Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

458 posts / 0 new
Last post
Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2660
100 Critical Points About 9/11

100 Critical Points About 9/11 (truthfulmedia.wordpress)

Quote:

Introduction - "The 9/11 research movement has come a long way in recent years and, yet, it’s greatest shortcoming is the trending division amongst itself.

This article aims to bring the most recent, rational and relevant developments from all sides of debate into perspective. With this, we may hope to achieve a much greater level of unity and focus while seeking a truthful account of the events of September 11, 2001. Those defending the “official” narrative may use this opportunity to reconsider their beliefs or to present a wholly consistent alternative interpretation.

For improved clarity, follow the links as you read along. Special thanks to all of the honest institutions and individuals who have made this article possible."

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 510
A week early!

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 535
Grover

In the AE911 video series the first words in the first episode are...

“I don't want to be involved in conspiracy theories, I know there's lots of them, they go on, we can speculate on that forever. What we really need to know is how, how those buildings came down”

He guess he feels somewhat the same way as me.......

Korol

 

Do you believe me that their guesstimate of particle distribution is badly wrong and so their conclusion is wrong?

 

Or do you still believe that it is a good paper and the conclusion is sound.

 

Regards Hamish

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 738
Dots, Lines, and Blobs
gyrogearloose wrote:

In the AE911 video series the first words in the first episode are...

“I don't want to be involved in conspiracy theories, I know there's lots of them, they go on, we can speculate on that forever. What we really need to know is how, how those buildings came down”

He guess he feels somewhat the same way as me.......

Hamish,

Humans are very adept at seeing isolated points and trying to connect those points. Recognizing patterns and being able to act on that knowledge is one of the human traits that has allowed humans to become such a dominant species. We're wired to do this. Look at this picture of the southern sky and you'll probably recognize it as the Crux Constellation ("Southern Cross"). Although there are countless stars in this photo, a handful of higher magnitude stars garner the attention. It is really hard to not mentally connect the dots in this picture.

Journalists are taught to focus on who, what, when, where, why, and how. The who, what, when, and where are just facts - dots if you will. The why and how are provide the linkages or lines that connect the disparate facts. Once a story is told that adequately (in the individual's mind) links the pertinent facts, there is no longer any reason to ponder the situation. Then, it becomes a blob where the story (or myth) is more important than what the story was intended to explain. We fight to keep our own blob interpretation (the one we bought) intact. Items that don't fit the narrative get discounted or dismissed. Those who continue to question the blob get put into subhuman categories so we can summarily dismiss their thoughts without work. " 'Oh, he's a truther' and everyone knows that we just can't trust truthers" is an effective self defense to keep from having to contemplate facts that don't fit the narrative.

I said in an earlier post that you should be able to discern facts from the conspiracy theories that link those facts. I've never known a competent engineer who didn't want all the facts. In fact, many engineers have problems making decisions because they are worried they didn't get enough information. Is your belief system so fragile that you can't afford to incorporate new (to you) information that might question your belief?

gyrogearloose wrote:

Korol

Do you believe me that their guesstimate of particle distribution is badly wrong and so their conclusion is wrong?

Or do you still believe that it is a good paper and the conclusion is sound.

By claiming that Korol's initial guesstimate of particle sizes was wrong, you have effectively given yourself permission to ignore the rest of their paper. If their guesstimate was wrong by many orders of magnitude, would it still be possible to get near free fall accelerations for nearly 2.25 seconds? Bending steel columns and crushing reinforced concrete floors takes energy. Free fall acceleration requires that no energy was siphoned away from the structure's descent in order to buckle the steel and crush the concrete.

The building was designed and approved using the best information available at the time. Even in New York City, a 47 story building is a significant building. (Those who approve the design won't give it short shrift without fear of repercussion.) Every structural component was sized to adequately resist any recognized failure mechanism. I don't know what the minimum factor of safety [required resistance/driving force] was, but it was greater than 1.0 or the structure would have collapsed due its own weight. (Even with a F.S.=1.0, the structure wouldn't collapse at free fall acceleration.)

To answer your question, other than their guesstimate of particle size distribution, the rest of their analysis is based on laboratory results and engineering mathematics. I've asked you to refine their guesstimate so I could run the numbers and show how the building would have behaved. You could do that as well. You should see what kind of particle distribution it would take to get the structure to collapse the way it did.

