• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

gerrycan said:
Click to expand...



And?

Just a video and nothing else?

I prefer reading when I am in a forum.

Or is this for illiterates?

Is there not a rule there not to open a thread with stupid videos?

I think we are all able to read?
 
Rumpel said:
And?

Just a video and nothing else?

I prefer reading when I am in a forum.

Or is this for illiterates?

Is there not a rule there not to open a thread with stupid videos?

I think we are all able to read?
Click to expand...

I see Mike has posted the pdf up above there.

Thanks Mike.
 
mike2810 said:
The site generally has a more technical analysis than what occurs on DP,

Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report | Metabunk
Click to expand...

Sure it is - In one post....

Mick looks at 2 different models, a static linear analysis and a dynamic analysis, and declares "These look like different models". Duh. (he realises they're different types of analysis entirely later)

He describes the goal of solving a static linear analysis as if it were an unwanted side effect.

10 minutes or so he is suddenly an expert in dynamic VS static linear analysis declaring, "I think it's the result of pushing a static analysis far beyond what it was intended to do."

He didn't realise the difference between them or even that they were different in that respect just shortly before. He's full of it, and fooling nobody who has even the slightest idea of what they are looking at. The data release is what will tell.

"more technical" lol
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Sure it is - In one post....

Mick looks at 2 different models, a static linear analysis and a dynamic analysis, and declares "These look like different models". Duh. (he realises they're different types of analysis entirely later)

He describes the goal of solving a static linear analysis as if it were an unwanted side effect.

10 minutes or so he is suddenly an expert in dynamic VS static linear analysis declaring, "I think it's the result of pushing a static analysis far beyond what it was intended to do."

He didn't realise the difference between them or even that they were different in that respect just shortly before. He's full of it, and fooling nobody who has even the slightest idea of what they are looking at. The data release is what will tell.

"more technical" lol
Click to expand...

Look. I know you don't like that site.. Bet the reason is because you were , what is the word, or yea it starts with a B.

Your patter of taken things out of context has not changed. I said, "the site generally has a more technical analysis than what occurs on DP, ": Now go look through the threads here and on metabunk. What conclusion would you have?

So what makes you an expert? Can you show where the comment made by Mick is wrong?
 
mike2810 said:
Look. I know you don't like that site.. Bet the reason is because you were , what is the word, or yea it starts with a B.
Click to expand...

Yeah. For calling Mick a, what's the word, starts with a "C". And even that overestimated his usefullness.

mike2810 said:
Your patter of taken things out of context has not changed. I said, "the site generally has a more technical analysis than what occurs on DP, ": Now go look through the threads here and on metabunk. What conclusion would you have?
Click to expand...

That Mick West tried to debate me on the very issue of these omitted elements and the expansion of the beam almost exactly 6 years ago to the day that this report was released, and lost miserably. - Here's the thread. The bit where I explain to him that the beam would fail at both ends is particularly satisfying as it is telling.

Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered | Metabunk


mike2810 said:
So what makes you an expert? Can you show where the comment made by Mick is wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, he is comparing 2 different models where the penthouse is likely a substructure in a linear analysis and so has reduced degrees of freedom etc in the linear one, and not in the other one, where he correctly states that it has more realistic damage - clearly not realising why at that point.

ADD And here's where he ran for backup (which didn't help him any).
It's still where he grabs most of his 911 stuff from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - International Skeptics Forum
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Yeah. For calling Mick a, what's the word, starts with a "C". And even that overestimated his usefullness.



That Mick West tried to debate me on the very issue of these omitted elements and the expansion of the beam almost exactly 6 years ago to the day that this report was released, and lost miserably. - Here's the thread. The bit where I explain to him that the beam would fail at both ends is particularly satisfying as it is telling.

Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered | Metabunk




Yes, he is comparing 2 different models where the penthouse is likely a substructure in a linear analysis and so has reduced degrees of freedom etc in the linear one, and not in the other one, where he correctly states that it has more realistic damage - clearly not realising why at that point.

ADD And here's where he ran for backup (which didn't help him any).
It's still where he grabs most of his 911 stuff from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - International Skeptics Forum
Click to expand...


