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
1…78101213…61

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Donald Trump was a truther on 9/11. He even said on TV there were bombs in the building. I wonder if he still thinks that today? A lot of people in the media and personalities on the day were not convinced by the plane- fire collapse theory. Watch at 5 minutes.



    You mean the media we’re not meant to trust?


  • Options
    #273
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,497 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Ipso wrote: »
    You mean the media we’re not meant to trust?

    Same goes for "personalities on the day". They thought there were bombs there. Those personalities.


  • Options
    #274
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Stepping back, if there was a recent government study into 911, funded by direct supporters of Bush, Cheney, etc, conducted by just one expert - 911 conspiracy theorists would be going crazy

    Yet here we have a study, funded entirely by an internet conspiracy movement, conducted by one man. Hulsey even declared he read nothing about the 911 investigations so as not to be biased - yet has repeated truther claims from the beginning, and has been in constant contact with AE911 members

    Despite promises there's been no transparency, it's delayed by years, early results are questionable, even hardcore AE911 members like Tony S admit there are mistakes. It's not even to determine in any way how the building fell, just to deny it fell due to fire - something a first year grad could possibly manage alone by playing semantics with the numbers and probabilities - to an audience of people who will unquestioningly swallow it like gospel

    At the end of the day, apart from a dwindling number of truthers and an even smaller number of skpetics who bother to debate them, few know about this study. It's the equivalent of a Bigfoot group supporting a study into Bigfoot, who are already claiming they will interpret the results as "Bigfoot exist" regardless


  • Options
    #275
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    At the end of the day, apart from a dwindling number of truthers and an even smaller number of skpetics who bother to debate them, few know about this study. It's the equivalent of a Bigfoot group supporting a study into Bigfoot, who are already claiming they will interpret the results as "Bigfoot exist" regardless
    Someone once said of this type of research:
    "I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the[Noah's] ark and didn't find it."


  • Options
    #276
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,497 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Its a bullsh1t study starting from a bullsh1t position by a bullsh1t artist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    For money.


  • Options
    #278
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cue Cheerful scolding us for daring for saying such things about a guy with all these qualifications who teaches at a prestigious schools. How could we possible question his credentials and integrity.

    Meanwhile two posts later he'll tell us that a different expert is obviously part of the conspiracy and maybe doesn't even really have a degree cause he once had lunch next to a guy from the NIST.


  • Options
    #279
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cue Cheerful scolding us for daring for saying such things about a guy with all these qualifications who teaches at a prestigious schools. How could we possible question his credentials and integrity.

    Meanwhile two posts later he'll tell us that a different expert is obviously part of the conspiracy and maybe doesn't even really have a degree cause he once had lunch next to a guy from the NIST.

    His claim is that the ASCE PhD structural engineers and other engineers who took part in investigations into 911, reviewed the reports or reviewed the building/code recommendations were either idiots or part of the big evil conspiracy

    In contrast to one expert up in Fairbanks who is literally being paid by a conspiracy group, who themselves make money from promoting and perpetuating the conspiracy


  • Options
    #280
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    His claim is that the ASCE PhD structural engineers and other engineers who took part in investigations into 911, reviewed the reports or reviewed the building/code recommendations were either idiots or part of the big evil conspiracy
    And specifically the head editor of a prominent journal. Based solely on the idea that the NIST gave him funding at some point prior.
    Nothing else.


  • Options
    #281
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol every time you get backed into a corner you do this thing where you make definite declarations of truth, then throw out some kind of nonsense tangent to try and change the subject because you know you've been caught out.

    Happens all the time.

    have you given up on Hulsey's fraudulent paper now?

    It is the truth I posted the info from the NIST website. Are just going to continue to ignore it and forget I provided a source to look at this info yourself.

    You guys keep denying the work done by NIST.

    Dohnjoe just disappeared after I confronted him do you believe column 79 failure was the reason building seven failed. You guys are a joke when you don't even know what NIST opinions are about the collapse.

    Metabunk even denied it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Ipso wrote: »
    You mean the media we’re not meant to trust?

    They had a gut instinct on the day the buildings were demolished by explosives.


