# WTC7 collapse, new numerical results **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064 "2019-09-11T19:35:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/361 "2019-09-27T15:32:36Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Nope. If you set it up this way, you could basically ‘prove’ anything. You set up a prize that folks can get, but you pick your ‘experts’ and use your own stance to judge the merit of those who are submitting for the prize and Bob’s Your Uncle, no one wins! Which means that you were right all along…lizardmen DO control the world, and there IS no Queen of England! > > If this guy wanted to be taken seriously, he’d make the prize bigger, and then put it in the hands of a 3rd party agency with respected credentials…maybe one of the respected international civil engineering organizations, to judge based on their own criteria. That won’t happen, as they would almost certainly judge the Alaskan paper to be flawed and certainly not some sort of proof that the ‘official story’ is ‘a pack of lies’. This is only going to be something that one of the faithful would look at seriously as ‘proof’ of, well, anything. If this guy wanted to be taken seriously? He already _is_ being taken seriously by his target audience. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/362 "2019-09-29T04:04:56Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > _He also announces a $25,000 reward for anyone who writes a technical paper rebutting the study, provides it to an engineering journal, and has it accepted and published._ > > I’m not aware of how much a structural engineer makes, but I’m guessing the time it takes to do all that would be worth more that 25k. Refuting would probably require use of some rather expensive engineering software that only large firms could afford and don’t appreciate being used for stunts. Honestly, you can refute this by pointing out the magically disappearing columns and the fact that their demo is just a (poorly)animated CAD program. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/363 "2019-10-01T20:14:23Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Refuting would probably require use of some rather expensive engineering software that only large firms could afford and don’t appreciate being used for stunts. > > Honestly, you can refute this by pointing out the magically disappearing columns and the fact that their demo is just a (poorly)animated CAD program. Structural engineers, depending on location and experience, probably make six figures. $25k is not negligible. The software you would use to run this sort of analysis is probably a couple thousand a year for a continuing commercial license. I’m not sure how standard it is, but my company owns anything I use company resources for. So if I stay late and run FEA models for a side project, they own that regardless if I’m charging that time. Defeats the purpose of the prize. In any case, they could just say your model differs from what the original paper did. Is their complete model available to look at? I’d guess not. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/364 "2019-10-01T22:31:02Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Structural engineers, depending on location and experience, probably make six figures. $25k is not negligible. > > The software you would use to run this sort of analysis is probably a couple thousand a year for a continuing commercial license. I’m not sure how standard it is, but my company owns anything I use company resources for. So if I stay late and run FEA models for a side project, they own that regardless if I’m charging that time. Defeats the purpose of the prize. > > In any case, they could just say your model differs from what the original paper did. Is their complete model available to look at? I’d guess not. There’s a thread on the website [metabunk.org](http://metabunk.org) that goes over what has been released by Hulsey, et al. It does not inspire fear for the NIST analysis or confidence for the 9/11 truther crowd. > **[Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis](https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.10890/)** > > Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OClixCTdDw > > Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4 > > > The above two videos details some issues raised in the thread below (and in prior threads) regarding Professor Hulsey's study. > > > Draft report... ---
**Author:** ![LAZombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@LAZombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LAZombie)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/365 "2019-10-02T01:58:09Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > There’s a thread on the website [metabunk.org](http://metabunk.org) that goes over what has been released by Hulsey, et al. It does not inspire fear for the NIST analysis or confidence for the 9/11 truther crowd. > > [https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.t10890/](https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.t10890/) Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand. The money shouldn’t be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don’t people still enjoy intellectual debate? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/366 "2019-10-02T02:02:14Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand. > > The money shouldn’t be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don’t people still enjoy intellectual debate? Perhaps you could read through the link that was provided and discuss where you find fault with it? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/367 "2019-10-02T02:15:29Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand. > > The money shouldn’t be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don’t people still enjoy intellectual debate? If you understand the side you support, you should be able to understand the response that decimated the side you support. Of course if you are claiming that _both_ sides are too difficult for you to understand, I have to question why you support one side over the other. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/368 "2019-10-02T11:01:49Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand. > > The money shouldn’t be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don’t people still enjoy intellectual debate? Intellectual debate? Yes. Repeatedly debunking conspiracy theories that aren’t remotely based on evidence, science or basic logic? No. CTs don’t get “put to rest” by debating them; engaging them only gives them life (as this thread demonstrates). Another thing this thread demonstrates is any rebuttal of the CT points, no matter how robust, will simply be handwaved away. As has been frequently said, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. 9/11 truthers, moon landing deniers, Flat Earthers - all have had their ludicrous arguments knocked down again and again and their response is simply to set them back up as if nothing has happened. You yourself have repeatedly ignored the various points debunking your particular CT. Be honest - is there any point at which you will ever abandon your theory? Any evidence that could actually assuage your doubts? Because if the answer is “no”, then there’s no point in any of us trying. At best, we can hope to enlighten the unseen lurkers who may be more receptive to an actual evidence-based approach to the matter. You’ll just have to choose for yourself what you want to accept as the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/369 "2019-10-02T13:53:46Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand. > > The money shouldn’t be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don’t people still enjoy intellectual debate? There’s a lot of technical info in there to be sure, but what part of “why do 3 columns just disappear in the Hulsey model” do you not get? Or, “why do the lower columns stretch like taffy in the Hulsey model?”. ---
**Author:** ![LAZombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@LAZombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LAZombie)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/370 "2019-10-02T14:37:07Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > There’s a lot of technical info in there to be sure, but what part of “why do 3 columns just disappear in the Hulsey model” do you not get? Or, “why do the lower columns stretch like taffy in the Hulsey model?”. Hulsey or someone equally qualified like Soudy needs to respond to these criticisms. I do not know if they are legitimate or not. It is possible both the NIST and UAF studies are flawed. Or that structural engineering or the prediction of how a structure will react to adverse circumstances is not an exact science and require a certain amount of guess work? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/371 "2019-10-02T14:42:16Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Hulsey or someone equally qualified like Soudy needs to respond to these criticisms. I do not know if they are legitimate or not. It is possible both the NIST and UAF studies are flawed. Or that structural engineering or the prediction of how a structure will react to adverse circumstances is not an exact science and require a certain amount of guess work? Been there, done that, and further free press is not deserved. If they want to advertise, they can pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/372 "2019-10-02T15:18:15Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Hulsey or someone equally qualified like Soudy needs to respond to these criticisms. I do not know if they are legitimate or not. You don’t know if objecting to columns simply vanishing in the Hulsey model is a legitimate criticism? > [@](#): > > It is possible both the NIST and UAF studies are flawed. It’s also “possible” aliens beamed the buildings away and altered all our memories of the event. The problem, as Richard Feynman once said (about extraterrestrials, appropriately enough) isn’t to determine what is “possible” but to assess what actually happened or is happening. If the NIST study is flawed, that is demonstrable. Saying it might be flawed is meaningless. > [@](#): > > Or that structural engineering or the prediction of how a structure will react to adverse circumstances is not an exact science and require a certain amount of guess work? It’s a pretty rigorous science. There are margins of error and material resilience factors and probabilistic analysis of resistance to various stresses. What there isn’t, in any meaningful sense, is “guess work”. Any “guesses” about anything important are heavily backed up with numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/373 "2019-10-02T16:01:32Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > It’s also “possible” aliens beamed the buildings away and altered all our memories of the event. I read a novel with that premise. The WTC collapses occurred in 2017 - we just think they happened in 2001 due to altered memories. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/374 "2019-10-03T01:06:10Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Let’s sidestep the physics and math for a moment. One issue 9/11 Truthers have never answered is why the U.S. government (or whoever was nefarious enough to rig this thing) would \*\*\*want \*\*\*to knock down WTC7. What does knocking down the relatively-obscure, little-known building called WTC7 get them that knocking down the two big Twin Towers alone didn’t? I have only ever seen two “explanations”. Either it was because some evidence of the conspiracy was being stored in there and/or because Larry Silverstein is Jewish (insert conspiracy theory and/or stereotypes about Jews). ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/375 "2019-10-03T13:14:01Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > I have only ever seen two “explanations”. Either it was because some evidence of the conspiracy was being stored in there… … because it makes SO much sense to get rid of evidence by having the contents of the building be strewn all over lower Manhattan. Have they never heard of a paper shredder? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/376 "2019-10-03T14:21:29Z")
I have yet to see a 9-11 conspiracy theory that didn’t sound like came from the writers over at “The Onion”. ---
**Author:** ![LAZombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@LAZombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LAZombie)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/377 "2019-10-03T15:45:55Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > It’s a pretty rigorous science. There are margins of error and material resilience factors and probabilistic analysis of resistance to various stresses. What there isn’t, in any meaningful sense, is “guess work”. Any “guesses” about anything important are heavily backed up with numbers. Are you saying that if we were to repeat the fires in the WTC7 that we would get the exact same outcome every time? I’m certain that assumptions are made in both models especially the NIST model to explain what they think happened rather than predict what might happen if burning debris from the Twin Towers struck WTC7 . That’s a big difference. NIST was charged with finding an explanation for the main stream narrative. Hulsey was trying to find out if fire could cause WTC7 to collapse in the way it did and found it was not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/378 "2019-10-03T16:05:51Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > NIST was charged with finding an explanation for the main stream narrative. Hulsey was trying to find out if fire could cause WTC7 to collapse in the way it did and found it was not possible. You can repeat this 'til the cows come home-it still doesn’t make it true. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/379 "2019-10-03T16:08:48Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Are you saying that if we were to repeat the fires in the WTC7 that we would get the exact same outcome every time? Well, you’d have to repeat the fires AND the fact that there were no fire fighters available AND the fact that there was no water for the fire suppression system AND that it was left to burn for an entire day AND that a large part of the building too sever structural damage from falling debris and… But, yeah…if you replicated all of that, you’d pretty much get the same result. Hell, if you just replicated some of that you’d probably still get a building collapse at some point. Just letting the building burn all day would almost certainly do it. And we’ve actually seen buildings under similar circumstances to that (i.e. burning out of control for many hours) collapse. It’s just very unusual for such a thing to happen, so it’s pretty rare that one of these buildings has basically no mitigation at all (normally, at a minimum, the fire suppression system is at least partially functional and fire fighters are at least nominally available…and, of course, normally large parts of other buildings aren’t falling on the burning building in question). As I said earlier, this one is the least mysterious wrt why or how it collapsed. I have no idea why the loopy 9/11 CT crowd has latched onto it, as it really shows their vast ignorance…or their vast powers of deception and the ignorance of their target audience. Or both, really. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/380 "2019-10-03T16:19:36Z")
> [@XT](#): > > But, yeah…if you replicated all of that, you’d pretty much get the same result. Hell, if you just replicated some of that you’d probably still get a building collapse at some point. Just letting the building burn all day would almost certainly do it. And we’ve actually seen buildings under similar circumstances to that (i.e. burning out of control for many hours) collapse. Even Windsor Tower in Spain, which gets trotted out every so often as evidence against fire-induced collapse, lost the top third of its structural steel. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064.md?page=20)