Thanks for you opinion.
Didn't Husley use two different models in his analysis? Didn't Husley compare the two different models? So are you saying no one else can do the same?

One of the issues I have with any modeling is know one knows what really happened inside WTC7 (or WTC 1 or WTC2). Assumptions are made on fire behavior, amount of damage, etc. So at best the NIST model and Husley models all use assumptions to fill in the blanks.

Husley stated before the study that fire could not have brought the buildings down. He cannot disprove a global statement like that because he did not run all possibilities.. He even admits that there are possible scenarios that were not looked at. It is amazing how the paper avoids saying it was controlled demolition.
 
mike2810 said:
Thanks for you opinion.
Didn't Husley use two different models in his analysis? Didn't Husley compare the two different models? So are you saying no one else can do the same?
Click to expand...

Yes. He used different analysis. That's the 2 models that I am talking about. A linear one and a dynamic one. I think you may be confusing the types of analysis with the 2 different programs that they used ? (ABAQUS and SAP2000)

mike2810 said:
One of the issues I have with any modeling is know one knows what really happened inside WTC7 (or WTC 1 or WTC2). Assumptions are made on fire behavior, amount of damage, etc. So at best the NIST model and Husley models all use assumptions to fill in the blanks.
Click to expand...

They do both use assumptions yes, that's a fair comment. Alaska will release their input and model data though, so we will know for example, what criteria was applied to the elements in that linear model, and to it globally. NIST refuse to publish any such data for their analysis.

Many of these blanks are there because of the destruction of evidence that was the mass removal of steel from the site very quickly after. If we had the beam that was said to have pushed the girder kept and preserved then we could look at it and see what may have happened to it. We could have looked at the girder itself (the one that Gamolon said didn't have any shear studs for 3 years) and similarly looked at any stud deformation for example and look for directional damage.

Assumptions in FE models and in science generally are acceptable on the basis of being quantifiable and therefor either side of an acceptable margin of error. If the assumptions remain unknown, as with NIST, then that's not science. The blanks should be bound at the least.

mike2810 said:
Husley stated before the study that fire could not have brought the buildings down. He cannot disprove a global statement like that because he did not run all possibilities.. He even admits that there are possible scenarios that were not looked at. It is amazing how the paper avoids saying it was controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

You can't list all the possibilities, let alone model them and run an analysis. NIST stated on the basis of an uncheckable analysis based on flawed and incomplete structural data that they had proven that fire caused the collapse of WTC7. They pinned the perimeter of the building to induce something nearer to a plausible failure at C79 and that is why they wil not release their data. The onus remains on them to produce that data and/or a plausible fire based theory that they can back up, and is not easily dismissable like their attempts so far.
 
Isn't it funny that such scholarly examinations and models must be discussed as conspiracy theory? :lol:
 
gerrycan said:
You can't list all the possibilities, let alone model them and run an analysis. .
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is why I said his global statement of fire could not have caused the collapse is wrong. He did correct later that other possibilities exist.

Noted. No discussion of the type of explosives.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Isn't it funny that such scholarly examinations and models must be discussed as conspiracy theory? :lol:
Click to expand...

Why not? The NIST reports were discussed as a conspiracy. JFK murder is discussed as a conspiracy.

Might as well ask why does know tabloid conspiracy sites promote the report.
 
RADIO TIP

1. Just to let interested members and guests know that the nationally syndicated radio program "Coast to Coast" will air a discussion on this topic on Wednesday, September 11, 2019.

2. Yes, I realize that many people ridicule this program for its emphasis on the paranormal, UFOs, etc. But maybe this scheduled program on the WTC may yield some thoughtful comments.
 
TheParser said:
RADIO TIP

1. Just to let interested members and guests know that the nationally syndicated radio program "Coast to Coast" will air a discussion on this topic on Wednesday, September 11, 2019.

2. Yes, I realize that many people ridicule this program for its emphasis on the paranormal, UFOs, etc. But maybe this scheduled program on the WTC may yield some thoughtful comments.
Click to expand...

I have listen to "Coast to Coast" off and on over the years. I liked it more when Art Bell was the host.

