Trojan
Muse
Its an e-mail that went to some (all) petition signers, and was posted on a closed facebook page. What I posted is a pure cut and paste.
Merged Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska
- Thread starter Trojan
- Start date
Its an e-mail that went to some (all) petition signers, and was posted on a closed facebook page. What I posted is a pure cut and paste.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
One question I do have. Has AE9/11 actually presented a "scenario" that could be entered into a FEA as input data?
I don't believe they actually have. I wonder if this new AE site (Gage owns the domain) will outline this new data.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Gage I assume. It's his deal.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
AE911T probably had to do something. The goal of an FEA was put forth ten months ago as to be part of the 'work' they were to do in 2015.
Here we are half way through November and they have nothing to show! With this announcement they can call for more funds through to February or March.
I have personally called upon the supporters here to get AE911T to do an FEA so at least they have started on as little as they can do.
Seems its designed as "prove NIST wrong" on the least significant point, did the girder walk off due soley to heat expansion. Ok include the extra bits on the girder seat, will they also include the effects of the south side damage? or any other effect that would be less significant than heat but coukd possibly contribute to deformation or movement?
Here we are half way through November and they have nothing to show! With this announcement they can call for more funds through to February or March.
I have personally called upon the supporters here to get AE911T to do an FEA so at least they have started on as little as they can do.
Seems its designed as "prove NIST wrong" on the least significant point, did the girder walk off due soley to heat expansion. Ok include the extra bits on the girder seat, will they also include the effects of the south side damage? or any other effect that would be less significant than heat but coukd possibly contribute to deformation or movement?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Big problem for AE911T in examing if a col 79 failure could progress to global collapse, is that if they did an FEA on that issue they would have to eat crow on so many claims they have asserted in the past such as free fall = CD, 80 columns severed at once, etc. So they concentrate on the girder walk off.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Probably won't look at JSO's transfer truss scenario either.
ozeco41
Philosopher
They haven't AFAIK.
The ongoing base level problem is that they do not have any valid scenario. And - until the scenario is valid - there is nothing legitimate to put into the maths/calculations. Remember that FEA is simply a complicated maths engine which does calculations which would be prohibitive in human effort if done "by hand'. (Including "by hand plus slide riule"- my era and "By hand with calculators" - end of my era doing the engineering - overlapping into my first years of managing engineering.)
And the problem with ALL of Szamboti's claims (EXCEPT his share in the paper with Szuladszinski and Johns) is that his scenarios are wrong - his starting premises and assumptions selected to "force" the predetermined conclusion of CD.
All those discussions about "Tilt will prevent or cause axial impact" and the continuing nonsense of Missing Jolt. Both scenarios are false - never existed - never could exist. So all the maths and FEA CANNOT be valid - and both sides made the same error. And Szamboti knows that - probably knows it is correct - which is why he rarely engages with me and has not entered into debate with me in the last 4 or 5 years.
There is no point in even discussing FEA (or any other form of processing maths) IF the sceario is wrong. Step one of any problem silutin is "Define Your problem" - then apply the data and use the maths. (And - for the process pedants - heuristic processes "defining as you go" are also valid but let's keep it simple.
)Whether or not they have new data - doubtful - but it is irrelevant while ever they persist with false scenarios.
Proving something wrong does not prove anything right!
We've had our hair on fire asking truthers to detail or even sketch their CD scenario... what was where and did what when and how and so on. I would shocked it they proposed, tested and "proved" anything.
We've had our hair on fire asking truthers to detail or even sketch their CD scenario... what was where and did what when and how and so on. I would shocked it they proposed, tested and "proved" anything.
ozeco41
Philosopher
It really doesn't matter Sander. If it is to be a professional level attempt to establish an alternate explanation it will have to rigorously expose and support the scenario, the starting point assumptions then the data then the maths processing.
Szamboti's "trick" with this sort of thing is to assume the starting scenario THEN spend months nit pick arguing the maths details. When the scenario is false. Look how he will simply not face reality that his starting scenario for "Missing Jolt" never was and never could be. Dozens of us have told him that. Many like me have presented rigorous explanations - he runs away.
(In the case of WTC7 Girder walk off the status was that his starting point was not proven. Same result in valid logic - his claim not made out. That one was too subtle for many members esp those who themselves see FEA as the only tool needed to solve the problem. You cannot solve a problem if you cannot correctly identify it. And arguing different results from FEA's when both have the wrong scenario is wasted effort.)
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
In fact ozeco, AE911T has claimed exactly that NIST had not begun their FEA with correct inputs.
While NIST did identify the problem correctly:
The collapse visibly began with rooftop structures falling into the building and a 'kink' in the north face.
Analysis showed best fit was a failure of col 79
The only visible driver for this is the fires on several floors. The most prominent is that on the 12th floor.
Analysis showed that fire coukd not fail col 79 directly.
Therefore col 79 must have had another factor in its failure. Loss of lateral support occurs when floors fail due to fire. Research indicated that girder 44 would be heated in the fires.
Analysis indicated that significant movement would occur and quite probably cause it to come away from its seat on col 79. The debris causes further floor failures. Col 79 , already heated, now has lost significant lateral support and buckles.
HOWEVER, the assumption that col79 failed first is quite solid.
It is patently obvious that an internal failure of one or two major columns led the collapse.
NIST did further analysis for a failure of col 79 without considering its cause. They did this for a pristine structure as well as one with south side impact damage. That analysis shows the collapse progressing globally.
What is AE911T proposing to do? Analyze girder 44, and not a dang thing other than that. Will they demonstrate a collapse by any means? Nope. Will they analyze the actual collapse to determine how the rooftop structures came to fall in and the kink develop? Nope. Will they analyze specific column failures to determine a match to reality? Nope.
Will they do any analysis designed to illustrate a probable collapse sequence? Nope.
Will they identify the real problem that requires a solution, obviously not.
This is supposed to be a game changer in how the collapse is viewed? This is supposed to lead to bolstering AE911T's claims of explosive demolitions? Yep, to understand their spin on it. In reality though, doesnt even come close.
While NIST did identify the problem correctly:
The collapse visibly began with rooftop structures falling into the building and a 'kink' in the north face.
Analysis showed best fit was a failure of col 79
The only visible driver for this is the fires on several floors. The most prominent is that on the 12th floor.
Analysis showed that fire coukd not fail col 79 directly.
Therefore col 79 must have had another factor in its failure. Loss of lateral support occurs when floors fail due to fire. Research indicated that girder 44 would be heated in the fires.
Analysis indicated that significant movement would occur and quite probably cause it to come away from its seat on col 79. The debris causes further floor failures. Col 79 , already heated, now has lost significant lateral support and buckles.
HOWEVER, the assumption that col79 failed first is quite solid.
It is patently obvious that an internal failure of one or two major columns led the collapse.
NIST did further analysis for a failure of col 79 without considering its cause. They did this for a pristine structure as well as one with south side impact damage. That analysis shows the collapse progressing globally.
What is AE911T proposing to do? Analyze girder 44, and not a dang thing other than that. Will they demonstrate a collapse by any means? Nope. Will they analyze the actual collapse to determine how the rooftop structures came to fall in and the kink develop? Nope. Will they analyze specific column failures to determine a match to reality? Nope.
Will they do any analysis designed to illustrate a probable collapse sequence? Nope.
Will they identify the real problem that requires a solution, obviously not.
This is supposed to be a game changer in how the collapse is viewed? This is supposed to lead to bolstering AE911T's claims of explosive demolitions? Yep, to understand their spin on it. In reality though, doesnt even come close.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Actually I've disagreed with that assertion of failed first many times.
NIST's own report explains why it cannot be true.
Lousy use of language.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Edited my post to include other column failure scenarios.
The 'first' issue is a problem with language. What failed first? How far back shall we go? A perimeter column in WTC1 that is severed by aircraft impact? That eventually led to the collapse of WTC7.
The failure that occurred to directly and subsequently cause rooftop structures to fall inward would appear to be a failure of col 79.
Since that can be determined fairly well, imho its the place to work back from.
Working back one notes the only known drivers of such column failure are perimeter impact damage and fire.
Impact may have produced some forces on the internal columns but not enough to directly cause column failure.
Fires may have damaged columns but not enough to directly cause a column failure.
If AE911T wants to contribute then they could look for another mechanism by which column 79 failed.
If they want to prove NIST wrong then the better plan than looking at girder walk off would be to look at single column failure progressing to global collapse. That however would mean also jeopardizing the claims they have made in the past. Safe move therefore is to attack girder walk off.
Then they can spout "no fire induced girder walk off therefore multiple explosives".
The 'first' issue is a problem with language. What failed first? How far back shall we go? A perimeter column in WTC1 that is severed by aircraft impact? That eventually led to the collapse of WTC7.
The failure that occurred to directly and subsequently cause rooftop structures to fall inward would appear to be a failure of col 79.
Since that can be determined fairly well, imho its the place to work back from.
Working back one notes the only known drivers of such column failure are perimeter impact damage and fire.
Impact may have produced some forces on the internal columns but not enough to directly cause column failure.
Fires may have damaged columns but not enough to directly cause a column failure.
If AE911T wants to contribute then they could look for another mechanism by which column 79 failed.
If they want to prove NIST wrong then the better plan than looking at girder walk off would be to look at single column failure progressing to global collapse. That however would mean also jeopardizing the claims they have made in the past. Safe move therefore is to attack girder walk off.
Then they can spout "no fire induced girder walk off therefore multiple explosives".
Last edited:
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Actually I've disagreed with that assertion of failed first many times.
NIST's own report explains why it cannot be true.
Lousy use of language.
Agreed, as being strictly true; but if you change the statement to "the first outward manifestation of the structural failure of WTC 7, the collapse of the East Penthouse, was almost certainly the result of the failure of column 79", then it's well-nigh undeniable, even by Truthers.
He is another full blown 911 truth nut.
Does the school know he went nuts on 911 after 14 years? When he comes up with silent explosives did it...
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
He is the school, as he chairs the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at UAF!
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
(ETA: He got his B. S. Civil Engineering in 1965. He thus was probably born in the early 1940s and would be a bit over 70 years old now. Isn't there a retirement age for professors in administrative posts like department chair? Anyway, judgung from his awards, he seems to be more excellent in teaching than research - which is not a bad thing at all!)
Neither Hulsey nor any of his faculty have yet signed Gage's petition. So far they fooled only 2 (two) civil engineers in Alaska to sign.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Thanks. I am a petition signer (several times, actually
as "other supporter"), but did not receive the email. I guess only the A&E category got it?ozeco41
Philosopher
Anyone matching all four of those should make a great debunker.
Probably shy, reticent, modest.....
Last edited:
Here is an engineering study that might show some rigor:
http://www.nordenson.com/project.php?l=name&offset=1&id=143&sup=apply
and this:
http://www.nordenson.com/project.php?id=41&l=name&offset=1&loffset=1&sup=apply
http://www.nordenson.com/project.php?l=name&offset=1&id=143&sup=apply
and this:
http://www.nordenson.com/project.php?id=41&l=name&offset=1&loffset=1&sup=apply
Last edited: