It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
The WTC 7 Evaluation Project finally released their report for public comment.




UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

salsa3.salsalabs.com...

Please enter your name and email address to download the draft report. This will sign you up to receive email updates from AE911Truth if you are not already signed up, and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. After submitting this form, you will be taken to an exclusive page where you will be able to download the report. After 24 hours the download button will expire.



It seems the biggest problems with the study are?

One, the study grossly underestimates the heat generated by the WTC 7 fires.

Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling.

Three, the penthouse fell into WTC 7 then stopped with no explanation how this is possible.

Four, the study ignores the significance of all the objects that fell from view of WTC 7’s roof. And their order.

Five, claims all columns failed at the same time with no proof, or explanation what would cause the simultaneous failures.

I am paraphrasing other person’s criticisms....



Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...


I guess the “study” parallels Tony Szamboti arguments?

This might be of interest in many of the elements the study is based on has already been debated and debunked?



What happened to WTC 7 DEBATE? | The JB Podcast Episode 22- Mick West & Tony Szamboti Debate

m.youtube.com...


Bottom line. The WTC 7 study draws the conclusion of “fire could not cause collapse” by ignoring all the video evidence, doubling down on debunked truth movement talking points, and no evidence/explanation how all the columns would fail at the same time?



I noticeD their comments are superficial and nobody made a statement yet refuting his actual work.


This doesn't address his actual work? "Two, ignores the stresses caused by contracting deformed steel upon cooling"


He discussed it on page 86- Hulsey modelled thousands of connections in the building and modelled fire scenarios, to see if he could get the build to react like the other studies claimed it would. He debunked all them.

Obvious nobody on the Skeptic site has read more than a few lines of the report.
ine.uaf.edu...


Can't see anything about that on page 86


3.3.1 Discussion of Arup and Nordenson’s Analysis - it discussed here in one section. Hulsey modelled their scenario and tested it. He went over every point they made and did analysis about it.


All I see there is "with a fire simulation"


Look above this section- page 86.


I did, that's where I quoted that line from




posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Hulsey
4.6 Results of Core Column/Exterior Column Failure Analysis
Finding that NIST’s scenario was not feasible and that the simultaneous failure of all core
columns would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated 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. The dynamic analysis results for this
simulation are shown below, side-by-side with two videos of the collapse.
Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns
followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the
behavior observed in videos of the collapse. Specifically, the simulated velocity and acceleration
of the building in our SAP2000 model matches almost exactly with the motion measured by
David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall, shown in.

When everything else was tested, the only scenario that worked was the one above. Their model replicated the actual collapse on the day.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
Hulsey
4.6 Results of Core Column/Exterior Column Failure Analysis
Finding that NIST’s scenario was not feasible and that the simultaneous failure of all core
columns would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated 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. The dynamic analysis results for this
simulation are shown below, side-by-side with two videos of the collapse.
Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns
followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the
behavior observed in videos of the collapse. Specifically, the simulated velocity and acceleration
of the building in our SAP2000 model matches almost exactly with the motion measured by
David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall, shown in.

When everything else was tested, the only scenario that worked was the one above. Their model replicated the actual collapse on the day.


A collapsing building looked like a collapsing building *slow hand clap*



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
So who's going to peer review this report?
Maybe they will just do a show of hands on ae911 and call it reviewed.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
Hulsey
4.6 Results of Core Column/Exterior Column Failure Analysis
Finding that NIST’s scenario was not feasible and that the simultaneous failure of all core
columns would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated 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. The dynamic analysis results for this
simulation are shown below, side-by-side with two videos of the collapse.
Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns
followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the
behavior observed in videos of the collapse. Specifically, the simulated velocity and acceleration
of the building in our SAP2000 model matches almost exactly with the motion measured by
David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall, shown in.

When everything else was tested, the only scenario that worked was the one above. Their model replicated the actual collapse on the day.


A collapsing building looked like a collapsing building *slow hand clap*


43 seconds. Hulsey and NIST and actual collapse are shown side by side. Hulsey model is the same as collapse on 9/11.. You can not fake a finite element analysis computer sim.


Hulsey collapse model looked like this when he did 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.

NIST model looked like it did because they had a progressive sequence of failures occurring over a long period of time. Causing the building to crumble and break apart.
edit on 4-9-2019 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
So who's going to peer review this report?
Maybe they will just do a show of hands on ae911 and call it reviewed.


The engineering community, who else. AE911 will have to provide all the data to them to verify this work sound. That's the next step.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere



43 seconds. Hulsey and NIST and actual collapse are shown side by side. Hulsey model is the same as collapse on 9/11.. You can fake a finite element analysis computer sim.



Really? Depending on if Hulsey used too low of a temperature profile? Then the damage from the collapse of the twin towers is an unknown. What dynamic floor ratings did Hulsey use, and how much were those rating degraded by fire and thermal stress?