  • Options
    #283
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Stepping back, if there was a recent government study into 911, funded by direct supporters of Bush, Cheney, etc, conducted by just one expert - 911 conspiracy theorists would be going crazy

    Yet here we have a study, funded entirely by an internet conspiracy movement, conducted by one man. Hulsey even declared he read nothing about the 911 investigations so as not to be biased - yet has repeated truther claims from the beginning, and has been in constant contact with AE911 members

    Despite promises there's been no transparency, it's delayed by years, early results are questionable, even hardcore AE911 members like Tony S admit there are mistakes. It's not even to determine in any way how the building fell, just to deny it fell due to fire - something a first year grad could possibly manage alone by playing semantics with the numbers and probabilities - to an audience of people who will unquestioningly swallow it like gospel

    At the end of the day, apart from a dwindling number of truthers and an even smaller number of skpetics who bother to debate them, few know about this study. It's the equivalent of a Bigfoot group supporting a study into Bigfoot, who are already claiming they will interpret the results as "Bigfoot exist" regardless

    Tony S is not involved in the study and please reference the mistakes he admitted to? You just randomly posting info and not backing it up with a source.

    By the way it not a crazy theory the building fell down due to explosives. There no history to back up the skeptic claim random fires can collapse an entire steel framed building. It just happened is there best evidence. They continue to ignore all the issues with the NIST study. This made the case for fire weaker, not stronger.

    The Skeptics like you keep saying partial collapse is the same as full collapse ridiculous assertion.


  • Options
    #284
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    Dohnjoe just disappeared after I confronted him do you believe column 79 failure was the reason building seven failed. You guys are a joke when you don't even know what NIST opinions are about the collapse.

    Nah, you dodged the question I asked multiple times. You misstated the opinion of the person who wrote the post. You presented your opinions as fact. You don't seem to understand what the word "probable" means. You lazily dismissed all the other points brought up by that post


  • Options
    #285
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Tony S is not involved in the study

    He's been in contact with Hulsey, he's part of the group that paid Hulsey for the study

    In his interview with Mick West he admitted there were errors in the study, he waved them off as "typos"


  • Options
    #286
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Nah, you dodged the question I asked multiple times. You misstated the opinion of the person who wrote the post. You presented your opinions as fact. You don't seem to understand what the word "probable" means. You lazily dismissed all the other points brought up by that post

    This statement is clear cut.

    The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.

    If you think I misquoting clarify what part, please. I just highlight the errors.

    1) Hulsey is not just focusing on one connection, a false statement. Yes, He does spend some time on the connection failure at column 79 ( and its clear why he did so and not strange) Dohnjoe, NIST believes, the first serious of failures started there, so it where any competent engineer would begin there work. You have to check if NIST most probable theory is correct.

    2) why do they mean by several potential failures? NIST does not identify failures on other floors. They identify the progressive failure starting at column 79-44 on Floor 12 and 13. I never read any other theory by NIST, and they don't provide examples of this on Metabunk.

    3) This sentence is not difficult to understand - . This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse

    This sentence is a lie NIST clearly said on their website the failure of column 79 was the reason building seven failed. There may be minor damage to other floors and connections, but the key failure was column 79, so I don't understand this sentence do you?


  • Options
    #287
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's been in contact with Hulsey, he's part of the group that paid Hulsey for the study

    In his interview with Mick West he admitted there were errors in the study, he waved them off as "typos"

    He is not involved in the study. There Hulsey and two PhD students, nobody else.

    Errors in the study, be specific provide a source to back this up.


  • Options
    #288
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This statement is clear cut.

    The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.

    Yup I see no reason that's false

    Again it's not something I wrote, it's up on Metabunk, you do realise you can challenge it. Sign up and off you go
    He is not involved in the study.

    Didn't claim he was.


  • Options
    #289
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yup I see no reason that's false

    Again it's not something I wrote, it's up on Metabunk, you do realise you can challenge it. Sign up and off you go



    Didn't claim he was.


    You see no reason why it is false, Jesus.

    NIST even said column 79 is where the collapse started.

    Metabunk- This particular failure (column 79) was not where the collapse started, the claim they are making. If they are claiming a failure of steel beam, a girder or column somewhere else they need to highlight whereabouts. Do you know. NIST never did.


  • Options
    #290
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You see no reason why it is false, Jesus.

    Seems a valid point. It takes seconds to sign up, ask a question about it if you have one.


  • Options
    #291
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Seems a valid point. It takes seconds to sign up, ask a question about it if you have one.

