Canadian Civil Engineering Researchers Disprove Official Explanation of WTC 7’s Destruction

[JohnyCanuck]

by Mike Bondi, P.Eng.

Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016.

Prior to publishing these papers, the team of researchers carefully reviewed the work of Zdeněk Bažant, a professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, who had published a paper shortly after 9/11 focusing on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Entitled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” Bažant’s paper presented “a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.”

Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires. As Korol explains, “WTC 7 is a particularly useful example, because there isn't the concern about trying to predict the amount of heat generated by spewing jet fuel and having it ignited within a building. It's the materials within the building that generate the heat release.”

The greater certainty about the material properties involved would allow the team to evaluate whether WTC 7 could have collapsed as a result of burning materials being ejected from WTC 1 and igniting fires on the 12th and 13th floors. The team’s analysis eventually led them to conclude that even with very high estimates for the amount of combustible materials present in office buildings — using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes — and making many other generous assumptions, such as having two floors “totally ablaze with raging inferno fires,” WTC 7 still would not collapse. NIST could not have been correct in claiming that such a failure mechanism could have resulted in the collapse.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/275-news-media-events-canadian-civil-engineering-researchers-disprove-official-explanation-of-wtc-7-s-destruction.html

[whitefordmd]

1. using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes

Except that criteria is pretty useless and would for practical reasons tell you the building should not have failed if it was built to code

For these interested try here

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)

https://www.nist.gov/node/599811

[JohnyCanuck]

2. University of Alaska Prof and forensic engineering specialist says fires did not bring down WTC 7.

On Saturday Sep 10th, Dr. Leroy Hulsey – Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor, Ph.D., P. E., S.E., at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks gave a report on an in-depth forensic examination he and two PhD student assistants have been conducting since 2015 on the collapse of WTC 7. Professor Hulsey is one of the leading experts in the field of forensic engineering in the USA. He presented a verbal report on his team's conclusions to the Justice in Focus Symposium which took place in NYC this past weekend (Sep 10-11).

To summarize what he found: The NIST computer simulation contained significant errors and omissions which led them to an erroneous conclusion. NIST proposed in their final report that thermal expansion from ordinary office fires pushed a girder off its seat at column 79 which in turn set off a chain reaction of structural failures leading to the entire building collapsing into its own footprint. Professor Hulsey says this is incorrect, and when his team's computer models (without the errors and omissions in the NIST simulation) are used it clearly shows that there was not nearly enough lateral movement of the girder to have it pushed off its seat. Furthermore he emphatically states that he can now conclude Fire did NOT cause the collapse of WTC 7.

After a few minutes of introductory remarks when Professor Hulsey first takes the mic, much of the presentation gets quite technical with Professor Hulsey using slides to illustrate how his team went about creating their own computer models and showing where NIST erred in the computer models they used. If you don't have an engineering or physics background and the technical jargon gets too much for you, you can skip to the 27 min mark where Professor Hulsey starts to summarize his conclusions in some pretty plain English. You can't get much plainer than this: “Did building 7 Collapse due to fires? And the answer is NO!”

[wildbilln864]

3. so tell me something I don't know! I already knew that official nonsense was wrong so...

who will go to JAIL? who will pay for the on going crimes of 911?

[JohnyCanuck]

4. The professor gives NIST an F for their WTC 7 computer model.

In the following video around the 12 minute mark Professor Hulsey, while addressing a panel of lawyers at last weekend's Justice in Focus symposium in NYC, says if he was presented a model like the NIST computer model by a PhD student, the student would have flunked.

[William Seger]

5. Hulsey gets an F in logic

... as does anyone who thinks a finite element analysis "proves" what did or did not happen inside WTC 7, whether it's NIST's, Hulsey's, or two others that were commissioned by insurance companies, which differed from NIST's but also found that fire could have triggered the collapse.

Hulsey didn't do his credibility any favors by announcing the conclusion he intended to find at the beginning of his study, and (amazingly) even admitting that he "knew too much" to be unbiased. But still, even if he can cast doubt on NIST's hypothesis (which most definitely remains to be seen), that doesn't support the invalid inference "Fire DID NOT Cause WTC 7 Collapse." Obviously, logic is not the professor's strong suit.

You do realize, don't you, that some professors are nutty? You can probably find at least two documentaries on YouTube.

[wildbilln864]

6. what I do realize is that some message board posters

are nutty. Especially those who try in vain to debunk professional engineers, chemists, physicists, metalurgists, etc. All with decades of experience.

[William Seger]

7. Exactly

That's exactly what you have been doing for years.

[wildbilln864]

8. yes exactly! I have been finding more credibility in

professionals & eyewitnesses rather that the amateurish nonsense you post here. Glad you realize that.