the study spreads throughout the entire engineering field and Dr. Hulsey begins to publish his findings, it will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering world and beyond.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=d5e38f3000&e=[UNIQID]

[wildbilln864]

1. thanks for posting. looking forward to it. Check this video...

&list=PL9So6OTuw7TdYwZYRIWnuCLek8EwtkA7Y&index=1

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Sounds like the Prof is on top of things.

And doing his best to take a "fair and balanced" approach to the investigation.

[nationalize the fed]

3. k&r

[whitefordmd]

4. I wonder how

this research will be/remain unbiased if funded by AE911Truth? A know purveyor of thruther nonsense.

[wildbilln864]

5. you are...

the "know purveyor of thruther nonsense!" That should be "known" by the way.
But the answer is that AE911 is funding it not doing it.

[whitefordmd]

6. Thanks for the typo correction

but your response does raise a question in my mind. When the NIST funds 9/11 research it is tainted because it is government funded. (at least that's what truthers say) so how is funding from a truther organization untainted?

[wildbilln864]

7. that depend upon

the integrity of the investigators I would think. Who they work for.

[whitefordmd]

11. You're avoiding the issue....

So your guys have integrity but the NIST guys do not.

Please explain.

[wildbilln864]

13. No. They're not "my guys".

I don't know them. I will have to withhold judgement until their study is complete.

[dougolat]

28. Look at the damned NIST report:

It postulates that the beam expanded 6.25 inches, while the floor it carried did not, and ignores the shear studs and flanges, and any sagging of the beam! Then they keep the computer model used for such a scenario SECRET (for reasons of National Security, of course!)

It's not the source, it's the intentional obfuscation and un verifiability that are problematical.

But it is 'Official', and we all payed for it, so does that make it good enough for you?

[William Seger]

29. "good enough" for what purpose?

"Truthers" try to sell the rather obvious logical fallacy that if any of the details of the NIST "probable cause" hypothesis are wrong, then the hypothesis of controlled demolition is a better explanation. That appears to be the only motive for this study, despite the fact that controlled demolition with magic silent explosives will never be considered "probable" by a rational person. If the study actually looks into what might have caused the collapse other than the NIST hypothesis, then there are a plethora of possible failure scenarios they would need to work through which require only fire and the structural damage from the debris impacts. I'll be surprised if they actually do that, but I'm willing to be surprised.

[dougolat]

30. There you go again with that 'silent explosives' canard.

First, any thermate used merely crackles and sizzles.
Second, in the standard demolitions you use for comparison, the windows have been removed and the steel to be cut is exposed and not covered back up, the doors and furnishings are removed, and the immediate area is cleared, and the surrounding audience hushed for the countdown. Hardly an apt comparison.

And it's not just 'any detail' it's the crucial, precipitating detail for their secretly derived hypothesis.

As for the fires, in the areas that did burn, once the furnishings are consumed, any lost strength in the heated steel returns as it cools, and steel's conductive heat transfer is fairly efficient. Even NIST says most locations that burned did so for only 20 to 30 minutes.

[William Seger]

32. The thermite hypothesis was invented by Steven Jones...

... simply because a demolition by magic silent explosives is so obviously idiotic, not because there is shred of credible evidence for it. Then Jones and Harrit made a complete laughing stock of "truth movement science" with their thermitic paint chip nonsense, since the only thing they proved was that having a PhD doesn't make you a competent scientist. Unfortunately, using thermite for a controlled demolition is just another imaginary technology, perhaps not as idiotic as magic silent explosives but ridiculously implausible and completely unsubstantiated nonetheless. Here's a clue: Gage still talks about explosives when he wants to claim that's the only explanation for the "sudden" onset of collapse and the hurling of beams hundreds of feet, but then switches to thermite when someone points out that magical silent explosives don't exist. When someone points out how improbable it is that you could get thermite to melt through all those columns at the same time (and that he just claimed explosives were the only explanation), he switches to some sort of hybrid hypothesis of both thermite and explosives (both of which must have been oddly fireproof). Since neither one makes any sense whatsoever and neither is supported by any credible evidence, Gage thinks maybe it was both! Gage is the poster boy for "truth movement" self delusion, yet we are continually insulted by the assertion that people who buy his bullshit are possessed with superior reasoning powers and intellectual courage, and that anyone who doesn't fall for it must be afraid of the "truth" or must be in on the cover-up.

> First, any thermate used merely crackles and sizzles.

No, thermite also creates very intense light and huge white clouds of aluminum oxide, neither of which were observed, and more importantly it leaves rather obvious amounts of slag, which was also not observed. In fact, there was no evidence at all of either explosives or thermite found in the debris pile, so conspiracy theorists just assume all the people involved with the cleanup must have been in on the cover-up. In the world of conspiracism, any evidence that supports the "official story" must have have been faked and any evidence that would definitively prove a conspiracy must have been covered up. This is how conspiracy theorists, in attempting to rationalize promoting their paranoid delusions to be religious "truth," work themselves into a position where they are forced to abandon evidence-based reasoning completely and to continually add more and more people to the conspiracy. That's what makes conspiracism an especially pernicious form of bullshit: it slowly robs its victims of the ability to deal with reality on a rational basis. I think there's a reason you can't see this...

[whitefordmd]

31. To what NIST report are you referring?

It postulates that the beam expanded 6.25 inches, while the floor it carried did not, and ignores the shear studs and flanges, and any sagging of the beam!

What does the expansion of the beam have to do with shear studs and flanges?

