Christopher 7
Active Member
The continuation of the thread has been moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nist-motive-speculation.11094/#post-236268
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nist-motive-speculation.11094/#post-236268
The continuation of the thread has been moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nist-motive-speculation.11094/#post-236268
Is this what you are getting at? I've asked you for your conclusion if NIST was completely wrong, but you've failed to answer:.AE911Truth has presented conclusive proof of controlled demolition. i.e. none of this happened.
But let's assume NIST got it all wrong. What they postulated didn't happen. Therefore________________; what?
Please show me where NIST says any of that would help prove A2001 was pushed off of its seat.Please show where in Hulsey’s analysis he conclusively proved that the concrete deck and floor elements always move together in every direction uniformly, regardless of differences in local heating, and that differential heating of local systems would not, in fact, distort those systems differently as the NIST report clearly demonstrated in its simulation that actually properly heated localities differently, as was the case in the real life. I think you are making a wild claim that you cannot support. Hulsey doesn’t even try to prove such a ridiculous assertion.
You also didn’t respond re how Hulsey failed to model any connection failures.
Hulsey was misled, as many people were, by the preliminary analysis to get the shear studs to fail where NIST assumed 500 °C for the A2001 girder and 600 °C for the floor beams. It will be corrected in the final report. However, even at 600 °C, the floor beams could not expand enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat.Also, your point about the local floor system being 400 degrees C at the time column 79 failed in NIST’s model just unwittingly demonstrates how off base Hulsey’s model is RE it’s temperature application.
Where does NIST say/show that?A2001 was cooling when column 79 failed. The area to the west of column 79, meanwhile, was heating up.
No, I wanted to get Mick's reply first.This thread is continuing right here, whether you’d like to continue participating in it or not. Your repeated conclusory assertions that NIST lied were moved to a rambles thread so they would not bog this thread down.
Continuing this thread—I noticed you deleted the claim you made last night re all elements of a composite floor system always moving in unison. Did you realize you were wrong and could not support that claim? Please clarify.
Is this what you are getting at? I've asked you for your conclusion if NIST was completely wrong, but you've failed to answer:
Please show me where NIST says any of that would help prove A2001 was pushed off of its seat.
Hulsey was misled, as many people were, by the preliminary analysis to get the shear studs to fail where NIST assumed 500 °C for the A2001 girder and 600 °C for the floor beams. It will be corrected in the final report. However, even at 600 °C, the floor beams could not expand enough to push the A2001 girder off of its seat.
Where does NIST say/show that?
I have red the report and I had already saved the quote from the post on the main Hulsey thread.Didn't you read the report by now?
The composite floors had failed in the southeast section, not the northeast section.A2001 failed in NIST's local model while column 79 was pushed to the east. NIST also expressly notes that composite floors failed and no longer acted as a composite system while this was happening.
The compressive strains in the southeast area of the slab for Floor 12 gradually increased to exceed the crushing criterion (ε > 0.004) and covered the full east side and half of the south side of the tenant floor area. [of the southeast area] NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, p. 505 [PDF p. 167/571]
I was misled by the preliminary analysis too as were most other people that I know of.Misled by whom? He couldn't competently read for himself the same report as the rest of us?
The A2001 girder under floor 13 was the hottest at 6:00 p.m. (although the floor beams were the hottest at 5:00 p.m.)Hulsey extracted from the NIST report for application in his own model were from after A2001 began to cool.
At 400 °C, the K3004 floor beam would expand less that 3-1/2 inches.At temperatures less than approximately 400 °C, restrained thermal expansion of beams and girders caused axial compressive forces to develop in the beams and girders, which led to the following connection failures:
− bolt shear failure in fin, knife, and seated connections,
− girder walk off of seated connections after all the bolts had sheared at Columns 79 and 81, and
− failure of header connection welds. NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, p. 536 [PDF p. 198/602]
Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 ... persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, p. 617 [PDF p. 279/683]
10-4 And thank you for the reference. I will post there.This thread is starting to veer off-topic. The topic is about the focus on A2001 walk-off, and it not being in the global model.
If you are going to post analyses, please ensure they pertain to the thread topic. If this starts to look like another endless 9/11 thread, then it will get shut down, or the digressers will be removed.
If you want to talk about if the walk-off was possible, then there's a thread for that here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...ve-got-past-the-side-plate-on-column-79.9069/
are we talking about "as far as NIST is concerned?". I thought we were ignoring NISTs conclusions and just looking at what [limited] data we have from the report.The walk-off hypothesis and the video simulation are one and the same as far as NIST is concerned.
if the video simulation shows something different, then there should have been 2 (at least) hypotheses... no?The fact that the video simulation does not show the walk-off is another matter, not another hypothesis. The suggestion that there were two hypotheses is just speculation.
We are talking about the justification for the focus on the walk-off of A2001. Page 22 makes it clear that NIST focused on the walk-off as the key element and explicitly implied that the simulation shows the walk-off.are we talking about "as far as NIST is concerned?". I thought we were ignoring NISTs conclusions and just looking at what [limited] data we have from the report.
No. If there were two hypotheses, NIST would have said so but they didn't. Instead, they explicitly implied that the simulation shows the walk-off. i.e. one hypothesisif the video simulation shows something different, then there should have been 2 (at least) hypotheses... no?
These two terms are contradictory.explicitly implied
Sorry, I know I'm being pedantic here but this is a phrase you have used on at least three occasions.they explicitly implied
I said "should have", I did not say they did.If there were two hypotheses, NIST would have said so but they didn't
no they didn't imply that. but not sure what that has to do with this topic anyway.they explicitly implied that the simulation shows the walk-off.
OK - Delineating the walk-off scenario to the point of column 79 buckling and then showing a frame from the video simulation that shows column 79 buckling, NIST is explicit that the video simulation includes the walk-off of A2001.These two terms are contradictory.
OK - Delineating the walk-off scenario to the point of column 79 buckling and then showing a frame from the video simulation that shows column 79 buckling, NIST is explicit that the video simulation includes the walk-off of A2001.
if the video simulation shows something different, then there should have been 2 (at least) hypotheses... no?
No. If there were two hypotheses, NIST would have said so but they didn't. Instead, they explicitly implied that the simulation shows the walk-off. i.e. one hypothesis
I understood you. If the simulation does not include the walk-off of A2001, then they should have dropped the walk-off hypothesis and formed a new hypothesis but they didn't or they would have said so.I said "should have", I did not say they did.
Should NIST have looked into another theory considering the simulation does not show a walk off?
I understood you. If the simulation does not include the walk-off of A2001, then they should have dropped the walk-off hypothesis and formed a new hypothesis but they didn't or they would have said so.
They made it perfectly clear that they had no other hypothesis when they delineated the walk off hypothesis to the point where column 79 buckled and then included a frame from the video simulation showing column 79 buckling. That is being explicit.
explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
NIST stated the walk-off theory clearly and in detail, and left no doubt in the reader's mind that the frame from the video simulation was the result of the walk-off.
I understand the question. AE911Truth and Hulsey were justified in focusing on the A2001 girder walk-off because that is NIST's hypothesis, their only hypothesis. NIST may not have been justified but that is another matter.you are misunderstanding the question being discussed in this thread.
There is no evidence to support the contention that NIST had, or might have had, a second hypothesis that they didn't reveal to the public.
It isn't another matter. That is the main premise of the thread. But thank you for clearly answering the question finally.NIST may not have been justified but that is another matter.