    There no need to- just point me to the page where they discuss these several failures and this differrent initiation failure in the NIST global models, please.

    Metabunk restricts debate, the moderator edits poster info to suit them. I have seen them ban people for not agreeing with them. No thanks. These sites are waste of time.

    I joined JREF forum a year or so ago and i lasted a few hours lol. I only made one post and asked one question. And benthamitric a poster on Metabunk and JREF replied to me with some questions. When i signed back in i was met with a message banned permanently- no reason why. Joke site.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It is the truth I posted the info from the NIST website. Are just going to continue to ignore it and forget I provided a source to look at this info yourself.

    You guys keep denying the work done by NIST.

    Dohnjoe just disappeared after I confronted him do you believe column 79 failure was the reason building seven failed. You guys are a joke when you don't even know what NIST opinions are about the collapse.

    Metabunk even denied it.
    Cheerful, this is just another example of your poor reading skills leading you to a wrong conclusion again.


  • Options
    #293
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    There no need to- just point me to the page where they discuss these several failures and this differrent initiation failure in the NIST global models, please.

    lol, don't make requests when you don't bother to answer questions or address points
    Metabunk restricts debate, the moderator edits poster info to suit them. I have seen them ban people for not agreeing with them. No thanks. These sites are waste of time.

    Nah, like any scientific, skeptical or historical forum it has common sense rules for logical and reasonable debate

    People who lie and use faulty logic don't last long

    I joined JREF forum a year or so ago and i lasted a few hours lol. I only made one post and asked one question. And benthamitric a poster on Metabunk and JREF replied to me with some questions. When i signed back in i was met with a message banned permanently- no reason why. Joke site.

    Bingo


  • Options
    #294
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    lol, don't make requests when you don't bother to answer questions or address points



    Nah, like any scientific, skeptical or historical forum it has common sense rules for logical and reasonable debate

    People who lie and use faulty logic don't last long




    Bingo

    It not up to me, to provide evidence of another initiation failure it down to you. You posted the info from Metabunk as evidence the Hulsey study has issues and problems. I posted what NIST said then.

    Just post the thread where they discuss this other initiation failure in building seven, so i can read it.


  • Options
    #295
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    This has naught to do about the Hulsey study.


  • Options
    #296
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    This has naught to do about the Hulsey study.

    Wrong. Hulsey is also looking into NIST claim of a girder failure at column 79. This is where NIST believed the building structure started to fail.. Hulsey is doing his own work and also checking NIST work that nobody else has taken the time to do. It all relevant to the discussion.

    And still waiting for Dohnjoe link.


  • Options
    #297
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Wrong. Hulsey is also looking into NIST claim of a girder failure at column 79. This is where NIST believed the building structure started to fail.. Hulsey is doing his own work and also checking NIST work that nobody else has taken the time to do. It all relevant to the discussion.

    And still waiting for Dohnjoe link.

    ???


  • Options
    #298
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,497 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Hulsey copying and pasting slides in his presentation from a conspiracy theory blog. Proves hes not startiing objectively. What a fraud.

    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-19


  • Options
    #299
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    ???

    You posted info belonging to Metabunk and you felt they were right.

    They claimed NIST had proposed several connection failures and they also claimed Column 79 failure was not where NIST said the collapse started in their gobal collapse models.

    You have to provide evidence and the thread where this is discussed on their website, i asked for it and you still have not provided.


  • Options
    #300
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    Hulsey copying and pasting slides in his presentation from a conspiracy theory blog. Proves hes not startiing objectively. What a fraud.

    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-19

    I looked at the info on Hulsey slides and info on the conspiracy slides and the words and paragraphs don't match. If they claiming his palargised info they need to show the paragraph, he used. Claiming he just copied and posted entire pargraphs is a lie.

    It info that publically available online, it only info about the background of the building. More dishonest posts by Metabunk.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,497 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I looked at the info on Hulsey slides and info on the conspiracy slides and the words and paragraphs don't match. If they claiming his palargised info they need to show the paragraph, he used. Claiming he just copied and posted entire pargraphs is a lie.

    It info that publically available online, it only info about the background of the building. More dishonest posts by Metabunk.

    Hes using conspiracy theory sites as a base for his presentation.

    Hes a fraud who has produced nothing out for gullible sheeps money. He appears to be good at it.


Advertisement