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

[Fonebone]

By the way, this is a picture of the WTC2 footprint area. Try to match it with the LIDAR image and think a bit about what the LIDAR image actually shows.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum
/6/wtc2south2.jpg

OK The long tubular shaped linear object is the pedestrian bridge that crosses over west side at Liberty street.
The WTC2 west facing wall is in the foreground with the south facing wall is seen at the right.
The link you provide shows the WTC2 footprint as viewed from the north
and the south wall partially standing in the background.In between the WTC2 west facing wall and the pedestrian bridge
is the southern portion of the WTC3 Marriott. The LIDAR shows the WTC3 between the bridge
and the WTC2 south wall.
Now it's your turn to think a bit.

 

[Mark F]

Truth movement's use of the phrase -controlled demolition- is not intended to be read literally I suspect. What they seem to suggest is not that the destruction was controlled... but that some group engineered and placed devices which was led to the collapse of each building. The presumed goal was not to mimic a CD but to collapse/destroy the building. Falling into the footprint was not an objective... I suspect if the towers toppled they would be OK with that result.

I disagree. Because they also use phrases like "fell in their own footprint" I think the CT crowd very much literally means the demolitions were controlled.

 

[JSanderO]

I disagree. Because they also use phrases like "fell in their own footprint" I think the CT crowd very much literally means the demolitions were controlled.

Not work the key strokes to argue about this point.

It seems that to engineer a demo that falls "over" might not only be more difficult... but it would serve no purpose unless the intent was to damage adjacent property.

My hunch is whether it was AQ or the truther bombers... they were really only interested in the Twins. Truthers used 7wtc to pitch their CD rubbish because it looked very much like a CD (the structural failure was down low) and the twins destruction did not resemble and CD or building collapse either on film, video or eyewitness reports. And consider how many (truthers) claim that the top "falling into the bottom" can't even destroy it.... meaning that the "devices" were unseen and through out the height??????

Never did account for the fact the 2wtc's top tipped as 1wtc's did not.

7wtc was an easy match for CD and you see how they did side by side with an actual CD.

 

[bknight]

Fonebone exactly what do you believe occurred to WT 7? No links , just your words and thoughts.

Then what happened to WT 1 &2?

 

[Hellbound]

Not work the key strokes to argue about this point.

It seems that to engineer a demo that falls "over" might not only be more difficult... but it would serve no purpose unless the intent was to damage adjacent property.

I'm not a CD expert, but I do ave some training in demolitions. It's not only more difficult, it's MUCH more difficult and would take a crap ton more explosives and engineering.

Buildings are HEAVY. The average skyscraper weighs about 225,000 TONS, and must be at least 150m tall to be called a skyscraper. To make it fall over, you have to provide enough force in a lateral direction to push that much weight a significant distance. If you think you can cut one side of the bottom like a tree, you're vastly over-estimating the strength of the building. They aren't over-engineered to anything resembling that degree. They're designed to hold the weight of themselves, and the weight of equipment and people on the floors. That people and equipment weight is a fraction of the building weight. Try to make it fall over, and it will fall apart and fall down.

CDs are all about letting gravity do the work. Even in military demolitions, say when blowing a bridge, we don't even think about trying to get enough explosives to blow the whole bridge to pieces; that'd be insane. Instead, you cut the moorings on each end and let gravity take over (more or less, may need to cut the span depending on whether there are center supports and such, but the same basic principle).

Just for a quick comparison:

225000 tons is roughly 224,190,700 Newtons. Let's round that to 200,000,000 for easier math. Heck, let's make it 100,000,000.
The building would fall an average of 75m, assuming the shortest skyscraper possible. That would take about 3.91s.

That would release 73,500,000,000 Joules of energy. 7.35x10¹⁰.

That energy alone is equivalent to 200kg of TNT all by itself (.1 megaton).

And that's, by far, a LOW end estimate for a not-really-exceptional skyscraper.

When you're talking about the twin towers, the weight and height go up considerably. Anything less than a nuke, or a MOAB equivalent, is simply inconsequential in comparison.

And that's the kind of force you need to exert to have it move sideways instead of down.

NOTE: I use "you" in the general sense through this, not specific JSanderO. Just used you as a jumping off point

 

[JSanderO]

I'm not a CD expert, .....

And that's the kind of force you need to exert to have it move sideways instead of down.

NOTE: I use "you" in the general sense through this, not specific JSanderO. Just used you as a jumping off point

Nor am I!... But I suppose to make a building topple in one direction... you would destroy support on the one side... much like a tree is toppled by cutting a notch. I have no idea how much force or energy would be required... but it sure as heck wouldn't fall straight down. I believe some CDs use these ideas to direct the "fall".

 

[Redwood]

It's not unusual to bring down a building to one side in a demolition.

 

[Hellbound]

Nor am I!... But I suppose to make a building topple in one direction... you would destroy support on the one side... much like a tree is toppled by cutting a notch. I have no idea how much force or energy would be required... but it sure as heck wouldn't fall straight down. I believe some CDs use these ideas to direct the "fall".

To a degree, yes, but most of it is still going to drop inside the footprint. There's just so much mass coming down that the structure is going to fail before you get much sideways motion, especially if you're trying to drop the whole thing.

I have seen that type of thing done with structures that have a relatively high strength to mass ratio, things like tall industrial smokestacks and similar. There's just too much stuff there for larger buildings to do much of that sort without a lot of work.

Basically, getting one to fall outside it's footprint is more of a feat than getting one to drop mostly inside. If the twin towers had fallen over sideways I'd be supporting the CD theory

 

[pgimeno]

... The draft report will be published that same week at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building.

We knew in advance that that was the predetermined conclusion and that the work by Mr. Hulsey et al. was aimed at finding ways to support that conclusion. It's no surprise that it did, but that's not how science works.


And there's this (anticipated) point:

Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

Can anyone in this forum please enlighten me as to how is it possible that a simulation shows such a thing?

Because it is my understanding that, in order to show it, the simulation itself needs to somehow be able to prove that EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE SCENARIO (not restricted to just those scenarios considered by NIST) leads to a different outcome, and a single simulation (or even a number of them) is unable to do such thing.

There's a few variables that were known from observation of WTC7, but there's a lot more that remained unknown, such as intensity of the unseen parts of the fires, the state of the fires in the Edison substation below WTC7 and its influence on the trusses that held the building, degree of mismatch between specifications and actual construction, contents of the fuel material in the different floors, and so on and on and on.

The number of unknown variables gets so big, that the claim of being able to tell that fires did not bring down the building is just not credible.

Let me illustrate the wrongness of Hulsey's approach with a story.

A man called WTC7 is in a kitchen. He has tried a bit of juggling with balls, but he was too shy to show his abilities in public. While using a knife to prepare a meal, he suddenly figures that juggling with knives could be an exciting, even if dangerous, game, and decides to test his abilities out of boredom. He starts juggling with a few knives. He fails, and one of the knives cuts his neck. He dies as a consequence.

A forensic investigator called NIST quickly determines that his neck was cut with the knife that lies on the floor, which was obvious from the let go. But, unable to determine where the knife came from (because they never thought the man could be juggling, as he was never seen doing that), after a lot of analysis and investigation, NIST determines as the most probable cause that the knife came from the cupboard that was above him, which was open at the time, and therefore the death was accidental.

After reading the NIST investigative report, an intrepid knife expert called Hulsey determines that it's impossible for the knife to have fallen from the cupboard because the angle of the knife cut was 5 degrees off with respect to the expected angle if it had fallen from the cupboard, and proves so with a physics simulation that simulates the knife falling from the cupboard, and showing errors in the estimations of the NIST simulation.

This, Hulsey says, proves that someone murdered the man, because he has proven that it's impossible that the knife came from the cupboard as NIST said. Who did it, why and how? Hulsey doesn't say. But he insists that, because NIST was wrong, it was a murder. Hulsey even goes as far as proving with a simulation that someone holding a knife behind Mr. WTC7 was able to inflict a cut just like the one that the man exhibited.

