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

The Nal · 08-09-2019 02:53PM

banie01 wrote: »

Speaking of Whom....
I see he has just opened a thread in DRP because of Overheal's bias in banning him! :pac:

Hes not happy he has to answer questions!

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Is everybody posting here a structural engineer?

Nope and you don't need to be to see, to name one thing, removing columns that don't suit his agenda that it's a dishonest shambles of a study.

Its clear within seconds of looking at it that its a fraudulent study.

banie01 · 08-09-2019 03:07PM

The Nal wrote: »

Hes not happy he has to answer questions!

But he has presented "evidence"??? :pac:
Nothing he has presented has any evidential value, has all been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.
He has solo run brain storm theories that he then either contradicts himself, or better yet presents evidence he doesn't understand to support his position...
But which actually completely undermines it because he has no understanding of the context or nuance of what he is presenting.

He has been extended more patience than any other poster I've encountered.
Across the 9/11 threads he constantly derails and deflects, same on the Kennedy thread.

That he now has the gall to cry foul?
Not a single shred of honest or indeed cogent debate from them and now crying that due their embarking on a recent round of deflection and insult that they finally got a ban that was held back for far longer than I've ever seen any other poster get away with...

08-09-2019 03:27PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Is everybody posting here a structural engineer?

Which of the many many criticisms brought up require us to be structural engineers?
Which are invalidated by virtue of us not being structural engineers?

Overheal · 08-09-2019 03:28PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Is everybody posting here a structural engineer?

Can’t speak for everyone but I am a mechanical engineer in pursuit of my master of science. Why?

banie01 · 08-09-2019 03:49PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Is everybody posting here a structural engineer?

BBS with major in statistical analysis and a range of industry experience over 20yrs in technical management, QC and process improvement and in particular 6 sigma.
With fairly regular CPD and add on diplomas in a broad range of related fields.
With the last 10yrs being in Regulatory and compliance role.

Currently back at college doing Law so back to being a 1st year newb again.

Reading reports and identifying issues with the information presented and its validity is part and parcel of my professional life.
But when a layperson with no actual engineering quals can call out issues with the Hulsey report, and those issues are echoed and confirmed by experts in the field?

What extra cachet comes with being a structural engineer, other than the qualification?
Science is science, there is no room for alternative facts and if one can follow and comprehend the experimental method, the flaws in Hulsey's report are readily apparent.

Overheal · 08-09-2019 04:03PM

If anyone wants a translation of banie’s credentials: he makes me look like a child.

banie01 · 08-09-2019 04:18PM

Overheal wrote: »

If anyone wants a translation of banie’s credentials: he makes me look like a child.

Not at all, but thank you!

You have a gift for taking complicated engineering matters and concepts and then presenting them to plebs like me in an accessible and easily understood fashion.

That takes a level of smarts that I don't have yet

weisses · 08-09-2019 04:25PM

Overheal wrote: »

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).

It didnt free fall all the way

They use the 7 second part because that is when the roof line started to come down

The collapse of the penthouse is irrelevant when calculating free fall

We talked about this in the other thread before it was closed by you ... you want me to go over it again with you or do you want to read up on the unanswered questions in the other thread and take it from there ?

I thought you guys knew all this basic stuff

weisses · 08-09-2019 04:29PM

King Mob wrote: »

Which of the many many criticisms brought up require us to be structural engineers?
Which are invalidated by virtue of us not being structural engineers?

Plus it doesn't matter if you're not an engineer ... Its the CT forum

Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to see the glaring holes in the official touted line ... No engineering degree needed

08-09-2019 04:34PM

weisses wrote: »

It didnt free fall all the way

They use the 7 second part because that is when the roof line started to come down

The collapse of the penthouse is irrelevant when calculating free fall

We talked about this in the other thread before it was closed by you ... you want me to go over it again with you or do you want to read up on the unanswered questions in the other thread and take it from there ?

I thought you guys knew all this basic stuff

Weisses, in the last thread you demonstrated that you don't understand what freefall is or how acceleration works.
You claimed that gravitational acceleration "needs time to get up to speed."

We have also shown that the "animations" are not compatible with the notion of free fall for either 7 seconds or 2.25 seconds as claimed.

You cannot simply ignore the collapse of the penthouse because it's inconvenient.
Neither you, nor Hulsey are able to explain the collapse of the penthouse in a conspiracy context.

08-09-2019 04:35PM

weisses wrote: »

Plus it doesn't matter if you're not an engineer ... Its the CT forum

Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to see the glaring holes in the official touted line ... No engineering degree needed

Cools.
So any comment on the real flaws in the report we are discussing that we've pointed to?

weisses · 08-09-2019 04:38PM

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses, in the last thread you demonstrated that you don't understand what freefall is or how acceleration works.
You claimed that gravitational acceleration "needs time to get up to speed."

We have also shown that the "animations" are not compatible with the notion of free fall for either 7 seconds or 2.25 seconds as claimed.

You cannot simply ignore the collapse of the penthouse because it's inconvenient.
Neither you, nor Hulsey are able to explain the collapse of the penthouse in a conspiracy context.

dont pull that crap on me ... you managed to get 1 person banned with your demands ... Not falling for it

weisses · 08-09-2019 04:39PM

King Mob wrote: »

Cools.
So any comment on the real flaws in the report we are discussing that we've pointed to?

Is the full thing out yet ?

08-09-2019 04:44PM

weisses wrote: »

dont pull that crap on me ... you managed to get 1 person banned with your demands ... Not falling for it

Huh?

I'm not demanding anything from anyone.
And not sure how I can get anyone banned as I'm not a moderator.

I'm just pointing out facts that highlight the hypocrisy in your post.
You don't understand what freefall means and don't know what acceleration means. You made comments that show this.
You don't have an explanation for how the penthouse fell and either does the Hulsey report.

Is the full thing out yet ?

That's not really a comment or a response.

What will be changed between now and the full release that will address any of the issues that have been pointed out?
I don't think any of the issues can be easily cleared up as many of them seem to be fundamentally baked into the conclusions of the study.

Do you think that the flaws we have pointed out don't exist?
Do you think that we are mistaken in some way?
Are you actually going to engage in any kind of debate or is it another snarky flyby posting?

weisses · 08-09-2019 04:52PM

King Mob wrote: »

Huh?
I'm not demanding anything from anyone.
And not sure how I can get anyone banned as I'm not a moderator.

Ohh King Mob ...

King Mob wrote: »

I'm just pointing out facts that highlight the hypocrisy in your post.
You don't understand what freefall means and don't know what acceleration means. You made comments that show this.
You don't have an explanation for how the penthouse fell and either does the Hulsey report.

The Irony ...You blaming me of hypocrisy

I pointed out to you that you need to debunk the person who explained free fall acceleration occurred

heads up ... You can't

What i do or dont understand about free fall is irrelevant

you weasel your way out of debunking him by claiming i wouldn't understand it anyway ... which is disingenuous in a discussion ... you tried to pull that one on CS as well ..... your posts look like a broken record at this stage

08-09-2019 04:58PM

weisses wrote: »

Ohh King Mob ...

The Irony ...You blaming me of hypocrisy

I pointed out to you that you need to debunk the person who explained free fall acceleration occurred

heads up ... You can't

What i do or dont understand about free fall is irrelevant

you weasel your way out of debunking him by claiming i wouldn't understand it anyway ... which is disingenuous in a discussion ... you tried to pull that one on CS as well ..... your posts look like a broken record at this stage

This post is weirdly personally and very confusing but ok...

I don't know who you are referring to. Which person and what needs to be debunked?

I think the fact that you don't understand what freefall is is very relevant as your entire personal belief in the conspiracy theory hinges on your misunderstanding of what it is, what it means and how it works.

However, this discussion is about Hulseys report.
I take it you have no comments on the issues raised?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 08-09-2019 05:48PM

The Nal wrote: »

Hes not happy he has to answer questions!

Nope and you don't need to be to see, to name one thing, removing columns that don't suit his agenda that it's a dishonest shambles of a study.

Its clear within seconds of looking at it that its a fraudulent study.

It really couldn’t be clear to a non expert. Either way.

Of course a lot of conspiracy re 9/11 is bunk, but it’s not entirely impossible to believe that US would, if it could, engage in this kind of false flag which it definitely had planned in the past.

banie01 · 08-09-2019 07:51PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It really couldn’t be clear to a non expert. Either way.

Of course a lot of conspiracy re 9/11 is bunk, but it’s not entirely impossible to believe that US would, if it could, engage in this kind of false flag which it definitely had planned in the past.

This particular "false flag", even leaving aside the basic logistics.
Would need to involve so many people at so many levels along with organisations both private and public that it's being still a "conspiracy" rather than a blown wide open news story and matter of record speaks very much against it IMO.
This isn't a matter of an order being misinterpreted, or a destroyer not taking fire.
It would need thousands of people each with some knowledge of a plan, acting in concert...
And then never speaking of it in the 18yrs since to date.
Along with no paper trail or credible theory that actually ties it all together.

The belief that the flaws in Hulsey's reports wouldn't be clear to a non expert.
I do take your point.
I am not an engineering expert, but if you review the many 9/11 threads that are on here you will see that there is a cohort of posters who do have something more than just rudimentary knowledge.
Hulsey's report was highlighted as likely fraudulent by myself and others before it was ever published.

I honestly thought it would never be published, that it would be constantly close but in need of more money for additional research.
I'll hold my hands up to being both wrong, and surprised that it has seen daylight even with the cash grab that accompanied it.

The report itself, it's structuring, it's data points, it's confusion about what exactly it is trying to do however are all as I expected.

Hulsey has not modelled a collapse, he has animated a line diagram to fit with his and AE911's theory.
There is no dynamic load modelling, the penthouse collapse as moddeled is IMO an impossibility and the building rotating on a pivot point rather than the mode of collapse actually witnessed is completely at odds with what has been surmised in every investigation and fits none of the actual collapse witnessed.

I'm happy to read the report, to review new data and to try and fit my view of the collapse to any new information presented.
However the report presented, doesn't actually present anything new other than a magically disappearing floor which given its location on Hulsey's model cannot have initiated the collapse they claim, and is completely at odds with the passionate theories espoused by our resident, but thread banned Hulseyite.
Namely multiple demolition charges and advanced "nano-thermite" that has never been used in any other known application, military or demolition and is currently a fantasy tech.

08-09-2019 10:54PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It really couldn’t be clear to a non expert. Either way.

But which of our criticisms in particular are you disputing?
Which require engineering qualifications to allow us to point out?
Which are invalid because we are not demolition experts?

Overheal · 09-09-2019 04:21PM

Ae911 commissioned a survey last month to see who believes the official story of WTC 7

The questions they asked were pretty loaded, and they steered respondents to answers they wanted

https://f002.backblazeb2.com/file/public-download/Results-for-AE911Truth-WTC7-202-8.23.2019.xlsx

Dohnjoe · 09-09-2019 10:02PM

weisses wrote: »

Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to see the glaring holes in the official touted line ... No engineering degree needed

Nonsense

Several separate investigations have found the building fell due to fire. You can't explain otherwise, so you resort to subjectively "not understanding" it.

You read Hulsey's draft report? have any issues with it?

or it's perfect science? no issues?

Also it takes some extraordinary level of gall and dogmatic ignorance to lecture people about "functioning brains" whilst on a conspiracy theory forum claiming 911 was an inside job.

The Nal · 10-09-2019 11:24AM

Another quick video showing serious flaws in Hulseys "work".

02-10-2019 03:02AM

In a shocking twist AE/911 have miss another promised deadline.
They said that the data for the report would be released sometime between September 16th and 30th.
It's now October and there's been no explanation or warning about this lateness.
It's worth pointing out that one of the initial goals of Hulseys report was for total openness about progress and complete access to the data.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MickWest/status/1179047060890214401

The report has been an embarassing flop for them.
It's been showing them up for the entire process and now that its released it's barely made a blip outside of conspiracy forums.

How much have they spent on it?

The Nal · 02-10-2019 08:40AM

King Mob wrote: »

How much have they spent on it?

Not as much as they've raised I would bet.

banie01 · 11-10-2019 01:22PM

Has our resident Hulseyite gone silent on this one?

Would love to know what the psychological impact is, on those who're slowly realizing that they have been scammed, particularly with the post card cash grab?

The Nal · 11-10-2019 02:25PM

We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. (Update: Please be advised the data has not been posted yet due to technical issues encountered while uploading several hundred gigabytes of data. It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.)

banie01 · 11-10-2019 02:44PM

The Nal wrote: »

It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.)

So basically it boils down to...
We made shít up, lied about our "simulation" created an animation based on flawed data.
Now that someone wants to check our math, we ain't releasing anything other than another dodgy video :pac:

The actual radio silence from any and all credible news and academic sources on the thesis of the "report" is damning in and of itself.

Dohnjoe · 11-10-2019 02:51PM

banie01 wrote: »

So basically it boils down to...
We made shít up, lied about our "simulation" created an animation based on flawed data.
Now that someone wants to check our math, we ain't releasing anything other than another dodgy video :pac:

The actual radio silence from any and all credible news and academic sources on the thesis of the "report" is damning in and of itself.

Well, the only people who seem to follow this stuff are a handful of truthers and the lunatics (ourselves) who debate them. It's highly unlikely that many if any in the academic/scientific world are even aware of this report, let alone would bother addressing it

banie01 · 11-10-2019 03:06PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well, the only people who seem to follow this stuff are a handful of truthers and the lunatics (ourselves) who debate them. It's highly unlikely that many if any in the academic/scientific world are even aware of this report, let alone would bother addressing it

But Dohnjoe...
There was postcards!
Those people were sent postcards telling them where to find the truth...
They must be so wrapped in the conspiracy that they were afraid to even look

Actually, I must log onto the Uni server and have a trawl through Google scholar to see if the UFBA published the report, it if the loopers just tried self publishing.

12-10-2019 02:35AM

The Nal wrote: »

We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. (Update: Please be advised the data has not been posted yet due to technical issues encountered while uploading several hundred gigabytes of data. It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.)

Somehow 3000 architects and engineers can't figure out how to upload a file to the internet.

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

Comments