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

[Trojan]

From AE 911

Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a study, using Finite Element Modeling, of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. Dr. Hulsey is the chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and brings decades of experience in failure analysis and modeling of structures.

In May, Dr. Hulsey and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process of virtually reconstructing WTC 7 — using the software programs SAP 2000 and Abaqus — and evaluating the range of possible causes of WTC 7’s collapse. By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79.

Based on his analysis, Dr. Hulsey will evaluate the probability of each hypothetical scenario being the cause of the collapse — and rule out scenarios that could not have resulted in collapse. Once the study is completed, Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.


Transparency and Public Participation
Unlike NIST, which has refused to release all of its modeling data based on the untenable excuse that doing so “might jeopardize public safety,” UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.

Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org, where members of the architecture and engineering communities, as well as the general public, can follow and scrutinize the research as it is being conducted.

Today, we’re giving you a sneak peek by inviting you to be the first to watch the official WTC 7 Evaluation Introduction Video. This video will be featured at the top of the forthcoming website WTC7Evaluation.org to introduce visitors to Dr. Hulsey and the goals of the UAF study.

By making the study open and transparent throughout the entire process, we expect it to attract widespread attention from the engineering community and the broader public, while also enabling interested observers to provide input and feedback. To that end, we enthusiastically invite you to register to become a participant in the study. Dr. Hulsey and the review committee vetting his research greatly welcome your help.

This Is a Turning Point
We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

 

[DGM]

I see no problem with this.

The only question I would have is, what do they consider to be a "major peer-reviewed engineering journal"? Would they need a credit card?

 

[cantonear1968]

Speaking as a total layman:

I'm doubtful that any FEA analysis, or any structural engineer for that matter, could make a definitive statement that collapse from fire is IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm also doubtful that any FEA analysis could make the defintive statement that NIST is wrong. I think at best the result of this test will conclude that, like NIST's conclusions, there is a degree of probability of the likelihood of the event. Again, it seems like an exercise to determine which bolt failed first. That being said, NIST is not sacrosanct, never to be challenged. If this analysis shows a more likely event of initiation happened, then it certainly has it uses.

But it can never ever be the result AE911T hopes for, if it can be kept in perspective. Proving NIST wrong does not prove CD. There still isn't and never has been any evidence of CD. An FEA analysis of a CD collapse is utterly useless since this certainly is no mystery; explosives WILL bring down a building. As has been pointed out before, you could have a ton of thermite sitting in Larry Silverstein's office signed for by Dick Cheney himself, and that still doesn't prove CD!

However, as one who has used the argument that AE911T has never themselves performed any sort of scientific analysis of the collapses, despite their stated mandate and fund raising for just such a thing, I welcome seeing that they are finally doing something.

 

[1stClassAlan]

If you're serious about letting the public view your website - why do you need a password to gain
access?

 

[ozeco41]

(Quoting AE911)
By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

Hogwash - reminiscent of the nonsense that Gage, /Szamboti et all put out.
The best they can do by that method is "crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring [that they AGREE WITH EACH OTHER]." Comparison of two methods cannot "[ensure] that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7".

....and if the good Doctor has made that statement he has already destroyed any credibility he may have possessed.

Let's hope that we are not seeing more AE911 hyperbole and lies. BUT any professional who agrees to work with AE911 would need a clearly documented and published statement of the conditions of engagement - and I don't see AE911 ever agreeing to an honest and transparent professional process.

It would be a massive turn around if AE911 was to go honest.

(And would leave the co-author of "Missing Jolt" floundering as he backed down from that set of false claims. )

This Is a Turning Point
We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community << It was a steel framed building engulfed in unfought fires and with disabled fire fighting sytems. It collapsed. I doubt they can change that. and by the general public << Currently the "general public" is EITHER "Yes it was another of those buildings which collapsed." OR "I hadn't realised that there was another "big one".
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, << What new techniques are there which can add anything to what is already known? it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed. << Who are the target people who may be persuaded to become aware AND are capable of "looking seriously" - the gullible sector of demography are not capable of "looking seriously" and any competent professionals who are attracted to the topic by this activity will not add anything to the support. They will still comprise the same 99% of the population who have no interest in pursuit of this set of conspiracy theories and the << 1% that are gullible enough to be conned by Gage, Szamboti et all. Net change zero???

 

[Redwood]

Hogwash - reminiscent of the nonsense that Gage, /Szamboti et all put out.
The best they can do by that method is "crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring [that they AGREE WITH EACH OTHER]." Comparison of two methods cannot "[ensure] that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7".

....and if the good Doctor has made that statement he has already destroyed any credibility he may have possessed.

Ditto that. If the programs are worth a damn, they should give similar results with the same inputs.

Call me crazy, but I would vary the inputs to the point where WTC 7 doesn't collapse, not the simulation programs! That can be done simply by making the fires in the lower NE corner progressively less severe. Then compare with visual evidence of the fires.

NIST's assumptions are actually quite conservative. They assume that the insulation of the floor beams, column 79, and the girder connecting column 79 to 44 did its job and kept them from directly failing. As a check, one could even vary the inputs to the point where they do fail directly. Dr. James Quintiere, who Truthers falsely claim as an ally, believes that engineers have greatly underestimated the fire load in modern offices.

 

[WilliamSeger]

This Is a Turning Point
We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

Hmmm, it's hard to have confidence in a study where the results are announced in advance.

 

[ozeco41]

Ditto that. If the programs are worth a damn, they should give similar results with the same inputs.

Yes!

Call me crazy, but I would vary the inputs to the point where WTC 7 doesn't collapse, not the simulation programs! That can be done simply by making the fires in the lower NE corner progressively less severe. Then compare with visual evidence of the fires...

OK "Crazy". More seriously I think the first step is to define what the - your - my - objective is. What are we trying to achieve?
1) Prove no CD? - we dont need to "prove" it - it is claimant burden of proof.

2) Determine what precisely was the collapse initiation sequence? Why do it and I doubt it can be achieved. NIST established a plausible argument - who would legitimately benefit from any alternate plausible explanation? There has to be a "line in the sand" defining how far a Government goes expending public funds to address problems from the manic fringe. (So how far is manic and how much can be achieved at what cost sets the decision policy framework.)

3) a few more - - but "Who wants it? Why? Who pays? and Cost/Benefit" are the determining issues. NOT truther or CT demands - and not "debunker" desires or wish lists. ...

NIST's assumptions are actually quite conservative. They assume that the insulation of the floor beams, column 79, and the girder connecting column 79 to 44 did its job and kept them from directly failing. As a check, one could even vary the inputs to the point where they do fail directly.

Understood - the "why do it?" and "for who's benefit?" questions still arise.

Dr. James Quintiere, who Truthers falsely claim as an ally, believes that engineers have greatly underestimated the fire load in modern offices.

It wouldn't be the first time engineers have made wrong assumptions. And stubbornly stuck with them as they dig ever deeper into a hole. Remember "alligators v swamp drainage".

 

[JSanderO]

Quintierre was not in agreement with the nature or/ protocol and so on of the NIST investigation. He seems agnostic on structural failures because he states he is not a structural engineer. NIST produced a model not an NTSB type of investigation.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Quintierre was not in agreement with the nature or/ protocol and so on of the NIST investigation. He seems agnostic on structural failures because he states he is not a structural engineer. NIST produced a model not an NTSB type of investigation.

And, I believe that Quintierre's major objection to the NIST report after it was published was its conclusion that the collapses would likely not have happened without the structural damage and insulation removal caused by the plane crashes. Quintierre believes that the fires alone could have brought down the buildings, which is about as far away from "truther" claims as you can get.

 

[jaydeehess]

The best they can do by that method is "crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring [that they AGREE WITH EACH OTHER]." Comparison of two methods cannot "[ensure] that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7".

That was a red flag to me as well.

I note there is no reference to what they will make of it if this FEA produces results very close to that produced by NIST's, a decade ago.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I note there is no reference to what they will make of it if this FEA produces results very close to that produced by NIST's, a decade ago.

If that happens, publication will probably be indefinitely delayed for some very important but unstated reason.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

This is the obvious bit of nonsense, that most regular posters of this sub-forum will spot immediately, as ozeco, Redwood and haydeehess did before me (I am slightly disappointed DGM didn't point it out ).
So it is very important for Trojan to clarify whether he slipped this in as his own error, or whether this is actually what Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey and/or AE911Truth are saying!

Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a study, using Finite Element Modeling, of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. ... In May, Dr. Hulsey and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process ... Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze ... they will examine ... Dr. Hulsey will evaluate ... Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.

... UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.

Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org ... Today, we’re giving you a sneak peek by inviting you to be the first to watch the official WTC 7 Evaluation Introduction Video

"AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey" - it seems Hulsey and his staff at UAF do all the technical and research stuff, AE911Truth does the website.

May I inquire how this study and the media presentations are funded? Are any public funds spent on this? If yes, how much?
Or does AE911Truth pay Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey and his team?
If Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey does this "in his spare time", this would be equivalent to 100% public funding, as UAF is a public institution.

...
We at AE911Truth ...

Are you, Trojan, a member and representative of AE911Truth, or did you copy your text from elsewhere? if the latter, please link your source!

believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.

As has been pointed out already by others: It looks suspicious and discourages trust if you already know the outcome of the study, which apparently won't be finished before 2017!


Some background:

• The website wtc7evaluation.org was registered by AE911Truth only about a month ago: http://whois.domaintools.com/wtc7evaluation.org
• Dr. Hulsey is not a signatory of the AE911Truth petition
• This study is on AE's "ambitious 2015 agenda" presented in Jamuary 2015: http://www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015/ The only thing AE911Truth did so far was to recently set up a website

 

[beachnut]

... awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

By fire. oh my

911 Truth is the dumbest movement; as they continue to produce BS.

 

[DGM]

I am slightly disappointed DGM didn't point it out

I didn't really see it as a major point in the whole scope of things.

Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.

This in my opinion is the major tripping point if they try to play fast and loose with the truth.

Naturally, I did comment on what do they consider to be a "major peer-reviewed engineering journal".

 

[Oystein]

This in my opinion is the major tripping point if they try to play fast and loose with the truth.

Naturally, I did comment on what do they consider to be a "major peer-reviewed engineering journal".

I am not so sure they couldn't get crap published in a truly presigeous engineering journal if they add enough complexity for peer-reviewers to be overwhelmed. There is no guarantee that peer-reviewers don't have undue faith in FEA.

 

[ozeco41]

I am not so sure they couldn't get crap published in a truly presigeous engineering journal if they add enough complexity for peer-reviewers to be overwhelmed. There is no guarantee that peer-reviewers don't have undue faith in FEA.

1) Peer review says little more than the paper is good enough to put into debate. We have peer review on too high a pedestal - creating a rod for our own backs when dealing with truthers who tend to treat peer review as the gold seal guarantee of accuracy.

2) The risk with FEA is real - it does so much of the "thinking" for those using it that they can use it without first "Engage the Brain" OR keeping brain in gear through the process.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1) Peer review says little more than the paper is good enough to put into debate. We have peer review on too high a pedestal - creating a rod for our own backs when dealing with truthers who tend to treat peer review as the gold seal guarantee of accuracy.

That's because we still can't help dealing with truthers as if they were all on some level both knowledgeable and honest. Peer review is a necessary condition for a piece of scientific work to be taken seriously; truthers tend rather to insist it's a sufficient condition. Some of them are too ignorant to understand the different; others, I am quite sure, are fully capable of understanding it, but wilfully obscure it.

Dave

 

[DGM]

I am not so sure they couldn't get crap published in a truly presigeous engineering journal if they add enough complexity for peer-reviewers to be overwhelmed. There is no guarantee that peer-reviewers don't have undue faith in FEA.

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]

1) Peer review says little more than the paper is good enough to put into debate. We have peer review on too high a pedestal - creating a rod for our own backs when dealing with truthers who tend to treat peer review as the gold seal guarantee of accuracy.

2) The risk with FEA is real - it does so much of the "thinking" for those using it that they can use it without first "Engage the Brain" OR keeping brain in gear through the process.

I agree but, I can't see how they could back door the CD conclusion past the peer review. Sure they could offer other scenarios outside of the NIST but, supporting CD (the AE) belief is another story.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I agree but, I can't see how they could back door the CD conclusion past the peer review. Sure they could offer other scenarios outside of the NIST but, supporting CD (the AE) belief is another story.

They won't even try, I suspect. They'll come up with some vague conclusion about how none of the scenarios modelled could have reproduced the observed collapse dynamics to some arbitrarily chosen level of accuracy, stress the need for further investigation, and hint that there is some other possibility that they're not talking about, keeping it general enough not to alert anyone who doesn't know who they are but leaving room for truthers to misrepresent the paper as conclusive proof of CD.

Cynical? Me?

Dave