Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
  • 13-10-2018 6:57pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭


    This fairly recent presentation in 2017. If you listen to him you can clearly tell he is a man of integrity and not a charlatan.

    Just take time to listen to him.



«13456761

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 82,026 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    From an AE911 interview, the interviewer appears to get him to try and say it 3 or 4 times but:

    HULSEY: We have extensively studied that carefully. I'm not going to tell you that it's controlled demolition. I'm going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/480-wtc-7-evaluation-nearing-the-finish-line-an-interview-with-dr-leroy-hulsey

    I wonder how truthers will react if or indeed when the study ultimately concludes that the NIST study was imprecise but not inherently wrong about the cause of failure?

    The link above is the most recent update I found about this study, nothing about whether this study has actually been completed or disseminated for peer review.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    From an AE911 interview, the interviewer appears to get him to try and say it 3 or 4 times but:

    HULSEY: We have extensively studied that carefully. I'm not going to tell you that it's controlled demolition. I'm going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/480-wtc-7-evaluation-nearing-the-finish-line-an-interview-with-dr-leroy-hulsey

    I wonder how truthers will react if or indeed when the study ultimately concludes that the NIST study was imprecise but not inherently wrong about the cause of failure?

    The link above is the most recent update I found about this study, nothing about whether this study has actually been completed or disseminated for peer review.

    Despite what you claim it is wrong. NIST gave no explanation for where the dust went after 47 floors collapsed inside the building.

    They think random fires on a few floors by magic can bring down 47 floors.

    NIST ignores history and you guys continue to do so every time. Never has a large steel framed building fallen down by fires, symmetrically and at freefall speeds. You guys can't find one example, but continue on as if your position is valid and honest.

    NIST own study is full of holes. Why would you leave a girder unsecured to expand? Despite what you said in another thread the connections prevent the steel from expanding by heat. You have to model the connections to real-world conditions inside the building on 9/11.

    Yes, their collapsing model has the building coming down and see a crushing effect. You guys claim they not trying to replicate the real collapse? Are they not simulating the failures by computer and they end result is the crushing. If Hulsey computer collapse model shows the failures and the building falls down like the actual collapse, which one do we accept is the true version?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,026 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Despite what you claim [NIST?] is wrong. NIST gave no explanation for where the dust went after 47 floors collapsed inside the building.
    This is a bit like arguing that an accident report that the drunk driver wrapped his car around a tree is wrong, because the report gave no explanation for where all the gas in the tank leaked to. It doesn't serve to disprove the study or report.
    Never has a large steel framed building fallen down by fires, symmetrically and at freefall speeds. You guys can't find one example, but continue on as if your position is valid and honest.

    You're right. You're absolutely right. Because neither WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7 fell at free fall speed. Much of the outside wall of WTC 7 did, momentarily, but not the building as a whole.
    Why would you leave a girder unsecured to expand?

    The same reason there are unconstrained expansion joints on bridges.
    If Hulsey computer collapse model shows the failures and the building falls down like the actual collapse, which one do we accept is the true version?
    To be clear none of them will be the 'true' version. None of them have the benefit of enough solid raw data from the day of the event.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    This is a bit like arguing that an accident report that the drunk driver wrapped his car around a tree is wrong, because the report gave no explanation for where all the gas in the tank leaked to. It doesn't serve to disprove the study or report.



    You're right. You're absolutely right. Because neither WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7 fell at free fall speed. Much of the outside wall of WTC 7 did, momentarily, but not the building as a whole.



    The same reason there are unconstrained expansion joints on bridges.

    To be clear none of them will be the 'true' version. None of them have the benefit of enough solid raw data from the day of the event.

    We got video evidence of the collapse. If 47 floors had just collapsed prior to the full collapse, then there be dust plumes breaking windows and raising up- into the air across the width of the building and there would be furniture smashing up against walls and breaking windows across the width of the building. The only window breakage is when the Penthouse collapsed and when the building began to move from its stiff position.

    Not true WTC7 the entire building fell at free speed from east to west the entire width of the building. You can't get the building to fall at free speeds if a section of the floor support is still there providing resistance. When WTC7 reached stage 2 of the collapse there was nothing but empty space, the resistance from 84 columns was gone. Towers will deal with another time.

    Your logic is faulty. NIST is assessing what fire would do to a girder. Wtc7 girder was not unsupported at column 79 and thermal expansion was IT even possible with the supports and elements attached? NIST never modelled the girder with its proper connections to validate their theory of thermal expansion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,026 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    We got video evidence of the collapse. If 47 floors had just collapsed prior to the full collapse, then there be dust plumes breaking windows and raising up- into the air across the width of the building and there would be furniture smashing up against walls and breaking windows across the width of the building. The only window breakage is when the Penthouse collapsed and when the building began to move from its stiff position.
    That would imply that 47 floors were primarily ash and dust. I'm not sure what kinematics you're imagining that would require furniture to be shoved up against or out of the windows, either.

