Public Comments:
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Draft Report
Hulsey, J.L., Quan, Z., and Xiao, F.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Mines, Institute ofNorthern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK
INE Report 18.17

Note: The following are public comments which are presented in the order thatthey were submitted. Names and contact information of commenters have been
removed.

There was video of substantial WTC7 lobby damage earlier in the day, and witnesses
like Barry Jennings reported internal explosions earlier in the day which he reported(paraphrasing) “cut his stairwell landing” and “blew an elevator car into the hallway”. Did
the UAF study consider any prior damage or structural derangement aside from fire?
Did you model for the concrete stairwells, and if not, would their presence or absence
contribute significantly to expected collapse sequences?

In your report, the penthouse fell a few seconds before the main structure, and I waswondering what the reason could be for that sequence. I see an antenna on the roof,
but could not get a clear picture of it. Do you have a list of what antennas were installedon the roof of building 7? There had to be several antennas installed on the roof
considering it was housing the command center for the city of New York. Many of theFiremen and Policemen have talked about the faulty Motorola Radios. Did alltransmissions go through the command center, and could another “transmitter” on theroof cause interference with these radios on that day? I would guess if the type ofantenna that I am theorizing was used, probably wouldn’t be on the list anyway, but if
you had a diagram or better picture of the roof right before its collapse, there could be a
few more questions presented. I have looked at pictures of the roof of the twin towers
and the pentagon, and someone suggested that an antenna was positioned in one of
the construction trailers in front of the pentagon, so they may have been disguised. In
final, my question, what antennas were located on the roof of building 7 just prior tocollapse?

It is critically important that it be presented in meticulous scientific detail to the rest of
the world. Please note that Page 73 of the PDF contains a typo: Whereas NIST
asserted that the differential westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column
79 was 5.5 inches and later revised its calculation to 6.25 inches, we found that the
westward displacement of girder A2001 relative to Column 79 would have been less

than 1 inch under the fire conditions reported by NIST (Figure 2.66). I believe thatshould be Figure 2.65 as there is no Figure 2.66 in the draft report.

In your testing did you simulate the damage from the bottom corner of south side of
WTC 7 that was caused when the other 2 buildings collapsed?

Thank you for your comprehensive and persuasive draft report.
Please accept these comments in the spirit of improving it.

(1) page 36 - reference to Figure 2.15 omitted(2) page 47 - singular plural verb noun agreement - “Figures … show”(3) page 55 - reference to Figures 2.39 and 2.40 omitted, unnumbered figures appear duplicated(4) page 75 - singular plural - “these phenomena” or “this phenomenon”(5) page 75 - singular plural - “these phenomena” or “this phenomenon”(6) page 79 - strange formatting

My remaining comment concerns the written style alone, for your consideration.

(7) pages 5, 45, 65, 74, 90 - “Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete
it and the writing will be just as it should be.” Mark Twain

I look forward to your 3D data being made available. Thank you again for your report.

In the last paragraph of your project summary, there is a grammatical error. Perhaps
fixing it would give the report more credibility: “with the final report will (should be “to”)
be released later this year.”This guy is expressing my questions far better than i could...
https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-reportanalysis.t10890/
what about these strange visualisations or animations? How could they be explained?
I am convinced that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire, but these videos by Hulsey’s
team are also causing question marks.

I have a masters in architectural engineering from MIT. I'm unwilling to reveal myidentity out of fear of losing my job (sorry, I have a family to feed). It is my belief thatnearly all engineers are aware that WTC7 was brought down using some form ofcontrolled demolition technology. The vast majority of us simply keep quiet out of fear ofrepercussions. I hold this belief for two reasons: 1. All of my colleagues with whom I
have an especially close relationship have confided in me their understanding that
WTC7 was demolished using some form of controlled demolition technology. 2. Only avery rudimentary understanding of physics or building engineering is required to seethat WTC7 was demolished using some form of controlled demolition technology. I
would like to sincerely thank AE911Truth and Prof. Hulsey & his team for their courageand hard work. Despite my unwillingness to reveal my identity, I will continue to makeanonymous annual monetary contributions. Thank you

Do you intend to publish these findings in a formal publication and/or have this study
formally peer reviewed?

Hi from Denmark is it possible that if explosives may have been used theoffice fires may have only be initiated around the explosives?????

On page 62 of the draft report you write: „The WTC 7 fire loading analysis was based on
NIST’s fire modeling for Floors 12 and 13, which we reviewed and determined to be areasonable worst-case scenario.“ NIST NCSTAR 1-9 shows photographic evidence,
however, that the fires in the north-east corner of floor 12, that would have been
essential for the fire-loads assumed by NIST, had already burned out at about 3:44 pm(figure 5-134 on page 220, corroborated by figure 5-141 on page 228 and figures 5-168

and 5-172 on pages 252 and 253 respectively). NIST docoments: „The observed fire
activity gleaned from the photographs and videos was not a model input, and thus one
should not expect a perfect correspondence between predicted high temperatures andobserved fire activity.“ (p. 378) NIST also comments on the fact, that „the burning timenear the north face was longer in the simulation than in the visual evidence“ (p. 382)
without acknowledging that the empirical evidence renders the simulated assumption
concerning fire-loads on the steel-members of the 13th floor rather implausible.

What was the significance of the jerk implied by figure 4.23? [Velocity comparison
between Chandler measurement (green plotted line) and UAF simulation (red plottedline). Bold green trend line illustrates free fall.] Downward acceleration at 1 g for 2.5
seconds. Then jerk. Downward acceleration continues at 1/2 g for 3/4 second. Anotherjerk. Then acceleration is 0: constant velocity of -31 m/s. 2. Per Draft Report, assume allcolumns on 8 floors taken out. This would indeed reproduce the 2.5 seconds of free fall.
Then major jerk. Why don't we see video results of high order damage ejected from the
8 floors? (Similar to the violent lateral ejections seen on video of WTC 1 and 2.) Prior tofree fall, do we even see windows blowing out over the 8 floors? 3. Is the conclusionthat all columns over the whole building were taken out? Or just over the 8 floors? The
Draft Report is confusing on this issue. 4. How much damage would you expect fromthe above mentioned jerk? For example, suppose all columns were taken out over the 8
floors. Then the building above follows in free-fall -how much damage on impact? Could
that account for final state of building?

Apart from a few minor typographic issues and at least 1 unnumbered figure which I’msure you will pick up in finalisation of this report, I restrict myself to twoareas.Chapter4Specifically -and forgive me if it should have been clearer to me from thereport -I do not fully understand (a) how the floor slabs were modelled in the global
collapse model, and (b) what is supposed to have happened to the considerable volume
of material (primarily steel and concrete) collected at the base of columns 79/80/81, and(c) how you modelled the boundary conditions to represent the structure below floor
4?So we’re clear, I am a mechanical engineer by background, I don’t claim to be an
expert in structural collapse of buildings. That said, it seems to me that the collapse of a
sizeable part of each floor below the east penthouse would have resulted in quite alarge amount of debris. Is it possible that this falling debris led to lateral loads sufficient
to cause secondary collapse? That in turn brings me to the lower floors, alreadycompromised by the known damage from Twin Towers’ earlier collapse. Is it possiblethat the falling debris, together with the prior weakening of the lower floors, together withthe “compromised” nature of the lower floors’ design (due to the substation) might be so
as to allow for progressive collapse of the lower parts of some of those columns, suchcollapse then “propagating upwards” leading to the observed failure? From an
examination of other video such ashttps://youtu.be/8WNk674LZrI?t=50 it is apparent
that WTC7 did not fall vertically quite as modelled, but instead somewhat imploded there’s appreciable angular displacement of the outer corners visible on that footage,suggesting a slightly different set of circumstances to those modelled. Even Figure

4.24a (simulation video) plainly does not match the actual footage. Looking at the left
(as that video is shot) face of the facade, there is deformation and window breakage
down to at least floor 35 directly following the east penthouse collapse. There’s anotable displacement field across the entire elevation over those critical seconds,
suggestive of progressive internal collapse leading to a “tipping point”
effect.Athttps://youtu.be/8WNk674LZrI?t=72 it is clear that the elevation has displaced
considerably. Damage Modelling Generally How was the actual damage prior tocollapse accounted-for? Is it possible that some damage had already occurred to, say,the lower parts of Column 79 prior to the effects of fire? Furthermore, how was theeffect of the apparently completely-destroyed Column 20 modelled?
Seehttps://wtc7fact.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/world-trade-center-7-the-gash/for a
discussion of the evidence of considerable damage there. The question must bewhether there was collateral damage to, say, Column 69 and even the integrity of manyof the girders in that area? It seems NIST also did not consider the effects of Column 20
damage; did your team go back to primary sources to establish pre-collapse damage?
From my own experience, and your work, the importance of boundary conditions cannot
be overstated. The evidence in the public domain of substantial damage (sufficient tohave removed an entire column) does suggest that the boundary conditions in your own
work may perhaps have also been not quite correct? If the perimeter of each floor is ineffect compromised, the expansion field at floor 12/13 might look rather different?
Would that have been sufficient to lead to the necessary deflection to unseat theconnection at Column 79?I applaud your hugely detailed modelling work. I’m primarily
concerned that the state of the building as-was (after impact damage from WTC1/2 but
before fire) was not the same as that represented in your models. That being so, myfear is that a great deal of what follows on from that mis-match might be sufficient toobviate some of your results, or at the very least cast sufficient doubt over them as toprevent them from having the impact they might otherwise have.

There is so much evidence relating to the Nano Thermite recovered from the dust andpowder and debris from ground Zero and from the surrounding area of the 911 is this
discussed in your findings?

What I do wonder is what is the ultimate goal of this re-evaluation? We know that if thiswas an event perpetrated upon the public for unscrupulous reasons, it will be a difficult
thing to unravel in the minds of the patriotic masses. I wish you well with any endeavor.

Review comments, Sept 27th, 2019, to the draft report: “A Structural Reevaluation of
the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” by J.L. Hulsey et al., Sept 3rd, 2019 This reportprovides a thorough analysis of what may or may not have caused the collapse ofbuilding 7 of the World Trade Center complex on Sept 11th, 2001. It demonstrates that
previous reports about the collapse, specifically including the NIST report, suffer fromsubstantial shortcomings and omissions, including the flexibility of the exterior wall, thestiffeners at the girders’ ends, the studs that connected steel and concrete slabs, andthe unrealistic building deformation during the collapse. By addressing theseshortcomings, the current report provides a more realistic analysis as a solid basis for
its conclusion that the collapse of the building could not have been caused by fire, butinstead was more likely caused by near simultaneous failure of nearly all columns.
There are a few issues, both major and minor, as listed below that should be addressedin the report. Major comments: 1. On p.63 (PDF p.75) section 2.6.1 states: “Note thatthe models in this analysis consist only of Floors 12 and 13.” It is not clearly statedanywhere in the report whether the restraint on column 79 by adjacent floors 11 and 14
was included in the analysis. It should be made clear whether, and if so, how that
restraint by adjacent floors is included. If the restraint by adjacent floors on column 79
was not included in the analysis, this would be a major shortcoming of the analysis thatwould undermine the final conclusion. 2. On p.64 (PDF p.76) the analysis result is
described: “The displacement at Column 79 in the x-direction was 1.915 inches east(and not west), and the displacement at Column 79 in the y-direction was 0.7293
inches.” On p.71 (PDF p.83), the displacement relative to Column 79, this time
assuming the NIST conditions including a rigid exterior wall, is reported to be 5.11
inches westward. This displacement is more than twice as much as the displacementfound on p.64, while in both cases Column 79 is at a similar distance to the rigid part ofthe building model (i.e. the elevator shafts and the exterior wall, respectively). It would
be appropriate to provide a clarification for this substantial difference in displacement,such as e.g. the difference in temperature on the east side compared to the west side of
the column. But no clarification at all is provided in the report. 3. On p.5 (PDF p.17), theexecutive summary states: “columns 79, 80, 81 failed at the upper floors near thepenthouse.” In section 4.3, these upper floors are specified as “Floor 45 all the way up
to the penthouse”, which would add up to maximally 4 floors for a 47-story building witha penthouse. However, in videos that show the collapse of the penthouse, shattering
windows are visible immediately after the penthouse collapse down until roughly 8 to 11
floors below the penthouse. It is important to include at least a hypothesis in the reportthat can explain both the collapse of the penthouse as well as these breaking windows
in lower floors immediately after the penthouse collapse. 4. On p.91 (PDF p.103),
section 4.1.1 states that “differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely
to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation,none of which were observed”. But window breakage is in fact observable clearly andabundantly. So this statement is incorrect and should be adapted. Minor comments: 5.
On p.2 (PDF p.14), the executive summary states: “Near simultaneous failure of every
column explains the collapse (secondary conclusion).” This statement should include
that the “near simultaneous failure of every column” does not include the initial failure of
the columns 79, 80 and 81 that caused the penthouse collapse nearly seven seconds
before the final collapse of the building. 6. On p.55 (PDF p.67), section 2.5.2.1 starts
with a Figure without caption and with 3 sentences that contain references to two
Figures without mentioning the Figure numbers. 7. On p.66 (PDF p.78) the caption of
Figure 2.57 refers to “displacement in the vertical direction”. However, the figure shows
displacement in the horizontal North-South direction. The vertical direction is orthogonal
to the viewed plane. Figure 2.56 shows the horizontal displacement in East-Westdirection.

Is it correct to say that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by "the near-simultaneous
failure of every column in the building"? it's my understanding that this was true foreight floors but not all of the floors in the building. I.e., what was the time between thefirst column that failed in the very last? (excluding the isolated unrelated event at theEast penthouse). I doubt that this would qualify as “near simultaneous”. The languagein the abstract and/or executive summary should probably be corrected.

First of all I d́ like to thank you very much for your great work. I am a German citizen
and run the weblog https://wunderhaft.blogspot.com, where I translate particularly
geopolitical and historical analyses of renowned scientists and journalists from English
into German. I guess to be the first and only one who published your announcement of
the final report on "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7"
into German (https://wunderhaft.blogspot.com/2019/09/eine-strukturelle-neubewertungdes.html) and I would like to know, if there are any considerations about a German
edition of the final version of this report after you have published it in English? If so, I d́like to know who is in charge of this work and furthermore when and where this edition
is to appear and will be available. If not, it would be a pleasure for me to work on thetranslation, btw. to perform this work.

I understand that you team has reached the conclusion that World Trade Center
Building 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001 due to a controlled demolition rather thanas a result of the attack on the World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2. I am not anengineer nor a physicist, nor have a read the report, but I would like to ask a couple ofsimple questions -1. Was the fact that the collapse of Building 1 and 2 each would havecaused a local earthquake which, in turn, would have had a impact on the structure of
Building 7 and, potentially, could have weakened its structural columns so that theywould have collapsed? 2. Did you investigate if Building 7 had flaws in its design orconstruction so that it would be vulnerable to collapse if it were subjected to the stressof the high level of energy created by the collapse of Towers 1 and 2.? 3. My
understanding is that your report had two primary conclusions -1. the heat from the fires
at the World Trade Center site was not sufficient to cause Building 7 to collapse and 2.
that it, therefore, must have collapsed due to a controlled demolition. If this be the casewhy did you 1. commit the logical fallacy that if one thing is true, therefore, another mustbe true and 2. why is there no sound recording of the explosives in building 7 going offprior to its collapse? Unless there is such a thing as silent explosives, you cannot
logically or scientifically claim that Building 7 collapsed due to a controlled demolition

You put a lot of work in that. But like all investigations and reports before, I think you
underestimate the damage to the south side of the building. I'm not sure why, everybody
is underestimating this. Because it's pretty obvious from what documents are there:
https://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/GZ_WTC7_South_Tom_F
ranklin2.jpg http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html It's likely that somethinglike what happened to the Deutsche Bank Buliding happened to WTC7. A big chunk of
WTC1 debries sliced through the south front of WTC7 and was finally stopped at one
floor. (And from the pictures it seems to be a lower floor) That floor (and probably one or
two above) could have been sheared towards that stopping point, buckling a lot or all
the columns to the above and below floors. Together with the fires, that could havebrought that building down. You might be able to calculate such a scenario.

In the acknowledgments the following paragraph appears: "In addition to the university
and its personnel, we would like to thank Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth(AE911Truth) for providing the funding to conduct this research. We also want to thankJohn Thiel for approaching Dr. Hulsey to conduct this research as well as theindependent, external reviewers who will review this report during the forthcoming publiccomment period." Comment: Richard Gage should be mentioned by name in thisparagraph.AE would not be in existence where it not for his efforts on its behalf. 2.On
page 2 of the Executive Summary the following paragraph appears. "NearSimultaneous Failure of Every Column Explains the Collapse. The secondary
conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving thenear-simultaneous failure of every column in the building" Do not understand the needfor the use of the "near" qualification to simultaneous. My read of the report failed tolocate an explanation of this term. From my view of the collapse, the failure was uniform
and designed to bring the building down at near free fall speed into its footprint. In that
context, near appears to be appropriate. Would revise the paragraph to read:"Simultaneous Failure of Every Column Explains the Collapse" "The secondary
conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving thesimultaneous failure of every column in the building; i.e. controlled demolition." Forsupport of the conclusion that the bring down was by controlled demolition research theopinion of Danny Jowenko. Danny paid for that opinion with his life. He deserves to bementioned. And the report deserves the punch line. Note to AE: if Prof. Hulsey will notmake the conclusion that controlled demolition was used, suggest, in addition to a cite
to Danny Jowenko, you get Dr. Steven Jones to offer the opinion or cite his white paper
titled "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse" Griffin, David Ray,and Scott, Peter Dale, 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out, Interlink
Publishing Group, Northampton, MA 01060 (2006), ISBN 978-1-56656-659-9 (pbk),
page 33.

