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

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

It a 130 page Study you have to read to understand it all.
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

On page 106. He ran this simulation and the building reacted identical to the collapse on 9/11.

A brief explantation on page 106 what he did next. This what happened according to Hulsey.

What?

That's not a conclusion, it's a bizarre attempt at constructing a negative about another report - without reaching a final conclusive result

Was it space laser beams, energy weapons, silent explosives? How did the building fall down?

The Nal

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Since we know NIST never released the important data they failed all this. Peer review requires others to replicate your findings. Hulsey study is useless without providing the work he did.

Why is the ability to repeat experiments important?
1. Reliability

Replication lets you see patterns and trends in your results. This is affirmative for your work, making it stronger and better able to support your claims. This helps maintain integrity of data. On the other hand, repeating experiments allows you to identify mistakes, flukes, and falsifications. Mistakes may have been the misreading of a result or incorrectly entering data. These are sometimes inevitable as we are only human. However, replication can identify falsifications which can carry serious implications in the future.

2. Peer review

If someone is to thoroughly peer review your work, then they would carry out the experiments again themselves.. If someone were wanting to replicate an experiment,the first scientist should do everything possible to allow replicability.

3. Publications

If your work is to be published, it is crucial for there to be a section on the methods of your work. Hence this should be replicable in order to enable others to repeat your methodology. Also, if your methods are reliable, the results are more likely to be reliable. Furthermore, it will indicate whether your data was collected in a generally accepted way, which others are able to repeat.

4. Variable checking

Being able to replicate experiments and the resulting data allows you to check the extraneous variables. These are variables that you are not actually testing, but that may be influencing your results. Through replication, you can see how and if any extraneous variables have affected your experiment and if they need to be made note of. Through replication, you are more likely to be able to identify the undesirable variables and then decrease or control their influence where possible.

5. Avoid retractions

Replicating data yourself, as well as others doing it, is advisable before you publish the work, if that is your intention. This is because if the data has been replicated and confirmed before publication, it is again more likely to have integrity. In turn, the chance of your paper being retracted decreases. Making it easier for others to replicate data then makes it easier for them to support your data and claims, so it is definitely in your interest to make data replicable.

Cheerful you've copy and pasted every word of the above post from here

https://www.labfolder.com/blog/importance-of-replicable-data/

King Mob wrote: »

You've not addressed the point I made. Again you avoid it because you realise you can't address it.

The model you are pointing to was not included in the final actual report Hulsey submitted.
If he had this model available, why did they not use that one in the actual report rather than the laughable ones they did use?

And again to point out: NIST report has been published and peer reviewed.
Hulsey's report is not peer reviewed or published in a journal.

600 gigs of work. You can't include everything you did in a study. It is too long of a read.
Scientists need data replicate the work you did and find errors. Scientists always want data to verify something true.

I saw no problems with the models. Mick thought it was a simulation of progressive collapse originally . he did not understand it was just a model of column removal on the eastside corner. It not a simulation of progressive collapse across the building. There only six columns removed causing the southeast side tip over tilt. Hulsey never said it was a simulation of 84 column failure.. It was a model of the building viewed from outside the exterior. It comparing the NIST model to this is stupid. The building had concrete walls there no view from inside the building. NIST provided a physics model to show what they believe happened when floors collapsed.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

600 gigs of work. You can't include everything you did in a study. It is too long of a read.
...

I saw no problems with the models.

But again you're avoiding the question.

Why wasn't the model you pointed to used?
It's not the same one as the one in the actual report and plastered all over the press releases.
The one in the report doesn't look anything like the one you are now pointing to.
Why are these models different? Which is more accurate?
Why did they use the inferior silly looking one and not the one you said looks closer to the real collapse?

King Mob wrote: »

But again you're avoiding the question.

Why wasn't the model you pointed to used?
It's not the same one as the one in the actual report and plastered all over the press releases.
The one in the report doesn't look anything like the one you are now pointing to.
Why are these models different? Which is more accurate?
Why did they use the inferior silly looking one and not the one you said looks closer to the real collapse?

There models showing different failures and one is a model of the building created in Sap 2000 from the ground up based on the blueprint- the blue/purple orange /red building model. They're likely lot more models to be found still in the data.