Can you spot what's wrong with Hulsey's reasoning? Yes, that's right: he hasn't really proven that any other scenario where the knife cuts at that angle may result in an accidental death, and therefore his conclusion that the death was not accidental does not follow from the simulations he provides. In this little story we have a luxury that we didn't have in September 11, 2001: to know in advance the hidden variable that the investigators didn't have access to.

 

[pgimeno]

I agree with Hellbound, skyscrapers have a lot of mass and the relatively thin columns make it harder for the structure to tip over than e.g. in the Las Gladiolas example shown by Redwood. See Bazant and Zhou, 2002 Appendix II: Why Didn't the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?

Basically, the first attempt at pivoting over the base makes the top section gain rotational momentum. The columns can't stand the lateral reaction force exerted by the part of the structure situated below the CoG, and the result is that the top pivots mostly over its CoG instead of over its base.

It's not hard to see with a thought experiment. Say you have three sticks holding a somewhat heavy box. The sticks are not glued to the box; they just hold it. We can simplify it to a 2D case with just two sticks:

   +----+
   |    |
   +----+
   |    |
   |    |

Now you remove one of the sticks. What is going to happen to the other one (to the other two in the case of 3D)?

Case A: The stick remains vertical as the box tips over.

     +_
    /  --+
   +_   /
   | --+
   |

Case B: The stick rotates in the same direction as the box.

     +_
    /  --+
   +_   /
  /  --+
 /

Case C: The stick rotates in the opposite direction of that of the box.

   +_
  /  --+
 +_   /
  \--+
   \

Case A will only happen if the stick is glued to the floor. Case B will only happen if the stick is glued to the box. Case C is the one that will happen if the stick isn't glued to either side.

There are some assumptions in this model. The sticks should have a thick enough base as to be able to hold the box without any stick tipping over, but that base should also be thin enough as to not be able to withstand the lateral momentum of the box once it starts rotating.

 

[Oystein]

Now, pgimeno, post this in the Hulsey thread, and we have a winner!

 

[ozeco41]

Now, pgimeno, post this in the Hulsey thread, and we have a winner!

If anyone pays attention. By my count that is three who agree across several forums and FaceBook groups. Maybe the timing is appropriate - just before the Hulsey paper is released.

 

[Fonebone]

[snipped]
A man called WTC7 is in a kitchen. He has tried a bit of juggling with balls, but he was too shy to show his abilities in public. While using a knife to prepare a meal, he suddenly figures that juggling with knives could be an exciting, even if dangerous, game, and decides to test his abilities out of boredom. He starts juggling with a few knives. He fails, and one of the knives cuts his neck. He dies as a consequence.

A forensic investigator called NIST quickly determines that his neck was cut with the knife that lies on the floor, which was obvious from the let go. But, unable to determine where the knife came from (because they never thought the man could be juggling, as he was never seen doing that), after a lot of analysis and investigation, NIST determines as the most probable cause that the knife came from the cupboard that was above him, which was open at the time, and therefore the death was accidental.

After reading the NIST investigative report, an intrepid knife expert called Hulsey determines that it's impossible for the knife to have fallen from the cupboard because the angle of the knife cut was 5 degrees off with respect to the expected angle if it had fallen from the cupboard, and proves so with a physics simulation that simulates the knife falling from the cupboard, and showing errors in the estimations of the NIST simulation.

This, Hulsey says, proves that someone murdered the man, because he has proven that it's impossible that the knife came from the cupboard as NIST said. Who did it, why and how? Hulsey doesn't say. But he insists that, because NIST was wrong, it was a murder. Hulsey even goes as far as proving with a simulation that someone holding a knife behind Mr. WTC7 was able to inflict a cut just like the one that the man exhibited.

Can you spot what's wrong with Hulsey's reasoning? Yes, that's right: he hasn't really proven that any other scenario where the knife cuts at that angle may result in an accidental death, and therefore his conclusion that the death was not accidental does not follow from the simulations he provides. In this little story we have a luxury that we didn't have in September 11, 2001: to know in advance the hidden variable that the investigators didn't have access to.

HOT DAMN pgimeno- I think you're on to something here !
Doing some cursory investigation I uncovered much more evidence we should be considering. Turns out that our protagonist WTC7 was a chef at the infamous Russian Coffee house in NYC and was place under surveillance
last year in an FBI DEA & homeland security joint counterterrorism dragnet.
Undercover cameras were placed in the kitchen area captured several instances of the main suspect , mr.WTC7, playing with his balls on company time,and one video captured was leaked by a anonymous source close to the investigation.
https://external-preview.redd.it/9mszB3sH2-dmiGXIeO9Oh3WqosNcgHOnPVz2jEeVNZ8.gif?format=mp4&1a87a2fb
(LINK redacted due to national security concerns)







http://www.jugglingworld.biz/more-juggling-resources/animated-juggling-gifs/

Further investigations revealed mr. WTC7 was undergoing a sex change operation with hormone treatments to create larger mammary glands needed to prefect the final action of the performance seen in the undercover video. Mr.WTC7 fatal flaw was revealed during the NIST investigation that determined one of the five butcher knives Mr WTC7 selected was unbalanced which distorted the vertical spin axis causing the knife to miss his heart and land in his neck,severing his juggler vein.
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/freestyle-knife-juggling/85140567/

All of this new evidence proves conclusively that fire alone brought down the WTC7 tower straight down into it's footprint. [/sarc]

 

[pgimeno]

I've run a simulation with the Box2D physics engine as implemented in the Love2D framework. I created a 2D box and two 2D sticks holding it, then with the space key I moved one of the sticks away. The trajectory of the centre of mass of the box was traced. Here's the result:

As you can see, the centre of mass of the box does barely move from the vertical; not even by one pixel in this simulation.

Here's the complete Lua program for reference and reproducibility:

love.physics.setMeter(10)
local save_frames = false
--save_frames = true
local box_mass = false
--box_mass = 15

local world = love.physics.newWorld(0, 98, false)

local boxB = love.physics.newBody(world, 0, -100, "dynamic")
local boxS = love.physics.newRectangleShape(121, 179)
local boxF = love.physics.newFixture(boxB, boxS)
if box_mass then
  boxB:setMass(box_mass)
end

local stick1B = love.physics.newBody(world, -58, 50, "dynamic")
local stick1S = love.physics.newRectangleShape(5, 121)
local stick1F = love.physics.newFixture(stick1B, stick1S)

local stick2B = love.physics.newBody(world, 58, 50, "dynamic")
local stick2S = love.physics.newRectangleShape(5, 121)
local stick2F = love.physics.newFixture(stick2B, stick2S)

local groundB = love.physics.newBody(world, 0, 118, "static")
local groundS = love.physics.newRectangleShape(781, 15)
local groundF = love.physics.newFixture(groundB, groundS)

local points = {boxB:getPosition()}
love.graphics.setBackgroundColor(255, 255, 255)

function love.update(dt)
  if save_frames then
    -- update 10 times at 100 fps, to get 10 fps
    for i = 1, 10 do
      world:update(1/100)
    end
  else
    world:update(dt)
  end
  local posX, posY = boxB:getPosition()
  local idx = #points
  if posX ~= points[idx - 1] or posY ~= points[idx] then
    points[idx + 1] = posX
    points[idx + 2] = posY
  end
end

local frame = 0

love.graphics.setLineStyle("rough")
love.graphics.setLineJoin("none")

function love.draw()
  love.graphics.translate(love.graphics.getWidth()/2, love.graphics.getHeight()/2)
  love.graphics.setColor(0, 0, 0)
  love.graphics.polygon("line", boxB:getWorldPoints(boxS:getPoints()))
  love.graphics.polygon("line", stick1B:getWorldPoints(stick1S:getPoints()))
  love.graphics.polygon("line", stick2B:getWorldPoints(stick2S:getPoints()))
  love.graphics.polygon("line", groundB:getWorldPoints(groundS:getPoints()))

  love.graphics.setColor(255, 0, 0)
  if #points > 4 then
    love.graphics.line(points)
  else
    love.graphics.rectangle("fill", points[1], points[2], 1, 1)
  end

  frame = frame + 1
  if save_frames then
    love.graphics.captureScreenshot(string.format("frm%05d.png", frame))
  end
end

function love.keypressed(k)
  if k == "escape" then return love.event.quit() end
  if k == "space" or k == " " then
    stick2B:setPosition(stick2B:getX() + 300, stick2B:getY())
  end
end

If you want to try it yourself, you can download the Love2D framework from https://love2d.org/ then save the above code as main.lua and then call love passing as a parameter the folder where main.lua is.

