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

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.

Model i posted today is outside the building. You looking down at failures on top of the roof- penthouse collapse only.
The other model is showing the full collapse- the model from today does not show that.
You complaining the model from today just looks more legitimate then other ones released. That's your opinion.
Mick the one complaining and you getting your information from him.
Hulsey has not released a model showing the inside of the building- a dynamic simulation of removing eight floors of columns that Mike complaint. That a fair point i not disagreeing with that. Some people like to see a better model of this collapse inside the building. It something AE911 should release to ease the Skeptics concerns.

Overheal wrote: »

Lol show me the GIF of that “pivot”

Mick says that lift in the back was bizarre.

Hulsey model accurately shows the break and lift.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Model i posted today is outside the building. You looking down at failures on top of the roof- penthouse collapse only.

That's not what "top down" means.
Also, the model you are refering shows the internal structure of the building.
Both of the models do.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

The other model is showing the full collapse- the model from today does not show that.

Neither models show the full collapse.

However both models show the initiation of the collapse and have an overlap in what they show yet show different incompatible features that should would be clear in both.

For example, in the model in the report, the roof line shows no buckling or distortion. This conflicts with both the other model and reality where buckling in clearly visible.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

Additionally in the model in the report, there is no distortion of the penthouse during the collapse. One section simply folds in half, then drops straight down while all the members of the structure stay perfectly straight. This is not the case in either reality or the other model.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

And then, the timing is all wrong between the two models. In the one in the report, the facade begins it's collapse the instant the roof line of the remaining penthouse falls past the roofline of the facade. In the rejected model, the facade doesn't start to fall until a good deal after the penthouse has completely collapsed inside the building.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

And then on top of all that, the collapses as a whole are entirely different. The model in the paper shows the facade falling all at once straight downwards in time with the remain penthouse falling. The other model shows that it begins to fall slowly and tilt backwards (like in reality) before the animation ends.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

And this is before we get into the other problems with the animation in the paper.

So from these points that you aren't going to address, we can see that the model in paper is inferior and less accurate.
So why would they use it?
Was something wrong with the other model? If so, what?
What reasoning did hulsey give for this? Please quote him directly.

[IMG][/img]

Actual collapse. Hulsey model looks the exact same.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Actual collapse. Hulsey model looks the exact same.

Cheerful, stop deflecting and trying to change the topic.
These gifs don't help your case.

Wait, so if I take one of WTC 7 pieces of footage

Then crudely animate a building in software to copy that

What am I proving?

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wait, so if I take one of WTC 7 pieces of footage

Then crudely animate a building in software to copy that

What am I proving?

That fire didn't do it! This just proves that the buildings were taken down by a space laser.

When someone is attempting to rebutt an engineering model and doesn't understand what a top down view is :eek:

The lack of technical understanding, engineering knowledge and indeed idiom and its use in engineering terms is actually fúcking staggering!

That someone who doesn't understand basic engineering terms, is adamant they understand any portion of any of the studies is ridiculous and indeed arrogant in the extreme.

banie01 wrote: »

When someone is attempting to rebutt an engineering model and doesn't understand what a top down view is :eek:

The lack of technical understanding, engineering knowledge and indeed idiom and its use in engineering terms is actually fúcking staggering!

Think about it, does the basic technical or logical ignorance help or hinder their refusal to accept the facts.

That's probably the answer right there.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Think about it, does the basic technical or logical ignorance help or hinder their refusal to accept the facts.

That's probably the answer right there.

Oh I agree DJ, its quite a curious case study

https://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh591p856miekdxMpu

LillySV wrote: »

https://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh591p856miekdxMpu

This is off-Hulsey, but that one has been debunked. Turns out no one, even if they had "inside knowledge" was colossally stupid enough to bet on the attacks

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/

LillySV wrote: »

https://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh591p856miekdxMpu

Video dump without comment or context?
In any case it's already been debunked.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/

Ipso

It's like a game of whack-a-mole.

banie01 wrote: »

Video dump without comment or context?
In any case it's already been debunked.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/

No comment cause anyone who sees it can make their own mind up. I just stuck something up that I came across tonite ... I’ve never commented on the findings related to world trade centres...:.

banie01 wrote: »

When someone is attempting to rebutt an engineering model and doesn't understand what a top down view is :eek:

The lack of technical understanding, engineering knowledge and indeed idiom and its use in engineering terms is actually fúcking staggering!

That someone who doesn't understand basic engineering terms, is adamant they understand any portion of any of the studies is ridiculous and indeed arrogant in the extreme.

Top-down view, also sometimes referred to as bird's-eye view or overhead view.

The model i posted today was a bird eye view of the Roof and Penthouse collapses. The other model is northface view of the collapse.

According to Kingmob the model in post 965 not showing the full collapse. I have no clue why he thinks that. His last post does not make any sense..

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what "top down" means.
Also, the model you are refering shows the internal structure of the building.
Both of the models do.

Neither models show the full collapse.

However both models show the initiation of the collapse and have an overlap in what they show yet show different incompatible features that should would be clear in both.

For example, in the model in the report, the roof line shows no buckling or distortion. This conflicts with both the other model and reality where buckling in clearly visible.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

Additionally in the model in the report, there is no distortion of the penthouse during the collapse. One section simply folds in half, then drops straight down while all the members of the structure stay perfectly straight. This is not the case in either reality or the other model.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

And then, the timing is all wrong between the two models. In the one in the report, the facade begins it's collapse the instant the roof line of the remaining penthouse falls past the roofline of the facade. In the rejected model, the facade doesn't start to fall until a good deal after the penthouse has completely collapsed inside the building.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

And then on top of all that, the collapses as a whole are entirely different. The model in the paper shows the facade falling all at once straight downwards in time with the remain penthouse falling. The other model shows that it begins to fall slowly and tilt backwards (like in reality) before the animation ends.
Both models should show the same thing, but they don't, so one is inaccurate.

And this is before we get into the other problems with the animation in the paper.

So from these points that you aren't going to address, we can see that the model in paper is inferior and less accurate.
So why would they use it?
Was something wrong with the other model? If so, what?
What reasoning did hulsey give for this? Please quote him directly.

Post 936. Thats what Penthouse looked like outside the building. It broken into two seperate pieces and then fell in through the open roof
The model in the report does not show the full collapse outside - what it showing then? You see it coming straight down in the gif you posted.
The model i posted today is showing the Penthouse and roofline collapse ( an over top view looking down). You see internal collapses and movement and deformations occuring at the side corner walls
There two different models- different views. How could Hulsey show that bird eye roofline collapse in the paper model when its a view from a different angle?

Timing all wrong?
On the actual video of the collapse once the Penthouse fully gone from view- the building collapsed six seconds later it came straight down. The building beside the Penthouse was also collapsing before the full straight down collapse occurred.
Model in the report- is more accurate timewise.
Data model- has less accurate timing but i not sure why that is? Mick posted the model so i not sure if its bad editing job or just the model timing off. I need more information about the model he found to confirm a problem.

LillySV wrote: »

https://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh591p856miekdxMpu

This is better link explains it all in detail. Snopes is disinformation.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-for-informed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11-2001/5652934

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

.
Model in the report- is more accurate timewise.
Data model- has less accurate timing but i not sure why that is?.

So there was a straight answer buried in all that ranting.
So you claim that it has the most accurate timing, yet it is inaccurate in every other regard.
Why is that model so inaccurate?
How could it produce an accurate timing if it was inaccurate in all the rest of the aspects of the collapse, in particular it doesn't account for the interaction of the structure with itself. For example, when the penthouse falls it doesnt cause any damage to anything else. Nor does the internal collapse (if there even is one in the model) affect the outer facade as it does in reality and in the simulated models.

The model in the report behaves as if none of the floors, coulmns or beams interact with each other. Its like it all became intangible as it fell.

So how did they produce such an inaccurate ridiculous model? Why not just produce a dynamic model like the other one with accuate timing?

King Mob wrote: »

So there was a straight answer buried in all that ranting.
So you claim that it has the most accurate timing, yet it is inaccurate in every other regard.
Why is that model so inaccurate?
How could it produce an accurate timing if it was inaccurate in all the rest of the aspects of the collapse, in particular it doesn't account for the interaction of the structure with itself. For example, when the penthouse falls it doesnt cause any damage to anything else. Nor does the internal collapse (if there even is one in the model) affect the outer facade as it does in reality and in the simulated models.

The model in the report behaves as if none of the floors, coulmns or beams interact with each other. Its like it all became intangible as it fell.

So how did they produce such an inaccurate ridiculous model? Why not just produce a dynamic model like the other one with accuate timing?

Look at the actual collapse on video. We can only see the collapse outside the building.( north side view)
NIST released a global model based on what they just believe took place inside the building.

Hulsey paper model ( north side view)- does match the sequences of events on an actual video.
A noticeable visible kink is the only thing missing in Hulsey paper model- everything else matches up perfectly. Timing accurate as well. NIST also had trouble with the kink it was missing from their global model.

Data model too fast. I not sure if just speed up to save time or something else wrong with it. The 3 seconds i see not correct. The collapses of roof don't come down that fast. I need more info about that model and what Hulsey was attempting to show there to talk more about it.

That a fair point. I hoping the release a better model to show Hulsey collapse scenario inside the building. Maybe in the Data I don't know. It only part I agree that needs more work. There no need to show NIST progressive collapse again though we already have their model

LillySV wrote: »

No comment cause anyone who sees it can make their own mind up. I just stuck something up that I came across tonite ... I’ve never commented on the findings related to world trade centres...:.

How can one be expected to make their own mind up when you link outright disinformation and lies without comment, opinion or context though?

You dropped a link that 5 seconds on Google would rebutt and then justify it by saying you never comment on WTC "findings"?

The video you posted wasn't a finding, and posting it without comment would imply that you support the opinion?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Top-down view, also sometimes referred to as bird's-eye view or overhead view.

The model i posted today was a bird eye view of the Roof and Penthouse collapses. The other model is northface view of the collapse.

According to Kingmob the model in post 965 not showing the full collapse. I have no clue why he thinks that. His last post does not make any sense..

@C.S, Incase I missed it and to rule out a mistake or misunderstanding on my part.
Could I please ask you to link the post, or to just repost the model that you are referring to as "top down"?

Just want to clarify exactly which one it is please?

banie01 wrote: »

How can one be expected to make their own mind up when you link outright disinformation and lies without comment, opinion or context though?

You dropped a link that 5 seconds on Google would rebutt and then justify it by saying you never comment on WTC "findings"?

The video you posted wasn't a finding, and posting it without comment would imply that you support the opinion?

Sorry I’m not a Facebook /Twitter/instagram user that relies on the internet to tell me my opinion.... I read things, take things in and form my own opinion which I’m entitled to.

As regards your opinion that it was lies and debunked.... where did that happen!!? The ****ing transactions did happen so how are they lies!!!? Your snope link even admitted this but then tried to explain it as coincidental.... the same as all the other coincidences relating to 9/11

LillySV wrote: »

Sorry I’m not a Facebook /Twitter/instagram user that relies on the internet to tell me my opinion.... I read things, take things in and form my own opinion which I’m entitled to.

As regards your opinion that it was lies and debunked.... where did that happen!!? The ****ing transactions did happen so how are they lies!!!? Your snope link even admitted this but then tried to explain it as coincidental.... the same as all the other coincidences relating to 9/11

So you did post it with an implied opinion but didn't share it?
Why?

Great start to honest debate.
This is about opinions and backing those with evidence...
Why share debunked evidence to have an opinion teased out of you?

And well done on not having your opinion shaped by social media.
Is there an award for that?

banie01 wrote: »

So you did post it with an implied opinion but didn't share it?
Why?

Great start to honest debate.
This is about opinions and backing those with evidence...
Why share debunked evidence to have an opinion teased out of you?

And well done on not having your opinion shaped by social media.
Is there an award for that?

listen could you go get your mammy there...think youve had too much internet time today...go out and play with the other kids on your street

LillySV wrote: »

listen could you go get your mammy there...think youve had too much internet time today...go out and play with the other kids on your street

Were the questions asked of you difficult?
Should I simplify them?

Resorting to personal abuse rather than answering the questions asked?
Confirms my opinion regarding your debate skills.

But thanks for clarifying that for the rest of the thread participants.

banie01 wrote: »

Were the questions asked of you difficult?
Should I simplify them?

Resorting to personal abuse rather than answering the questions asked?
Confirms my opinion regarding your debate skills.

But thanks for clarifying that for the rest of the thread participants.

Its fairly clear you are a troll, a quick look back at your comments shows thats all you want to do is troll and cause fights with people.....thats your only purpose on this...I have no time for that ...not responding to u anymore..:D

LillySV wrote: »

Its fairly clear you are a troll, a quick look back at your comments shows thats all you want to do is troll and cause fights with people.....thats your only purpose on this...I have no time for that ...not responding to u anymore..:D

If you feel I have trolled, please feel free to report those posts.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Snopes is disinformation.

Hilarious. And you then proceed to post from a well known anti-Western/conspiracy blog

And we're off-Hulsey

Every new user here you are determined to fill their heads with nonsense, like a cult