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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

13567…37

Comments

  • #102
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Again you dismissing the importance of what happened. Where your evidence they are not going to convene a grand jury? This is just wishful thinking by Skeptics right now. There powerful forces who will not want this to happen, but that's not surprising. They better have a good excuse ready if they decide to not let the court do its job.

    I have seen enough to know the NIST study is pseudoscience. I have seen the omissions and lies by them. Their video of their lies and their own models of the collapse are fraudulent. I see some of the work Hulsey has done and it's more detailed and comprehensive. Hulsey is studying stuff NIST never did in their study in time this will be shown.

    Can you link us to this please so we can see it for ourselves?


  • #103
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Can you link us to this please so we can see it for ourselves?
    The only thing thats been released has been that one power point presentation.


  • #104
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    King Mob wrote: »
    The only thing thats been released has been that one power point presentation.

    But he said
    it's more detailed and comprehensive. 

    Haven't used PowerPoint in a while myself, are there new fonts? Does he do the jiggery pokery with the slide transitions? I really wanna see this now :(


  • #105
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    But he said



    Haven't used PowerPoint in a while myself, are there new fonts? Does he do the jiggery pokery with the slide transitions? I really wanna see this now :(
    Well given that the only parts of the NIST report cheerful has read are the title and the one bit that mentions free fall...


  • #106
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Nothing. I support the cause.

    If steel framed high rise buildings collapsed all the time by fire at freefall speeds, I would call this a fraud by truthers.

    So according to your logic, which you keep repeating over and over, something has to happen repeatedly for it to be true

    Yet your theory is that WTC 7 was secretly blown up in a way never seen before or since, a total one off

    Contradicting your own false logic


  • #107
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then why did it pass peer review?
    Was the journal part of the conspiracy?
    Were the experts on the peer review panel somehow less educated and knowledgable than you, a person who can't do high school physics?

    Also you now admit it was perr reviewed. Why did you claim otherwise? Why lie when you know we aren't going to believe you?

    Lol. Nope. You dont understand what peer review is.

    His paper isn't being undergoing a peer review process at all.
    If it did it would fail immediately as the premise of the study starts from an admitted pre determined conclusion.

    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.


  • #108
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    On the contrary, I am explicitly quantifying what happened: it was rather minute, literally the legal bare minimum as required by law.

    The 5 consecutive months of complete radio silence.

    Where is your evidence that they are?

    The court can only act on what prosecutors bring them. As far as I'm aware, truthers cannot get a bead on who is actually involved in this alleged conspiracy (Aliens/Real Estate Moguls/Insurance Companies/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Israel/Neocons/Janitors/etc) or even how (Thermite/Aliens/Mini-Nukes/Space Lasers) so what function exactly is the court expected to perform? A base understanding of the function of the judicial system is required here.



    You haven't seen any of the work he has done - save for a powerpoint presentation. Do not lie. To suggest his one powerpoint presentation is somehow more detailed and comprehensive than the NIST body of work or the wider body of academia that has since surrounded it, is utterly psychotic.

    Except, what he is doing isn't architecture: it's social engineering.

    You might be able to answer your own question by reading their studies. Opening the links would be a start.

    Replication is not the only method by which peer review is conducted. Indeed, replication is not always possible. A scientist may be the only one to observe a rare species in the tropics, or a geological event. Just a few days ago the LHC detected for the first time anywhere, a particle with 5 quarks. NASA also makes breakthroughs on a fairly regular basis, which are impossible to replicate given that oftentimes these breakthroughs come from single sources of data collection, like deep space probes.

    How Stuff Works: Scientific Peer Review

    Then they would have reported that. Just as scientists peer reviewed, then reported Dr. Hwang Woo Suk frabricated his research on stem cells. Just as peer review has bunked numerous claims of cold fusion over the years, or devices that defy the first law of thermodynamics. There are an awful lot of subsequent studies and cross-studies surrounding 9/11 that it would be amazing for so many scientists and bodies to be in on this. Again, such a theory suffers from the need to explain how thousands of people and hundreds of disparate organizations - many of whom are from countries not aligned with the US, not aligned with the US' enemies, or even not aligned with each other; but I suppose they all just got together in a room one afternoon and chose do this crazy false flag you and other truthers allege, with no leaks?

    Not true. It not the truthers job to find the culprits, its the of the law of the land job.

    Truthers have presented evidence of demolition. It listed on their website the evidence they send.

    The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition. The July 30th Amended Petition included the same evidence but also addressed several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition.

    I follow all the work Dr Hulsey is doing, I listen to interviews and watch the video they have released. He has already highlighted on video the problems with the NIST study. He has shown ABAQUS modelling of the floor system in building seven and shown were NIST is incorrect.

    Even on video, he shows a graph of his studies compared to what NIST did.This work he was doing in 2016 and probably even more expanded since then. UAF is Hulsey work.

    477455.png


  • #109
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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.

    This guy is a crank?
    4. Research
    4.1 Overview of Funding
    Since 2006, I have won in excess of £4 million in funds to sponsor my research from a range
    of scientific and industrial sponsors, including ERC (2015 Consolidator Grant), EPSRC, Arup,
    Leverhulme Trust, RAEng, BASF Germany, NIST USA, FM Global USA, BSEF Belgium, Research
    Council of Norway, BRE UK, CSC China, SFPE USA, CERIB France, NFPA USA, and Met Office
    UK.
    4.2 Most important Prizes and Awards
    2018 Guise Medal for eminent achievement in the advancement of the science and
    technology of fire protection engineering, awarded by the Society of Fire Protection
    Engineering.
    2018 Research Foundation Medal for the research project that best exemplifies the NFPA
    Foundation’s fire safety mission, technical challenges overcome, and collaborative
    approach. Awarded by the National Fire Protection Association.
    2017 Sudgen Award for the most significant UK paper in combustion, by The British Section
    of The Combustion Institute.
    2017 Collaborate to Innovate Prize in the Built Environment, awarded by The Engineer for
    our work with Arup on the structural fire-safe design of the Scalpel in London.
    2016 Early Career Award for Excellence in Wildland Fire for demonstrated outstanding
    ability in the field of fire science, by the International Association of Wildland Fire.
    2016 Peter Lund Award for significant contributions to the advancement of the professional
    recognition of the fire protection engineer by the Society of Fire Protection Engineering.
    2015 Best Fire Research Project for our work on travelling fires methodology for the
    structural design of modern buildings by the UK Chapter of Society of Fire Protection
    Engineering.
    2013 Distinguished Paper Award on Fire Research at the 34th International Symposium
    on Combustion for our research paper on the chemistry of smouldering combustion by
    The Combustion Institute.
    2009 Hinshelwood Prize for meritorious work in combustion by a younger scientist by The
    British Section of The Combustion Institute.
    2009 Distinguished Paper Award on Fire Research at the 32nd International Symposium
    on Combustion for our paper the carbon emissions from smouldering peat by The
    Combustion Institute.
    2007 FM Global Award for best paper presented at the 5th International Seminar on Fire
    and Explosion Hazards for our paper on a-priori modelling predictions of the large-scale
    Dalmarnock fire experiments.
    4.3 Other Prizes and Awards
    2017 3rd Prize for Best Poster at the 2017 Fire Retardant Polymeric Materials.
    2017 Best Poster Award at the 12th Symposium on Fire Safety Science.
    2016 Cover article in journal Bioresource Technology, volume 207, issue May 2016 (for paper
    10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.027).
    2016 Sentinels of Science Award from Publons for being among the top 10% peer reviewers.
    2015 Chief Donald J. Burns Memorial Research Grant from Society of Fire Protection
    Engineering (USA) for Fire Navigator - Forecasting fire dynamics in smart buildings
    3/22
    2015 Excellent Poster Award at 10th Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology
    for Expandable Polystyrene Foam Spot Fire Ignition by Hot Metal Particle.
    2015 Best Poster Award at 2th European Symposium on Fire Safety Science for An
    Experimental Study of the Spread Profiles in Smouldering Wildfires.
    2014 Best Speaker at the 2nd Annual Tunnels Fire & Safety Forum, Amsterdam.
    2014 Best Photo Award at the 11th Symposium on Fire Safety Science for Fire Watch
    Constellation.
    2014 Best Poster Award at the 11th Symposium on Fire Safety Science for Computational
    Smouldering Combustion: Predicting the Roles of Moisture and Inert Contents in Peat
    Wildfires.
    2013 Best Poster Award at 4th International Fire Effects on Soil Properties conference for
    Effect of peat moisture content on smouldering fire propagation.
    2011 Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in Technology for the paper The Influence of Travelling
    Fires on a Concrete Frame.
    2010 Best Poster Award at 2010 Spring Meeting of the British Section of The Combustion
    Institute, for Experimental Review of the Homogeneous Temperature Assumption in
    Post-Flashover Compartment Fires.
    2010 Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in Technology for the paper A Novel Multiscale
    Methodology for Simulating Tunnel Ventilation Flows during Fires.
    2009 15th Lord Ezra Award for outstanding achievement in the study of combustion
    engineering, Combustion Engineering Association for developing the STAR smouldering
    technology for remediation of contaminated soils.
    2008 Best Poster Award Audience Choice at the 9th Symposium on Fire Safety Science for Fire
    Fighting Coal Mine Fires: Characterization and extinguishing methods using small-scale
    Experiments.
    2007 Bodycote Warrington Fire Research Prize for best paper, The Institution of Fire
    Engineers for our paper on the Dalmarnock fire experiments.

    Because at one point he was sponsored by National Institute of Standards and Technology?


  • #110
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Truthers have presented evidence of demolition.

    No they haven't, not one shred of credible evidence. They don't even have a theory. You made yours up during debates on this forum and it changes every other day

    It listed on their website the evidence they send.

    It's not evidence of a demolition, it's nonsense. Stuff like the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did. That's not evidence, that's insanity.


  • #111
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This guy is a crank?



    Because at one point he was sponsored by National Institute of Standards and Technology?

    Never said he was a crank. He was receiving funding from NIST prior to publishing these reports.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Never said he was a crank. He was receiving funding from NIST prior to publishing these reports.

    and?


  • #113
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No they haven't, not one shred of credible evidence. They don't even have a theory. You made yours up during debates on this forum and it changes every other day




    It's not evidence of a demolition, it's nonsense. Stuff like the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did. That's not evidence, that's insanity.

    Says Dohnjoe who has a bias against all conspiracies. You will ignore evidence all day long.

    You guys even denied the doctors and medical staff at Bethesda and Parkland are telling the truth about the JFK assassination. Skeptics are a crazy bunch of people.

    Evidence for demolition- is based off the engineering, history and fire records, eye witness accounts, NIST lies and scientific research.


  • #114
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    So according to your logic, which you keep repeating over and over, something has to happen repeatedly for it to be true

    Yet your theory is that WTC 7 was secretly blown up in a way never seen before or since, a total one off

    Contradicting your own false logic

    This one-off looks like a controlled demolition. There no evidence fire collapsed the building. NIST even admits the steel from WTC7 was shipped away and melted down before any investigation could take place.

    NIST would not lie if the fire was the cause. They even went away and fixed their study of six years after they got exposed at their own briefing on the collapse of building seven. NIST was asked a direct question in Aug 2008 about freefall and they denied the possibility and they listed the reasons why during this meeting. Three months, later ( they released a newly revised study) and freefall was possible and they knew it all along, bull****, only truthers can see through this crap.

    Never mind the modelled the failure at column 79 incorrectly without support elements. A steel girder can collapse unsupported in a fire. The reality is the girder and steel beams at column 79 are not unsupported.


  • #115
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Evidence for demolition- is based off the engineering, history and fire records, eye witness accounts, NIST lies and scientific research.

    Conspiracies and inside jobs have happened throughout history

    There's no credible evidence of controlled demolition inside job on 911. It doesn't exist, only in the minds of a few zealous believers who can't even explain what the theory is, let alone support it


  • #116
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This one-off looks like a controlled demolition. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH EVERYTHING I HAVE POSTED IN THE OTHER THREAD BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH COPY/PASTE/REPEAT BLAH BLAH BLAHHHHHHHH

    :rolleyes:


  • #117
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Conspiracies and inside jobs have happened throughout history

    There's no credible evidence of controlled demolition inside job on 911. It doesn't exist, only in the minds of a few zealous believers who can't even explain what the theory is, let alone support it

    Factually incorrect.

    1) WTC7 came down just like a controlled demolition- implosion.
    2) History and fire records don't support NIST theory
    3) NIST denied anyone heard an explosion- a lie and not supported. There video you can hear an enormous bang before the Penthouse fell in. There even reports from the near building of people hearing bangs.
    4) we can see the windows broke from bottom up to the top at right corner west wall- evidence of controlled demolition.

    5) NIST could only get the building to collapse in the remodel of the collapse when they left the girder unsupported without its elements
    6) we have evidence of high temp steel melting at WTC7. NIST denied melting occurred and claimed office fire would never get that hot. You left with some unanswered questions when did the steel corrode- melt whatever language you prefer to use?

    7) NIST does not explain where the dust after 47 floors of concrete collapsed went prior to full collapse.
    8) NIST modelling calculations are not accurate. You can time the collapse on video.
    9) There modelling is showing a crushed building when it fell, unlike the real collapse on 9/11.

    There so many problems with the NIST theory and the evidence is way stronger the building was brought down by controlled demolition. It explains the observations by people and why the building fell down in a symmetrical way into its own footprint.


  • #118
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    Lol. Pathetic.
    This is honestly your most dishonest and desperate point yet.

    You are so desperate to avoid the fact you lied you are once again throwing another organisation into the conspiracy based on absolutely nothing at all.

    The NIST report was peer reviewed. Stating otherwise is denying reality.
    You are in denial of reality.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    the building fell down in a symmetrical way into its own footprint.
    That's factually incorrect.


  • #119
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,051 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerul Spring wrote:
    He has shown ABAQUS modelling of the floor system in building seven and shown were NIST is incorrect.
    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?
    Truthers have presented evidence of demolition. It listed on their website the evidence they send.
    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?
    The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition. The July 30th Amended Petition included the same evidence but also addressed several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition.
    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.


  • #120
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    1) WTC7 came down just like a controlled demolition- implosion.

    Cool. Didn't look or sound anything like a controlled demolition to me.
    2) History and fire records don't support NIST theory

    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.
    3) NIST denied anyone heard an explosion- a lie and not supported. There video you can hear an enormous bang before the Penthouse fell in. There even reports from the near building of people hearing bangs.

    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
    4) we can see the windows broke from bottom up to the top at right corner west wall- evidence of controlled demolition.

    No it isn't.
    5) NIST could only get the building to collapse in the remodel of the collapse when they left the girder unsupported without its elements

    Nitpicking. Not evidence of a controlled demolition
    6) we have evidence of high temp steel melting at WTC7. NIST denied melting occurred and claimed office fire would never get that hot.

    Nah, melted metals. Again, no evidence of a controlled demolition
    7) NIST does not explain where the dust after 47 floors of concrete collapsed went prior to full collapse.

    Again, bizarre thing to pick up on. Not evidence of a controlled demo
    8) NIST modelling calculations are not accurate. You can time the collapse on video.

    Your personal opinion, but not evidence of a demo
    9) There modelling is showing a crushed building when it fell, unlike the real collapse on 9/11.

    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
    There so many problems with the NIST theory and the evidence is way stronger the building was brought down by controlled demolition. It explains the observations by people and why the building fell down in a symmetrical way into its own footprint.

    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


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,051 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    7) NIST does not explain where the dust after 47 floors of concrete collapsed went prior to full collapse.
    Next you'll complain they didn't account for the location of every office chair after the collapse.


  • #122
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #123
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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!


  • #124
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #125
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #126
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #128
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #129
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #130
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,051 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #131
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #133
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #134
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


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


  • #135
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #136
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #137
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #138
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #139
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #140
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #141
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #143
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #144
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #145
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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? :confused:


  • #146
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #147
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • #148
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • #149
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #150
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Any chance you might answer this?

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


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭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


Advertisement