The UAF study red building model ( that you complain about) is showing what would happen if six columns got removed on the eastside. The building would tilt over to the southeast side. There another red building a model that simulates just the core columns being removed not the exterior ( the building titled southwest forward)

NIST claims the collapse started on eastside, the columns buckled first there and more core columns horizontally buckled and failed east to west in a progressive collapse. Hulsey ran the simulation removing the six core columns NIST said failed first and Hulsey building titled over to the southeast. Hulsey simulation proved the NIST explanation was false. NIST model is fraudulent based on what Hulsey found.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

There models showing different failures and one is a model of the building created in Sap 2000 from the ground up based on the blueprint- the blue/purple orange /red building model. They're likely lot more models to be found still in the data.

The UAF study red building model ( that you complain about) is showing what would happen if six columns got removed on the eastside. The building would tilt over to the southeast side. There another red building a model that simulates just the core columns being removed not the exterior ( the building titled southwest forward)

First, you're going to have to show this is the case. Your reading ability is extremely poor and you often lie about things, so I don't trust that your description is accurate.

However it still doesn't answer the question I asked.
Stop avoiding it. You aren't fooling anyone by avoiding it. We can all see that you're avoiding it.

Stop bringing up the NIST. We are discussing Hulsey's study and we will not allow you to deflect anymore.

Again to clarify:
This is the model they released in the final report: (ie the one that demonstrates their claims)

This is the model you provided:

The first one doesn't match the collapse at all and is comically bad and clearly animated by hand.
The second one looks more accurate and more like a dynamic model that would accurately simulate a real collapse.
These are not the same collapse.
Yet they only added the first one, so presumably, that's the more accurate one.

Why is this?

King Mob wrote: »

First, you're going to have to show this is the case. Your reading ability is extremely poor and you often lie about things, so I don't trust that your description is accurate.

However it still doesn't answer the question I asked.
Stop avoiding it. You aren't fooling anyone by avoiding it. We can all see that you're avoiding it.

Stop bringing up the NIST. We are discussing Hulsey's study and we will not allow you to deflect anymore.

This may hep you understand it.
Kostack studies in 2017 did a simulation of the progressive collapse inside world trade seven. And there building also toppled southeast. Lot of people said thats not what happened you lie back then. It looked like nothing like the actual collapse on 9/11
It all make sense now since Hulsey found the same thing would happen if the columns failed on eastside first the building would tip over southeast.
In the NIST model it does not tip over in this direction.

Its identical to the Hulsey red model. He model titled in same direction.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

This may hep you understand it.

I assume you mean "help" me. No it doesn't. You are bringing up another study that is unrelated to Hulsey to deflect again.

It would help me to understand if you don't deflect and stop going on poorly written rambles and instead answered direct questions simply, clearly and directly.

Again to clarify:
This is the model they released in the final report: (ie the one that demonstrates their claims)

This is the model you provided:

King Mob wrote: »

Which of these two models depicts the real collapse?
1 or 2?

Why in the first model does the penthouse just "stop"?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why in the first model does the penthouse just "stop"?

One question at a time. He has trouble sticking on point as it is...

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

This may hep you understand it.
Kostack studies in 2017 did a simulation of the progressive collapse inside world trade seven.

BTWs. Kostack agrees with the NIST report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s

While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because the removal of other columns led to much different collapses. More than that is hardly determinable, such a system behaves just to chaotic to tell what exact connection failed first. In this regard NIST might be wrong by declaring a specific failure point. However, I consider this not being an important question given the fact how compromised the structure around these three columns must have been exposed to fire for hours, a situation beyond any imaginable safety design specification.

King Mob wrote: »

I assume you mean "help" me. No it doesn't. You are bringing up another study that is unrelated to Hulsey to deflect again.

It would help me to understand if you don't deflect and stop going on poorly written rambles and instead answered direct questions simply, clearly and directly.

Again to clarify:
This is the model they released in the final report: (ie the one that demonstrates their claims)

This is the model you provided:

The first one doesn't match the collapse at all and is comically bad and clearly animated by hand.
The second one looks more accurate and more like a dynamic model that would accurately simulate a real collapse.
These are not the same collapse.
Yet they only added the first one, so presumably, that's the more accurate one.

Why is this?

Which of these two models depicts the real collapse?
1 or 2?

Both do.
Based on photographs the Penthouse stopped on the 40th floor.
The windows broke only there.

This is evidence. Where do you see broken windows below the 41th floor?

Mick West also said the Penthouse did not pivot outwards when it fell. Thats a lie. Photograph evidence showing the pivot outwards.

The second model a different view of the Penthouse collapse. Hulsey did not release models for Mick West. He released models to just highlight discoveries.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Both do.

Cheerful, that's clearly not possible.
They look nothing alike on any level.

It's baffling you are claiming this.

And again you've avoided the question asked of you and you're again obsessing over Mick West.

King Mob wrote: »

BTWs. Kostack agrees with the NIST report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s

Have not noticed the problem have you?
Yes, they agree with NIST- but they're building after they removed the columns started tilting southeast.
It now makes sense in 2019 why that happened because Hulsey discovered the building would also tilt southeast when columns 79 to 81 are pulled out.
Unknowingly Kostack proved Hulsey work in 2017.
It totally destroys NIST study because the building is collapsing in the wrong direction.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

It totally destroys NIST study because the building is collapsing in the wrong direction.

Lol. The creator of the video says the exact opposite.
I quoted him directly and highlighted the relevant bit:

While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because the removal of other columns led to much different collapses. More than that is hardly determinable, such a system behaves just to chaotic to tell what exact connection failed first. In this regard NIST might be wrong by declaring a specific failure point. However, I consider this not being an important question given the fact how compromised the structure around these three columns must have been exposed to fire for hours, a situation beyond any imaginable safety design specification.

I suppose you know more them him as well.

But again, you're deflecting from Hulsey's study because you know you're painting yourself into another corner again.

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. The creator of the video says the exact opposite.

I suppose you know more them him as well.

But again, you're deflecting from Hulsey's study because you know you're painting yourself into another corner again.

This is Hulsey model- its the same direction.
Kostack unknowingly verified Hulsey work. Fact they support the official story, it can not be dismissed.

Compare- Kostack building also toppled over southeast when east core and exterior columns are removed.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

This is Hulsey model- its the same direction.

You are deflecting again.
It's getting a bit sad now.

These are the models we are discussing:

and

You have claimed that they show the same thing and that they are both accurate.

But that's clearly not true and impossible.

However, the question put to you is why they put the first one in the report they released and plastered that all over their press releases, but they did not add the second model even though it looks far more accurate and less laughable.

Stop avoiding this question.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

This is Hulsey model- its the same direction.
Kostack unknowingly verified Hulsey work. Fact they support the official story, it can not be dismissed.

Compare- Kostack building also toppled over southeast when east core and exterior columns are removed.

And lol. These two pictures and showing entirely different things.

Husley's model has the upper part of the building entirely intact and just keeling over for no reason. Kostack's one has the building essentially hollowed out while the facade flops around.
That's not what topple means.

Are you so desperate to deflect from my question you'd deliberately post something so hilariously obviously wrong?

King Mob wrote: »

And lol. These two pictures and showing entirely different things.

Husley's model has the upper part of the building entirely intact and just keeling over for no reason. Kostack's one has the building essentially hollowed out while the facade flops around.
That's not what topple means.

Are you so desperate to deflect from my question you'd deliberately post something so hilariously obviously wrong?

You just avoiding smoking gun evidence that NIST progressive collapse would have tilted the building southeast.
It would never have happened anyway because they removed structural elements to start the collapse.
Complaining about what models he released is a sideshow.
Why does Kostack building tilt southeast and not the direction showed in the NIST global model?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

You just avoiding smoking gun evidence that NIST progressive collapse would have tilted the building southeast.
It would never have happened anyway because they removed structural elements to start the collapse.
Complaining about what models he released is a sideshow.
Why does Kostack building tilt southeast and not the direction showed in the NIST global model?

Lol deflection.

You are trying to change the subject cheerful. You are getting desperate.

We are talking about Hulsey's models.
Answer the question:

You have claimed that they show the same thing and that they are both accurate.

But that's clearly not true and impossible.

However, the question put to you is why they put the first one in the report they released and plastered that all over their press releases, but they did not add the second model even though it looks far more accurate and less laughable.

Stop avoiding this question.

I think it's because you don't even know what the second model is or shows.

King Mob wrote: »

Lol deflection.

You are trying to change the subject cheerful. You are getting desperate.

We are talking about Hulsey's models.
Answer the question:

You have claimed that they show the same thing and that they are both accurate.

But that's clearly not true and impossible.

However, the question put to you is why they put the first one in the report they released and plastered that all over their press releases, but they did not add the second model even though it looks far more accurate and less laughable.

Stop avoiding this question.

I think it's because you don't even know what the second model is or shows.

It not changing the subject.
Hulsey released a computer model showing what would occur when eastside columns were removed.
It an important topic because we trying to understand why the building came down the way it did on 9/11.
Kostack replicated the NIST progression of failures and there building went the opposite direction and toppled over on its side ( southeast) Hulsey study found the same thing would have occurred ( you can see the model it toppling over same direction.
Who right here- NIST
Kostack and Hulsey?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

It not changing the subject.