    We do however seen tons of dust and ash and such, all the same - even black dust coming out of those front windows that get smashed


    Not true WTC7 the entire building fell at free speed from east to west the entire width of the building.
    No there was clearly some warpage, the top corners of the building fell slower than the breadth of the walls.
    Your logic is faulty. NIST is assessing what fire would do to a girder. Wtc7 girder was not unsupported at column 79 and thermal expansion was IT even possible with the supports and elements attached? NIST never modelled the girder with its proper connections to validate their theory of thermal expansion.

    Well, as WTC 5 certainly proved, supports and elements don't mean a girder cannot fail due to thermal load. So yes, it is certainly possible, whether or not they modeled that in their simulation. As I explained in another post, even if you know all the parameters of a controlled demolition, a computer simulation can take months to compile (and in that example, the computer hardware was circa 2011, not 2006, so generally speaking 8x faster processing than what NIST would have had - on a much smaller building no less). For WTC 7 they lacked all sorts of real, raw data, so I'm not the least bit surprised their simulation doesn't line up well. I haven't seen a full structure FEA from anyone else that would suggest a more probable mode of failure. Dr. Hulsey has released no such simulation, or clearly defined what he believes happened, he's just thrown spitballs at the NIST report so far and expressed incredulity that fires were a cause of failure. Wasn't his supposed to be an open and publicly transparent study at all stages? If it is done why hasn't he released a draft copy?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Remember, the original stated goal of the "study" was to prove the collapse due to fire was impossible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Rather than CS rehashing and regurgitating his tiresome points re: the collapse.
    Given the actual title of this thread that he started?
    Would it not make more sense for this thread that rather than post his usual "theories"
    That until Hulsey publishes, there is actually nothing of note worth posting in this thread?

    Happy to review and assess my position based on newly published evidence if/when it becomes available.
    But at present all that seems to be happening is the same back and forth from every other thread CS is involved in has just moved to a new home.
    Surely until Hulsey publishes, there is nothing to discuss that hasn't been gone over on other threads ad infinitum?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    That would imply that 47 floors were primarily ash and dust. I'm not sure what kinematics you're imagining that would require furniture to be shoved up against or out of the windows, either.

    We do however seen tons of dust and ash and such, all the same - even black dust coming out of those front windows that get smashed



    No there was clearly some warpage, the top corners of the building fell slower than the breadth of the walls.



    Well, as WTC 5 certainly proved, supports and elements don't mean a girder cannot fail due to thermal load. So yes, it is certainly possible, whether or not they modeled that in their simulation. As I explained in another post, even if you know all the parameters of a controlled demolition, a computer simulation can take months to compile (and in that example, the computer hardware was circa 2011, not 2006, so generally speaking 8x faster processing than what NIST would have had - on a much smaller building no less). For WTC 7 they lacked all sorts of real, raw data, so I'm not the least bit surprised their simulation doesn't line up well. I haven't seen a full structure FEA from anyone else that would suggest a more probable mode of failure. Dr. Hulsey has released no such simulation, or clearly defined what he believes happened, he's just thrown spitballs at the NIST report so far and expressed incredulity that fires were a cause of failure. Wasn't his supposed to be an open and publicly transparent study at all stages? If it is done why hasn't he released a draft copy?

    Your video is the collapse after the building moved from its previous stiff position and collapsed downwards. NIST theory is floors were collapsing across the width of the building before the roofline and perimeter walls even moved from its original stiff position. Your video is the full collapse, not the progressive collapse.

    I would imagine 47 floors crashing down on top of each other would cause a deformation of the side walls and the floors collapses would be breaking more windows across the width of the building, silly me for believing this :)

    There was a kink where the Penthouse fell in on the east side. Where do you see the deformation of the top corner walls?

    WTC5 partially collapsed because of its Gerber girder framing. It was a weak point in the building structure. It not what caused WTC7 or twin towers to fail. WTC5 did not fully collapse either and certainly was more engulfed in fire then WTC7 ever was or do you disagree?