Of course, we can take the easy route and wait to hear what Dr. Hulsey has to say tomorrow concerning his computer modeling study of WTC 7's collapse. It will be livestreamed on September 6th at 8 PM EDT at https://media.uaf.edu/

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 738
Youtube Video of Dr. Hulsey's WTC 7 Findings

In case you missed the livestream of Dr. Hulsey's 2 year long computer modeling study of WTC 7's collapse, "mad dotorg" uploaded the 1:22:22 presentation

Dr. Hulsey has not completed the progressive collapse portion yet; however, so far he has concluded:

  • Did Building 7 collapse from fires? NO! (based on the study's calculations.)
  • The concrete floor diaphragm stiffness is significant even without shear stud connectors. Frictional resistance to thermal expansion is not trivial.
  • The thermal expansion of the concrete deck can not be ignored and it is likely less than steel (the actual value is dependent on the type of aggregate.)
  • Fire would likely burn through drop ceilings quickly and its resistance to heat transfer is likely not available to help.
  • The NIST vertical collapse was not consistent with the actual collapse. The difference was primarily influenced by not modeling a significant portion of the structural framing connection details.

He said it would be unwise to present any of the progressive collapse sequence because it is a work in progress and he doesn't want to retract anything he might say. He did hint that he's removed columns from the core and got interesting results.

There were numerous NIST errors shown in the video. Make sure you have plenty of coffee before watching. Dr. Hulsey is not the most dynamic speaker. The presentation wasn't necessarily geared toward engineers; however, there is geek speak at times.

Grover

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 535
Hi Grover Grover wrote:

Hi Grover


Grover wrote:

Journalists are taught to focus on who, what, when, where, why, and how. The who, what, when, and where are just facts - dots if you will

Sadly far too many reporters don't care about the facts.....as facts might get in the way of the story they are telling.....


Grover wrote:

By claiming that Korol's initial guesstimate of particle sizes was wrong, you have effectively given yourself permission to ignore the rest of their paper.

 

You badly mischaracterize the consequences of a badly faulty assumption..

Their incorrect particle size distribution selection invalidates their conclusion on its own.

It does not in any way show that other assumptions or calculations are right or wrong.

 


Grover wrote:

If their guesstimate was wrong by many orders of magnitude, would it still be possible to get near free fall accelerations for nearly 2.25 seconds?

According to their collapse progression model, free fall would not occur at any stage.

 


Grover wrote:

the rest of their analysis is based on laboratory results and engineering mathematics

That in no way negates, wakes up for or counters their error in the particle distribution, so conclusion is still invalid


Grover wrote:

I've asked you to refine their guesstimate

( of the particle distribution.)

Between finding how hard it was to convince you that their particle distribution was wrong, and the lack of practical use of such data, I am reluctant to spend time doing so.

A reoccurring meme in from truthers is that significant portions of the concrete was reduced to dust, in some videos the words are 'most of the concrete was turned to dust' , and claims such as this demonstrate their profound ignorance as to just how much energy would be required to do this.
They seem to make this assumption due to the large dust clouds visible during the collapses, and assume it came form the concrete.

In all likelihood only a minute fraction of the dust came from breaking concrete, the bulk of it most likely originating from the fire protection coating on the steel and the undersides of the floors(as can be seen in pics of WTC7 during renovations posted in this thread) and the drywall, both of which take FAR less energy to reduce to dust sized particles.

 


Grover wrote:

'Oh, he's a truther' and everyone knows that we just can't trust truthers" is an effective self defense to keep from having to contemplate facts that don't fit the narrative.


 

The same also applies to truthers. I have been painted by some in this thread as a blind believer in the govt story and so not worth talking to.

 

A problem for some truthers is the wide spectrum of beliefs claimed by other truthers, from ones who believe no plane hit the towers and that all the videos of planes doing so were fakes, to the ones that believe that the sections of the exterior columns of WTC1 and 2 that landed well away from the towers could not have got there by gravity alone, and could have only got there as a result of explosions throwing them horizontally.

 

One truther website I saw was concerned about this issue and was working on it by stating their firmily held belief that a plane did hit the pentagon and listing all the evidence supporting that position. They made a good case.

 


Grover wrote:

Is your belief system so fragile that you can't afford to incorporate new (to you) information that might question your belief?

I dont think so.


Grover wrote:

In fact, many engineers have problems making decisions because they are worried they didn't get enough information.

That is true of me. New information does not bother me, Insufficient information does,

 

Funny how no one here wants to discuss the potential implications I have raised regarding the decent velocity graphs presented by other truthers.
 