 

[pgimeno]

All of this new evidence proves conclusively that fire alone brought down the WTC7 tower straight down into it's footprint. [/sarc]

The point of the story was to show why Hulsey can't prove what he claims to prove using simulations, not to prove that fire did it.

There's no evidence for anything other than fire, therefore fire remains the only credible explanation. Showing that explosives could possibly have caused an effect that looks somewhat similar to the one observed, is not a proof that they were actually used. No explosives have ever been found, and no other signs of their use have ever been shown by anyone.

 

[tanabear]

We knew in advance that that was the predetermined conclusion and that the work by Mr. Hulsey et al. was aimed at finding ways to support that conclusion. It's no surprise that it did, but that's not how science works..

But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this? Hulsey and team created a worse case scenario. They still assumed that there were fires on floor 12, 13 around column 79 at the time of the collapse(the photographic evidence does not support this) and they still could not get any collapse.

So why can't any of the true believers in the official story demonstrate this?

After reading the NIST investigative report, an intrepid knife expert called Hulsey determines that it's impossible for the knife to have fallen from the cupboard because the angle of the knife cut was 5 degrees off with respect to the expected angle if it had fallen from the cupboard, and proves so with a physics simulation that simulates the knife falling from the cupboard, and showing errors in the estimations of the NIST simulation.

This, Hulsey says, proves that someone murdered the man, because he has proven that it's impossible that the knife came from the cupboard as NIST said. Who did it, why and how? Hulsey doesn't say. But he insists that, because NIST was wrong, it was a murder. Hulsey even goes as far as proving with a simulation that someone holding a knife behind Mr. WTC7 was able to inflict a cut just like the one that the man exhibited.

Can you spot what's wrong with Hulsey's reasoning? Yes, that's right: he hasn't really proven that any other scenario where the knife cuts at that angle may result in an accidental death, and therefore his conclusion that the death was not accidental does not follow from the simulations he provides. In this little story we have a luxury that we didn't have in September 11, 2001: to know in advance the hidden variable that the investigators didn't have access to.

Your analogy fails because we know that knives can do what you say here. We don't know that fire can destroy a steel-framed high rise with the same features as WTC7. To create a model that mirrors the collapse of the actual building many massive columns have to be cut almost simultaneously. To date there is no experimental evidence to support any aspect of the official story.

The 9/11 false narrative is just prolefeed for the masses.

 

[ozeco41]

A neat bit of modelling pgimeno. Here is near enough the Twin Towers equivalent. A drastically shortened motion gif - courtesy of truther researcher "achimspok". The full length original may be linked on The911Forum or Major_Tom's site. I've lost my copy.

 

[pgimeno]

But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this?

Demonstrate how?

There are two forensic reports from independent engineering analysts, both for the same lawsuit (Aegis Insurance vs 7 WTC), one from the plaintiff and one from the defendant. Both came to the same conclusion, namely that the cause of the collapse was fire; the plaintiff tried to prove that a negligence in its construction was directly related to the collapse, while the defendant tried to prove that the building could have failed without the intervention of any negligence. The defendant won the case.

To my knowledge, while at least one critical issue was found in the reports by the plaintiffs, no serious objections have been raised against the report presented by the defendants, performed by Najib N. Abboud of Weidlinger Associates, Inc. (available here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf).

This report reaches a conclusion about the initiation event that is completely different to that of NIST, in that the critical failure did not happen at the girder that the NIST report claims, not even on the same floor. Instead, the report says, the failure happened in floor 10. But from there, it agrees in the overall details with NIST: column 79 ended up losing lateral support and failed, initiating a progressive collapse that reached the rest of the structure.

And I assure you that the defendants would have been extremely interested if the cause of the collapse was intentional demolition. They had many means to investigate that possibility, but there's no evidence whatsoever that it happened.

