fathairybeast 2 points 14 days ago
Hmmm, I can ask them about it. It wouldn't be for a few days though, I won't see either the professor or the researcher for a few days at least. I'll ask them if there are any updates. In the meantime, let me just explain the current situation:
The project has essentially been completed insofar as they've completed their part of the agreement with 9/11 architects and engineers for truth (sorry if I murdered the proper title). However, the PhD student (sure not sure I should say his name, even though there's only two of them and he's the primary mapper) is
still mapping and fleshing out the system - trying to find any loose ends they missed or further leads to investigate. That said, I think the bulk of the updates have already been provided, I don't think you'll find much more. Keep in mind, this was all going on last fall and spring, the conclusion linked was officially pronounced some 6 months ago or so, this is old hat.
Still, as I said, my buddy is
still working in SAP2000, pecking away at his virtual model, attempting to gain an intimate knowledge of the whole system - Note: I think he's using SAP2000 but I haven't asked about the program in some months, it might be RISA. So he may have some new insights. If he does, I'll find an appropriate place in this sub to post it.
....
fathairybeast 2 points 14 days ago
It sounds like I haven't asked enough questions. I was taking a course from Hulsey when he gave the big unveiling: a webinar to some 2000 people or so defining their primary conclusion. I assumed that was the end-all to the project. A lot of what you said is new to me and I plan to do a little questioning when I get back to campus tomorrow.
Hulsey gave my class a very terse overview. He mapped out the column in question (the column which, according to the NIST, was the proverbial straw), and he told us their basic conclusion. He invited us to the speech you can find on the web (the one in a classroom with what are clearly students present) - i regret not going, most of the kids in that room were my classmates.
His PhD student told me that the NIST claims that thermodynamic expansion blew a load-bearing column out of alignment and that destabilized the structure which then lead to a total failure of the structure. Common sense can tell you that theory is bullshit... a lot more structural resistance would have occurred than the literal free-fall seen in the videos of the actual event. His student told me there was no way, not even under unlikely but conceivable circumstances, that the theory holds up.
For the layperson, thermodynamic expansion is the sudden expansion of, say, expanding gasses (e.g., an explosion). The student created a model where the column in question was removed completely and the structure held strong. That's not surprising because Factors of Safety essentially build redundancies into ANY stamped plans. In other words, you would need a lot more to bring that building down.
The last I spoke with the student, he told me he was trying to find breaking point situations - what IS needed to destabilize the structure enough to bring it down. The way I interpret that is this: he was attempting to remove enough structural members to find the line which need be crossed in order to compromise the integrity of the building.