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
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I've just spent some time skimming over the paper.
It is so poor...
Those poor PhD candidates that were attached to this folly really need to consider the damage that has been done to their reputations, and ask to disassociate themselves from it at the very least.
Hulsey is an old man, he has no future or reputation left to worry about that the money lifted from gullible Truthers won't compensate for
But those 2 assistants, this will follow them like a weight around their neck for the rest of their lives.
Even from a non-engineering background, the lack of any coherent, logical or indeed provable hypothesis is laughable.
They set out to prove a negative, and seem to have attempted that by trying to make their "model" fit a video rather than start from scratch and assess all the evidence to hand and leave the evidence lead the way.
The fact that some of the video presented seems to actual animation rather than output from the model simulation is quite telling of the level of fraud that Hulsey and AE911 have attempted to perpetrate.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »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.
0 -
-
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Where is CS these days?
Got banned a couple of weeks ago, must have known what was coming...
Considering how hard he worked to get that ban
A lot of leeway was given to him and he just kept pushing.
Not that he'd have understood the report in any case.0 -
Another gif from metabunk that highlights a ton of issues.
Note how the collapsing section would be under the ground long before the top did.
According to the report, the "simulation" posits that all of the supports on one floor were removed at once (the implication being that it's a controlled demolition) and that the collapsing part of the building fell under free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds from that point. The "simulation" covers this entire period.
They also claim that this is confirmed by the NIST themselves.
However, according to that model, such a thing is impossible.
The removed floor is here:
If this were the case, at that moment the upper portion of the building would fall at free fall acceleration for the height of that floor.
After that, it would encounter resistance as the floors of the upper and lower sections pancake against each other. Therefore, it could not possibly fall at freefall acceleration. In the "simulation" the upper part of the building seems to just pass through the lower part as if it were intangible.
Further, the time of free fall acceleration would be far less than 2.25 seconds as it would only be allowed to do so for the height of a single story.
Even if we are extremely generous and allow that the entire lower section was removed all at once, (18 floors were every support was cut all at the same instant. yet with no noticeable explosion.) there's still an issue. This is because the upper part of the building of the building would start impacting the ground if not the pile of rubble of the lower half before the 2.25 seconds were up and would also start experiencing less acceleration downward.
The only way for it to be a free fall collapse is if every single support in the building were removed all at once from every floor. But this is impossible.
Again, this is something that should be apparent to the people who worked on this paper... Yet it's being held up like a new testament of the bible.
It should also be noted that the collapse theory presented by Hulsey is entirely and completely incompatible with the theory presented by Cheerful.
Hulsey's "simulation" requires that all supports on one floor are removed all at once in an instant. This requires explosives and it is not something that can be done with any kind of thermite. All types of thermite require time to cut through metal and they cannot be precisely timed to all finish cutting at the exact same moment.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement