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…1213151718…61

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    What if the Hulsey report is a load of shíte?

    Did you buy your little postcards by the way?

    Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse. You can't scam that. Engineering groups would spot that straight away. They will be given the computating data to replicate it.

    The problem was NIST refused to release any computing anyalses they did, and all you got was a technical written report. Nothing the said was ever verified.


  • Options
    #423
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    22 million wasted. They should refund AE911 truth its money when the Hulsey report out.

    Never forget this is what their analysis showed in August 2018.

    NIST belief
    The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds].... Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time....” 3

    Chandler question
    Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?”

    NIST was claiming in August 2008, none of their measurements and calculations showed freefall.

    By Nov 2008 it was changed and freefall went from an impossibility to now its possible as long it a fire scenario that did it. Ignoring freefall is associated with controlled demolition.
    Again, you are using terms you don't understand.


  • Options
    #424
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse. You can't scam that. Engineering groups would spot that straight away. They will be given the computating data to replicate it.

    The problem was NIST refused to release any computing anyalses they did, and all you got was a technical written report. Nothing the said was ever verified.
    Husley's study has not been published yet.
    Husley's study is not and will not be peer reviewed, despite claims otherwise.


  • Options
    #425
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,552 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse.

    How can you possibly know this? How can you know prior to release and without any peer review what Hulsey's model shows?


  • Options
    #426
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    banie01 wrote: »
    How can you possibly know this? How can you know prior to release and without any peer review what Hulsey's model shows?

    The power of belief and faith


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse.

    Evidence please


  • Options
    #428
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Evidence please

    I provided it already. Hulsey did an radio interview in late 2018 and said his Global collapse Model matches the true collapse. We all see in two weeks.

    You can see a short glimpse of their computer collapse model on AE911 truth site.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news


  • Options
    #429
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I provided it already. Hulsey did an radio interview in late 2018 and said his Global collapse Model matches the true collapse. We all see in two weeks.

    You a short glimpse of their computer collapse model on AE911 truth site.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news

    So a glimpse of a model from a bias website from an unfinished shady paper that is not published and will never go near peer review.

    Lol.


  • Options
    #430
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I provided it already. Hulsey did an radio interview in late 2018 and said his Global collapse Model matches the true collapse. We all see in two weeks.

    You a short glimpse of their computer collapse model on AE911 truth site.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news

    "A radio interview".

    lol


  • Options
    #431
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    "A radio interview".

    lol

    Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?

    lol!!

    I've no idea if he lied.

    And either do you.


  • Options
    #433
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?
    But you don;t understand the basic principles of physics.
    Your judgement about whether or not a computer model is accurate is simply irrelevant. You have no way to tell if it's accurate or not as you don't understand anything about it.
    You are simply believing the word of a person with a vested interest in selling you something.
    You are the perfect pigeon for him.

    So how much have you donated?


  • Options
    #434
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?

    Does it occur to you that he could be wrong?

    Is peer review important for this study or you don't care about that?

    Which is more likely, one engineer producing a report comes to a faulty conclusion or dozens of engineers co-producing a report come to a faulty conclusion? is one of those just "as likely" as the other?

    He will be trying to claim that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how can he show that in every scenario that is impossible? how many scenarios are there?


  • Options
    #435
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    lol!!

    I've no idea if he lied.

    And either do you.

    Sure, what lol about then. A radio interview!

    Yes i do know Hulsey said it. He is not a snake. 100 per cent his statement correct.


  • Options
    #436
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    Yes i do know Hulsey said it. He is not a snake. 100 per cent his statement correct.

    What percentage would you put on his study showing that fire didn't bring down WTC 7?


  • Options
    #437
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Sure, what lol about then. A radio interview!

    Yes i do know Hulsey said it. He is not a snake. 100 per cent his statement correct.
    But how do you know that when it's not possible for you to understand the physics involved?


  • Options
    #438
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    100 per cent his statement correct.

    Evidence please.

    I'm not willing to take your word for it.

    Or his.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But how do you know that when it's not possible for you to understand the physics involved?

    Not to mention the fact that the study hasn't been released yet.

    Like saying "100 per cent Liveprool are going to win 5 nil at the weekend."


  • Options
    #439
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,552 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Does it occur to you that he could be wrong?

    Is peer review important for this study or you don't care about that?

    Which is more likely, one engineer producing a report comes to a faulty conclusion or dozens of engineers co-producing a report come to a faulty conclusion? is one of those just "as likely" as the other?

    He will be trying to claim that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how can he show that in every scenario that is impossible? how many scenarios are there?

    The bolded part here is crucial.
    Hulsey's circumventing of standard academic publishing procedure and peer review doesn't gain him anything other than acrimony at the very least.

    I have issue with how this particular study has been approached.
    I will of course read the report, study any new evidence Hulsey may and assess the conclusion and my own view at the end of that.

    The crux of all that however is, that without any actual new evidence.
    Hulsey is presenting nothing more than a minority report interpretation.

    There is always room for dissenting views, but without evidence, without at the very least a cogent, sound and replicable thesis thats all it is...
    A dissenting view.
    The model taken to fund and then the guerilla fundraising that seems to present postcards as a valid publication effort...
    Well it's indicative of a cash grab rather than a scientific publication.


  • Options
    #440
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Does it occur to you that he could be wrong?

    Is peer review important for this study or you don't care about that?

    Which is more likely, one engineer producing a report comes to a faulty conclusion or dozens of engineers co-producing a report come to a faulty conclusion? is one of those just "as likely" as the other?

    He will be trying to claim that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how can he show that in every scenario that is impossible? how many scenarios are there?

    This is not an accurate assessement. Fire scenarios will be discussed and modelled by Hulsey.
    The NIST theory is flawed. Mike West of Metabunk agrees.
    Kingmob, yourself, none of you noticed it for years and still don't get it, i think? It's shows a lack of awareness by you guys, or something else is missing? I don't understand how your brain works, but this stuff, logical to me.
    Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.


  • Options
    #441
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This is not an accurate assessement. Fire scenarios will be discussed and modelled by Hulsey.
    But you aren't able to understand them as they use difficult engineering and physics concepts.
    You aren't able to understand the most basic concept in physics.
    Thus your opinion is worthless.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The NIST theory is flawed. Mike West of Metabunk agrees.
    Does he agree with the conspiracy theory you believe?
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Kingmob, yourself, none of you noticed it for years and still don't get it, i think? It's lack of awareness by you guys, or something else is missing? I don't understand how your brain works, but this all stuff that logical to me.
    Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.
    This is word salad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Fire scenarios will be discussed and modelled by Hulsey.

    How many will there be?
    none of you noticed it for years and still don't get it, i think? It's shows a lack of awareness by you guys, or something else is missing? I don't understand how your brain works, but this stuff, logical to me.
    Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.

    You believe the buildings came down with controlled demolitions, Mick West does not. He believes the complete opposite, that fire brought them down.

    How will Hulsey "prove" that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how does that work?


  • Options
    #443
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    A little off topic, but if I were backed into a corner on a conspiracy theory forum, contradicted by the history books, encyclopedias, skeptics, the engineering community, investigations and the whole lot

    and the only people with the same view believed things like the world's largest buildings were rigged with explosives when they were built

    I might take pause to question my beliefs and understanding of the world in general


  • Options
    #444
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    How many will there be?



    You believe the buildings came down with controlled demolitions, Mick West does not agree with that at all, he believes fire brought down the buildings

    Unless you inhabit a bizarre universe where you believe both happened..

    We find out when its out. Not many, fire scenarios i would think, as everyone does agree, the eastside-Northface is where the collapse started.

    Mike will have to provide a paper then? If he agreeing NIST cheated, then he has to accept NIST work can't be trusted. Mike seems to want to ignore it and think its ok to cheat.


  • Options
    #445
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    We find out when its out. .
    You claimed earlier that you had some insider information.
    This was a lie I think.


  • Options
    #446
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.

    What does this mean?


  • Options
    #447
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The Nal wrote: »
    What does this mean?
    I think he's saying that even though Mick is a lowly software enginner and not an uber expert in everything like cheerful, he can still see the truth.

    Or could just be that cheerful's grammar is failing again.


  • Options
    #448
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    What does this mean?

    Mike West a debunker of 9/11 conspiracies. Now he accepts Ae911 truth have done good work. He is not closed minded and possible to change his mind with new information.


  • Options
    #449
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Mike West a debunker of 9/11 conspiracies. Now he accepts Ae911 truth have done good work. He is not closed minded and possible to change his mind with new information.
    But he doesn't believe the conspiracy theories.

    We also do not believe your interpretation of his remarks as you are a proven liar and you often claim things are said when they are not.
    Sometimes this is due to your poor level of reading and comprehension ability.


  • Options
    #450
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Another example of Cheerful debunking his own theory?

    lol this is great stuff.

    Heres Mick West completely tearing apart the WT7 conspiracy theory. From last year. Mere months ago. Hes doing it so well people are laughing at the absurdity of the theory.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    Mike will have to provide a paper then? If he agreeing NIST cheated, then he has to accept NIST work can't be trusted. Mike seems to want to ignore it and think its ok to cheat.

    Again, going off topic a little here

    He isn't. As mentioned before, you demonstrate that you can't comprehend certain things. It's next to impossible possible to logically debate with someone who either has impaired comprehension or switches it off at will

    Here is a 800 page report
    There are 3 errors in the report, and 5 debated points
    The report's conclusion is still valid

    I'll try to break it down with an even easier example

    Imagine there's a report on the Titanic sinking, there are several errors in the report, some erroneous figures, some parts are disputed by various engineers regarding specifics, but the report concludes that the Titantic sank due to striking an iceberg. 98% of the report is considered conclusive and agreed upon.

    To a normal rational person, the report is conclusive

    To an irrational person, one mistake = the whole report is a lie, it's authors are liars, they cheated and so on

    You demonstrate that you are irrational at every turn in this "debate"


Advertisement