Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…457910…61

Comments

  • #182
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's a small local chapter.
    Of which many members and attendees are undergraduates.

    You are dishonestly pretending that this is a presentation to the group as a whole or that is somehow endorsed by the group.

    So what is still an ASCE group? They're not going to organise a big conference countrywide for the Hulsey study. There no evidence the paper will not be shown to other ASCE groups around America.


  • #183
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would the universities ignore a research paper?
    Because it's not their job to conduct peer review.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Professors at different universities are experts they can review a paper and check the work.
    Yes, which is why journals chose them to conduct the peer review when they volunteer for and have the time available.
    This is not something universities do at all.
    It is never done this way.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You again are just basing opinions on nothing. Dr Hulsey is a professor at respectable engineering school
    And again, you are a massive, dishonest hypocrite.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I fairly certain colleagues and peers of his would review it. They are doing it right way.
    Well no. Peer review actually tries to avoid having people who are friends with the authors of studies involved in the process. It can be a conflict of interest.

    Further, peer review does not just involve peers reading the paper.

    Again your utter ignorance shows through. You have no idea what peer review is or how it works.
    It's really really funny.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Who said they are not going to publish it in a journal?
    Ok, which journal are they going to publish in and when?


  • #184
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again: It's Physics not physic.


    He didn't comment on it.
    Did he use the term? If so, quote it please.


    Again, never claimed I was. I just have a basic understanding of physics. Something you do not have.

    The speed of gravity is the speed of light.
    No one with an understanding of physics uses the term to mean acceleration due to gravity.
    They do not do so as it is incorrect.

    If you disagree, point to a physics professor who uses it repeatedly in that way.

    Lol, nope. It's something you googled and posted without actually reading the article.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447303&postcount=2108
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447355&postcount=2110

    And again, he was using speed and acceleration properly with the actual definitions because he understands how they work and what they mean.
    You have shown again and again you don't know anything about physics and it's really funny.

    You have also failed to back up your claims about what I said.
    You lied again.

    He replied to a question and he answered it. He did react like you, retarded, and say hey you not using proper usage of the term, Blah-blah-blah. He understands the question "what is the speed of freefall gravity. Kingmob knows more than a professor who teaches the subject for a living.


  • #185
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    So what is still an ASCE group? They're not going to organise a big conference countrywide for the Hulsey study.
    Lol, no ****.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    There no evidence the paper will not be shown to other ASCE groups around America.
    There is no evidence that it will.:rolleyes:

    Please show the statement from the ASCE where they said they will peer review the study. Thanks.


  • #186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    He replied to a question and he answered it. He did react like you, retarded, and say hey you not using proper usage of the term, Blah-blah-blah. He understands the question "what is the speed of freefall gravity. Kingmob knows more than a professor who teaches the subject for a living.
    Yes, he understood the question and explained the concept.

    However he didn't once use the term in the way you describe. This is because you use the terms incorrectly.

    I point out that you used the term incorrectly because you are constantly pretending to be educated and knowledgeable about complex topics including engineering and physics.
    Your posts show otherwise.
    They show you to be ignorant and dishonest.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would the universities ignore a research paper? Professors at different universities are experts they can review a paper and check the work. You again are just basing opinions on nothing. Dr Hulsey is a professor at respectable engineering school I fairly certain colleagues and peers of his would review it. They are doing it right way.

    Who said they are not going to publish it in a journal?


    Think he just means that you don't bring something to a university and ask them to review it, you bring it to the actual person(s) (hence the peer in peer review). It's a PITA to review research so colleagues don't just review each others work unless explicitly asked to do so and have the time, energy and inclination to do so. You also don't publish research and then bring it to a journal. I think most of them explicitly forbid submissions that have been published elsewhere (even self published).


  • #188
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, he understood the question and explained the concept.

    However he didn't once use the term in the way you describe. This is because you use the terms incorrectly.

    I point out that you used the term incorrectly because you are constantly pretending to be educated and knowledgeable about complex topics including engineering and physics.
    Your posts show otherwise.
    They show you to be ignorant and dishonest.

    Shows you to be ignorant because he replied to a valid question. Why would he reply to this question if thought the question was stupid and wrong?

    The question was What is the speed of free fall gravity?. He then explained freefall right after this and how it measured.


  • #189
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Shows you to be ignorant because he replied to a valid question. Why would he reply to this question if thought the question was stupid and wrong?

    The question was What is the speed of free fall gravity?. He then explained freefall right after this and how it measured.
    Lol this is getting even more pathetic.

    You are arguing that your usage of the term is correct.
    Your evidence for this is that someone on Qurra used it in a question and a professor didn't explictly tell them their usage is wrong.:rolleyes:
    FFS.

    Your usage is wrong. You are using it wrong because you are ignorant of physics and you are incapable of admitting that.
    You aren't making yourself look any less of a joke here cheerful.


  • #190
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol this is getting even more pathetic.

    You are arguing that your usage of the term is correct.
    Your evidence for this is that someone on Qurra used it in a question and a professor didn't explictly tell them their usage is wrong.:rolleyes:
    FFS.

    Your usage is wrong. You are using it wrong because you are ignorant of physics and you are incapable of admitting that.
    You aren't making yourself look any less of a joke here cheerful.

    Yep your claiming its wrong usage. The professor did think so he even took the time to post a long reply to the question. There were three people who answered not one of them said the question was written wrong. A professor is most likely to pull a person if he using the wrong wording to describe freefall.

    Says the guy who saw an invisible man and stick man on a photograph and did know steel was made of primarily Iron. You see things most normal people don't see in images.


  • #191
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yep your claiming its wrong usage. The professor did think so he even took the time to post a long reply to the question. There were three people who answered not one of them said the question was written wrong. A professor is most likely to pull a person if he using the wrong wording to describe freefall.
    lol. Ok. :rolleyes:
    Point to one single professor who uses the term in the way you do.
    Point to one single physics article or text.
    Point to one actual source.

    Or is this the best you have?
    If so, it's really funny.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    lol. Ok. :rolleyes:
    Point to one single professor who uses the term in the way you do.
    Point to one single physics article or text.
    Point to one actual source.

    Or is this the best you have?
    If so, it's really funny.

    You funny guy you even pulled me on saying 9.8m/s every second. This Professor even said what I said in his post.

    You claimed 9.8 metres per second squared. Write to the professor and tell him the usage is wrong.

    His name and profession.
    Jess H. Brewer, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Univ. of British Columbia


  • #193
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You funny guy you even pulled me on saying 9.8m/s every second. This Professor even said what I said in his post.

    You claimed 9.8 metres per second squared. Write to the professor and tell him the usage is wrong.


    9.8 m/(s^2) is shorthand for writing 9.8 m/s every second or 9.8 metres per second squared. Metres per second per second if that makes more sense.


  • #194
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You funny guy you even pulled me on saying 9.8m/s every second. This Professor even said what I said in his post.
    Nope. You didn't say that. You used the terms incorrectly either due to your poor understanding of physics or because of your poor writing.

    He used the terms correctly and accurately.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You claimed 9.8 metres per second squared. Write to the professor and tell him the usage is wrong.

    His name and profession.
    Jess H. Brewer, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Univ. of British Columbia
    Cool.
    Post the quote from him where he states the speed of gravity in place of acceleration.
    Thanks.

    Also, you should go back and address the other points you are ignoring. You aren't digging yourself out of this hole and no one is going to buy that you are actually knowledgeable about physics.
    Your ignorance is undeniable.


  • #195
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    xckjoo wrote: »
    9.8 m/(s^2) is shorthand for writing 9.8 m/s every second or 9.8 metres per second squared. Metres per second per second if that makes more sense.

    Yep but he pulled me on it for not writing his version, it silly. When it the same thing thanks for the reply.


  • #196
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,032 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yep but he pulled me on it for not writing his version, it silly. When it the same thing thanks for the reply.

    Any chance you can post up that evidence i have repeatedly asked you for?


  • #197
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Think he just means that you don't bring something to a university and ask them to review it, you bring it to the actual person(s) (hence the peer in peer review). It's a PITA to review research so colleagues don't just review each others work unless explicitly asked to do so and have the time, energy and inclination to do so. You also don't publish research and then bring it to a journal. I think most of them explicitly forbid submissions that have been published elsewhere (even self published).

    It a process AE911 have decided on. I believe they are in the process of contacting engineering departments at Universities, they not affiliated with, to see if they'll review this study, and check its soundness ie the quality of the work.

    They also plan to publish the study in respectable mainstream engineering journals for peer review. I can only go by what they have said in public.


  • #198
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,222 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Kingmob knows more than a professor who teaches the subject for a living.

    Wow

    You regularly state that bodies of experts and investigators and world historians are incorrect and that your kooky theories, that you make up on the spot, are the correct version of history/science

    Preliminary results released by Hulsey have been criticised and contain flaws, but we can only really comment on the final product, if it's ever released

    Considering isolated experts (e.g. Dr Judy Wood) can come up with all sorts of crap, and considering this guy is funded by a conspiracy group (potentially running a money-scam), it's normal to be skeptical about his claims


  • #199
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yep but he pulled me on it for not writing his version, it silly. When it the same thing thanks for the reply.


    Hate to burst your bubble Cheerful, but I was pointing out that King Mob was correct. The second time unit is essential. I was assuming you missed the fact that time units are in it twice in different forms when it's written "9.8 m/s per second".


  • #200
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,222 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It a process AE911 have decided on. I believe they are in the process of contacting engineering departments at Universities, they not affiliated with, to see if they'll review this study, and check its soundness ie the quality of the work.

    They also plan to publish the study in respectable mainstream engineering journals for peer review. I can only go by what they have said in public.

    Also, stop pretending to be some sort of spokesman for or second-guessing AE911, it's an internet conspiracy group with a very shady past, no one really has any idea what they are up to


  • #201
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It a process AE911 have decided on. I believe they are in the process of contacting engineering departments at Universities, they not affiliated with, to see if they'll review this study, and check its soundness ie the quality of the work.

    They also plan to publish the study in respectable mainstream engineering journals for peer review. I can only go by what they have said in public.


    Sounds like bollocks TBH. Not yours, theirs.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow

    You regularly state that bodies of experts and investigators and world historians are incorrect and that your kooky theories, that you make up on the spot, are the correct version of history/science

    Preliminary results released by Hulsey have been criticised and contain flaws, but we can only really comment on the final product, if it's ever released

    Considering isolated experts (e.g. Dr Judy Wood) can come up with all sorts of crap, and considering this guy is funded by a conspiracy group (potentially running a money-scam), it's normal to be skeptical about his claims

    Posters on JREF forum are not engineers. Can you show an actual engineer
    criticising his work on a Skeptic forum?

    Dr Judy work is not accepted by AE911 truth.


  • #203
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It a process AE911 have decided on. I believe they are in the process of contacting engineering departments at Universities, they not affiliated with, to see if they'll review this study, and check its soundness ie the quality of the work.
    This is not peer review.
    It is not the typical process. It is bypassing the process.
    They will either only provide the study to chosen professors who will not criticise the study, or they will pretend those rejecting the study are part of the conspiracy.

    They have decided on fraud.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    They also plan to publish the study in respectable mainstream engineering journals for peer review. I can only go by what they have said in public.
    They have not stated this.
    They have not provided the names of the journals they are submitting to.
    They plan to publish the report by themselves before publishing in a journal which is bypassing peer review.


  • #204
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Hate to burst your bubble Cheerful, but I was pointing out that King Mob was correct. The second time unit is essential. I was assuming you missed the fact that time units are in it twice in different forms when it's written "9.8 m/s per second".

    I hate to burst your bubble but the Physic professor answered the question using the same way I did.

    He wrote
    The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second

    We not doing the equation here we just writing stuff shorthanded in a post about 9/11 topics.


  • #205
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I hate to burst your bubble but the Physic professor answered the question using the same way I did.

    He wrote
    The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second

    We not doing the equation here we just writing stuff shorthanded in a post about 9/11 topics.
    That's not what you posted though.
    And that's not the total of the issues with your terminology.

    You claim that the speed of gravity is the same as acceleration due to gravity.
    It's not.


  • #206
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I hate to burst your bubble but the Physic professor answered the question using the same way I did.

    He wrote
    The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second

    We not doing the equation here we just writing stuff shorthanded in a post about 9/11 topics.


    If you're arguing the physics of something then you need to be exact. It would be like mixing up speed and acceleration. Or Donald Trump and Melania Trump. Related but very different.


  • #207
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    xckjoo wrote: »
    If you're arguing the physics of something then you need to be exact. It would be like mixing up speed and acceleration. Or Donald Trump and Melania Trump. Related but very different.
    He has mixed up acceleration and speed many times.


  • #208
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not what you posted though.
    And that's not the total of the issues with your terminology.

    You claim that the speed of gravity is the same as acceleration due to gravity.
    It's not.

    I posted a lot of stuff on freefall. You latch on to a few posts and nick pick every word. It sad and could this with you but can't be bothered.

    I did explain it fully for you. Speed= gravity on earth ie the acceleration. I just put it together speed of gravity to short it down.

    It's hilarious you say that when I was the one posting NIST claims of freefall on here and they state the stages. How was confusing the two?

    Are you just going to pretend I was not the one posting this originally, none of you were?

    NIST revised change to their study.
    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


  • #209
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    I did explain it fully for you. Speed= gravity on earth ie the acceleration. I just put it together speed of gravity to short it down.
    Yes, I know. You confuse speed and acceleration.
    Speed is not acceleration. Acceleration is not speed.
    You can't "put it together" and call it "speed of gravity". That is not the correct way to use those terms.
    You are using the terms wrong because you don't know anything about physics.

    The reason you don't understand what the NIST report says is because you don't know anything about physics and you are confused by basic terms like speed and acceleration.
    :rolleyes:

    You are deflecting from the topic again. This is because you are realising how much ignorance you are showing about peer review as well.
    All around you are just displaying your utter lack of any knowledge.
    It's very funny.


  • #210
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, I know. You confuse speed and acceleration.
    Speed is not acceleration. Acceleration is not speed.
    You can't "put it together" and call it "speed of gravity". That is not the correct way to use those terms.
    You are using the terms wrong because you don't know anything about physics.

    The reason you don't understand what the NIST report says is because you don't know anything about physics and you are confused by basic terms like speed and acceleration.
    :rolleyes:

    You are deflecting from the topic again. This is because you are realising how much ignorance you are showing about peer review as well.
    All around you are just displaying your utter lack of any knowledge.
    It's very funny.

    You need to stop saying that when speed was used in Professor equation. I never confused speed with acceleration. I never said speed+ accerleration= freefall. Its speed= acceleration 9.8 m/s2- the rate of falling object due to gravity on earth. The reason I put speed ( gravity on earth together)


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,032 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You need to stop saying that when speed was used in Professor equation. I never confused speed with acceleration. I never said speed+ accerleration= freefall. Its speed= acceleration 9.8 m/s2- the rate of falling object due to gravity on earth. The reason I put speed ( gravity on earth together)

    Still waiting for that evidence, why do you ignore this simple request?


Advertisement