Hulsey and team created a worse case scenario. They still assumed that there were fires on floor 12, 13 around column 79 at the time of the collapse(the photographic evidence does not support this) and they still could not get any collapse.

Hulsey didn't create a worst case scenario. He may have created a worst case scenario for NIST's hypothesis of initiation at the girder of floor 13, but that is not necessarily the worst case for all possible failure scenarios. As you can see, the Weidlinger report came up with a different scenario where there weren't (significant) fires in that area.

Therefore the point stands that Hulsey is not discarding many other possible scenarios, including the one contemplated in the Weidlinger report and many others. Progression and actual temperature of the fires near the structure is one of the most important variables that remain hidden. Fire can affect buildings in many ways, and often the cooling phase is the one causing the collapse, not the heating phase. We are in a case where "chaos theory" applies to some extent. The order in which fires affected the structure can be crucial, and creating a worst case for the collapse of the building is not so easy as raising the temperature of a certain area to maximum levels.

So why can't any of the true believers in the official story demonstrate this?

Lack of interest? Normal people (and insurance companies) know that there was no trace of explosives, that there was no evidence for anything other than fire, that fire can bring down buildings and that steel is vulnerable to fire, and don't need a report to prove it. It took a lawsuit to get the motivation to fund such a study.

Your analogy fails because we know that knives can do what you say here. We don't know that fire can destroy a steel-framed high rise with the same features as WTC7.

Oh, but Mr. WTC7 was an exceptionally tall man, and his carotid artery was exceptionally deep. No one has ever shown how a cut with a knife can inflict such damage in a tall man with a carotid that deep. It's unlikely that the carotid could be reached by just a gravity fall of a knife in the conditions of a kitchen, so murder is the only explanation.

We know that fire can bring down buildings, and that high rises are buildings too. We know that steel is vulnerable to fire, and that fire codes prescribe protection for steel not to prevent the structural failure, but to give it time for the occupants to evacuate. We know of a high rise building in Tehran (the Plasco building) made of steel that totally collapsed due to fire, and another high rise in Brazil (not made of steel in this case) that suffered the same fate. We have at least three studies that show how fire can bring down WTC7 (each in a different way).

That's why I think that your criticism to my analogy fails. You're isolating WTC7 as if it had something special that made it invulnerable to fire for some reason, but you don't mention what, and still you claim that it's somehow different. It is not; it's a building that can collapse due to fire like so many other buildings, just like Mr. WTC7's carotid is vulnerable to a knife cut like so many carotid arteries.

To create a model that mirrors the collapse of the actual building many massive columns have to be cut almost simultaneously.

That is a meme of the conspiracy theorists, and like most other similar memes, is wrong. The façade of the building was very sturdy; the internal collapse progressed horizontally and that took a few seconds, but that was not visible because the façade hid it. We only have some indirect observations that confirm it (daylight visible from the upper windows after the east mechanical penthouse collapsed; windows breaking in many places). By the time the façade started falling, the core had already totally collapsed, and not simultaneously, but by a progressive collapse mechanism.

I believe that the beams that were still connected to the core pulled from the façade down until it gave way, causing it to fall almost simultaneously. But there's nothing special about that; many total collapses are practically instantaneous.

The 9/11 false narrative is just prolefeed for the masses.

I think we agree on that point; we just disagree on what the false narrative is.

 

[Oystein]

But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this?

This is not the question - it is a no-brainer really that a general fire can destroy a steel-frame highrise. This is the very reason why the steel is fireproofed, and that firecodes exist and are an integral part of structural design considerations. It is actually very difficult to build this tall without the slightest of disturbances making the whole thing collapse. Simply put: If you or I built a 186 m tall steel frame highrise, and we managed to top it out without collapse during construction, it could not survive the slightest of fires or the most moderate of winds. It would collapse completely.

Do you understand these two points?
1. Fires are guaranteed to reduce the capacity of steel structures
2. It is very difficult to build tall such that the structure survives at all

So the question is not whether fire can cause collapse, nor whether a tall builing can collapse completely by accident.