    Dr Hulsey has only completed his study recently after three years. NIST took six years to release their study. Hulsey will release his study and checks can be done by mainstream engineered bodies. Unlike NIST the Hulsey study will be released with its full input data and can be replicated by science, unlike the NIST study. You have to take NIST word on everything and they did not cheat, however, it's obvious they did when they modelled the failures incorrectly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    Rather than CS rehashing and regurgitating his tiresome points re: the collapse.
    Given the actual title of this thread that he started?
    Would it not make more sense for this thread that rather than post his usual "theories"
    That until Hulsey publishes, there is actually nothing of note worth posting in this thread?

    Happy to review and assess my position based on newly published evidence if/when it becomes available.
    But at present all that seems to be happening is the same back and forth from every other thread CS is involved in has just moved to a new home.
    Surely until Hulsey publishes, there is nothing to discuss that hasn't been gone over on other threads ad infinitum?

    Willing to do that. Hulsey study will be new info to look over when it's out and compare.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You have to take NIST word on everything and they did not cheat, however, it's obvious they did when they modelled the failures incorrectly.

    This is a lie.
    Also hilarious that you are in the same breath praising an expert that started out with a stated bias.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Willing to do that. Hulsey study will be new info to look over when it's out and compare.

    Appreciated!
    At the moment, without actual new peer reviewed hypothesis backed by Hulsey's math all we are doing is repeating ourselves in a circular argument.

    Hulsey will publish, whenever he does and the report and it's methodology will be very closely scrutinized.
    I'm very happy to wait and see what comes of that.

    I am very curious as to what will happen if Hulsey's actual conclusion is similar to NIST!
    Will be interesting to see how the conspiracy crew react.
    I wonder will it be similar to the fallout from the Mueller report not having found the collusion evidence that everyone "Knew" was there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,026 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I just find it highly odd that in 3 years he hasn’t published any interim work, a conference paper, or even much of an update outside of a PowerPoint presentation on YouTube. This was originally billed as a fully transparent study from start to finish and it has already failed on that score.

    It’s also been about 6 months since we heard that the study was in any sort of draft or complete phase and yet nothing has happened, we don’t even have names for what institutions are performing the alleged peer review?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    I just find it highly odd that in 3 years he hasn’t published any interim work, a conference paper, or even much of an update outside of a PowerPoint presentation on YouTube. This was originally billed as a fully transparent study from start to finish and it has already failed on that score.

    It’s also been about 6 months since we heard that the study was in any sort of draft or complete phase and yet nothing has happened, we don’t even have names for what institutions are performing the alleged peer review?

    I don't find it odd really.
    I am by nature a cynical bollox though.

    My thinking on it currently runs like this.
    Set up a new study, promising to debunk NIST and expose the real reason for the collapse of WTC7.
    Become lauded and funded by the truther brigade as their scientific Messiah!
    The rock of truth that will shatter the "conspirators" lies.

    Carry out said study in the hope of proving the negative that has already been claimed.
    3 yrs of research are starting to show that NIST are in the main correct....

    Postpone publication and peer review...
    Blame a funding crunch, ask for more donations and continue to study the problem...
    Rinse and repeat above as needed.

    Delay publishing until overtaken by death to avoid needing to defend oneself against either academia or the truthers depending upon actual report conclusion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Also worth mentioning that the Hulsey study is entirely funded by an internet conspiracy group (AE911) who believe that 911 was an inside job. The details of which they never specify. This same group which has just celebrated 2 years of another building they claim was demolished, likewise the details of which they never specify.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/509-two-years-ago-today-the-plasco-building-demolition-killed-22-innocent-people-in-iran
    January 19, 2019, marks the two-year anniversary of the demolition of Iran’s 15-story Plasco Building and the murder of 16 firefighters and six civilians who were inside the building at the time of its destruction.

    As with the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7, a false narrative of the building suddenly collapsing due to fire was successfully promulgated immediately after the incident and was subsequently reinforced by a fraudulent government report.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Also worth mentioning that the Hulsey study is entirely funded by an internet conspiracy group (AE911) who believe that 911 was an inside job.
    Remember also that our resident conspiracy theorist have rejected the peer reviewed studies based on the NIST report based solely on that the authors were connected with the NIST.
    They then falsely and without evidence claimed that the NIST controlled that peer review. And now they continually pretend such studies don't exist.

    The fact that Hulseys study is funded by the AE911 should be enough to reject it if standards were being applied equally. But clearly they are not.

    I'm sure they would laugh off a study funded by the NIST to prove a controlled demolition was impossible, which is increasingly late, has not released any of the information it said it would, is not going through the normal peer review process and was now seeking additional funding from donors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    I not back to debate the 9/11 just came across something interesting online. I wait for Hulsey study to be out.

    Apparently, for 20 years this was unknown to the public. Repairs were done in secret at night at the Citicorp building in New York. Only a handful of people knew about it.

    It interesting in light of claims on here how can anyone plant explosives and not be noticed. Apparently, a bunch of welders fixed stuff in the building for three months and the public and the workers in the building were unaware.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I not back to debate the 9/11 just came across something interesting online. I wait for Hulsey study to be out.

    Apparently, for 20 years this was unknown to the public. Repairs were done in secret at night at the Citicorp building in New York. Only a handful of people knew about it.

    It interesting in light of claims on here how can anyone plant explosives and not be noticed. Apparently, a bunch of welders fixed stuff in the building for three months and the public and the workers in the building were unaware.


    He's a professor in structural engineering, write to him and ask?

    If you are so "curious" about this perhaps stop reading pseudo-scientific conspiracy sites and check with proper experts


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's a professor in structural engineering, write to him and ask?

    If you are so "curious" about this perhaps stop reading pseudo-scientific conspiracy sites and check with proper experts

    Why would I need to contact him? He revealed the story in this non-conspiracy video.

    He said welders were hired and, they carried out repairs to the building, over a period of three months at night. This secret was not disclosed to the public for twenty years. Only a handful of people were aware of this event.

    I just highlighted the debunker argument here. You guys claim secret work in a building cannot be done unnoticed. Again this true case proves they are wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Why would I need to contact him? He revealed the story in this non-conspiracy video.

    He said welders were hired and, they carried out repairs to the building, over a period of three months at night. This secret was not disclosed to the public for twenty years. Only a handful of people were aware of this event.

    I just highlighted the debunker argument here. You guys claim secret work in a building cannot be done unnoticed. Again this true case proves they are wrong.

    Why not him whether he thinks the buildings were brought down via controlled demolition

    and whether it would have been possible to rig all the buildings for demolition (very different from welding) in total secrecy


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why would I need to contact him? He revealed the story in this non-conspiracy video.

    He said welders were hired and, they carried out repairs to the building, over a period of three months at night. This secret was not disclosed to the public for twenty years. Only a handful of people were aware of this event.

    I just highlighted the debunker argument here. You guys claim secret work in a building cannot be done unnoticed. Again this true case proves they are wrong.
    Repairs are not demolitions Cheerful.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why not him whether he thinks the buildings were brought down via controlled demolition

    and whether it would have been possible to rig all the buildings for demolition (very different from welding) in total secrecy

    Why would I ask him this :confused:

    How is any different? The debunker argument is demolitions could not be planted in secret and not be noticed by the public.

    This true story proves otherwise. They took three months to carry out the repairs that a long time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why would I ask him this :confused:

    How is any different? The debunker argument is demolitions could not be planted in secret and not be noticed by the public.

    This true story proves otherwise. They took three months to carry out the repairs that a long time.
    But you also claim that the demolitions could be done over a weekend with a team of 8.
    His story seems to contradict yours...

    Why would repairs with a bigger team take longer?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you also claim that the demolitions could be done over a weekend with a team of 8.
    His story seems to contradict yours...

    Why would repairs with a bigger team take longer?

    Bull**** mutiple times I clarified this.

    Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust by scientists. How long do you think it would take to place nano-thermite on steel?

    I told you a combination of nano-thermite and explosives will take longer than a weekend.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Bull**** mutiple times I clarified this.

    Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust by scientists. How long do you think it would take to place nano-thermite on steel?

    I told you a combination of nano-thermite and explosives will take longer than a weekend.
    So then how long would it take?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Why would I ask him this :confused:

    To get the truth?

    If I wanted the truth on e.g. vaccines the last thing I would be doing is browsing anti-vaccine sites all day, I'd be going to the experts


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    To get the truth?

    If I wanted the truth on e.g. vaccines the last thing I would be doing is browsing anti-vaccine sites all day, I'd be going to the experts
    Well...
    If you wanted an answer other than the truth...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then how long would it take?

    A few minutes each steel member? They found hard solid nano-thermite chips in the dust. The chips could be placed in containers or boxes and put near the steel on each floor?

    If they are using military explosives as well then that going to take weeks maybe a month or two.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    A few minutes each steel member? They found hard solid nano-thermite chips in the dust. The chips could be placed in containers or boxes and put near the steel on each floor?

    Nano-thermite "chips"? then put them "besides" a steel column, like laying on the floor?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    To get the truth?

    If I wanted the truth on e.g. vaccines the last thing I would be doing is browsing anti-vaccine sites all day, I'd be going to the experts

    What has this got to do with 9/11?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    A few minutes each steel member?
    Where are you getting that idea from?
    How do you know that it's a "Few minutes"?


Advertisement