[William Seger]

8. The study is already biased before it begins

The announcement of the study should have come with a spoiler alert because it also announces the result they intend to get: They intend to disprove the NIST "probably cause" hypothesis so they can use that result for the express purpose of recruiting new cult members. Fiddling with a computer model until it produces the results you want is not that hard, which is the criticism that "truthers" level against the NIST model in the first place, so I think it's pretty easy to predict how this will play out.

[wildbilln864]

9. unike NIST

They will publicly release their modeling data for scrutiny.
"Fiddling with a computer model until it produces the results you want is" exactly what NIST did! But you can't see their data used.

[William Seger]

10. If the study shows that fire could have destroyed WTC7

... would you accept that?

[wildbilln864]

12. I accept that now!

A big enough fire burning long enough with the right fuels to keep it going long enough. I realize fire could indeed have destroyed #7. But I also realize it didn't.

[William Seger]

14. Very interesting

You understand that fire could have destroyed the building, but "realize" that magical silent explosives did it?

[wildbilln864]

16. nope!

that's just the same tired BS you've pulled from your ass before. Guess what. It still stinks. Why are you obsessed with nonsense? "magical silent explosives"
It's quite strange considering all the witnesses who heard the explosions clearly revealed in this video:

[William Seger]

17. Watch THIS video

... until you get a clue:

If explosives brought down the buildings, then they were silent explosives, and silent explosives would be very magical. I'll keep reminding you of that for two reasons: (1) it shows how idiotic the theory is; and (2) it shows how resistant to reality "truthers" are. Those are two things that people need to know before they get sucked into the cult and have to start lying to themselves to maintain the bizarre belief system.

[wildbilln864]

18. do you realize

the demolitions u use were meant to be loud? The WTC demos were meant to be concealed.

[William Seger]

19. And if they needed magical silent explosives to do that

... then that's what they must have used, huh.

[whitefordmd]

20. Silent demolitions?

Does this technology exist? Please enlighten me.

[wildbilln864]

22. I doubt it would be silent but

the anti-truthers keep pulling that nonsense from their ass so ask one of them as I'm unfamiliar with it. I never claimed anything was sillent.

[whitefordmd]

24. Ok not silent, but concealed.

You believe the WTC7 collapse was premeditated and to hide this a concealed demolition was planned.

Further, that the NIST "cooked the books" in its modeling of the collapse of WTC 7 to further conceal a deliberate demolition.

I guess it is safe to assume you also believe WTC 1 & 2 were victims of a concealed demolition.

I guess you also believe these were concealed demolitions knowing it would kill thousands of people.

I sure you realize there is not even an iota of actual evidence to substantiate these beliefs.

Such faith is remarkable.

[wildbilln864]

25. the demos were not

concealed. They were in plain sight.But the methods to accompish it along with the perps has been yes.

[whitefordmd]

26. I think I am getting it

The demolitions were meant to be concealed, but the perps failed. So, in theory, there should be some evidence pointing to a demolition since it failed to be concealed. That seems to be a missing piece.

But the demolition methods were concealed even though you see evidence of a demolition. Very tidy circular logic.

So somehow 99.99999 percent of the world failed to notice the trade center buildings were actually demolished on purpose. And the technology / methods to accomplish this have been concealed for over a decade. And only a select few have the brains to see through this plot of epic proportions.

So no evidence for demolition. No rational theories as to how it was concealed.

As I said remarkable faith.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. You Do Realize That Physics Do Not Support Such Nonsense

Don't you.

A demolition grade explosive with sufficient brissance, velocity, and volume expansion will move a huge volume of air, very very fast.

You know what you call air moving very fast? SOUND!

Secondly, to do what you're proposing, the explosive used either has to be:
Extremely high volume expansion and near the speed of sound, or;
Extremely high shock output with a pressure wave FAR in excess of the speed of sound.

Either way, there would be a clear indication of all the dust and debris in the air all moving away at nearly the same time at a velocity that would preclude the air escapement due to the collapse, and would clearly precede the collapse itself.

And don't start with the super thermite thing. It would require MASSIVE amounts of it and the light would have visible through the windows of the building long before the collapse.

Science is not on your side.

[wildbilln864]

34. well that's obvious bullshit!

science IS on my side! Many witnesses heard the "air moving very fast? SOUND! ". Just because you deny it doesn't change the fact that it happened!

[whitefordmd]

15. Just curious

If the NIST was "Fiddling with a computer model until it produces the results you want is" exactly what NIST did" is what you believe. And the NIST did not publish the model details. How exactly do you know NIST fiddled with the model parameters to produce the wanted results?

[William Seger]

21. NIST described some of the "fiddling" they did

... which was indeed to "get the results they wanted," but what they wanted was to get the model to agree with known observations (e.g. the WTC7 east penthouse collapsing first). An FEA is not a magic simulation of the real world; it's just a mathematical model where ever input and every interaction between elements needs to specified by the model builder. The problem is, in many cases the input parameters are unknown. So, what is done is to vary the parameters, within the plausible physical limitations, until the model behaves in a way that matches observations. If it does match observations, that doesn't necessarily prove that the other things the model is showing are accurate, but if a model doesn't agree with known observations, there's no reason to think the rest is accurate. It's one thing to question how NIST went about that and how accurate their model is, provided the criticism is objective, but it's quite another to misrepresent what was done and then accuse them of complicity in a mass murder based on that misrepresentation.

[wildbilln864]

23. well that's more nonsense but

ok.

[whitefordmd]

27. Why is that nonsense?

That's how this type of modeling works in the real world.