It is changing the subject.
The subject is not about a different model. It's about the two models I've pointed out and the question you are avoiding.
You can't answer it.
It's obvious to everyone. It's just funny to watch you try to weasel away from the fact you can't.

You have claimed that they show the same thing and that they are both accurate.

But that's clearly not true and impossible.

However, the question put to you is why they put the first one in the report they released and plastered that all over their press releases, but they did not add the second model even though it looks far more accurate and less laughable.

Stop avoiding this question.

I think it's because you don't even know what the second model is or shows.

King Mob wrote: »

It is changing the subject.
The subject is not about a different model. It's about the two models I've pointed out and the question you are avoiding.
You can't answer it.
It's obvious to everyone. It's just funny to watch you try to weasel away from the fact you can't.

You have claimed that they show the same thing and that they are both accurate.

But that's clearly not true and impossible.

However, the question put to you is why they put the first one in the report they released and plastered that all over their press releases, but they did not add the second model even though it looks far more accurate and less laughable.

Stop avoiding this question.

I think it's because you don't even know what the second model is or shows.

I wrote this about twenty minute ago or more
"The second model a different view of the Penthouse collapse. Hulsey did not release models for Mick West. He released models to just highlight discoveries.

The model your complaining about is the Penthouse collapsing and stopping on 41th floor ( northside exterior view) the columns giving way after the penthouse collapsed and then shows the straight down collapse.
What wrong with it exactly?
Yes maybe they should have released more models to show all the collisions and deformations. It doesn't change the findings either way.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

The model your complaining about is the Penthouse collapsing and stopping on 41th floor ( northside exterior view) the columns giving way after the penthouse collapsed and then shows the straight down collapse.
What wrong with it exactly?
Yes maybe they should have released more models to show all the collisions and deformations.

Again, these models aren't the same thing. They cannot be different views of the same model and collapse.. They don't show the same features at all and look entirely different. The one they rejected from the report shows deformation in the roofline and the whole building tilts (like reality) and it shows the collapse progressing from one side to the other continuously followed by the collapse of the outer facade.

The one in the report has none of the detail or dynamic movement of the one they rejected. The one in the report looks nothing like reality. The one in the report is clearly animated by hand.
So why did they use that one and not the superior looking, more accurate one?

Do you not know?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, these models aren't the same thing. They don't show the same features at all and look entirely different. The one they rejected from the report shows deformation in the roofline and the whole building tilts (like reality) and it shows the collapse progressing from one side to the other continuously followed by the collapse of the outer facade.

The one in the report has none of the detail or dynamic movement of the one they rejected. The one in the report looks nothing like reality. The one in the report is clearly animated by hand.
So why did they use that one and not the superior looking, more accurate one?

Do you not know?

The model i posted today is a top down view of the Penthouse collapse.
The other model you posted is looking at the building from the outside ( a northside view) On real video all we see is the building collapsing outside. Hulsey model does show the actual collapse.
Guessing Mick complaining the Hulsey model does not show the controlled demolition scenario? The physics of removing columns on eight floors? Is that the issue?
Obviously there is better models in the data- Mick posted one he found. I wish i had the space to download the data and check..

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

The model i posted today is a top down view of the Penthouse collapse.

Cheerful, none of the models are top down.

The model given in the report isn't the same as the more detailed model you posted earlier. They are both internal views.
Even still, the model in the report doesn't have any of the features from the other model that would be apparent from an "external view".

So again:
Why did they use the crap, inaccurate, animated model in the report, but reject the other more accurate, better looking model that uses actual simulation?

Again, you keep bringing up Mick West. I am not discussing him or any other models or studies.
Please focus Cheerful and stop trying to deflect.

Ask a straight question, receive a made-up answer or deflection

On neverending loop

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, none of the models are top down.

The model given in the report isn't the same as the more detailed model you posted earlier. They are both internal views.
Even still, the model in the report doesn't have any of the features from the other model that would be apparent from an "external view".

So again:
Why did they use the crap, inaccurate, animated model in the report, but reject the other more accurate, better looking model that uses actual simulation?

Again, you keep bringing up Mick West. I am not discussing him or any other models or studies.
Please focus Cheerful and stop trying to deflect.

Please choose:

1. It wasn't ready at the time
2. Both are relevant
3. They both represent the same thing, but different aspects of the collapse
4. Whatever other bull**** answers can be made up on the spot