Overall, Leroy's (UAF team) study is excellent and so exciting to see this about ready to
be released to the world. My comments are mainly centered on Chapter 5: Examinationof the building collapse. I think it is great that the UAF team examined the various
scenarios of partial collapse and global collapse. I see the conclusion that the WTC 7
collapse could not have been a "progressive collapse" but rather a global collapse
initiated by severing all the columns on the 13th or the 19th floor. Per the report the SAP
2000 FEM program is used to model the building collapse and presumably generate theanimated model. It would be very useful to expand the narrative further and describe thetheory and capabilities of the SAP2000 program. For example:(1) How does theprogram model the collapse? Does the model include the full structure with all theconnections allowing modeling the linear as well as non-linear behavior of the materials/
connections etc? Or were there simplifications made based on the prior analyses of thecomponents that UAF made?(2)The program presumably models the deformation of thebuilding as elements yield and buckle and that is how the team arrived at the conclusionthat if the columns 79, 80 and 81 are removed, the building would lean to one siderather than collapse into its footprint.(3) Upon removal of the columns on the 13th floor
in the mode;, does the program actually model free-fall of the upper stories of thebuilding and the impact generated on the columns or impulse momentum forces? This
then causes the upper levels to crush and buckle the columns traveling up the building
and unzipping the connections as this happens.

How big was the influence of AE9/11truth on your study? Because for AE9/11truth thecontrolled demolition was a fact before they contracted Dr Hulsey with the study. They
said they have proof before the study. Which would make the study redundant. How
much proof do you need? One proof would be enough, right?
Since they're already sure what happend that day, the study is sort of biased, since
AE9/11truth paid Dr Hulsey's sallary. I would think that they have an interest, that yourstudy turns out in their favor. That is why it is important to know, how big their influence
on your study was. The problem is, that whatever you say, for example that they had noinfluence, how can I be sure that this is true? Your study is therefore not independentand unbiased.

I'm a 32-yearsold German who follows the discourse about the September 11 attacks
with great interest. I would like to draw the attention of Professor Hulsey and his
doctoral students to the criticism of a German nuclear physicist named Dr. Holm Gero
Hümmler who published a strong criticism of the study on his Internet blog.Dr.
Hümmler's criticism is in German, but I took the trouble to translate his whole article into
English and would now like to send it to you. Although his article is full of polemics,
there are still some interesting arguments in it. In his blog article, Dr. Hümmler quotes
two other critical comments on Professor Hulsey's study. These two sources are: 1)West, Mick: Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC 7 Draft Report.
Published on Youtube on September8, 2019.Online here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OClixCTdDw2)Kostack Studio: UAF WTC 7
Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)Published on
Youtube on September 8, 2019:Online here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVE3YwRgU9kHere is the translated
article:https://mail.cloudaccess.net/Main/frmMessage.aspx?mode=preview&folder=Inbox&messageid=91&mapped=False&user=publiccomment&fromSearch=False&rowNumb
er=3#
Translation of the blog article „Alle paar Jahre grüßt das 11.-September-Murmeltier“
by German nuclear physicist Dr. Holm Gero Hümmler, dating from September 19, 2019

The beginning of the collapse of WTC7 showed a kink in the roofline (and the north sideof the building) visible from below. The kink seems to be a rather characteristic featureof the building's collapse, as it can be understood heuristically by the failure of theinterior columns while the exterior columns are still stable for a moment. Therefore theexterior columns are pulled to the inside by the suddenly appearing additional weight ofthe building's core. However, this kink is not recognizable in the UAF global collapse
simulation, although in the simulation the interior columns are removed 1.3 seconds
prior to the exterior columns. Please, comment on this obvious discrepancy. In
particular:-Under which circumstances would the computer model develop the missing
kink?-Is it an error in the computer model —i.e. are some parameters more stable in thesimulation than in reality? —or is an additional input of destruction necessary to obtainsuch a result?

Comments on the Draft Report„A Structural Reevaluation of the
Collapse of World Trade Center 7“(JL Hulsey et al, September 2019)

Table of Contents
All three Key Objectives are not met...................................................................................................1
Objective (1): Structural response to fire loads...............................................................................2
Fire load and structural response were considered only on 2 floors (floors 12+13)...................2
Failure to model fire effects over time........................................................................................3
It is unclear how NIST‘s temperature distribution was translated by the JL Hulsey team.........3
Objective (2): Ruling out scenarios.................................................................................................3
General objections.......................................................................................................................3
1. Scenario: NIST........................................................................................................................4
2. Scenario: Arup.........................................................................................................................4
3. Scenario: Weidlinger...............................................................................................................5
Objective (3): Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the totalcollapse to occur as observed...........................................................................................................6
General objections.......................................................................................................................6„Three key features“ - forced into animation as input, not result of any hypothesis..................6„We could not find“ ≠ „Does not exist“......................................................................................7
Failure to recreate other features.................................................................................................8
NIST misconstrued...............................................................................................................................8
Modeling of the exterior steel framing............................................................................................8
Conflating ANSYS and LS-DYNA models...................................................................................10
Short and assorted remarks.................................................................................................................12
References......................................................................................................................................12
Excise irrelevant sections...............................................................................................................12
Invalid linear static analysis results...............................................................................................12
Unrealistic dynamic analysis results..............................................................................................12
Principal conclusion refuted...............................................................................................................12

All three Key Objectives are not met
According to the Abstract, page i, and repeated verbatim in Section 1.2, page 13,„The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC
7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenariosthat could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures andtheir locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.“
We find that the study fails to fulfill any of its three key objectives.
In short:(1) Hulsey et al failed to model most of the fires / heating, and all of the fire histories, and thus
cannot possibly have accounted for all structural responses(2) Hulsey et al could not have, and did not, account for all possible or plausible collapse
initiating events. Instead, they looked at only three that have been proposed by threeprevious studies. Because of the incompleteness of Hulsey et al‘s models, Hulsey were notin a position to fully appraise these three hypotheses.
(3) Hulsey et al do not actually propose any „types of failures“ (as in „failure mode“). Theiranimations only mimic the observed collapse of 9/11/2001 in a very limited number offeatures, but fail to replicate many other features. Hulsey et al do not explain why these few
features are even significant. The few features they do mimic arise not as a result (output) of
any theory, any comprehensive and falsifiable hypothesis as to the material cause of thecollapse. Rather, they are explicitly input to the animations: All columns are simply, without
explanation, conjured away at opportune times. This is non-explanatory.
In detail:Objective (1): Structural response to fire loads
JL Hulsey and his team chose to limit their analysis of „fire loads that may have occurred on
September 11, 2001“, and of „the structural response of WTC 7 to [those] fire loads“ as follows:

Fire load and structural response were considered on 2 floors only
Page 23: „We then used both ABAQUS and SAP2000 to evaluate the fire damage to the floor
framing at Floors 12 and 13“. Page 40: „After the entire WTC 7 was modeled in SAP2000,
boundary conditions for Floors 12 and 13 assembly were modeled“. Page 42: „The loading
condition for the Floor 12 and 13 assembly was calculated by imposing axial forces acting on the
top of Floor 13“. Page 44: „After modeling the boundary conditions for Floors 12 and 13, wemodeled the concrete slab of Floors 12 and 13“. Page 48: „Using wire (beam) elements, Floors 12
and 13 were simulated using a finite element model in ABAQUS (see Figure 2.30 below)“. Page 62:„The WTC 7 fire loading analysis was based on NIST’s fire modeling for Floors 12 and 13“. Page
63: „Note that the models in this analysis consist only of Floors 12 and 13“.
Thus, the JL Hulsey team chose to ignore the very substantial fires on other floors, particularly
floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 – which created (in the „worst“ Case B) >1,000 °C of gas temperatures in allthose floors1, slab temperatures >675 °C on floor 72 and steel temperatures >600 °C on floor 83. As
a result, NIST had found numerous connection failures after 4 h in the framings of all floors 8 to144. Failing to model the elevated heat profiles in floors 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 made sure from theoutset that the JL Hulsey study could not possibly evaluate the full structural response to all the fires
on those floors.

Failure to model fire effects over time
The JL Hulsey team considered the temperature distribution at only one point in time („5:00 pm“
according to the NIST timeline for structural heating). This ensures that possible effects of the
dynamics of increasing and decreasing temperatures could not possibly have been detected by the
JL Hulsey team. This is significant as the Arup team hypothesized that a critical girder connection
occurred as cooling, contracting beams pulled a girder off its seat at column 79. JL Hulsey‘smodeling would be blind to such an occurrence.
Failing to model the dynamics of extended multi-floor fires ensured that the JL Hulsey study could
not possibly evaluate the full structural response to all the fires on those floors.

It is unclear how NIST‘s temperature distribution was translated by the
JL Hulsey team
Page 63: „We inputted the temperature distribution given by NIST into SAP2000 using threedifferent zones of temperature distribution: high temperature at 1211°F, medium temperature at
941°F, and low temperature, which was room temperature, at 68°F“.
These three values correspond to 655, 505 and 20 °C, respectively. NIST‘s temperature distribution,as per the color coding in Figure 2.53, is more finely grained in intervals of ca. 20 °C (althoughsometimes the color gradients are difficult to perceive; for example, light blues between ca. 150 °C
and ca. 250 °C are almost impossible to discern). Why were those three values chosen, and how
were NIST temperatures above and below those values translated into SAP2000 input values?
It is not obviously clear that this simplification of the temperature distributions is valid – anargument ought to be presented for the validity.

Objective (2): Ruling out scenarios
Hulsey brings up only three „scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse“ (NIST,
Arup, Weidlinger), and primarily focuses on only a detail in only one of them (the NIST hypothesisof the girder A2001 walk-off at column 79, floor 13).

