Current Events > What does CE make of this University study?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=52&v=Xd7tqpwdlpQ&ab_channel=AE911Truth

Might become a truther tbqh

---

OK so pretending this is actually true, the options are:

"the building collapsed by the fires that were basically everywhere in the building"
vs.
"the building collapsed by a near-miracle collapse of every column in the building near-instantaneously"

At least the truth subreddit got commandeered by wrestling memes. I also don't really understand why this is even important tbh.

EDIT: This report was legit funded by "Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth inc." Its no wonder they got this result.

https://bit.ly/Hulsey-WTC-report-Org

---

911 was an inside job?

---

Proto_Spark posted...

OK so pretending this is actually true, the options are:

"the building collapsed by the fires that were basically everywhere in the building"
vs.
"the building collapsed by a near-miracle collapse of every column in the building near-instantaneously"

At least the truth subreddit got commandeered by wrestling memes. I also don't really understand why this is even important tbh.

EDIT: This report was legit funded by "Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth inc." Its no wonder they got this result.

Explosives is what this study concludes, essentially. They straight up found liquid steel dude. Click the study in post #3 and ctrl+f = oxidation

Also, I assume you haven't been to University because literally if someone is willing to give a project funding a university will take it and do it. I'm sure the engineers didn't have a dog in the race.


---

Proto_Spark posted...

OK so pretending this is actually true, the options are:

"the building collapsed by the fires that were basically everywhere in the building"
vs.
"the building collapsed by a near-miracle collapse of every column in the building near-instantaneously"

At least the truth subreddit got commandeered by wrestling memes. I also don't really understand why this is even important tbh.

Simultaneous buckling can occur if there is a floor system is widely compromised, particularly in extreme heat where structural stability of the floor begins to transition from bending to catenary and tension field action. This is major contribution to the twin tower collapses.

The real lesson is that Building 7's collapse was not as thoroughly investigated, understood, or documented as the twin towers. Any simulations are going to be highly dependent on your modeling assumptions due to a lack of information. This is very true of even normal structural engineering, let alone incorporating highly sophisticated thermodynamics into finite element models. In structural engineering we like to say two things: 1) you can make a model say anything, and 2) all models are wrong, but some are useful.

That thought is especially important when you learn this project was funded by truther organization. It is important to know that, in general, structural engineers have a poor grasp of how high temperatures actually affect structural members, let alone structural systems. Earthquake simulations, for instance, are much better understood both as a numerical and practical problem, yet simulations results can vary significantly depending on a few key assumptions.

---

There are actually a lot of important things I can touch on, but what fundamentally drives a lot of these engineer truthers is that "structures tip sideways when they collapse!" Which is generally true, but structural engineers tend to fall into intuitive fallacies and vastly overestimate what they know about structures (imo).

But very, very few structural engineers ever even think about fire, and certainly never have to consider it in a meaningful capacity in design. Fire codes are not highly influenced by evidence, and call for prescriptive measures rather than design or engineering.

---

Jabodie posted...

There are actually a lot of important things I can touch on, but what fundamentally drives a lot of these engineer truthers is that "structures tip sideways when they collapse!" Which is generally true, but structural engineers tend to fall into intuitive fallacies and vastly overestimate what they know about structures (imo).

But very, very few structural engineers ever even think about fire, and certainly never have to consider it in a meaningful capacity in design. Fire codes are not highly influenced by evidence, and call for prescriptive measures rather than design or engineering.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you know what you're talking about. Structural engineers have strict fire hazard codes to abide by when designing a building. They think about fire A LOT. It's a huge safety issue on high rise buildings as escape is difficult. Maybe just "prescriptive" measures were taken into consideration in the 1800's but by the 1980s, when this building was built, fire codes were getting pretty advanced from what I understand. There's a reason what it was such a shock, as on TV just a few years earlier we watched crazy fires in giant buildings rage for hours and hours with no collapse...

Jabodie posted...

Simultaneous buckling can occur if there is a floor system is widely compromised, particularly in extreme heat where structural stability of the floor begins to transition from bending to catenary and tension field action. This is major contribution to the twin tower collapses.

The real lesson is that Building 7's collapse was not as thoroughly investigated, understood, or documented as the twin towers. Any simulations are going to be highly dependent on your modeling assumptions due to a lack of information. This is very true of even normal structural engineering, let alone incorporating highly sophisticated thermodynamics into finite element models. In structural engineering we like to say two things: 1) you can make a model say anything, and 2) all models are wrong, but some are useful.

That thought is especially important when you learn this project was funded by truther organization. It is important to know that, in general, structural engineers have a poor grasp of how high temperatures actually affect structural members, let alone structural systems. Earthquake simulations, for instance, are much better understood both as a numerical and practical problem, yet simulations results can vary significantly depending on a few key assumptions.

The entire reason America believes building 7 collapsed due to fire is because the 9/11 report's ONLY explanation was a computer simulation. And that simulation, as we can read from this study, was completely wrong and didn't even match the collapse at all. For example, the building fell at nearly the rate of free fall...we have evidence of that because it's on video collapsing. The study UoA did accounts for this. The 9/11 report does not. So i'm right there with you on how simulations can be useful or useless, depending. The 9/11 report did not release the parameters for their simulation. UoA clearly demonstrates what parameters they used and why.

Fire does not explain steel with oxidation and sulfidation. I mean that's hard evidence RIGHT THERE. Some FEMA worker put it aside and he probably wasn't even supposed because the rest of the evidence was promptly destroyed (for some reason they made that call instead of figuring out exactly what happened?)

I mean what's the other explanation for that? Somebody at work kept thermite in their locker?

---

Whether it was some kind of inside job or not is largely irrelevant imo. The Bush administration was warned about the attack by numerous intelligence agencies long before it happened and went on to distort the truth beyond recognition so they could invade and terrorize countries overseas for financial gain.


---

Shablagoo posted...

Whether it was some kind of inside job or not is largely irrelevant imo. The Bush administration was warned about the attack by numerous intelligence agencies long before it happened and went on to distort the truth beyond recognition so they could invade and terrorize countries overseas for financial gain.

Don't see how you can say it's irrelevant because the implications would be not only were the American people lied to and their kids sent to war, it sets precedent for a corrupt government and media to perpetuate fear and lies on a large scale.

---

F1areaGaman posted...

Don't see how you can say it's irrelevant because the implications would be not only were the American people lied to and their kids sent to war, it sets precedent for a corrupt government and media to perpetuate fear and lies on a large scale.

Ive got bad news for you buddy: that all has been happening for the last two centuries.

---

F1areaGaman posted...

Don't see how you can say it's irrelevant because the implications would be not only were the American people lied to and their kids sent to war, it sets precedent for a corrupt government and media to perpetuate fear and lies on a large scale.

Thats what I mean though. The precedent has been set either way. They did that whether or not 9/11 was an inside job.

And we had false flag attacks planned on American soil going back to at least JFK (it actually made it all the way to his desk and it took him vetoing it for it to be stopped). Its not hard for me to believe the government would/could do something like that. But either way they perpetuated fear and lies on a large scale (they hate our freedom! WMDs!) to get us into a massive, unjustified war that claimed perhaps more than a million lives.

---

Bananana posted...

Ive got bad news for you buddy: that all has been happening for the last two centuries.

And it is because in the face of evidence we don't unite around it. Instead we have fallen into some sort of race war despite being the most diverse and equal nation in the history of the word.

---

F1areaGaman posted...

I'm sorry, I don't believe you know what you're talking about. Structural engineers have strict fire hazard codes to abide by when designing a building. They think about fire A LOT. It's a huge safety issue on high rise buildings as escape is difficult. Maybe just "prescriptive" measures were taken into consideration in the 1800's but by the 1980s, when this building was built, fire codes were getting pretty advanced from what I understand. There's a reason what it was such a shock, as on TV just a few years earlier we watched crazy fires in giant buildings rage for hours and hours with no collapse...

No, they do not. That is the job of the fire engineer and the architect. Fire specifications for structural engineers follow prescriptive guidelines which are essentially specifying insulation thickness, minimum rebar cover, gypsum board, or some other insulation device. This is fine with zero thermodynamics, and it's based on a test developed in the late 1800s which has very little basis in how structures have been shown to behave in fire. If you're interested in a code that actually engineers around due look up the Eurocode. Note the actual AISC specification hadms essentially no information on steel behavior at elevated temperatures and the average structural engineer cannot tell you either the average temperature of a building fire or the temperature at which structural steel loses half its strength and stiffness.

Edit: If you're curious to know, specifications for insulation thickness to required fire rating mostly come from the ASTM E119 testing protocol, which establish fire ratings for various structural elements based either on deflection or internal temperature measurements as it gets exposed to the E119 heat curve (or E119 fire). It's important to note these tests ignore system level effects - i.e. it gets performance ratings for columns, beams, or slabs on their own but does not account for how slabs affect beams, beams affect columns, columns affect foundations, etc. That is essentially what structural engineering is, and it is not part of the design process unless you hire a specialist, and typically you only do that if you want to avoid fire proofing a certain element like an exposed column.

F1areaGaman posted...

The entire reason America believes building 7 collapsed due to fire is because the 9/11 report's ONLY explanation was a computer simulation. And that simulation, as we can read from this study, was completely wrong and didn't even match the collapse at all. For example, the building fell at nearly the rate of free fall...we have evidence of that because it's on video collapsing. The study UoA did accounts for this. The 9/11 report does not. So i'm right there with you on how simulations can be useful or useless, depending. The 9/11 report did not release the parameters for their simulation. UoA clearly demonstrates what parameters they used and why.

To put it frankly the amount of people who are qualified to even attempt this sort of analysis in the US is probably on the double digits. I'm sure the researchers at UoA did the best job they could within their realm of expertise. But rest assured, NIST is absolute center of structural material and systems research and regularly present cutting edge findings and experiments at structural engineering conferences. I can tell you from experience they are some of the most poorly attended sessions at NASCC and Structures Congress, despite being basically the only organization in the United States doing full scale fire loading tests of multi story building systems right now.

It is true that the information that's been released in regards to wtc7 is not nearly as comprehensive or accurate as the twin towers. This does not mean that wtc7 could not have come down due to a fire, which the UoA study claims. And the basis of that being true will more or less come down to the validity of the basic modeling assumptions. And NIST is essentially the center of all structural fire engineering in the world, employing the most distinguished and passionate researchers in the industry. It would take quite a lot to convince me that these researchers had more expertise than NIST, and quite a lot more to convince me the researchers employed now have been compromised to cover up a controlled demolition nanothermite conspiracy.

---

If you're interested I can send you some materials about the different fire codes in the world regarding structures, and refer you to textbooks on the subject. I can also send you materials on the basics of how you do fire structural engineering, which is not part of us steel codes (but is part of Eurocode).

---

It is extremely important to know that the structural engineer is not the fire engineer on a building, and vice versa. Consequently, the people designing buildings for fires know little about structures, and the people designing the structures know little about fires.

---

Mods please ban TC for linking me to cancer and lying by omission by not telling me he was exposing me to cancer before I clicked.
---

911 truthers are fucking morons.

---

Eh, while I'm here I'll recommend two textbooks on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Structural-Design-Safety-Andrew-Buchanan/dp/0470972890
https://www.amazon.com/Performance-Based-Fire-Engineering-Structures-Yong/dp/041555733X/

These books are written for a structural engineering audience, so it starts with babby's first thermodynamics equations and assumes somewhat advanced knowledge of structures. But they are a great indtroduction to the field.

Edit: There are also discussions of the effect of thermal expansion on WTC7 found in these texts. If you can get your hands on a pdf copy or something I think you'll find it interesting.

---

Jabodie posted...

To put it frankly the amount of people who are qualified to even attempt this sort of analysis in the US is probably on the double digits. I'm sure the researchers at UoA did the best job they could within their realm of expertise. But rest assured, NIST is absolute center of structural material and systems research and regularly present cutting edge findings and experiments at structural engineering conferences. I can tell you from experience they are some of the most poorly attended sessions at NASCC and Structures Congress, despite being basically the only organization in the United States doing full scale fire loading tests of multi story building systems right now.

NIST didn't even follow their own guidelines in regards to the preservation of evidence for study. NIST ignored evidence...like the 1,340 F thermal readings at the time of collapse, the little bit of steel that was able to be examined and preserved, video and eye witness accounts of explosions... (again; isn't the fact they covered up the scene THAT DAY and moved and destroyed all evidence in a matter of days like, a little strange?). They literally don't explain why the building fell so quickly and straight down. NIST reports on building 7 in particular are summaries of data without the data. Remember, NIST is federally funded and has strong linkage to the arms industry....

But I guess we'll wait and see, as if you actually read this study it clearly and consistently refutes some of NIST's "findings" and the UAF consistently points out NIST's contradictions. UAF has submitted to the NIST a request for correction. It has thousands of signatures from relevant scholars. Probably more than any request for correction the NIST ever had to deal with, so they can't ignore it forever. So far it hasn't been denied but it's still pending. I guess time will tell.


---