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

King Mob

I'm also curious why it is that a whole journal can be rejected out of hand based on a tenuous, vague connection to the NIST funding.
But then Hursleys study is not rejected when it is funded by a biased organisation with a vested interest in it producing a certain result.

Another example of cheerfuls double standards.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

So where are his files? Where's the hard data and calculations? That's the standard you've applied to NIST, why does it not apply to Hulsey? Then why wait for the Hulsey study? Or rather, why not wait for the Hulsey study to make this petition, if the Hulsey study is allegedly the lynchpin?This was all a year ago. Stale information, all things that have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum before, debunked, and clearly none of this 'evidence' has reached acceptance in the scientific community or been disseminated at large.

But again, this thread is about Hulsey.

I apply the same standard when the Hulsey study is out. Like I have said already I have seen enough already from Hulsey to know his doing the work correctly. I know the NIST study is not an accurate picture of what happened to the building on 9/11. Their theory is nonsensical and easily debunked.

Debunked by who? The JREF forum who are dishonest charlatans and pretend to know what they are talking about? They even got confronted to debate 9/11 tower collapse physics and they could find one physicist on their board to debate the subject. Why would I pay attention to people who are not qualified to know?

The last investigation about the 9/11 events was the 9/11 commission report released in 2004. NIST was tasked with finding out why the building failed and their work finished in 2008. More information has come to light since then.

Nanothermite paper Harrit published in Open Chemical physics journal was released in April 2009. The truthers also located the original drawings for building seven in 2013 and they can now identify NIST study has numerous errors and omissions. New evidence emerges all the time it's not static.

Frank Legge was one of the chemical scientists who studied the red/grey chips and confirmed it was a nano-thermite. It hilarious though the Skeptics will use Frank Legge and Warren strut paper about the Pentagon FDR data to debunk the truthers. Yet they accept his analysis on this and not the other findings he signed onto about the nano-thermite in the dust!

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I apply the same standard when the Hulsey study is out. Like I have said already I have seen enough already from Hulsey to know his doing the work correctly. I know the NIST study is not an accurate picture of what happened to the building on 9/11. Their theory is nonsensical and easily debunked.

Debunked by who? The JREF forum who are dishonest charlatans and pretend to know what they are talking about? They even got confronted to debate 9/11 tower collapse physics and they could find one physicist on their board to debate the subject. Why would I pay attention to people who are not qualified to know?

The last investigation about the 9/11 events was the 9/11 commission report released in 2004. NIST was tasked with finding out why the building failed and their work finished in 2008. More information has come to light since then.

Nanothermite paper Harrit published in Open Chemical physics journal was released in April 2009. The truthers also located the original drawings for building seven in 2013 and they can now identify NIST study has numerous errors and omissions. New evidence emerges all the time it's not static.

Frank Legge was one of the chemical scientists who studied the red/grey chips and confirmed it was a nano-thermite. It hilarious though the Skeptics will use Frank Legge and Warren strut paper about the Pentagon FDR data to debunk the truthers. Yet they accept his analysis on this and not the other findings he signed onto about the nano-thermite in the dust!

What have you seen? Why won't you share this amazing information with us?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would I pay attention to people who are not qualified to know?

Again a reminder that you were unable to solve a simple physics problem without googling it.
You then answered it incorrectly several times and described the math in a nonsense way.
You conflated speed and acceleration and claimed that WTC fell at "the speed of gravity" (ie. the speed of light.)

You don't really get to comment on who is and is not qualified.

banie01

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What have you seen? Why won't you share this amazing information with us?

Cheerful is obviously checking and validating the math

So much for leaving this thread lie until Hulsey actually released something.
CS really is just attention whoring at this stage.
Could have taken the mature route, as he said he would earlier in this thread....
But a few days without making baseless claims seems to have been a few days too many.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cool. Didn't look or sound anything like a controlled demolition to me.



We know steel structures have partially collapsed and fully collapsed due to fire. Also, records don't "have to" support it, it was a unique event.



There was no explosive sound captured, and yup, people heard explosions all day, that's because stuff was on fire and exploding, fuel tanks from cars, transformers, you name it - buildings burning and disintegrating make a lot of noise



No it isn't.



Nitpicking. Not evidence of a controlled demolition



Nah, melted metals. Again, no evidence of a controlled demolition



Again, bizarre thing to pick up on. Not evidence of a controlled demo



Your personal opinion, but not evidence of a demo



It was a computer simulation to see if the building would fail as it did. And that's what happened. You just seem to think it has to literally "look like it" to qualify



Attacking a report because it threatens your conspiracy theory is not evidence of a controlled demolition, none of these points are

Again, you have provided zero credible evidence for a controlled demolition. You can't answer basic questions on this "controlled demolition", you struggle to outline it and your theory changes almost every time I ask for it

A theory that is entirely unique to you and different from any other 911 truther

You comparing buildings rigged up with no background noise for an exhibition.

There lot of noise in the area on 9/11. You ignore also a very large building collapsed on 9/11 and very little noise was heard when it fell down. NIST claimed also multiples floors- 47 of them came started crashing down prior to the building moving from its stiff position to full collapse. Did you hear any crashing of floors on video tape?

We do hear a bang that echoed and was heard blocks away. It obviously a noise that came from within the building. After this loud explosive bang one second or two seconds later the Penthouse collapsed. The Penthouse on east side sits on top of the central steel core. It obvious this was a failure of the columns underneath that allowed the structure on top of the roof to fail and collapse.

You posting nonsense. No steel framed building collapsed to fire ever and you guys are waffling here pretending partial collapse of one section of a building is the same as a full collapse of a building. It was not unique the collapse displayed all the characterises of controlled demolition. You don't have to make up new fire scenario to explain the collapse.

Not my personal opinion. NIST exposed themselves when they lied and misread the events on 9/11. I don't trust engineers who don't follow the rules of construction. Building seven column 79 steel girder and steel beam were supported with stiffener plates, shear studs and fasteners and you can't just leave them off and pretend it doesn't matter.

Their computer vid is simulating the girder failure at column 79 on Floor 12 and 13. An unsupported girder failure according to NIST. And then their computer sim is showing the cascading of floors when they failed across the width of the building. Column 79 failure is a crucial part of the NIST study, no failure there the building does not fail. It's the reason truthers attack and distrust NIST. Their failures were also showing the building reacted differently when it fell. I point this out again Dr Hulsey has said his finite model analysis is more representative of the actual collapse on 9/11. I suspect the sequences of failures are very different from what NIST claimed in their study

There no need to look for new theories of how the buildings fell. It was not brought down by space lasers or UFOS. Controlled Demolition explains the events I see on 9/11.

You are looking for inside info as if the truthers can know that, it's silly. You want names and how they did it. Its nonsensical bull****. I speculate based on avilable information how it could have been done but there no definitive answer.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Waffle copy paste waffle...

I point this out again Dr Hulsey has said his finite model analysis is more representative of the actual collapse on 9/11. I suspect the sequences of failures are very different from what NIST claimed in their study


Waffle waffle.

That's not true. He is faking all of his analysis if he is doing it at all.
He is funded by an organisation that has a vested interest in producing a result that supports a conspiracy. Therefore his study is fraudulent.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Next you'll complain they didn't account for the location of every office chair after the collapse.

You should not account for collapse dust really? NIST theory is illogical when they are claiming floors across the building were falling from the roofline to the bottom floor. An event of this nature windows will be breaking across the width of the building, there would be a visual sign of this on video.

Overheal

Cheerful this isn’t going to be a rehash thread of all your bunk about nanothermite this and molten steel that. This is a thread about the Hulsey study.

We get it you don’t like the NIST study because bla bla bla.

I’d appreciate if everyone could parse their replies to just the subject matter of the Hulsey study.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I'm also curious why it is that a whole journal can be rejected out of hand based on a tenuous, vague connection to the NIST funding.
But then Hursleys study is not rejected when it is funded by a biased organisation with a vested interest in it producing a certain result.

Another example of cheerfuls double standards.

Hulsey study will have to be peer-reviewed by people who are not truthers. Work funded by AE911 truth is going to be scrutinized and not going to bypass the peer review process easily. There is a big difference.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Hulsey study will have to peer-reviewed by people who are not truthers.

He'll claim this, but it won't be true.

He and his funders will choose who gets to do their peer review.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Work funded by AE911 truth is going to be scrutinized and not going to bypass the peer review process easily. There is a big difference.

But they haven't released any of the information.

They have a vested interest in the results confirming a conspiracy, so they are engaging in fraud.

You have to apply your arguments consistantly cheerful.

The work released by the NIST has been released and scrunitised and has actually been peer reviewed.
You are lying when you say that it has bypassed peer review.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again a reminder that you were unable to solve a simple physics problem without googling it.
You then answered it incorrectly several times and described the math in a nonsense way.
You conflated speed and acceleration and claimed that WTC fell at "the speed of gravity" (ie. the speed of light.)

You don't really get to comment on who is and is not qualified.

Yep google solves WTC7 freefall problems. There must be a webpage online that discusses a ball thrown from the roofline of WTC7 to the ground, you nuts, and still have produced the website that gave me this answer. Continue on.

I never answered your question for a long time because it was stupid and has no relevance and still does not. Answered incorrectly several times nonsense. I answered incorrectly one time because I used the height of the new building, not the old building.

I never said WTC7 fell at the speed of light. Let's ignore I was one posting the NIST stages showing acceleration of gravity. Kingmob wants to ignore this.

acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will 9.8m/s every second You are latching on things you have no understanding off. You googled speed of gravity it means a speed of light, in your head Cheerful is wrong.

The Nal

Regardless of what the study says Ill never believe that fraudster Hulsey.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We do hear a bang that echoed and was heard blocks away. It obviously a noise that came from within the building. After this loud explosive bang one second or two seconds later the Penthouse collapsed.

There were no explosive sounds or signs of explosions when the building came down. I watched it happening live on TV, then from every angle possible as it was replayed over and over, at no point did any of the commentators, experts or TV anchors point out that there were explosive charges. Investigators later found no evidence whatsoever of charges or explosives.

You've gone through videos, found one where there is a faint thud (as a 47 story building is collapsing) and decided yourself that its explosives. It's your personal claim. Likewise you "see" things in photos that aren't there. We aren't debating the facts here at all, we are debating your perceptions of everything

No steel framed building collapsed to fire ever

Several have, including the Plasco building. But you've decided that you know more than the official investigation into the collapse, so again, here we are debating your perceptions vs the facts

Edit going off-topic, this is the Hulsey thread, however the perceptions point is valid for that also

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Cheerful is obviously checking and validating the math

So much for leaving this thread lie until Hulsey actually released something.
CS really is just attention whoring at this stage.
Could have taken the mature route, as he said he would earlier in this thread....
But a few days without making baseless claims seems to have been a few days too many.

I did not post for over a week. I posted a video about what happened at CITIcorp building as was new information i came across. I left it at that and then you guys waffled again.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did not post for over a week. I posted a video about what happened at CITIcorp building as was new information i came across. I left it at that and then you guys waffled again.

If Hulsey, who seems to be almost a religious style figure to you, comes out and states that in his view, the building fell due to fire

Will you immediately adopt his view? or will you argue against it?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never said WTC7 fell at the speed of light.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109681670&postcount=2849

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly. There should be no resistance. Freefall is an object falling at the speed of gravity.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447099&postcount=2103

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This topic we talking about is freefall during a building collapse. When their resistance inside the building, it can not fall at the speed of gravity. That why controlled demolition of a building it falls down at freefall speed, this resistance is removed ( steel columns and floors) There be less acceleration (speed of gravity) with structural resistance in place. It common sense facts that Kingmob was clueless about.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447303&postcount=2108
The picture in that post takes the information from Wikipedia, which states:

In the relativistic sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the same speed[1] as the speed of light (c).

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You are latching on things you have no understanding off. You googled speed of gravity it means a speed of light, in your head Cheerful is wrong.

Lol, what even is this sentence?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Regardless of what the study says Ill never believe that fraudster Hulsey.

How do you function in life, when just dismiss someone for no reason? He is a professor at a respectable engineering school in Alaska. Hundreds of students have been taught by him. You swear they hired a man from the street to do the study.

You not supposed to take Hulsey word for it. The study will have to be peer-reviewed by the right engineering groups.

ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) is one of the groups who have to peer review it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How do you function in life, when just dismiss someone for no reason? He is a professor at a respectable engineering school in Alaska. Hundreds of students have been taught by him. You swear they hired a man from the street to do the study.
.

And yet, when you want to, you dismiss people equally if not more qualified.

You are a hypocrite.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did some research into it and found out the editor in chief of Fire technology is a guy named Guillermo Rein.

You find his bio online if you type this into google Curriculum Vitae : Guillermo Rein - Imperial College London. He lists NIST (USA) as one group who sponsored research of his before 2006.

I suspect this paper was published because of who the authors and affiliates are and who was doing the reviewing.

I think the rules to change if bad science papers are sneaking through the system. You can't have a fraudulent paper sneak past unchecked.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) is one of the groups who have to peer review it.

No it won't.
That's not how peer review is done first and formost.

Second, there is nothing out there stating that ASCE is going to peer review it.
This is something you are making up.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If Hulsey, who seems to be almost a religious style figure to you, comes out and states that in his view, the building fell due to fire

Will you immediately adopt his view? or will you argue against it?

He already said in late 2018 fire did not bring down the building.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109681670&postcount=2849


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447099&postcount=2103


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447303&postcount=2108
The picture in that post takes the information from Wikipedia, which states:



Lol, what even is this sentence?

Explained you mutiple times the speed on earth is 9.8 metres per second. It that not speed in a gravity atmosphere?

You have to account for gravitational acceleration which is9.8 m/s2, which just ignores air resistance.

I already did mutiple times when I told you NIST said the building fell at the 9.8 m/s2, during 2.25 seconds of its collapse.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) is one of the groups who have to peer review it.

The ASCE took part in the investigation into 911 and found that the buildings fell due to fire. You've rubbished their findings constantly because they don't fit your bizarre conspiracy narrative

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Explained you mutiple times the speed on earth is 9.8 metres per second.

No cheerful, speed is not acceleration. They are different things that mean different concepts.
Literally the first part of the first chapter of most physics text books start by explaining what the difference between these two terms is and why you can't and shouldn't use them interchangeably.

The acceleration due to gravity is not 9.8 metres per second.
It's 9.8 metres per second squared.

The speed of gravity, which you stated was freefall, is equal to the speed of light.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It that not speed in a gravity atmosphere?

Again, what is this sentance?
The speed of gravity in the atmosphere is still the speed of light.
The acceleration due to gravity in the atmosphere is still 9.8 m/s^2.
These things are not affected by the atmosphere...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to account for gravitational acceleration which is 9.8 m/s2, which just ignores air resistance.

Lol again, you are using terms to sound clever when they don't actually mean anything.
For example, what do you mean by "You have to account for"?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I already did mutiple times when I told you NIST said the building fell at the traditional speed of 2.25 seconds during its collapse.

Lol.
How can a time be a speed?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How do you function in life, when just dismiss someone for no reason? He is a professor at a respectable engineering school in Alaska. Hundreds of students have been taught by him. You swear they hired a man from the street to do the study.

You not supposed to take Hulsey word for it. The study will have to be peer-reviewed by the right engineering groups.

ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) is one of the groups who have to peer review it.

Who do we know is going to peer review it?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There were no explosive sounds or signs of explosions when the building came down. I watched it happening live on TV, then from every angle possible as it was replayed over and over, at no point did any of the commentators, experts or TV anchors point out that there were explosive charges. Investigators later found no evidence whatsoever of charges or explosives.

You've gone through videos, found one where there is a faint thud (as a 47 story building is collapsing) and decided yourself that its explosives. It's your personal claim. Likewise you "see" things in photos that aren't there. We aren't debating the facts here at all, we are debating your perceptions of everything



Several have, including the Plasco building. But you've decided that you know more than the official investigation into the collapse, so again, here we are debating your perceptions vs the facts

Edit going off-topic, this is the Hulsey thread, however the perceptions point is valid for that also

This is a false claim. You really need to watch more News From 9/11. Dan Rather from CBS said it looked like a controlled demolition. One anchor on CSBC business channel said the buildings likely were rigged with explosives. NBC also felt the buildings were rigged with explosives.

NIST never tested for explosives they even said so on their website. They also claimed on their website they did not retrieve any steel piece from the collapse of building seven. So how they have known what caused the steel to buckle and fail and even melt? How would theY test the steel for explosives if not one steel piece was available. This alone is a crime there was no WTC7 steel kept secured in a warehouse for future testing.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Explained you mutiple times the speed on earth is 9.8 metres per second. It that not speed in a gravity atmosphere?

You have to account for gravitational acceleration which is9.8 m/s2, which just ignores air resistance.

I already did mutiple times when I told you NIST said the building fell at the 9.8 m/s2, during 2.25 seconds of its collapse.

Oh sweet jesus :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is a false claim. You really need to watch more News From 9/11. Dan Rather from CBS said it looked like a controlled demolition. One anchor on CSBC business channel said the buildings likely were rigged with explosives. NBC also felt the buildings were rigged with explosives.

NIST never tested for explosives they even said so on their website. They also claimed on their website they did not retrieve any steel piece from the collapse of building seven. So how they have known what caused the steel to buckle and fail and even melt? How would theY test the steel for explosives if not one steel piece was available. This alone is a crime there was no WTC7 steel kept secured in a warehouse for future testing.

Any chance you might answer this?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What have you seen? Why won't you share this amazing information with us?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Any chance you might answer this?

What you want to be answered- did not see your post?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is a false claim.

It's not a false claim. You (aka the conspiracy community you get all your information from) carefully cherry-pick and quote-mine the info you want, that suits your narrative. If there is one random comment along the lines of it looking like a CD, and 999 comments to the contrary. You highlight that one comment, ignore the rest. Not only that, but in your mind it becomes "evidence"

You do this all the time. It's faulty thinking.

Likewise, you ignore hundreds of experts who worked to build the case from the ground up, in favor of one expert who hasn't produced anything yet