Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you think that, in order to determine whether fire could in any scenario cause a progressive collapse of the building, it was sufficient to test a single, unrealistic fire scenario (using a simplified heating curve that uniformly, and without any progression simulated, ramps area temperatures to certain temperatures pulled from a point in NIST's simulation when the area in question was cooling) in a limited model of part of less than half the floor space on two floors of the building? Well, good news--there may be an opening for you on the Titanic's PR team!

And, by the way, just a reminder that Hulsey announced his conclusion before he even finished the limited model described above.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY


Where did you get your information about the particulars of the fire scenario?
In particular - the claim that the area in question was cooling?

Your complaint that it was
a limited model of part of less than half the floor space on two floors of the building
is bogus because the collapse trigger took place within that area. What happened in the rest of the building is irrelevant to the triggering event. Without the triggering event there would be no collapse.
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY


Where did you get your information about the particulars of the fire scenario?
In particular - the claim that the area in question was cooling?
This was all discussed in the main thread on this topic, which everyone who comments on this thread has been asked to review. See here for a thorough explanation and keep reading the next few pages for more discussion. Hulsey pulled his temperatures from 6 pm in the NIST scenario, apparently not realizing that the area around column 79 had begun cooling around 5 pm in the NIST scenario because NIST, unlike Hulsey, actually did the work to build a realistic fire progression simulation.

Your complaint that it was

is bogus because the collapse trigger took place within that area. What happened in the rest of the building is irrelevant to the triggering event. Without the triggering event there would be no collapse.
Not only is Hulsey's approach here insufficient to demonstrate that the NIST scenario didn't occur (because he never even tested that scenario and instead tested a much more limited scenario), it does not come anywhere close to demonstrating that the building would never collapse due to fire.

There were large fires observes in over a dozen floors of WTC7 on 9-11, but Hulsey claims he could rule out fire bringing the building down by testing only a single, unrealistic scenario in a small portion of 2 floors in isolation. NIST, in contrast, ran a full fire simulation across 16 floors. There is no reason, logical or otherwise, to think that what Hulsey did disproves NIST's vastly more detailed and superior model, yet alone that it proves fire could not cause the collapse of the building in any reasonable scenario.

Note, for example, that WAI concluded that the collapse was most likely to have originated on floors 10 and 11, floors Hulsey didn't even test one of his contrived, fake fire scenarios. In Hulsey's model, floors 10 and 11 were perfectly pristine, untouched by any fire damage. How do you know the fire conditions on those floors wouldn't affect the surrounding floors, including the floors two small areas of the two floors (12 and 13) on which Hulsey ran his limited tests? On 9/11, those floors were fully involved in fires. You're telling me you are sure that the number of floors on fire could make no difference whatsoever as to whether fires could cause the collapse of the building. I'm not convinced.

And to reiterate, there were many other floors besides 10 and 11 that Hulsey ignored fires on and tested as perfectly pristine and, again, in any case, in the small area on floors 12 and 13 where he did test a heating scenario, he tested only a contrived uniform heating based on less than max-case figures that he incorrectly pulled from the wrong time in the NIST simulation; he never tested a traveling fire scenario with a progression model. In reality, however, we know that the fires traveled around the building, which is why NIST did build and test such a model. (And, in fact, in NIST's model, the area in question was cooling when it collapsed, with column 79 being pushed to the east by heating in the area in which the fire next moved to the west, so we know that the progression of the fires throughout the building could not have been more important to why the building the collapsed in NIST's model!) You're telling me that the order in which differential heating damaged the structure and ultimate temperature of the building components could make no difference whatsoever as to whether fires could cause the collapse of the building. I'm not convinced.

I would suggest you actually read the NIST report very carefully and then read the Hulsey report very carefully and think about these issues. The contrast of the comprehensiveness and thoughtfulness of NIST's approach versus Hulsey's is staggering. You should at least browse the main thread on this topic as many of Hulsey's errors are discussed at great length there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top