General objectionsFirst, it must be pointed out that these three scenarios do not exhaust the entire envelop of
possibilities. For this reason alone, the JL Hulsey team cannot possibly have „[r]uled out“ allscenarios as „could not have caused the observed collapse“.

1
2
3

NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Figures 9–9 (floor 7), 9–10 (floor 8) and 9–12 (floor 12); the fire simulations for floors 9 and
11 were „copied“and time-shifted from the simulations of fires on floors 8 and 12, respectively.
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Figure 10–26
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Figure 10–29

All three scenarios agree that structural damage was widespread and occurring on multiple (>2)
floors in the lower east part of the building – something that the JL Hulsey team did not evenconsider. The three cited studies disagree, essentially, on which proverbial straw broke the camel‘sback. This implies that at least two of the three scenarios are „wrong“ in the limited sense that they
disagree with reality on the specific connection failure which started the transition from gradualdestruction to rapid, progressive collapse. They could even all be wrong in the same limited sense –and that would in no way rule out the global conclusion that accumulating fire damage caused thetotal collapse as observed4.
But in addition to this failure of top-level logic, the JL Hulsey team also failed to rule out any of thethree specific scenarios:

1. Scenario: NISTAs documented previously, JL Hulsey and team failed to model fires and damage accumulation onmost of the fire-affected floors, and failed to model the time-histories of the fires and the structural
heating they caused. It is unclear, and unlikely, that a single snap-shot taken at an essentiallyarbitrary point in time, and covering only 2 floors, is sufficient to capture the complexities of thedamage patterns that many hours of raging multi-story fires can accumulate in a structure like this.
Also, while NIST‘s own summary narrative somewhat singles out the A2001 girder walk-off on
floor 13 as the initiating event5, their actual LS-DYNA analysis does not6, and instead stresses thepresence of multiple failures on multiple floors as contributing to the buckling of column 79,
particularly local collapses on floor 14 – which the JL Hulsey team did not consider.

2. Scenario: Arup
JL Hulsey et al misconstrue the initiating event as hypothesized by Arup as follows (page 86):
„The Arup report concluded that the girder (A2001) that NIST reported was pushed off
its seat by thermally expanding beams to the east of the girder was actually pulled off its
seat by the sagging of beams to the east of the girder.“In reality, Arup proposed two distinct „Initiating Failures“7:„[…] the triggering event is either the unseating of Girder 44-79 at its connection to
Column 79 at Floor 13 (Scenario A) or at Floor 10 (Scenario B). A failure on Floor 13
corresponds to a failure during the cooling phase of the fire and a failure on Floor 10
corresponds to a failure during the heating phase“
4

5
6

7

Keeping in mind the perils of analogies, here is one: Suppose you observe an avalanche of rocks going down acrossa mountain trail, and a man collapsing amidstit. You later find him dead. Three investigators find three different
rocks that they claim delivered the fatal strike. Now, even if all three identify the wrong rock, that does not mean
the man’s death wasn’t caused accidentally by the rock avalanche! It does not make a proposition more likely that
he was instead murdered with a shotgun.
NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 22: “Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led tothe collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures.”
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 572: “[…] floor sections surrounding Columns 79 to 81 on Floors 13 and 14 collapsed to
the floors below, as shown in Figure 12–42. The LS-DYNA analysis calculated the dynamic response of thestructure to the floor failures and resulting debris impact loads on the surrounding structure. The thermallyweakened floors below Floors 13 and 14 could not withstand the impact from the collapsing floors, resulting insequential floor collapses.”United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Case 11-4403, Document 79-1, 02/14/2012, 525397, page
JA-3971

Hulsey et al only considered Scenario A – and could not have considered Scenario B, as they failed
to model floor 10.
The second error in the Draft‘s paraphrasing of the Arup hypothesis is the claim that „the girder
was actually pulled off its seat by the sagging of beams to the east of the girder“. The remark by
Arup that „failure on Floor 13 corresponds to a failure during the cooling phase of the fire“suggests that not sagging, but thermal contraction, was the cause of this initiating failure. JL Hulsey
et al could not have considered this, as they failed to model heating dynamics, including coolingcycles.
Hulsey et al go on to claim (page 86) that „[t]he Nordenson report instead put forth the idea thatthese girder connections failed due to stress raisers (cracking) caused by repeated heating andcooling cycles“. This seems to contradict what they wrote earlier („pulled off its seat by the sagging
of beams“). Where does the Nordenson report put forth the idea of repeated heating and coolingcycles? Citation, please!
Uncredited work used: Hulsey et al then focus for three pages (p. 86 to 89) on a detail of the Arup
report – the notion that the falling 13th floor bay would hit the floor below with such force that it,
too, would fail. While this discussion convincingly argues that Nordenson‘s calculation is missing asignificant term, the entire argument, including Figure 3.15 and the numbers and calculations,appear to be the work of an uncredited author, who happens to also be a representative of thestudy‘s sponsor (AE911Truth): Anthony Szamboti. This work was first shown in January 2016 at
the internet forum „Metabunk“8. The finding that several pages of the Hulsey report have essentiallybeen written by a representative of AE911Truth almost 4 years ago of course immediately raises
concerns what other portions of the draft might be the work not of Hulsey but of his sponsor.
The calculation, that seems to disprove that a floor collapse would propagate, of course was done
under the assumption that the remaining structure is pristine – that the geometry is not significantly
distorted, that no other of the connections involved are damaged or weakened, etc. An assumption,
which is questionable after many hours of devastating fires. This has not been assessed by Hulsey etal (Nordenson didn‘t need to for his purposes).

3. Scenario: Weidlinger
As Hulsey et al put it, the Weidlinger reports posits„that Floors 9 and 10 were simultaneously heated to between 750° and 800°C in theexact same area of each floor. This extreme heating eventually caused Floor 10 to give
way and break through Floor 9, which was possible only because of the extreme heatingof Floor 9.“989The FEA graphic, with the exact same value for Mode 2 frequency (“+5.1693E-01”) that Hulsey used in his
calculation (“0.51693 hz”), is attached to this post: https://www.metabunk.org/does-the-exclusion-of-stiffness-fromnordensons-falling-girder-calculations-demonstrate-anything.t7185/page-5#post-174345 . Szamboti’s calculation
was done a little earlier: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/174332/
This misconstrues the values in the Weidlinger report (Najib N. Abboud: WTC 7 Collapse Analysis and Assessment
Report (October 15, 2010);
Downloadable from http://www.thorntontomasetti.com/projects/world_trade_center_7_collapse_investigation/ ):First, according to Najib Figure 81, the relevant beams in the 9th floor east of column 80 were nowhere hotter thanabout 600 °C.
Secondly, Najib writes explicitly on page B-85: „failure initiates […] after 4.5 hours of continual heating where
the secondary beam in question has achieved average temperatures of 420°C, 720°C, and 750°C in the top flange,
web, and bottom flange, respectively. The temperature of the finplate connection is 680°C“. Also, Figure 81
nowhere shows any relevant bit of steel above 794 °C. It is unclear why Hulsey et al claim that two floors (!) wereSince Hulsey et al did not consider fires, heat and damage on floors 9 and 10, their modeling work
cannot possibly address the Weidlinger findings. Instead, without reference or work, Hulsey et al
merely brush aside the hypothesis (page 90) – I quote in full their discussion of the Weidlinger
report:„However, the details of the thermal analysis by Dr. Beyler are not shown in the
Weidlinger report, and Beyler’s analysis has not been made public, despite its central
importance to Weidlinger’s hypothesis. It is important to understand that steel structuralmembers reaching temperatures of 750°C due to office fires can be considered
extraordinary. Without any analysis provided to substantiate such temperatures,
Weidlinger’s collapse initiation hypothesis must be viewed skeptically and can only be
assumed to have a very low probability of occurrence.“
Hulsey et al imply that Weidlinger have done no analysis – when clearly they have. It is, in fact,
Hulsey et al who have not done any analysis here. It is unclear why they call these temperatures„extreme“. Have Hulsey et al reached out to Dr. Beyler and asked for the thermal analysis?
In short, Hulsey et al simply did not analyze the Weidlinger scenario and thus cannot rule it out
as having caused a progressive collapse and the buckling of columns 79 to 81.

Objective (3): Identify types of failures and their locations that
may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed
General objections
What does „types of failures“ mean, really?
The three earlier studies that Hulsey et al cite all identify specific failure modes (buckling, shearing,
tearing, sagging, expanding, walking off, …) with specific causes, which go back to a plausible
initial state: The building as built, with realistic fuel load, and fire ignited somewhere at some time.
There is an unbroken chain of causes and effects from initial state to total collapse. That is what one
would expect from any forensic engineering report – including Hulsey‘s.
But it‘s not what this draft delivers: Chapter 4 entirely ignores the fires and the damage they
accumulated, and then conjures up, without explanation, the sudden total removal of columns, toforce the structure above them move down.
There is no explanation to what may have caused this sudden removal of columns. As a matter offact, JL Hulsey was asked at his September 03 presentation in Fairbanks10: „You said that the fire
did not cause the collapse. Do you any hypotheses of what DID cause the collapse?“, and his
answer was, ominously, and to a round of laughs: „I'm not going there.“
So at this point, the objective has failed – on purpose: JL Hulsey is not going there – is not goingto identify the „types of failures“.
But the entire effort to „identify types of failures and their locations“ fails on more counts:•

Hulsey et al attempted to mimic only a few arbitrarily selected features, which NIST also
managed to mimic(the entire relevant areas?) „simultaneously heated to between 750° and 800°C“. They were not.
10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAEHhDCTaBw&t=1h8m35s

•They did so not as a result of theory but as a forced, straightforward input•

They failed to mimic many other observed features, or at least did not check whether they
were mimicked.

In detail:„Three key features“ - forced into animation as input, not result of any
hypothesis
Chapter 4 is the place that purports to address the third objective. The goal here appears to be to
generate a collapse simulation that „closely resemble[s] the observed collapse“ (page 91). To thisend, Hulsey et al identify„three key features that occurred during the collapse of WTC 7, which we thenattempted to replicate in our simulations of the collapse. These three key features are as
follows:
1. The collapse of the east penthouse, which begins approximately 6.9 seconds prior to
the descent of the north face roof-line
2. The collapse of the screenwall and west penthouse, which begins approximately 0.5
to 1 second prior to the descent of the north face roof-line; and3. The descent of the north face roof-line, which progresses at a rate of free fall for
approximately 2.25 to 2.5 seconds over a distance of approximately 105 feet or 8
stories, during which the building’s sheathing remains attached to the exterior steel
framing and does not experience visible differential movements.“
Hulsey et al correctly point out that „NIST’s progressive collapse simulation does show the three
key features listed above“. But it bears pointing out that, in the NIST simulation, these features allarise as a result (output) of the chain of analysis they did, from fire models to structural heating todamage accumulation from fires to onset of rapid collapse all the way through a global collapse
model: NIST actually explains the observed collapse features as ultimately caused by the fires theymodeled in the first step.
Hulsey et al on the other hand
1. forced the „collapse of the east penthouse […] approximately 6.9 seconds prior to thedescent of the north face roof-line“ by making the columns underneath the east penthousedisappear, without cause and explanation, 7 seconds prior to making the columns low acrossthe entire perimeter disappear, without cause and explanation,
2. forced the „collapse of the screenwall and west penthouse […] approximately 0.5 to 1
second prior to the descent of the north face roof-line“ by making the columns underneaththe west penthouse disappear, without cause and explanation, about a second6 prior to
making the columns low across the entire perimeter disappear, without cause andexplanation and3. forced the „descent of the north face roof-line […] at a rate of free fall […] over a distanceof […] 8 stories“ by making the columns low across the entire perimeter disappear over a
distance of 8 stories, without cause and explanation

In other words, all three features arise not as a result (output) of any model that represents a theory,
but as a forced input to an animation. This is entirely non-explanatory.

„We could not find“ ≠ „Does not exist“On page 2:„no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior. We
cannot completely rule out the possibility that an alternative scenario may have caused
the observed collapse; however, the near-simultaneous failure of every column is the
only scenario we identified that was capable of producing the observed behavior.“
Exactly. You cannot completely rule out the possibility that an alternative scenario may havecaused the observed collapse. So don‘t rule it out, and retract the „secondary conclusion of ourstudy is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure ofevery column in the building.“ It‘s logically invalid.

Failure to recreate other features
No attempt is made to justify why these three features, and not any of the many others that one
could pick out, were selected as the target for simulation. Here is an incomplete list of further
features, which were in fact observed, but not chosen by Hulsey et al as „key features“, and which
also do not appear to have arisen as a result of their simulation:
1. The development of the kink in the north wall
2. Daylight visible through windows in the upper eastern corned of the north wall, seconds
after the east penthouse began to collapse
3. The east-to-west onset of drop of of the screen wall and west penthouse
4. The building‘s exterior twists or turns counter-clockwise (north-east corner falls towards
north, the western corners fall towards south)
5. Part of the west wall impacted the face of the Verizon building
6. Part of the north wall impacted Fiterman HallNIST misconstrued
Modeling of the exterior steel framing
Hulsey et al claim on page 2:„During our nonlinear connection study (Section 2.1.3.2), we discovered that NIST
overestimated the rigidity of the outside frame by not modeling its connections,
essentially treating the exterior steel framing as thermally fixed, which caused all
thermally-induced floor expansion to move away from the exterior. The exterior steel
framing was actually flexible, while the stiffest area resistant to thermal movements,
i.e., the point of zero thermal movement, was near the elevator shafts.“
It is unclear why Hulsey et al claim here that NIST did not model the outside frame connections. In
Section 2.1.3.2 (page 28), they describe it correctly:„In the NIST investigation, the failure of the floor-framing connections and the shear
studs was modeled with break elements on Floors 8 to 14. Outside the selected area in
Figure 2.4 shown below, structural damage — such as buckling of the steel frame andcrushing and cracking of the concrete slab — was modeled over the entire floor, butconnection failures were not modeled over the entire floor.“
Correct: NIST did not model connection failures outside a defined are. Notice: Connection failures
are a thing quite different from connections. One can model connections as stiff or flexible, but
without a break element; or with a break element. NIST described where they included breakelements, and where they did not. The next sentence then (page 29) is wrong:„Connections were also not modeled in the exterior moment frame, as no failures wereobserved there prior to the onset of global collapse (NIST, 2008, NCSTAR 1A).“First of all, the reference is wrong: NCSTAR 1A does not go into any detail about whichconnections have break elements and which don‘t. You find this actually in NCSTAR 1-9, page475f (Section 11.2.5 Modeling Connections). Here is NIST‘s actual wording:„The floor area where failure of floor framing connections and shear studs was modeledwith break elements on Floors 8 to 14 is shown in Figure 11–9. This area is east of thenorth-south line passing through Column 76 and the core area east of Column 73.
Outside the selected area, structural damage–such as buckling of the steel frame andcrushing and cracking of the concrete slab–was modeled over the entire floor, butconnection failures were not modeled. The extent of the area with detailed connection
models was based on the results of single floor fire simulations, where connection
damage west of Columns 73 through 76 were not found to contribute to an initial failure
event on the east side of the structure. The area where break elements were modeled
was selected to reduce the model size without biasing the results for simulating theinitial failure event.
Framing connections outside of the selected area, or on other floors not subjected to fire,
were modeled as either fixed or pinned, using typical modeling approaches.
Connections were not modeled in the exterior moment frame, as no failures wereobserved there prior to the onset of global collapse. Column splices were also notmodeled for interior columns, as the purpose of the ANSYS model was to accumulate
local failures up to the point of buckling in a column. When column buckling appeared
to be imminent, the analyses were continued in the LS-DYNA 47 story model.“Read in context, it seems likely that there is a slight error in this text: „Connections were notmodeled in the exterior moment frame, as no failures were observed there prior to the onset ofglobal collapse.“ This should probably read „Connection failures were not modeled in the exterior
frame …“, for the sentence goes on to talk about the absence of failures. An inquiry with NIST
could have cleared this up.
Hulsey et al misunderstand how NIST modeled connections in their next paragraph (page 29):
„First, by not modeling connections in the outside frame, NIST overestimated therigidity of the outside frame. That assumption and inconsistent modeling for the framing
connections resulted in the stiffness of the east side of the building being different thanthat of the west side. This resulted in the stiffness being compromised across the plan of
the building.“

The first sentence might be correct if I am wrong about NIST mistyping. However, the rest of theparagraph is mostly wrong: NIST did not model connections in the west fundamentally different, orjust stiffer, than in the east: The only significant difference is that the connections in the east had
break elements, meaning that they could possibly fail (and thus lose their stiffness). It wasdetermined in a preliminary „single floor fire simulations, [that] connection damage west of
Columns 73 through 76 [would not] contribute to an initial failure event on the east side of thestructure“. It‘s a matter of engineering judgment whether or not it‘s significant if some connections
at a distance from columns 79 to 81 had failed or not.