The question is: Can we simulate a given historical collapse to an arbitrary degree of accuracy - a) as a result of fires b) as a result of hypothetical explosives.
b) is almost trivial: Of course you can, just invent a blast even whereever and whenever your simulations do not pan out the way you want them to.
So the question is really a)

And the answer to this should be a counter-question: Why? Why are you interested in mimicking the actual collapse to an arbitrary degree of accuracy?
The problem really is that you cannot have enough information about the building's conditions at the time fires began, and the ins and outs of the fire event, to get there, or to ever be sure that the simulated scenario you hit upon is the hidden, unknown "truth".

To illustrate this, just look at two simulations that NIST did on WTC7: One was started with an undamaged structure, and the other was started with damage sustained by WTC1 crashing into WTC7 earlier - or rather NIST's estimate thereof, for we can't know the true extent of that damage.

Do you see how the structure folds up wildly in one scenario, but doen't in the other? That's the effect of having a few columns broken somwhere on the south and east side, out of view.

So initial conditions play a significant role in how the collapse will look like.
Which initial conditions did Hulsey assume? We should be looking for that.

Hulsey and team created a worse case scenario.

Very likely untrue.

They still assumed that there were fires on floor 12, 13 around column 79 at the time of the collapse(the photographic evidence does not support this) and they still could not get any collapse.

You point the finger to one of the HUGEST problems with the Hulsey study - without realizing it: Yes, he ONLY modeled heat effect on two floors, when 7 consecutive floors were affected by the dynamic heat load of fires.

So why can't any of the true believers in the official story demonstrate this?

What exactly do youi require?
NIST showed in 2008 that fires can bring down this structure in the manner observed.
Oh and by the way, it is a misconception (though admittedly fed by NIST's own presentatios and summaries) that they had only this one (1) local failure, the walk-off of one girder on one floor, that triggered collapse. They found numerous failed connections.

Your analogy fails because we know that knives can do what you say here. We don't know that fire can destroy a steel-framed high rise with the same features as WTC7.

This statement makes little sense.
Fire merely triggered a global collapse.
What the global collapse looked like, in arbitrarily fine detail, many seconds later is a function of many things, of which the fire damage is just one element.

To create a model that mirrors the collapse of the actual building many massive columns have to be cut almost simultaneously.

No.
Have to FAIL almost simultaneously - because that is what was actually observed: The west core had its columns failing in rapid succession from east to west, in a matter of under a second, I believe. NIST showed that this is possible, given the accrued fire damage and the earlier impact damage.

To date there is no experimental evidence to support any aspect of the official story.

Experimental??

The 9/11 false narrative is just prolefeed for the masses.

AE911Truth surely is telling a false narrative, and the paid job that Hulsey does serves to feed that false narrative.

 

[ozeco41]

But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this?

There are two fundamental problems with your assertions.

1) The first is wrong allocation of burden of proof - and possible ignorance of some basic facts about steel framed high rise towers.

These are the basic technical facts. Steel frames are vulnerable to fires and their designs are premised on providing a "fire rating" - a period of hours that the building should withstand likely fires allowing for occupant escape and commencement of active fire fighting. All three WTC towers were taken well outside the design parameters. The default hypothesis effectively wrote itself - unfought fires caused collapse. And subsequent investigations confirmed that as the extant hypothesis.

So the claim before us is your claim (AKA the Truth Movement claim) that the extant hypothesis is wrong (or the alternate - that there was some "help" from CD). Your burden of proof - to satisfy it you have to falsify the extant hypothesis that "No CD help was needed" AND present an alternate affirmative hypothesis if you want to claim that CD was performed.

So there is no need - no obligation - for anyone "demonstrate". The burden of proof is clear.. those alleging the extant hypothesis is wrong have to prove it is wrong. AND - taking the next step - those asserting CD need to prove CD.


2) The second is your faith in Hulsey's work. Hulsey has been asserting that he can prove or has proved "Fire could not cause collapse". That is a global negative and it cannot be proved in the context of this Hulsey study. Whether or not his engineering is right his base logic has a fatal error. That error was identified when Hulsey first made the false claims how ever many years back. And has re-posted at intervals since across several forums. And recently it has been clearly restated and explained by pgimeno here on this forum and by other persons on two other forums I'm aware of.