As far as the draft study by Husley it is interesting than some of the "sources" footnoted are tied to AE911T instead of independent researchers.
 
gerrycan said:
mike2810 said:
Husley stated before the study that fire could not have brought the buildings down. He cannot disprove a global statement like that because he did not run all possibilities.. He even admits that there are possible scenarios that were not looked at. It is amazing how the paper avoids saying it was controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

You can't list all the possibilities, let alone model them and run an analysis.
Click to expand...
Good to see that we - at least three of us - agree that fundamental point. Hulsey's claim to prove "fire could not cause collapse" is a global negative claim which his project method cannot prove. In fact it cannot be proved in the setting of his WTC7 project. And for the reasons that three of us seem to agree. To prove it he must falsify every alternate scenario. He hasn't. He has only address a couple of scenarios. It is not even possible to identify all alternates in that setting. All he can claim is that he hasn't found a fire only scenario. Which - as identified in previous posts - he actually admits.

So claiming he has shown "fire could not cause collapse" is outright false.
 
ozeco41 said:
Good to see that we - at least three of us - agree that fundamental point. Hulsey's claim to prove "fire could not cause collapse" is a global negative claim which his project method cannot prove. In fact it cannot be proved in the setting of his WTC7 project. And for the reasons that three of us seem to agree. To prove it he must falsify every alternate scenario. He hasn't. He has only address a couple of scenarios. It is not even possible to identify all alternates in that setting. All he can claim is that he hasn't found a fire only scenario. Which - as identified in previous posts - he actually admits.

So claiming he has shown "fire could not cause collapse" is outright false.
Click to expand...

Luckily, you're free to go and test any one of those alternate scenarios that you like. If you ever find one where fire brings it down, you can present your analysis, with your model and input data. Until then, the best you have is NIST, with no way of checking their model or input data.

Maybe you could get Mick to crowdfund a FEA, and some university might even be willing to entertain one of your fire based hypothesis. We set out ours around 7 years ago with rough hand calculations and it holds water.

Present your own fire based theory. NIST's is history now. And when you do, that'll be at least 2 crossed off your list, and you can work your merry way down it until you find one.

Best of luck with that.
 
mike2810 said:
I have listen to "Coast to Coast" off and on over the years. I liked it more when Art Bell was the host.

As far as the draft study by Husley it is interesting than some of the "sources" footnoted are tied to AE911T instead of independent researchers.
Click to expand...

Why are 2300+ architects and engineers NOT independent researchers? Independent from what exactly?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Why are 2300+ architects and engineers NOT independent researchers? Independent from what exactly?
Click to expand...

Did you read the report? How many of them are footnoted? (Hint: Jones is one. You know the Jones that says your nuke theory is bs.).

I will play your game HD, you reject engineers and architects that were involved with the government investigation. Why should we accept those associated with AE911T?
 
ournal of 9/11 StudiesVolume 33, October, 2012A Discussion of"Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fireand Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse"Therese P. McAllister, Robert MacNeill, Omer Erbay, Andrew Sarawit,Mehdi Zarghamee, Steven Kirkpatrickand John GrossJournal of Structural Engineering,January 2012, Vol. 138, No. 1Ronald H. Brookman, M.S., S.E.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf
 
Gdjjr said:
ournal of 9/11 StudiesVolume 33, October, 2012A Discussion of"Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fireand Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse"Therese P. McAllister, Robert MacNeill, Omer Erbay, Andrew Sarawit,Mehdi Zarghamee, Steven Kirkpatrickand John GrossJournal of Structural Engineering,January 2012, Vol. 138, No. 1Ronald H. Brookman, M.S., S.E.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf
Click to expand...

It might be worth googling the first name there as an example to see who she worked for while you can still edit this.
Therese P. McAllister
 
gerrycan said:
It might be worth googling the first name there as an example to see who she worked for while you can still edit this.
Therese P. McAllister
Click to expand...

I copied and pasted a PDF for that- maybe you noticed that in the link, maybe you didn't- if there's a problem it ain't mine.
 
gerrycan said:
It might be worth googling the first name there as an example to see who she worked for while you can still edit this.
Therese P. McAllister
Click to expand...

Since you brought it up to check. McAllister worked for NIST. Do you have a problem with that?
If so, answer this, why don't you have a problem with the Dr. Husley WTC7 study? You might want to google and find out who financed the study.:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom