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

Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Explain again the 2.5 seconds freefall speed of WTC Building 7.
    Part of the building's facade fell at free fall acceleration for a few seconds.
    This is because it was in the middle of the collapse.
    This short period of free fall is not indicative of a conspiracy, nor does it invalidate the real explanation from NIST.
    There's nothing that requires explaining.

    However, such a period of freefall is impossible in the models discussed in Husley's report.

    Why exactly do you think that this period of free fall is important?

    Also you have not addressed any points others have made at you. Could you please go back and address them now?
    Particularly, could you explain why you used the term "isolated" as if it was part of NISTs explanation?

    Can you also explain why you mischaracterised Hulseys study as "a four year peer reviewed scientific study from a respected university" when it was none of those things?


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Capt. Autumn




    King Mob, I'm so glad I've found you. I have an intellectual curiosity on some of the anomalies surrounding the events of that day, but you seem to be an expert on these things.

    There's so much about 9/11 that confuses the casual observer. Can we start with Jane Stanley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7, 20 minutes before it fell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    King Mob, I'm so glad I've found you. I have an intellectual curiosity on some of the anomalies surrounding the events of that day, but you seem to be an expert on these things.

    There's so much about 9/11 that confuses the casual observer. Can we start with Jane Stanley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7, 20 minutes before it fell.
    Misreporting on a choatic news day. Pretty staight forward to be honest.

    What is the conspiracy explanation for it? I've never seen one thats made any sense.

    Again you have not responded to any points made to you. Could you please go back and address them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Misreporting on a choatic news day. Pretty staight forward to be honest.

    Look, I'll presume that you are reasonably intelligent, so I know you don't really believe this. No steel framed building had collapsed from fire alone before that day and it is reported on before it happened.

    This is pre-knowledge. I know and you know it too.

    The firefighter at the start of this video knows that Building 7 is about to collapse also. Remember, we are talking about something that never happened before, a steel framed building collapsing due to office fires (NIST explanation)




    On your other points. 2 year or 4 year study. Semantics.

    Is the University of Alaska a respected university? Well you can make that a point of conjecture if you want but let's deal in facts.

    How did that first responder know Building 7 was about to to collapse?
    Was that another case of 'misreporting'?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No steel framed building had collapsed from fire alone before that day
    Untrue. Steel framed buildings have collapsed before then and more have since then.
    Also irrelevant as WTC7 was a unique building in unique circumstances.
    and it is reported on before it happened.

    This is pre-knowledge. I know and you know it too.
    Ok, if it's pre-knowledge, please explain how this fits into the conspiracy theory.
    Why did they tell the BBC?
    Why did the BBC report it early?
    On your other points. 2 year or 4 year study. Semantics.
    Not really. It's pointing out that you are being less than honest with your description.
    A study that is planned to take 4 years is not the same as a study that is planned to take 2 but then is delayed (for reasons mysterious) for 2 years.

    What you said implies that it was always planned to take as long as it did, which isn't true.
    Is the University of Alaska a respected university? Well you can make that a point of conjecture if you want but let's deal in facts.
    I didn't say that it wasn't.
    I disagree with your assertion that it was the university that did the study. It was not. It was one professor who was hired and funded by a conspiracy theory organisation.

    I also made several other points on this and other points you brought up. It would be best if you address them all in full.
    How did that first responder know Building 7 was about to to collapse?
    Was that another case of 'misreporting'?
    Because of the extensive damage and the uncontrolled fires. I suspect he was making a precautious, educated guess.

    But again, what's the conspiracy theory here? Are you accusing this first responder of being involved?

    Again, it's a bit rude for you to demand I answer random new questions about tangents when you've been not responding to most points put to you.
    It would be best to deal with what has already been brought up first.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Untrue. Steel framed buildings have collapsed before then and more have since then.
    Also irrelevant as WTC7 was a unique building in unique circumstances.


    Ok, if it's pre-knowledge, please explain how this fits into the conspiracy theory.
    Why did they tell the BBC?
    Why did the BBC report it early?


    Not really. It's pointing out that you are being less than honest with your description.
    A study that is planned to take 4 years is not the same as a study that is planned to take 2 but then is delayed (for reasons mysterious) for 2 years.

    What you said implies that it was always planned to take as long as it did, which isn't true.


    I didn't say that it wasn't.
    I disagree with your assertion that it was the university that did the study. It was not. It was one professor who was hired and funded by a conspiracy theory organisation.

    I also made several other points on this and other points you brought up. It would be best if you address them all in full.


    Because of the extensive damage and the uncontrolled fires. I suspect he was making a precautious, educated guess.

    But again, what's the conspiracy theory here? Are you accusing this first responder of being involved?

    Again, it's a bit rude for you to demand I answer random new questions about tangents when you've been not responding to most points put to you.
    It would be best to deal with what has already been brought up first.

    Why do you keep taking about conspiracy theories?
    I'm only interested in facts.

    One fact is that the BBC reported on the Building's collapse before it did. This is very strange. How did they have prior knowledge? I have no idea but the fact is they knew the building was coming down.

    Another fact is that a number of the people on the video posted have some prior warning that the building was coming down before it did. Again, not normal, under any circumstances.

    Tell me about the other steel framed buildings that have collapsed at freefall speed due to fires. I'm only aware of the Plasco building that collapsed in Tehran two years ago.

    I'm honestly not trying to be rude and I don't agree that my points are tangential. They are all on the same subject - Building 7.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why do you keep taking about conspiracy theories?
    I'm only interested in facts.
    Because this is the conspiracy theory forum and you are proposing a conspiracy theory.
    You are suggesting that the BBC and others had prior knowledge of the collapse of WTC7. That is a conspiracy theory.
    Your initial post in the thread was refering to a study funded by a conspiracy theory group to support their conspiracy theory.
    One fact is that the BBC reported on the Building's collapse before it did. This is very strange. How did they have prior knowledge? I have no idea but the fact is they knew the building was coming down.

    Another fact is that a number of the people on the video posted have some prior warning that the building was coming down before it did. Again, not normal, under any circumstances.
    But you've already been shown why these things most likely happened.
    You haven't explained why these explanations are inadequate.
    On top of that, there is no viable alternative.
    It makes no sense why they would have prior knowledge.
    Who would give it to them? Why? Why would they then give the game away?

    If you can address these points, do so. If not, could you explain why that you think that the incidents indicate a conspiracy?
    Tell me about the other steel framed buildings that have collapsed at freefall speed due to fires. I'm only aware of the Plasco building that collapsed in Tehran two years ago.

    I'm honestly not trying to be rude and I don't agree that my points are tangential. They are all on the same subject - Building 7.
    Cool. I'll provide those then when you address the remaining points from the last few posts. Best to stick to one line of inquiry at a time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are suggesting that the BBC and others had prior knowledge of the collapse of WTC7. That is a conspiracy theory.

    No, this is a fact, acknowledged on the BBC's own website.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html?fbclid=IwAR0LuVPdRLh_6_4rqDDi72dDE65_ZHcMwnnFfBpkbm2tM8VqihMsb4tg1WE

    From that link, 'In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.' So the BBC are admitting that they had received information the building was about to collapse.

    How does an acknowledged fact become a conspiracy theory?

    Oh and the BBC have lost the news tapes of the most important news reporting day of the last 50 years. Now, that is unfortunate, isn't it. Not a conspiracy mind, a fact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No, this is a fact, acknowledged on the BBC's own website.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html?fbclid=IwAR0LuVPdRLh_6_4rqDDi72dDE65_ZHcMwnnFfBpkbm2tM8VqihMsb4tg1WE

    From that link, 'In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.' So the BBC are admitting that they had received information the building was about to collapse.

    How does an acknowledged fact become a conspiracy theory?
    Here, you are mischaracterising statements.
    The BBC did not say " they had received information the building was about to collapse."

    Here they are relaying the facts in very clear terms. And in fact they say:
    1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

    So why did you say they admitted the exact opposite?

    What actually happened is detailed in the part you only partially quoted:
    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

    Again, this is one of the most unique events in the history of the world and they was a lot of panic and confusion that day. So why is it impossible that someone reported something like "The building might collapse". Then through the various lines of communication that statement gets turned into "the building is going to collapse"
    Then in turn that gets twisted to "the building has collapsed".

    As the link you provided states, the BBC was careful to check and qualify their statements.

    Now can you please explain, in clear terms what about the explanation is impossible or far fetched? Please be specific and provide reasons for your answer.

    Then, could you explain how your alternative explanation works were mine does not.
    Who provided the fore knowledge?
    Why did they provide it to the BBC?
    Why did the BBC report the collapse early? Was it on purpose or was it by mistake?

    You've once again not addressed any of the previous points put to you. Could you please confirm that you do not intend on addressing them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.

    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.

    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.

    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.

    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.

    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.

    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.

    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.

    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....

    At least we can agree on one thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,124 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.

    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.

    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.

    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.

    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....

    “Why do you keep taking about conspiracy theories?
    I'm only interested in facts.”


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.
    I wouldn't have to keep asking you to address points if you just addressed them directly the first time they are asked.
    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.
    So there's no alternative explanation.
    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.
    But to believe those anomalies, you have to believe in a far fetch bizarre conspiracy that you yourself can't actually explain.

    But I'm not rubbishing them. I asked you several direct questions to outline your opinion and support it. You are now running away.
    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.
    Yes, I have read the BBC website you linked. I quoted from it where it shows that you were mischaracterising it. I explained in detail how you are mischaracterising it.
    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    And all common canards spouted by conspiracy theorists without any scrutiny or criticial thought.
    Like you previous claims if any one of them is pinned down it quickly falls apart.
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....
    It's very easy.
    All you need to do is ask some very basic simple questions.
    Then people throw a strop and stomp off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    At least we can agree on one thing.

    Great, someone has the answers to these legitimate queries:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Links to other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was free-fall, prior to 9/11.

    I'm here all day.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Great, someone has the answers to these legitimate queries:
    I've answered every one of your points directly and clearly.
    You have answered nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,124 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Great, someone has the answers to these legitimate queries:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Links to other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was free-fall, prior to 9/11.

    I'm here all day.....

    mod: your ‘legitimate queries’ are no more special than any other question you’ve ignored in this thread. This is tantamount to soapboxing. This forum works when users contribute in good faith to answer each other’s questions. Do not soapbox; let’s try to keep discussion to one thing at a time, there are active threads for WTC 7 discussion for instance. There is also already a recent thread about the BBC.




  • Remind us again what NIST said caused the collapse...

    King Mob wrote: »
    Extensive uncontrolled office fires that were left burning for many hours.

    Why did you say "isolated"?

    You asked a question, Sammy, it was answered and a follow up question was asked of you which you ignored.
    Explain again the 2.5 seconds freefall speed of WTC Building 7.
    Part of the building's facade fell at free fall acceleration for a few seconds.
    This is because it was in the middle of the collapse.
    This short period of free fall is not indicative of a conspiracy, nor does it invalidate the real explanation from NIST.
    There's nothing that requires explaining.

    However, such a period of freefall is impossible in the models discussed in Husley's report.

    Why exactly do you think that this period of free fall is important?

    Also you have not addressed any points others have made at you. Could you please go back and address them now?
    Particularly, could you explain why you used the term "isolated" as if it was part of NISTs explanation?

    Can you also explain why you mischaracterised Hulseys study as "a four year peer reviewed scientific study from a respected university" when it was none of those things?

    Again, question asked and answered and multiple follow-up questions are ignored.


    Followed swiftly by.....
    Look, I'll presume that you are reasonably intelligent, so I know you don't really believe this. No steel framed building had collapsed from fire alone before that day and it is reported on before it happened.

    This is pre-knowledge. I know and you know it too.

    The firefighter at the start of this video knows that Building 7 is about to collapse also. Remember, we are talking about something that never happened before, a steel framed building collapsing due to office fires (NIST explanation)

    ****Youtube video****

    On your other points. 2 year or 4 year study. Semantics.

    Is the University of Alaska a respected university? Well you can make that a point of conjecture if you want but let's deal in facts.

    How did that first responder know Building 7 was about to to collapse?
    Was that another case of 'misreporting'?

    .......a gish gallop and changing of the goalposts into a different line of questioning. Each of your points and queries has been addressed and, essentially, refuted.

    Bottom line: you either disagree or agree with King Mob's explanations. You have failed to acknowledge any of this, let alone contest it. You then change the avenue of attack without so much as a by your leave. In what world do you think that any sane and reasonable person would engage with you any further if all you're going to do is make challenges, ignore the responses and go off on another tangent, then act the old soldier (Don't Pester Me!) when you're being pressed to stick to the topic at hand? Why would anybody argue with someone who's arguing in bad faith?

    I would normally suspect you of being a re-reg of a previous poster only your grammar and spelling are, comparatively speaking, exceptional.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    I was messaging the mod on the engineering reddit forum and he told me they will have a thread at the end of the year about the Hulsey study.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=491169&stc=1&d=1569015680

    Mick West video. He got caught lying and still has not fixed it. He adamant he's right when he's not.

    Mick has stated that a major study used the wrong analysis and every engineer, university and analysis tool in the world says Mick is wrong.

    Mick says using linear static anyasis is outrageously wrong and could understand why Hulsey would use it

    Paper is written by FEA engineers. Mick userbase does not see this stuff, he hides it to cover up his mistakes.
    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41130%28369%29323


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Another progressive collapse WTC7 Simulation was produced by Kostak studios in 2017. There progressive collapse after removing columns 79 and 81 on the eastside titled the building southeast exactly like the Hulsey model. Was strange at the time and nobody understand why this happened!

    I showed this to Mick West and he could not debunk it. He just left our private conversation on his site.

    Southeast tilt.
    491170.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2




    This video is a pack of lies.

    Mick says Hulsey only talked about girder A2001 collapse in his study - 12:30
    Mick also claims NIST never used this collapse in their global model (false)

    Nothing he said was factual of course.

    In the Hulsey report- you find this written down
    Hulsey does talk about different collapses around column 79.

    "NIST report posits that the northernmost of five beams to the east of the
    girder, beam G3005, buckled due to its thermal expansion being restrained by girder A2001
    NIST posits that the buckling of beam G3005 then precipitated the buckling of the other
    beams to the east of the girder, causing girder A2001 to be rocked off its seats at columns 44 and
    79 NIST simply claims that this initial north girder failure at Floor 13 precipitated a
    the collapse of the south girder framing into Column 79 at Floor 13, which NIST claims had
    previously buckled due to thermal expansion!

    Why is Mick West lying about this? Did he read the report and if he did, does he not understand it?

    Hulsey new discovery.
    "The NIST report posits that beam G3005 buckled because it's thermal expansion was restrained by girder A2001. Our analysis found that this can only happen when the three lateral support beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 spanning from beam G3005 to the north exterior wall are not included in the model.

    NIST left off support beams in their model that Hulsey believes would prevent buckling of other beams around column 79.

    There two versions of the Hulsey model- One model is removing the core columns only ( the building titled southwest) and other is removing columns 76 to 81 ( north face east side) the building titled southeast. Mick for some reason thinks Hulsey simulated NIST progressive collapse ( from east to west)

    There different simulations that Mick still does not understand.

    Linear static analysis, Hulsey images are noted as visualations there not running in real time. Did Mick tell his userbase this?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,703 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




    This video is a pack of lies.

    Mick says Hulsey only talked about girder A2001 collapse in his study - 12:30
    Mick also claims NIST never used this collapse in their global model (false)

    Nothing he said was factual of course.

    In the Hulsey report- you find this written down
    Hulsey does talk about different collapses around column 79.

    "NIST report posits that the northernmost of five beams to the east of the
    girder, beam G3005, buckled due to its thermal expansion being restrained by girder A2001
    NIST posits that the buckling of beam G3005 then precipitated the buckling of the other
    beams to the east of the girder, causing girder A2001 to be rocked off its seats at columns 44 and
    79 NIST simply claims that this initial north girder failure at Floor 13 precipitated a
    the collapse of the south girder framing into Column 79 at Floor 13, which NIST claims had
    previously buckled due to thermal expansion!

    Why is Mick West lying about this? Did he read the report and if he did, does he not understand it?

    Hulsey new discovery.
    "The NIST report posits that beam G3005 buckled because it's thermal expansion was restrained by girder A2001. Our analysis found that this can only happen when the three lateral support beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 spanning from beam G3005 to the north exterior wall are not included in the model.

    NIST left off support beams in their model that Hulsey believes would prevent buckling of other beams around column 79.

    There two versions of the Hulsey model- One model is removing the core columns only ( the building titled southwest) and other is removing columns 76 to 81 ( north face east side) the building titled southeast. Mick for some reason thinks Hulsey simulated NIST progressive collapse ( from east to west)

    There different simulations that Mick still does not understand.

    Linear static analysis, Hulsey images are noted as visualations there not running in real time. Did Mick tell his userbase this?

    So go post this on the metabunk forum then?

    Or let me guess you have some convoluted excuse not to


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    So go post this on the metabunk forum then?

    Or let me guess you have some convoluted excuse not to

    I have talked with Mick West already. He ignores new info as it does not fit in with his narrative about the Hulsey Study.

    I can quote from the Hulsey study and screenshot what he actually said to prove Mick a liar.

    I showed Mick this enigneering research paper, has he mentioned yet on his site?
    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41130%28369%29323

    I showed him the simulation Kostack did and still has not posted it.

    Mick Penthouse collapse description is nonsense too.

    You can see clearly on the actual video- the right side part pivoted outwards before it came down.

    491172.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,703 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I have talked with Mick West already. He ignores new info as it does not fit in with his narrative about the Hulsey Study.

    I can quote from the Hulsey study and screenshot what he actually said to prove Mick a liar.

    It's a public forum, you're free to try and post it. Again (unlike most conspiracy forums) sites like metabunk, r/engineering, r/askanengineer, related engineering forums have actual standards - can't get away with posting patent silliness

    People who do post irrational nonsense obviously don't like that, so they play themselves off as the victims of a conspiracy by academia and science


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Hulsey- linear static analysis was shown by a visualisation.Nowhere does Hulsey say this was a dynamic simulation

    491173.png

    Mick right you don't run a linear static analysis in real-time ( only part he's got right)

    Mick was saying Hulsey used static analysis where he should have used dynamic?

    Mick does not understand it.

    Hulsey 100 per cent correct.

    In linear static analysis columns is removed from the location being considered and analysis is carried out for following vertical load which shall be applied downward on the structure.

    Hulsey highlighted this in his report he began removing columns to see what would happen to the building when they got removed. He tested different scanarios- two different models they showed there may be more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,795 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn


    Even if the entire operation to knock that building down took 10 people, one of them would have revealed it by now. In reality hundreds of people would have had to be in on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's a public forum, you're free to try and post it. Again (unlike most conspiracy forums) sites like metabunk, r/engineering, r/askanengineer, related engineering forums have actual standards - can't get away with posting patent silliness

    People who do post irrational nonsense obviously don't like that, so they play themselves off as the victims of a conspiracy by academia and science

    The engineering forum on reddit will be opening a new Hulsey thread at the end of the year. Currently they ban all 9/11 threads. They are waiting for the Hulsey data to be released to the public. If Hulsey did something wrong the data will show it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Even if the entire operation to knock that building down took 10 people, one of them would have revealed it by now. In reality hundreds of people would have had to be in on it.

    US government is still hiding information about the Saudis role with 9/11 ( 18) years later. How many people inside the US government are coming out exposing this crime? When the US government decides to keep everyone in the dark thats it and there not a hope then of finding out the truth.

    They going to use people they trust to keep quiet about the attack. The hundreds of people involved in blowing up buildings never made any sense. The narrative controlled. Nobody inside media after 9/11 claimed demolitions was used. Why would you need to tell anyone outside the circle demolitions were used? Far as everyone else concerned fire was the cause.
    .
    This was just days ago news.
    The FBI said they would release the identity of the Saudi official the victims' families most wanted, according to The Journal's report, citing the "exceptional nature of the case." Other information the families were after will not be released.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-reveal-saudi-who-allegedly-helped-september-11-terrorists-2019-9?r=US&IR=T

    Right at the end you see the FBI is still blocking new information from coming out. There not releasing more info due to national security reasons.

    US government though is well aware Saudi Arabia helped the 9/11 hijackers carry out the attacks. How else would the 9/11 commission know Saudi officials met hijackers in different cities? Saudi Arabia least publically denies they helped the 9/11 hijackers. CIA had to be monitoring these meetings pre 9/11.

    If a rogue group learned of this would they use the attacks as cover to get rid of something in the buildings?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,124 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Mick does not understand it.
    Says who?
    Hulsey 100 per cent correct.
    Says who?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,124 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    US government is still hiding information about the Saudis role with 9/11 ( 18) years later. How many people inside the US government are coming out exposing this crime? When the US government decides to keep everyone in the dark thats it and there not a hope then of finding out the truth.

    They going to use people they trust to keep quiet about the attack. The hundreds of people involved in blowing up buildings never made any sense. The narrative controlled. Nobody inside media after 9/11 claimed demolitions was used. Why would you need to tell anyone outside the circle demolitions were used? Far as everyone else concerned fire was the cause.
    .
    This was just days ago news.
    The FBI said they would release the identity of the Saudi official the victims' families most wanted, according to The Journal's report, citing the "exceptional nature of the case." Other information the families were after will not be released.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-reveal-saudi-who-allegedly-helped-september-11-terrorists-2019-9?r=US&IR=T

    Right at the end you see the FBI is still blocking new information from coming out. There not releasing more info due to national security reasons.

    US government though is well aware Saudi Arabia helped the 9/11 hijackers carry out the attacks. How else would the 9/11 commission know Saudi officials met hijackers in different cities? Saudi Arabia least publically denies they helped the 9/11 hijackers. CIA had to be monitoring these meetings pre 9/11.

    If a rogue group learned of this would they use the attacks as cover to get rid of something in the buildings?

    Where do these things you mentioned, intersect with the attacks on 9/11?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hulsey- linear static analysis was shown by a visualisation.Nowhere does Hulsey say this was a dynamic simulation

    491173.png
    .
    Lol.
    I like the stretchy columns there at the break. Very realistic.

    Though it sounds like you should be having this argument with Mick West on Metabunk.
    Why are you posting this here?


Advertisement