Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The evidence is coming, the whole process will be fully transparent, and it will be revealed in a few years

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can express M/S with 2 as long as you place over the S symbol, it will not work for me it just places the 2 beside the S. Tried it few times can't get to work Yep the s^2 fine too I posted this, not you.

To find the freefall (seconds of descent) of the object you have to use an equation.

It used in an equation G = the value is 9.8 m/s2

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Funny person will you not admit Metabunk lied? Probably be waiting.

I even posted NIST own words about the collapse. And then you claim the truthers misquoted NIST.

How about a honest post for change and state were I misquoted NIST about the collapse of building seven and how it began.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's your evidence- debunking Hulsey. You posted the info belonging to Metabunk.

This is nonsense.
The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.

This is so dumb when NIST even said column 79 (girder and steel) failure caused the progressive collapse. I posted the info from NIST website.

• The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.
• The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged.
• The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.
• The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210992/
• The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/211186/
• The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly.
• The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/
• The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/
• The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow.
• The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Don't be lazy I posted video numerous times with Dr Hulsey speaking about his study. You guys don't watch them as you have decided what true.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Read the title of the question.

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

This is why according to NIST. Why would Hulsey not look at this connection failure when NIST even said the failure began there and this was caused progressive collapse. They do not claim a column collapsed on any other floor ( floor 13 was the point of initiation for collapse)