Mick West | Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report @MickWest | Uploaded September 2019 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
On September 3, 2019, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth finally released the report on the study that they had contracted Professor Leroy Hulsey to carry out. The claimed result of the report was what they had originally set out to demonstrate, that fire could not have caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. However, there's a number of problems with the report that I think need to be clarified.
This video is simply my initial reaction to the report, and will undoubtedly be refined as I understand more and get input from other people. But I've read the report, I've watched the accompanying videos, and I've watched Professor Hulsey's presentation. So I wanted to get my initial thoughts out there to prompt some discussion, and hopefully some clarification from professor Hulsey and the AE911Truth team.
In brief, the five questions I have are:
1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??
3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.
4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)
5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.
The video contains a short overview of each issue (in the first four minutes) and then goes into a more in-depth examination of the problems as I see them.
I appreciate feedback, corrections, and comments. mick@mickwest.com
0:00 Intro
0:35 - Summary of the five questions
3:34 - Why is figure 4.16 not showing dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
4:16 - Linear vs. Non-Linear
5:08 - Figure 4.16 animation is just the top of the building rotating with no deformation
5:39 - An entire floor of columns has been removed.
6:15 - Compared to an actual dynamic analysis.
6:53 - NIST's exterior deformation
7:13 - Why no kink in Hulsey's model
8:23 - Figure 4.14 - what is the justification for the use of static linear analysis in a situation that is neither static nor linear.
11:04 - Is Hulsey just making an animation based on static analysis and calling it "dynamic"?
11:42 - Why the focus on A2001, if NIST did not use it in their global dynamic analysis?
14:39 - What is the animation in figure 4.24 derived from? It looks hand animated. Penthouse pivots outwards.
16:42 - Comparison with NIST dynamic analysis.
17:08 - The strange rotation/tipping of the East Penthouse
19:32 - Penthouse collapse wave descend the full visible height of the building.
20:20 - Why does Hulset confuse NIST's limited ANSYS model with their global LS-DYNA model?
21:35 - Summary. Request for corrections.
Metabunk thread: metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report.t10890
Draft Report: metabunk.org/f/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
Original Videos: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 (down the left side)
Some early corrections:
1:42 I say "Figure 4.20" when referring to Figure 4.24. There's an on-screen correction for this too. The correct figures are shown.
8:40 I say 76-81 is four columns when obviously it's six.
14:10 I say I marked floor 13 in red, when it's obviously in green.
See also: youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4
On September 3, 2019, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth finally released the report on the study that they had contracted Professor Leroy Hulsey to carry out. The claimed result of the report was what they had originally set out to demonstrate, that fire could not have caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. However, there's a number of problems with the report that I think need to be clarified.
This video is simply my initial reaction to the report, and will undoubtedly be refined as I understand more and get input from other people. But I've read the report, I've watched the accompanying videos, and I've watched Professor Hulsey's presentation. So I wanted to get my initial thoughts out there to prompt some discussion, and hopefully some clarification from professor Hulsey and the AE911Truth team.
In brief, the five questions I have are:
1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??
3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.
4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)
5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.
The video contains a short overview of each issue (in the first four minutes) and then goes into a more in-depth examination of the problems as I see them.
I appreciate feedback, corrections, and comments. mick@mickwest.com
0:00 Intro
0:35 - Summary of the five questions
3:34 - Why is figure 4.16 not showing dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
4:16 - Linear vs. Non-Linear
5:08 - Figure 4.16 animation is just the top of the building rotating with no deformation
5:39 - An entire floor of columns has been removed.
6:15 - Compared to an actual dynamic analysis.
6:53 - NIST's exterior deformation
7:13 - Why no kink in Hulsey's model
8:23 - Figure 4.14 - what is the justification for the use of static linear analysis in a situation that is neither static nor linear.
11:04 - Is Hulsey just making an animation based on static analysis and calling it "dynamic"?
11:42 - Why the focus on A2001, if NIST did not use it in their global dynamic analysis?
14:39 - What is the animation in figure 4.24 derived from? It looks hand animated. Penthouse pivots outwards.
16:42 - Comparison with NIST dynamic analysis.
17:08 - The strange rotation/tipping of the East Penthouse
19:32 - Penthouse collapse wave descend the full visible height of the building.
20:20 - Why does Hulset confuse NIST's limited ANSYS model with their global LS-DYNA model?
21:35 - Summary. Request for corrections.
Metabunk thread: metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report.t10890
Draft Report: metabunk.org/f/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
Original Videos: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 (down the left side)
Some early corrections:
1:42 I say "Figure 4.20" when referring to Figure 4.24. There's an on-screen correction for this too. The correct figures are shown.
8:40 I say 76-81 is four columns when obviously it's six.
14:10 I say I marked floor 13 in red, when it's obviously in green.
See also: youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4
