UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

a reply to: Jesushere

You

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.

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

a reply to: Jesushere

You didn’t answer the fundamental question.

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?

Now. What was the rated dynamic loading of each floor below the penthouse house, and did the fires affect that load rating. What was the dynamic load caused by the penthouse. Can you cite those facts from the modeling? Were they programmed for a desired outcome? When there is every indication in the video evidence their was an interior progressive collapse.

a reply to: Jesushere

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.

I thought this from Mick West was interesting

Yeah, it seems highly unlikely this is an actual simulation of the global collapse. The west penthouse falls like a Super-Mario platform, and none of the interior beams even move anywhere as much.

www.metabunk.org...

Buying into Hulsey’s study is just going to make people look foolish. Sorry.

a reply to: Jesushere

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..

Assertion based on what?

a reply to: Jesushere

It is important to understand that steel structural members reaching temperatures of 750°C due to office fires can be considered extraordinary.

Why? Doesn’t that depend on the intensity and duration of the fire. And the WTC was known to have deficient fire insulation.

How Hot Do Property Fires Get?

rainbowintl.com...


Temperatures in Property Fires
The heat generated in a property fire is actually more dangerous than the flames themselves. The heat alone can kill. Room temperatures may be 100 degrees at your feet, which doesn’t sound too bad until you realize heat rises.

At eye level, it could be 600 degrees, hotter than the highest setting on most residential ovens. Temperatures at the ceiling could reach 1,500 degrees! At this temperature, your clothes can melt to your skin. Breathing in this super-hot air can even sear your lungs.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

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.

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

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. 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.



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.

This is the actual collapse computer sim. It splits at the base and then starts doing a diving motion when it breaks in the middle section.

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

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: 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.

Oh, it’s just not Mick West cutting the study down to sized. I would say don’t waste your time with a hack report.

Especially when it provides no proof of its key claim. That the columns failed in the same instance. Forgot about the stupid hack modeling. Please point to any evidence of this in the video, seismic, audio evidence with an explanation what caused such an event.

a reply to: Jesushere

So. Still no evidence of WTC 7 columns being physically cut to initiate collapse?

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

a reply to: Jesushere

I was thinking how messed up Halsey’s report and your logic really is....

Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Supports NIST’s WTC7 Methodologies and conclusions.

www.reddit.com...

The previous WTC 7 studies, some being sworn affidavits, that reference large bodies of work to accurately create temperature profiles for WTC 7 are considered impossible by Hulsey? When there was fire related failures in WTC 5.

But you find Hulsey’s “modeling” of only static fires on two floor, ignoring at least seven floors of traveling fires, who’s modeling is questionable with “stretchy” columns, and who’s modeling does not match the video evidence of the collapsing penthouse more credible. Hulsey who forced his model to have all the columns buckle in the same instance with citing no credible mechanism to support his forced model, which is not supported by the video, audio, seismic evidence?

Somehow the studies with extensive and more encompassing temperature profiles are impossible? But the Hulsey forced model of having all the columns fail at the same instance with no explanation of a mechanism and not supported by the video evidence is the only possibility?

That’s F’d up....

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.

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.

Of course you did. And then everybody cheered

I can understand you not wanting to comment on Metabunk though. They have an irritating habit of requiring posters to support their claim with evidence, so it's no wonder conspiracy theorists hate it

originally posted by: mrthumpy

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.

Of course you did. And then everybody cheered

It Youtube I got thanks for what I said, check it out. Mike thinks he can say things freely and not be debunked. It's a safe space on his forum and he gets away with this nonsense.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

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.

Of course you did. And then everybody cheered

It Youtube I got thanks for what I said, check it out. Mike thinks he can say things freely and not be debunked. It's a safe space on his forum and he gets away with this nonsense.

Yeah, sure

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.

a reply to: Jesushere

So, still no evidence of columns physically cut by pyrotechnics?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

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.

Of course you did. And then everybody cheered

It Youtube I got thanks for what I said, check it out. Mike thinks he can say things freely and not be debunked. It's a safe space on his forum and he gets away with this nonsense.

Yeah, sure

Have you not noticed Mike rebuke was about a hypothetical collapse model? Is that the best he can do? Hulsey explained why the building tipped to the southwest- but Mike trying to claim Hulsey did not explain it.

He did.
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.

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
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.

Of course you did. And then everybody cheered

It Youtube I got thanks for what I said, check it out. Mike thinks he can say things freely and not be debunked. It's a safe space on his forum and he gets away with this nonsense.

Yeah, sure

Have you not noticed Mike rebuke was about a hypothetical collapse model? Is that the best he can do? Hulsey explained why the building tipped to the southwest- but Mike trying to claim Hulsey did not explain it.

He did.
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.

Can't see the conversation you're talking about