On that subject, I finally got the time to do some of known demolitions. As I had the AE911 series I used the ones shown side by side with WTC7 in “2 WTC7 Part 1 A Third High Rise - ESO - Experts Speak Out” 3 minutes in.

Given the unusual results I obtained I then did one of the WTC7 to see if my method was OK.

My Procedure. I enlarged each video then measured on the screen using a clear plastic ruller. First I measured the entire height, then a number of floors at the top and the bottom so I could correct for parallax and spherical aberration. (At this time I have not made any adjustment for non vertical decent). I then preceded frame by frame measuring the height of a top corner of the buildings and entered the data into a spreadsheet to do the number crunching. I then generated a graph of the observed decent distance against time and included the decent of a free fall object. (I had to assume the floor heights of the buildings, but within reasonable bounds of probable heights the anomalies persisted)

The first buildings shown for comparison by AE911 descended faster than g by a marked amount for a period of time. It peaked at 2.4 m ahead of a free fall object at 18 frames from start, (4.2 m drop for building vs 1.8m drop for a free fall object ). At frame 24 it was almost stopped. By 32 frames the free fall object had caught up, and then got 1.4 m ahead of the building at 50 frames, but by the end the building was .5 m ahead of the free fall object.

The second comparison building got 1.9 m ahead at 17 frames but at 40 frames was even with the free fall object. For the last half of its decent the building has a roughly steady velocity (0 acceleration)

This result made me question my method/calculations so I did one of WTC7 using the same method and spreadsheet template. My result for WTC7 was a fair match to what others had obtained so I gained a measure of confidence that my method was reasonable and so re did the comparison building. Within margin of error I got the same result.

 

I will attempt to add screenshots of the graphs when I get on line,

 

I uncertain of how both the controlled demolitions both showed such obvious higher than g decents.

Any thoughts.?????

 

On the basis of my initial analysis of 2 demolitions, selected by truthers to show how alike it is to a controlled demolition, the WTC7 decent profile looks very different .......oops??..... ;-)

 

Hulsey

 

First glance run through it presents as a well argued demolition of NISTS collapse initiation model.

As per my usual love for spotting anomalies, I noticed an apparent discrepancy.

I checked against the brookman paper for a better resolution picture of the structural drawing of column 79 to the girder. The one in the video at 39.25 (a bit blurry) looks to be identical to the Brookman drawing,

 

It shows the Girder is well off parallel from the column, and the girder end is cut off square (with respect to the girder) and the end of the girder at the left hand side is 2 inches away from the column.

 

But at 39.35 in the video a screenshot of Hulsey's sim of expansion under heating,the beam looks to be parallel to the column and the end of the beam in contact with the column across its entire width.

 

If they incorrectly modeled the geometry of this model his argument that the girder could not be pushed off as it would be constrained by the lip in the column is not solid.

 

However he did later run the model again specifically assuming it was not constrained by the lip.

 

 

At 1.20.30 where he says “a more compelling thing to think about....' he seems to share your belief that the shell should have deformed a lot more in response to the core collapse.

He has presumably run a number of runs of the global collapse and it may have shown much more deformation which lead him to say that. Will certainly be interesting to see those when they come out.

Hmm  you have gone very quiet on this subject....???

Any link to the written report yet? Need to see the details behind the presentation.

 


Grover wrote:

Did Building 7 collapse from fires? NO! (based on the study's calculations.)

That is stretching it a bit. So far what Hulsey has done was claim that the NIST's claimed trigger mechanism could not have occurred.

I did not see any thing that covered the idea that differential cooling could have triggered a collapse.

Take a step back and take a solidly logical look at this.

Proving something exists is 'easy' , proving it does not is hard in comparison.

 

Regards Hamish

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 738
Darmok at Tanagra

Hamish,

It looks like you are finally ready to question the NIST collapse sequence. That is good! As you know, Hulsey's study was crowd funded by AE911Truth in order to get people questioning the NIST collapse sequence and to force our government to start an independent investigation. If enough people demand it, it will happen.

As far as why the floors appear to exceed gravitational acceleration, Time2Help posted a link to "100 Critical Points About 9/11" in post #455. I remember seeing something about this in one of the earlier points. You should look through there and see if that answers your question.

Actually, I wish Hulsey would have asked the question, "could the NIST scenario of the building collapsing due to fire alone happen?" No (according to his calculations.)

I'm looking forward to the final (draft) report with possible collapse scenarios as well.

Grover

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments