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

The Nal wrote: »

Due to be released tomorrow.

Delayed as they had to print some more expensive postcards.

I heard their best work is done with MS Paint

Heres the draft report. A 1 minute 19 second video. :rolleyes:

https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7

Fraud Hulsey to present at 10pm eastern time tonight below

https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_770r6b6b

HOWEVER. They're kicking it down the road again. Time for more donations!

"The release of the draft report begins a two-month period during which the public is invited to submit comments. The final report will be published later this year."

mikekerry

there is a 126 page document if you download the file.

Oh wow, they're going full cuckoo bananas/outright lying and are claiming the building fell in 7 seconds.

On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction.

I also like how they contradict themselves and discredit the entire 4 year study with this one sentence.

If the building fell in 7 seconds, it would have to be at free fall for the entire time.
If they are claiming that the building was only at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds, then the building could not have fallen in 7 seconds. It would have taken longer.
And this is all moot as the building plainly and obviously did not fall in 7 seconds.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh wow, they're going full cuckoo bananas/outright lying and are claiming the building fell in 7 seconds.

I also like how they contradict themselves and discredit the entire 4 year study with this one sentence.

If the building fell in 7 seconds, it would have to be at free fall for the entire time.
If they are claiming that the building was only at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds, then the building could not have fallen in 7 seconds. It would have taken longer.
And this is all moot as the building plainly and obviously did not fall in 7 seconds.

So working off a fallacy from the start then?

What a waste of time.

The Nal wrote: »

So working off a fallacy from the start then?

What a waste of time.

I think it's more to placate the conspiracy theorists who subscribe to that notion. Their simulations seem to follow the timing of the actual collapse, so they have to know it was longer than 7 seconds.
But they can't say that lose the potential revenue from that subset of theorists.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh wow, they're going full cuckoo bananas/outright lying and are claiming the building fell in 7 seconds.

I also like how they contradict themselves and discredit the entire 4 year study with this one sentence.

If the building fell in 7 seconds, it would have to be at free fall for the entire time.
If they are claiming that the building was only at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds, then the building could not have fallen in 7 seconds. It would have taken longer.
And this is all moot as the building plainly and obviously did not fall in 7 seconds.

WTC 7 (1987-2001) was 190 meters tall. For it to completely free-fall it would need to be down in a mere 6.22 seconds (t = sqrt (2*a*h), v0 = 0).

I like how they needed thousands of dollars for postcards from Kinkos but to download the draft report I need to register for their email spam :rolleyes: not really encouraging its widespread dissemination.

The guys over at metabunk are tearing the paper to shreds.
https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report.t10890/

Tldr: overly simplistic models that dont really match reality. Selective picking of things they want to pay attention to. Some shenanigans where the models they are showing in the videos might not even be simulations, but manual animations.

King Mob wrote: »

The guys over at metabunk are tearing the paper to shreds.
https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report.t10890/

Tldr: overly simplistic models that dont really match reality. Selective picking of things they want to pay attention to. Some shenanigans where the models they are showing in the videos might not even be simulations, but manual animations.

Wow, so after 4 years or whatever it can be torn apart in a few minutes.

That is absolutely pathetic.

What a complete waste of time.

The real victims here are any of his grad students, who aren’t going to get their theses or dissertations approved off this bunk.

A few select images from the thread on Metabunk highlighting some... slight... flaws in the study's models
upload_2019-9-4_23-9-54-png.38244

This has to be an elaborate prank.

King Mob wrote: »

This has to be an elaborate prank.

Christ that is fúcking ridiculous. Couldn't even survive 24 hours of credibility.

No way that took them four years and all that money.

What a fraud. As expected.

Ipso

The Nal wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

This has to be an elaborate prank.

Christ that is fúcking ridiculous. Couldn't even survive 24 hours of credibility.

No way that took them four years and all that money.

What a fraud. As expected.

They took all the money, alright.

The penthouse in particular they show the base of the walls of the penthouse sliding away and out; on the video of the real event the base of those walls doesn’t move and the collapse hinges at those points; in the animation (I can’t constructively call this a simulation) they show the walls hinging at the top corner of the wall.. not something that would happen here. Not to mention whole floors where Hulsey just plain deleted columns, and you can clearly see this.

Took the money and ran. Truthers will still buy up all of it though, because they are way too invested. “Yeah well the NIST study wasn’t perfect either!” That’s what you’re gonna hear.

Also more importantly I haven’t heard about how the study criminally implicates anyone, it’s now been a year since a formal complaint was filed with a grand jury; rather than acknowledge that nothings going to come out of that, truthers will continue to act as though something will come of it any day now.

Overheal wrote: »

The penthouse in particular they show the base of the walls of the penthouse sliding away and out; on the video of the real event the base of those walls doesn’t move and the collapse hinges at those points; in the animation (I can’t constructively call this a simulation) they show the walls hinging at the top corner of the wall.. not something that would happen here. Not to mention whole floors where Hulsey just plain deleted columns, and you can clearly see this.

Yup incredibly misleading and dishonest. What amazes me is that hes so transparent about it.

A total fraud.

Cheerful must be so disappointed today. He has waited years for this and its a whole load of nothing that was easily debunked in an afternoon.

The Nal wrote: »

.
Cheerful must be so disappointed today. He has waited years for this and its a whole load of nothing that was easily debunked in an afternoon.

Unlikely. The fact the study was pretty obviously a fraud from the outset didnt bother him all that much. The fact that it's now even clearer that's the case won't change much.

Me, I'm surprised that this draft was released at all.
I'm surprised that it contains new information beyond Husley's powerpoint.
I'm also surprised by how pathetically transparent it is. I figured it would be slightly more convincing and harder to debunk...

King Mob wrote: »

Unlikely. The fact the study was pretty obviously a fraud from the outset didnt bother him all that much. The fact that it's now even clearer that's the case won't change much.

Me, I'm surprised that this draft was released at all.
I'm surprised that it contains new information beyond Husley's powerpoint.
I'm also surprised by how pathetically transparent it is. I figured it would be slightly more convincing and harder to debunk...

Its been completely ignored really. No one gives a **** about it.

A fun quote pulled by the boys from Metabunk:
Hulsey states:

10:58: My focus was to ensure without a doubt that we had
11:02: pure scientific solutions. We were not going to be influenced
11:08: by previous research, and we were not going to allow
11:11: those with different opinions to influence the science.

https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_xf8c7khp

Pretty telling.

I've just spent some time skimming over the paper.
It is so poor...
Those poor PhD candidates that were attached to this folly really need to consider the damage that has been done to their reputations, and ask to disassociate themselves from it at the very least.

Hulsey is an old man, he has no future or reputation left to worry about that the money lifted from gullible Truthers won't compensate for

But those 2 assistants, this will follow them like a weight around their neck for the rest of their lives.

Even from a non-engineering background, the lack of any coherent, logical or indeed provable hypothesis is laughable.

They set out to prove a negative, and seem to have attempted that by trying to make their "model" fit a video rather than start from scratch and assess all the evidence to hand and leave the evidence lead the way.

The fact that some of the video presented seems to actual animation rather than output from the model simulation is quite telling of the level of fraud that Hulsey and AE911 have attempted to perpetrate.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This fairly recent presentation in 2017. If you listen to him you can clearly tell he is a man of integrity and not a charlatan.

Timberrrrrrrr

The Nal wrote: »

Where is CS these days?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where is CS these days?

Got banned a couple of weeks ago, must have known what was coming...
Considering how hard he worked to get that ban

A lot of leeway was given to him and he just kept pushing.
Not that he'd have understood the report in any case.

Another gif from metabunk that highlights a ton of issues.

Note how the collapsing section would be under the ground long before the top did.

According to the report, the "simulation" posits that all of the supports on one floor were removed at once (the implication being that it's a controlled demolition) and that the collapsing part of the building fell under free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds from that point. The "simulation" covers this entire period.
They also claim that this is confirmed by the NIST themselves.
However, according to that model, such a thing is impossible.

The removed floor is here:
metabunk-2019-09-06-08-34-47-jpg.38255

If this were the case, at that moment the upper portion of the building would fall at free fall acceleration for the height of that floor.
After that, it would encounter resistance as the floors of the upper and lower sections pancake against each other. Therefore, it could not possibly fall at freefall acceleration. In the "simulation" the upper part of the building seems to just pass through the lower part as if it were intangible.
Further, the time of free fall acceleration would be far less than 2.25 seconds as it would only be allowed to do so for the height of a single story.
Even if we are extremely generous and allow that the entire lower section was removed all at once, (18 floors were every support was cut all at the same instant. yet with no noticeable explosion.) there's still an issue. This is because the upper part of the building of the building would start impacting the ground if not the pile of rubble of the lower half before the 2.25 seconds were up and would also start experiencing less acceleration downward.

The only way for it to be a free fall collapse is if every single support in the building were removed all at once from every floor. But this is impossible.

Again, this is something that should be apparent to the people who worked on this paper... Yet it's being held up like a new testament of the bible.

It should also be noted that the collapse theory presented by Hulsey is entirely and completely incompatible with the theory presented by Cheerful.
Hulsey's "simulation" requires that all supports on one floor are removed all at once in an instant. This requires explosives and it is not something that can be done with any kind of thermite. All types of thermite require time to cut through metal and they cannot be precisely timed to all finish cutting at the exact same moment.

Jesus it's a complete shambles isn't it. An embarrassment for all concerned.

Dohnjoe

That cost $300,000?

Where did all the cash go? Effectively it was one man and one PhD assistant (they get paid peanuts in comparison)

Utterly torn apart.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Is everybody posting here a structural engineer?

Anyone else been PM'd by our resident Hulseyite?