Conflating ANSYS and LS-DYNA models
In the next paragraph (page 29), Hulsey go too far in conflating the ANSYS (NCSTAR 1-9 Chapter11) and LS-DYNA (NCSTAR 1-9 Chapter 12) models:„The NIST simulation of the collapse illustrated that the west side of the building acted
differently from the east side. The structural response to failure would more closely
resemble the actual collapse if the connections had been accounted for throughout thestructural frame. By not modeling the connection failures outside the selected area
shown in Figure 2.4 above, NIST appears to have reduced the stiffness in the area
outside the selected area and separated its progressive collapse simulation into two parts(see Figure 2.5).“
Figure 2.5 juxtaposes two different models:The floor connections east and west are modeled differently only in the ANSYS model (left), not in
the LS-DYNA model (right)! It seems reasonable that, in the right image, the east art looks less

stable because it is already collapsing! NIST concentrated on the east part of the building, andmodeled it somewhat more sophisticatedly, because the real WTC7 was observed to collapse in its
east part first. So the causation is that the ANSYS model has the blue area because that‘s what
collapsed first (became unstable; lost stiffness) first, and not: The LS-DYNA model looks unstablein the east because of the blue area.
In addition: It may be true that some connections west of columns 76-78 would have been detected
as failed had the ANSYS model included break elements there, and these failed connections would
have been transferred to the LS-DYNA model as starting conditions, making the west coresomewhat less stiff. However (NCSTAR 1-9 page 539, my emphasis):„The global LS-DYNA model had the following input data:• Extent of initial damage to the building due to debris impact from the collapse of WTC
1 (Chapter 5).
• Mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E and NIST NCSTAR 1-3D) and concrete(NCSTAR NIST 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7.
• Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E and NISTNCSTAR 1-3D).
• Temperatures of structural components and connections, at the time when the
ANSYS results were transferred to the LS-DYNA analysis (Chapter 10).
• Fire-induced damage to floor beams, girders, and their connections from the 16 story
ANSYS analysis (Chapter 11).“and it was then run with the following loading sequence (page 563):„• First, gravity was applied slowly to the 47 floor structure over 4.5 s of elapsed
simulation time to damp residual vibrations and eliminate dynamic response. The loads
were applied smoothly with a sinusoidal load curve.
• Then, the debris impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 was applied to thestructure instantaneously by removing damaged elements from the model that were nolonger capable of bearing their loads. The structure was then allowed to damp residual
vibrations for 2 s.
• Next, the structural temperatures were applied smoothly with a sinusoidal curveand allowed to damp residual vibrations for 2 s.
• Last, the fire-induced damage obtained from the 16 story ANSYS analysis, including
damage to floor beams, girders, and connections, was applied instantaneously. The
heated, damaged structure was then free to react.“
And this is interesting because (page 566):„the LS-DYNA model was able to predict damage due to the temperatures for a specificpoint in time and the subsequent dynamic progression of failures leading to the global
collapse of WTC 7.“

So in short: The LS-DYNA model, being fed with the „Case B at 4 h“ structural temperatures
throughout the entire floors 7 to 14, was able to model the connection damages that arose fromthose temperatures at that time and proceed from there. It is not true that this model had to do
entirely without fire damage west of the blue area.

Short and assorted remarks
References
Hulsey et al should give more specific references: Quote the works of others wherever possible,
instead of paraphrasing; provide page numbers etc.
The References (page 113) should conform to usual standards, to include full authors, correct andfull titles, publishers, URLs where applicable, etc.

Excise irrelevant sections
Example: Pages 11 and 12 contain mostly speculation, the relevance of most of it remains
unexplained. Why is hot corrosion in the debris pile an „anomaly“? Why is a brief episode of somepart of a collapsing structure exhibiting freefall acceleration an „anomaly“? The statement „The
debris pile of WTC 7 was contained mostly inside the building’s footprint“ is nearly meaningless:
What does „mostly“ mean? Why would a collapsing building not fall „mostly“ into its footprint?
Why is that an „anomaly“? Besides, WTC7 surely did not drop into its footprint at all, according to
the way demolitions experts use the term (i.e. stay clear of adjacent infrastructure and otherbuildings): Its debris blocked streets all around and caused major damage to at least two otherbuildings across two different streets (the Verizon building, which had WTC7 exterior frame steel
sticking out of its face; and Fiterman Hall, which was hit, on its roof even, by WTC7 debris sobadly it had to be deconstructed eventually).
Example: The unreferenced speculation on page 22 that „financial centers“ would not „have paper
lying around“.

Invalid linear static analysis results
Figures 4.14 and 4.15 show „Visualization[s] of linear static analysis“ of the building in states
where it clearly has not been static anymore for quite some time – this type of analysis is no longer
valid at this point.

Unrealistic dynamic analysis results
Figures 4.16 and 4.20 show „Dynamic analys[e]s results showing the building tipping…“, where it
is obvious that the simulation does not apply relevant and necessary physics – the floors are
passing through each other without any apparent interaction, no connection failures, no bending ofanything. This is clearly unrealistic. Something went very wrong here.
I expect that other submitters will say more on these issues.

Principal conclusion refuted
Hulsey et al, page 1f:„Fire Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC 7
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied thecollapse.
This conclusion is based upon a number of findings from our different analyses.
Together, they show that fires could not have caused weakening or displacement ofstructural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged tohave triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if
they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in theobserved total collapse.“
This is based, in essence on two approaches:
1. Proving NIST, Arup and Weidlinger wrong
2. Not finding an initial damage pattern that results in a simulation collapse that closely
resembles the observed real collapse
Both approaches are invalid:
1. One can‘t prove a global negative („All possible combinations of fire initiation and building
conditions could not have resulted in this collapse“) by disproving only a small subset of thepossible scenarios – even assuming Hulsey had done enough to disprove the other studies.
Which they have not
2. Not finding a solution does not imply that there exists none – unless one can rigorously
prove ti have searched the entire solution space. Which Hulsey et al have not.
As a consequence, the study failed to prove its principal finding.

To:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
publiccomment@AE911Truth.org
Copy to:
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
College of Engineering and Mines
Institute of Northern Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
uaf-cem@alaska.edu

OBJECT: Public Comment Period for UAF WTC7 Draft Report - Second comment from Giorgio
Corvasce - Air effect - UAF simulation compatible with NIST data set.
In the UAF Draft Report, §4.6, Pag. 106, it is written “Specifically, the simulated velocity andacceleration of the building in our SAP2000 model matches almost exactly with the motion
measured by David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall,shown in Figures 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23 below.”This is Fig.4.23:

Moreover the UAF report says: “Bold green trend line illustrates free fall”.

Pag. 1 (9)This is not accurate. Bold green trend line illustrates a free fall in the vacuum, so it is not realistic.
Falling speed of WTC7 reached a velocity greater than 30m/s. At such speed it is not correct toignore the presence of air, so velocity vs. time should not be linear.
Free fall in the air must take into account a resistant force depending on the speed and which
increases with speed.
As a consequence, in a real free fall, velocity must tend asymptotically to the limit velocity vL
according to the following picture.

It is not easy to develop a model of a building falling in the air. Let's use the same method used by
NIST (least square method).
I already sent another comment based on the use of a discontonuous function to interpolate the
NIST velocity vs. time data set. Some concepts are the same, sorry for that.
I performed the following five steps:
1) The first step is the extraction of the coordinates of the NIST measurement points from NISTNCSTAR 1A Figure 3-15.

In order to minimize measurement errors it is possible to print pag.46 of the document (pag. 88 of
the pdf file) directly as high resolution (600 or 1200 dpi) image file, and than perform themeasurement directly with photoshop. See appendix A.

Pag. 2 (9)2) The second step is the data set validation. It is perfomed overlapping Fig.3-15 and a graph of thedata set obtained during the previous step (See appendix B).

The overlap of the 20 points is extremely good, so the data set is reliable.
3) The third step is the Interpolation. It is necessary to try changing some parameters of a suitablefunction in order to minimize the Residual Sum of Squares.
I decided to use the following function (portion of sigmoid):{v(t) = 0 | t < t0v(t) =| t ≥ t0

It is a 4 parameters function t0 (start of collapse); t1 (point of maximum acceleration); a (maximum
acceleration); l time constant;
This function satisfy the following conditions:– v(t0) = 0; Initial velocity is zero; initial displacement is zero.
– it tend asymptotically to a limit, as any object falling in the air tend asymptotically to a“limit velocity”;– it shows a flex point at t=t1, where acceleration is equal to a; We already know that
acceleration reached g so we can put directly a = g;
Pag. 3 (9)––acceleration is never greater than g, while NIST function is unrealistic because acceleration
became >g.
The forces f(t) applied to the building are discontinuous at t=t 0, so the acceleration a(t) =f(t)/m is discontinuous at t=t0.

Acceleration is:{a(t) = 0 | t < t0

a(t) =| t ≥ t0a(t0) = v'(t0) > 0 discontinuity;a(t1) = v'(t1) = a.
4) Fourth step. Minimize Residual Sum of Squares (RSS).
It is necessary to look for some values of the parameters able to minimize RSS. I found thefollowing values:t0 (start of collapse) = 0,994;
t1 (point of maximum acceleration) = 2,930;
l time constant = 1,060 s.
With these values RSS = 261,1 which is 58% better than NIST function (RSSNIST=621,5).
(see attached spreadsheet).
This means that the function is absolutely reliable.
As a consequence of the least square method we can see that “limit velocity” extrapolated by NIST
data set is about 117,50 ft/s or 35,81 m/s.
(see attached spreadsheet).
Velocity and acceleration are:Pag. 4 (9)Discontinuous Acceleration Curve
60

100

50

80

40

60

30

40

20

20

10

0

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-20

7

8
-10

-40

-20
Velocity v(t) ft/s
Gravity [ft/s^2]

Acceleration a(t) [ft/s^2]
Tima[s] Fig. 3-15 (NIST POINTS)
From

A possible interpretation of the graph is the following:

Pag. 5 (9)Acceleration [ft/s^2]

Velocity [ft/s]

Velocity and Acceleration
120

Phase A: The building collapse. Acceleration tends to free fall. Some residual resistant structures aredestroyed by the enormous weight of the building. Few columns that are still melting give way, thepartitions crumble, the stairs are shattered. In a couple of seconds acceleration grows till g.
Acceleration =g means that there are no (or neglectable) forces opposed to collapse, so the upper
part of WTC7 is suspended in the air without any load bearing structure. Effect of air presence isneglectable because the velocity is low.
Phase B: free fall in the air, acceleration is almost g and decreases while the velocity increase.