So from the get go, you have two variables nobody truly knows the extent of.

We know fire related failures are possible from WTC 5


It’s seems it comes down to this. Did Husley pick accurate temperature profiles? Or did he pick temperature profiles that are wrong to force his model to behave like he wanted.


Note: wrong probably an incorrect term.

Did Hulsey pick temperature profiles not supported by any evidence for the sole purpose to force the model to create a desired outcome.



edit on 4-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 4-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Added note to clarify



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

Again. Were the floors rated and sound enough to stop the dynamic load of the falling penthouse.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Larry Silverstein: "Pull it".



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: gusamaso
Larry Silverstein: "Pull it".


Do you even know what “pull it” means in the context Silverstein used the term vs used in demolition vs used in pyrotechnics?

Conspiracists. Using a two word out of context term when prompted for physical evidence of cut columns.

People ask for physical evidence and all you have is innuendo.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Until somebody can explain how it was reported that the building had fallen 30 minutes before it actually fell on live television, I am not inclined to believe much of anything that any report has to say. Talk about ignoring important points...



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterMcKill
a reply to: neutronflux

Until somebody can explain how it was reported that the building had fallen 30 minutes before it actually fell on live television, I am not inclined to believe much of anything that any report has to say. Talk about ignoring important points...


Are you new to 9/11? It’s been discussed many time. Over and over and over....

One? What does an over zealous reporter have to do with three different engineering reports that conclude fire related collapse of WTC 7?

Two. Over zealous reporters do make very bad mistakes.



TV Station Falsely Reports Names of Asiana Flight Pilots

www.hollywoodreporter.com...

Bay Area TV station KTVU, whose initial video footage of the Boeing 777 crash that left three dead and many wounded on Sunday was carried by major networks, is in hot water for falsely reporting the names of the Asiana Airlines pilots.

On Friday, the station reported the names as being "Captain Sum Ting Wong," "Wi Tu Lo," "Ho Lee Fuk" and "Bang Ding Ow."





The Media Learned Nothing After Misreporting the Reagan Assassination Attempt

As the shooter John Hinckley returns to life outside of imprisonment, it’s worth looking back at every thing the media got wrong that day

www.smithsonianmag.com...

The next day, the print press indicted broadcast journalism for misleading the American people. “Whether or not the surplus of misinformation doled out yesterday is an inevitable byproduct of an information-addicted, ready-access environment remains to be discussed in future days and weeks,” wrote Tom Shales in The Washington Post. “The news organizations of the three major networks are staffed and organized so that no effective system exists during coverage of a crisis of global sport to screen out rumor, gossip, hysterical tale-telling, hearsay and tongue-wagging.”



Three. All you have is an over zealous reporter confused by firefighters pulled from WTC 7, confused by reports that WTC 7 was failing, and a perimeter was set up around WTC 7 because WTC 7 showed indications it would fail.

Why would a nefarious agent say anything to a BBC reporter? Why?

If you want. I can provide cited sources that reference the term pulled to remove/recall firefighters from WTC 7. And quote sources that WTC 7 was showing signs it was failing internally before it collapsed. And there was real concern WTC 7 would collapse from fire / thermal stresses before it collapsed.

Funny the things conspiracists like to ignore.

Now, do you have any proof Hulsey’s assertion that a failing WTC 7 that caused the east penthouse to fall into WTC 7 had the structural integrity to stop the descent of the penthouse a few floors down is factual in anyway.

Do you have any proof WTC 7 did not progressively failed internally from one side to the other, then the facade fell? Vs proof all the columns failed at once?

Do you have any proof pyrotechnics that should have been visible working from the windows, and visible working on the facade at the exterior columns, cut columns?



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterMcKill

Now that the reporter thing has been given a reasonable explanation vs nefarious agents giving a BBC reporter the “script”, did I really change your view. Or do you choose faith in the truth movement vs fact?



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Can you quote yourself where you addressed the below concerns in any meaningful way?

Again

By all means, please quote Hulsey on:

How the study determined what temperatures to use.

Discussion on the contraction of deformed and cooling steel, and the resulting stress.

What would stop the collapse of the penthouse.

Discussion of all the objects that disappear below WTC 7’s roofline before the facade started to move.

What caused all the columns to fail at the same instance. And why that event did not cause any visible evidence in the windows, or physical effects in the facade. Or lack of any audible or overpressure evidence.

Looking forward to you quoting Hulsey / the report with supporting links.

This is an interesting assessment of Hulsey’s “modeling” of the penthouse by 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.



The movement of Hulsey’s modeling of the pentagon does not match what is witnessed on video? With no explanation how a failing WTC 7 that initiate the collapse of the penthouse had the structural integrity to stop the descent of the penthouse a few floors down?



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Mike West an idiot. Hulsey explained why the building would tip southwest.

Based on this analysis, we found that a simultaneous failure of all core columns would cause the building to tip to the southwest. We attribute this behaviour to WTC 7 having fewer exterior columns on its south side than on its north side and on the reported damage to columns on the southwest corner caused by the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 — damage that we included in our model. We can also derive from this analysis that even if the horizontal progression of core column failures asserted by NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger had somehow occurred, leaving the exterior standing as a hollow shell momentarily, it would still not result in the observed straight-down collapse

Hulsey took out the core columns 76 to 81 and ran a simulation to see would happen to the building ( he also included damage resulting from the collapse of WTC1) it began to tip on the Southeast side.

Then he ran another simulation.
Finding that NIST’s scenario was not feasible ( buckling of columns) and that the simultaneous failure of all core columns would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated 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.

Conclusions after the sim.
Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse ( actual collapse)

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.

edit on 4-9-2019 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:40 PM
link   
This discovery destroys NIST analysis and just needs to be verified.

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 it's thermal 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. Further, the NIST report results were based on a modeling error in that this beam framed into an exterior girder, not an exterior column

Just to highlight NIST error-prone WTC7 study.

1:Not modelling three lateral support beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 spanning from beam G3005 to the north exterior wall "It is important to realize that the lateral support beams have a significant effect and therefore should not have been omitted from the NIST models
2: G3005 based their analyses on W24x55- wrong one should be W21x44.
3: Further, the NIST report results were based on a modeling error in that this beam framed into an exterior girder, not an exterior column

edit on 4-9-2019 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:48 PM
link   
What would stop the collapse of the penthouse?

Based on these analyses, we found that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building (e.g., from Floor 6 to 13 or Floor 13 to 21). We found that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the lower floors of the building would cause the building to tilt dramatically to the east, which would have been observed in the videos but was not, and that it would not cause the east penthouse to collapse, because the intact portions of Columns 79, 80, and 81 above where the columns failed would still support the penthouse. On the other hand, we found that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the upper floors of the building, especially at Floor 45 all the way up to the penthouse, would cause the penthouse to collapse into the building as observed, while causing minimal movement of the exterior. It appears, therefore, that Columns 79, 80, and 81 failed at the upper floors of the building.

They ran simulations and provided images in the report
Figure 4.2: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 6 to Floor 13. The building tilts to
the east almost 10 inches. The penthouse does not collapse.

Figure 4.3: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 13 to Floor 21. The building tilts to
the east 7.2 inches. The penthouse does not collapse.

Figure 4.4: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 21 to Floor 29. The building tilts to
the east 5.4 inches. The penthouse does not collapse, though penthouse deflection increases.

Figure 4.5: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 29 to Floor 37. The building tilts to
the east 3.85 inches. The penthouse does not collapse, thought its deflection increases.

Figure 4.6: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 37 to Floor 45. Tilting of the
building is now negligible, whereas the deflection of the penthouse is now much greater.

Figure 4.7: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 45 to the penthouse. Tilting of the
building is now negligible. The penthouse now collapses, as demonstrated from the significant
amount of deflection given in the figure.

edit on 4-9-2019 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Temps, there lot written about this and too much to post, but this may help.

However, the details of the thermal analysis by Dr. Beyler are not shown in the Weidlinger report, and Beyler’s analysis has not been made public, despite its central importance to Weidlinger’s hypothesis. It is important to understand that steel structural members reaching temperatures of 750°C due to office fires can be considered extraordinary. Without any analysis provided to substantiate such temperatures, Weidlinger’s collapse initiation hypothesis must be viewed skeptically and can only be assumed to have a very low probability of occurrence.

NIST assumed that the beams were heated to 600°C, that girders A2001 and A2015 were heated to 500°C, and that the columns were heated to 300°C. This was examined in our study and we found no problem with this assumption.

To examine the movement of the floor system surrounding Column 79 in response to thermal loading, we considered the worst-case temperatures in the computed temperature distribution reported by NIST.

We inputted the temperature distribution given by NIST into SAP2000 using three different zones of temperature distribution: high temperature at 1211°F, medium temperature at 941°F, and low temperature, which was room temperature, at 68°F.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Heating and cooling cycles.
Nordenson found that the alleged failure of other girder connections framing into Column 79 on lower floors, which was necessary along with the aforementioned cascade of floor failures in order for Column 79 to buckle, could not have been caused by thermal expansion

The The Nordenson report instead put forth the idea that these girder connections failed
due to stress raisers (cracking) caused by repeated heating and cooling cycles. However, this
structure did not experience heating and cooling cycles anywhere near sufficient to allow stress
raisers to cause fatigue failure..


edit on 4-9-2019 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

The question was, what did Hulsey base his temperatures on. It’s seems he cared more about forcing his model than what actually occurred at WTC 7. And the Hulsey model still couldn’t get the movement of the penthouse right.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join