5) fifth step. Compare intepolation with UAF simulation.
In the following there is an overlap beween presious figure and UAF report Fig.4.23:

Pag. 6 (9)As you can see the function which interpolate NIST data set is extremely similar to both UAF
simulation and David Chandler measurement.
Conclusions:
It is useless to compare the UAF simulation with a free fall in the vacuum.
In fig.3-15 NIST used a continuous function to interpolate data of a discontinuous phenomenon. In
fact RSS is quite high. I demonstrated that a portion of a sigmoid function best fits the NIST data
points. This function tend asymptotically to a limit velocity, as in a real free fall. RSS of thisfunction is 58% better than NIST function.
Overlap between UAF simulation, David Chandler measurement and this function, based on NIST
data set, shows how all three methods lead to the same outcome:Collapse started at t about 1;
Collapse time was about 4,4 s;
Acceleration reached g => no any force opposed to the collapse.

Pag. 7 (9)Convergence of UAF simulation with NIST measurements, as well as those of David Chandler,
confirms the reliability of the UAF study.
End of comment
Appendix A. NIST data set (unofficial).

Measurement from Fig. 3-15
Point
Velocity (ft/s)
Time (s)
yi
A
0,44
0,64
B
0,98
3,05
C
1,25
5,14
D
1,52
10,04
E
1,75
9,56
F
1,98
18,67
G
2,25
25,86
H
2,52
40,96
I
2,75
43,09
L
2,98
53,94
M
3,25
60,39
N
3,52
70,36
O
3,75
73,33
P
3,98
81,93
Q
4,25
82,17
R
4,50
89,08
S
4,70
89,52
T
4,90
94,06
U
5,08
108,63
V
5,25
108,63
Error from Fig 3-15 is<= +/- 0,01 s Time<= +/- 0,10 ft/s Velocity
Pag. 8 (9)Appendix B. Replica of Fig. 3-15 from NIST

Pag. 9 (9)I'm the Italian electronic engineer. I already sent a comment on 4/11/2019. I would
like to provide another comment to the UAF WTC7 Draft Report. You can find as
attachments two .pdf and one .png files.

To:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
publiccomment@AE911Truth.org
Copy to:
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
College of Engineering and Mines
Institute of Northern Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
uaf-cem@alaska.edu

OBJECT: Public Comment Period for UAF WTC7 Draft Report
In the UAF Draft Report there is the explicit reference to the NIST, NCSTAR 1A, Fig. 3-15, (see.
Fig. 1.6 pag.12).
Results of UAF study poses severe doubts on the reliability of this NIST velocity model and to thevalidity of Fig.3-15, and it should be mentioned in the conclusions.
In particular, simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all
exterior columns produces major discontinuities in the forces applied to the building.
NIST calculated that the time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8m was approximately
5.4s (see NIST NCSTAR 1A - Final Report on WTC7 collapse - 3.6 timing of collapse initiationand progression). This results has been obtained using a continuous function of the form z(t)=A {1 exp[-(t/λ)k]} which satisfy the initial conditions of zero displacement, zero velocity and zeroacceleration (see note 3 on Pag.45). This last assumption (zero acceleration) is wrong if all theexterior columns collapsed simultaneously because at t=t0 the downward acceleration could
suddenly change from zero (t<t0) to a(t) (t>=t0). Discontinuous functions which satisfy initialcondition of zero displacement, zero velocity and unknown downward acceleration must than beused for least square fitting. So the model used by NIST is inadequate.
End of Comment
Demonstration Example
In the following I will provide a comparison between the NIST velocity function and a
discontinuous function (portion of sigmoid. Details are provided as attachment).
Using a sigmoid function for the velocity (adequately scaled and shifted), adding a discontinuity inthe acceleration at t=t0, and leaving the start of collapse t0 as an unknown parameter, it is possible tosignificantly reduce the residual sum of the square. I reached a 58% reduction and this means amuch better model of the phenomenon.
I started measuring the data set of the 20 reference points of NIST NCSTAR 1A Final Report Fig. 315 (Pag.46) on an high resolution computer image. I got the following values:Measurement from Fig. 3-15
Point
Velocity (ft/s)
Time (s)
yi
A
0,44
0,64
B
0,98
3,05
C
1,25
5,14
D
1,52
10,04
E
1,75
9,56
F
1,98
18,67
G
2,25
25,86
H
2,52
40,96
I
2,75
43,09
L
2,98
53,94
M
3,25
60,39
N
3,52
70,36
O
3,75
73,33
P
3,98
81,93
Q
4,25
82,17
R
4,50
89,08
S
4,70
89,52
T
4,90
94,06
U
5,08
108,63
V
5,25
108,63
Unofficial data set of NIST points

Than I inserted these data and the NIST velocity function inside a spreadsheet. In the following you
can see NIST Fig.3-15, our Figure 1 Openoffice and an overlap between them.

Figure 3-15 from NISTOverlap between previous 2 figures
As you can see from the overlap, the points data set is reliable. If in the future NIST will release theofficial data set we will appreciate it.
Residual Sum of Squares of NIST function is 621,5.
I tried to use a portion of a sigmoid function for the velocity, shifted horizontally and vertically inorder to best fit the NIST data points.

l is parameter;t0 is the start of collapse (velocity equal to zero); we will assume v(t) =0 for t<t0;
t1 is the inflection point of the function (point of maximum acceleration);
a is the acceleration at t=t1:

It is possible to achieve the following results:

As you can see a(t) is 0 for t<0. Moreover a(t) is greater than 0 starting from t 0. t0 can be considered
the start of collapse. a(t) is discontinuous.

–
–
–
–
–

Residual Sum of Squares decrease from 621,5 to 261,1 (-58,0%). Much better model;
Collapse starts at 0,994 s;(18 stories collapse takes 4,4s instead of 5,4s)
Estimated a(t0) = 15,38 ft/s^2, about half of g.
acceleration become equal to g = free fall at t=2,93s;
acceleration is never greater than g. Please note that NIST function shows an acceleration
greater than g, and this is physically impossible!

(See attached file: “Calcolo della velocità e dell'accelerazione NIST5.pdf”)

Calcolo della velocità e dell'accelerazione NIST9PORTION OF SHIFTED SIGMOID FUNCTION FOR THE VELOCITY
Discontinuous Function with a(t0) <> 0 - 4 parameters function (A, L, t0, t1)

From:Continuous Original NIST Function - 3 paramnters function

Giorgio Corvasce
gcorvasce@inwind.it
ITALY

Spostamento Z in funzione del tempo t
NIST POINTS obtained from Fig. 3-15 NIST Final Report

Spostamento Z in funzione del tempo t
X0 START OF COLLAPSE NEW UNKNOWN PARAMETERNIST displacement
function

NIST velocity
functionparameters for z(t) and v(t)A
379,627
B = (1/λ)K

Unofficial Data Set
Measurements from Image
From Fig. 3-15 (NIST POINTS)
Time (s)Point
Velocity (ft/s)
yi
A
0,44
0,64
B
0,98
3,05
C
1,25
5,14
D
1,52
10,04
E
1,75
9,56
F
1,98
18,67
G
2,25
25,86
H
2,52
40,96
I
2,75
43,09
L
2,98
53,94
M
3,25
60,39
N
3,52
70,36
O
3,75
73,33
P
3,98
81,93
Q
4,25
82,17
R
4,50
89,08
S
4,70
89,52
T
4,90
94,06
U
5,08
108,63
V
5,25
108,630,18562
3,5126z(t)=Simple Sigmoid Functionv(t)=Shifted Hor & Vert +Apply following discontinuity:z(t)=0, v(t)=0, a(t)=0 for t<t0z(t)=0, v(t)=0, a(t0)>0 for t=t0

247,520

A*B*K

parameters for v(t) and a(t)A

32,1740,18562
3,51262,5126B = (1/λ)
K
K-1

L
t0
t1

1,060 Time constant
0,994 Start of collapse. Function DIscontinuity
2,93 Acceleration MAximum time

0,001

ε

117,50Limit Velocity

NIST Curve
Velocity v(t) [ft/s][y-v(t)]^2

Vel v(t+ε)

0,00
0,44
3,44
6,25
10,15
14,40
19,45
26,34
34,10
41,58
49,41
58,60
67,78
75,20
81,95
88,27
92,53
94,56
95,25
94,66
93,10

0,00
0,45
3,45
6,26
10,16
14,42
19,47
26,37
34,13
41,61
49,44
58,64
67,82
75,23
81,98
88,29
92,54
94,56
95,25
94,65
93,08

Acceleration a(t) [ft/s^2]
0,000
2,570
8,762
12,478
16,52920,121
23,65027,50730,77932,99134,34534,62633,28930,711
26,70020,52813,344
6,879-0,038-6,467-12,262

0,039
0,149
1,230
0,012
23,4070,597
0,228
47,1792,282
20,490
3,204
6,642
3,470
0,001
37,17011,91225,393
1,430
195,259
241,415

0,00
0,44
0,98
1,25
1,52
1,75
1,98
2,25
2,52
2,75
2,98
3,25
3,52
3,75
3,98
4,25
4,50
4,70
4,90
5,08
5,25

621,5

35,81

m/s

=

Vel v(t+ε)
0,00
0,00
0,00
4,28
9,59
14,84
20,67
28,16
36,16
43,55
51,00
59,47
67,73
74,39
80,63
86,98
92,20
95,85
99,08
101,66
103,74[y-v(t)]^2
0,413
9,316
0,764
0,221
27,644
3,868
5,159
23,390
0,179
8,830
0,916
7,056
1,068
1,738
22,916
9,647
39,921
25,126
48,81324,092

Acceleration a(t) [ft/s^2]
Gravity [ft/s^2]
0,000
32,1740,000
32,1740,000
32,174
18,16032,174
21,26832,17423,96032,17426,502
32,17429,08332,17430,97832,17431,94432,17432,15432,174
31,46032,17429,82632,174
27,821
32,17425,38632,17422,35832,174
19,44732,174
17,18732,17415,03432,174
13,21332,174
11,67932,174

261,1

RESIDUALSUM OF SQUARESNIST CURVE

Velocity v(t) ft/s
106,41
110,36112,96
114,63
115,70116,37

5,50
6,00
6,50
7,00
7,50
8,00

Km/h

Vel v(t+ε)
106,42
110,37112,96
114,63
115,70116,37

Velocity v(t) m/s
0,00
0,00
0,00
1,30
2,92
4,52
6,29
8,58
11,01
13,26
15,53
18,12
20,64
22,67
24,57
26,50
28,10
29,21
30,20
30,98
31,62

58,0%

RESIDUALSUM OF SQUARESSHIFTED SIGMOID FUNCTION
Time

128,93εPortion of Sigmoid Function
Velocity v(t) ft/s
0,00
0,00
0,00
4,27
9,57
14,82
20,64
28,13
36,13
43,51
50,96
59,43
67,71
74,37
80,61
86,96
92,18
95,84
99,07
101,65
103,73TimeGravity [ft/s^2]32,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,174 (*)
32,174 (*)
32,174 (*)
32,174 (*)
32,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,17432,174

Acceleration at t0
15,38

=

ft/s

0,001

Time t [s]Displ z(t) [ft]
0,00
0,00
0,44
0,06
0,98
0,96
1,25
2,23
1,52
4,41
1,75
7,24
1,98
11,13
2,25
17,27
2,52
25,28
2,75
34,14
2,98
44,68
3,25
59,03
3,52
76,05
3,75
92,56
3,98
110,994,25
133,644,50
156,27
4,70
174,96
4,90
194,03
5,08
211,405,25
227,09v(t)=BETTER THAN NIST

[y-v(t)]^2

Acceleration a(t) [ft/s^2]
Gravity [ft/s^2]
9,611
32,174
6,381
32,174
4,143
32,174
2,651
32,174
1,680
32,174
1,059
32,174

32,43
33,64
34,43
34,94
35,26
35,47

(*) Acceleration greather than g in NIST solution. Quite strange.

NIST Interpolation Curve

Discontinuous Acceleration Curve60

120,0060

100,0050

100,00

50

80,00

40

80,00

40

60,00

30

60,00

30

40,00

20

40,00

20

20,00

10

20,00

10

0

0,00
0,00

0,00
0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

-20,00-40,00Acceleration a(t) [ft/s^2]

Gravity [ft/s^2]

Figure 1 OpenOffice Calc

-10

-20,00-20-40,001,00

2,00

From Fig. 3-15 (NIST POINTS)

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

0
8,00

-10

PRE COLLAPSE-20START OFCOLLAPSE

Time [s]Velocity v(t) [ft/s]

5,50

Velocity [ft/s]

120,00Acceleration [ft/s^2]

Velocity and Acceleration

Acceleration [ft/s^2]

Velocity [ft/s]

Velocity and Acceleration

END OF 18
STORIESCOLLAPSE

Tim a [s]Velocity v(t) ft/s

Acceleration a(t) [ft/s^2]

Gravity [ft/s^2]

From Fig. 3-15 (NIST POINTS)

Figure 2 OpenOffice Calc

Pagina 1

14/11/2019

I'm the Italian electronic engineer. I already sent a comment on 4/11/2019. I would
like to provide another comment to the UAF WTC7 Draft Report. I'm the Italianelectronic engineer. I already sent a comment on 4/11/2019. I would like to provide
another comment to the UAF WTC7 Draft Report. You can find as attachments
two .pdf and one .png files.

Please consider the following comments:
1. Please clarify the loading of the building applied in each analytical approach.
Considering:a. Section 1.5 of the Draft Report does not appear to describe how the building was
loaded for each approach analyzed.
b. In the presentation “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center7” by Dr. Leroy Hulsey on September 3, 2019, he mentioned there was no live load at
the time of the collapse since building occupants had been evacuated. However,testimony of eyewitnesses (e.g. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess) indicates thatfurnishings were present in the building after it had been evacuated, which should
contribute to a live load in the building.
c. Daily project report entries in the work diary of Zhili Quan describe imposing 10,000kip loads in the building.
2. A theory circulating in the fire protection engineering community hypothesizes thatthe subject structure failure was initiated with the cooling phase of the structure, after
fire had subsided (ref. Truong, Pham and Chu, “Failure of Building Structural Members
During Cooling Phase of a Fire” (21FEB2018) Int’l Conf. on Advances in Computational
Mechanics). This theory asserts that rather than expanding off its seat, the girder shrunk
and retracted, pulling off the seat.
Based on your analysis:a. What is the most probable outcome of such a failure mode at Column 79?
b. How widespread and simultaneous would effects of the cooling phase of the fire need
to be in order for the structure to collapse in the manner witnessed?

Thank you for inviting me to review this great report. My expertise is on geotechnicalengineering, so I invited Dr. _________ in structural engineering to review this reportwith me together.
We agree with the findings of this technical report based on the methodology used to
conduct this investigation and the explanation provided to address the research gap
from previous investigation conducted by NIST, ARUP and Norderson.
The report highlighted the basic understanding of how hypotheses are implemented in
an investigation and also acknowledged the limitations. The hypotheses in the reportwere consistent with literature and corroborated with findings in other reports where
they concur.
Primarily, the finite element investigation conducted in the studies were very detailed,however, assumptions in finite element models are mostly permitted. Are there any
different assumptions used by NIST and in other reports? Different assumptions maylead to different results. Comparison and more justification look needed. Indeed, we
agree with the finite element results in this report, but a counter argument could beraised by NIST and others.

It is with great interest and appreciation for the work of you and your project team, that I
have read at the website ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7about your important valuable
research into what happened to WTC building 7 on 9/11 in 2001. I consider your work
the best and most detailed scientific research that I know of, that refutes the official
narrative about what happened to building 7.In the presentation of your progress report(youtube.com/watch?v=NJAWl8unZeA), I was happy to hear you mention that you
worked towards decisions and arguments that are defendable purely through science(5’50” into the video) and that you welcome questions and input (8’15” and 1h06’35”). I
hope there is still some opportunity for questions, as I fully agree that if any part of theresearch in this controversial subject would not be defendable through science, it would
jeopardize the effect of the entire study. I have two concrete questions that I hope you
will consider:1.At the bottom of the abovementioned website, the project summary
states: “Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire innercore of this building failed nearly simultaneously.” However, in videos demonstrating thecollapse of WTC7 (e.g. youtu.be/KitPimk7W7w), I clearly observe a delay between thecollapse initiation and the collapse of the rest of the building. Immediately after thecollapse initiation at the east side of the penthouse (~1” into the video), several windows
were damaged in the section of WTC7 well below the penthouse. Then, about six
seconds after the collapse initiation, the west side of the penthouse and the rest of thebuilding collapsed (~7” into the video).Does this observation correspond to a nearly
simultaneous failure of the entire inner core, or should the final phrase of the projectsummary be reformulated to reflect that part of the inner core failed several seconds
before the rest of the building collapsed simultaneously? Note, that this point has
already been used as opposing material to David Chandler’s work
(e.g.youtu.be/1rhY9c_iemA, 1’55”).2.In your presentation, you explain that you used
SAP2000 and ABAQUS to look at the framing at floors 12 and 13 for fire damage inplan view (10’50”) from which you conclude that column 79 moved by about 2 inches inthe same direction as girder A2001 (1h00’00”). In this analysis, did you consider the 3D
structure of the building and the restraint that the structural components of adjacent
floors of the building (above and below floors 12 and 13) imposed upon column 79,
whereas any expansion and movement of the girder was mainly determined byprocesses on the same floor 13 only? My main hope is that you will seriously consider
to what extent these questions have been addressed or need to be addressed further
within your research before publication, to avoid that the above questions will be used
as arguments to reject your entire work. Obviously, if you have the opportunity, I would
also greatly appreciate to read your response. In that case, to give you an idea of myknowledge level, I have a MSc degree in both physics and mechanical engineering aswell as a PhD in physics (medical imaging). So I am familiar with general engineeringterminology though not necessarily an expert on e.g. terminology related to tooling forstructural engineering. Also, if you need any clarification of my questions, please don’t
hesitate to ask. Many thanks for your consideration and for your valuable work, forwhich you have my full support.