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

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

1…3940424445…61

Comments

  • #1232
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,886 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    What a joke of a study. Two peer reviews. Both "peers" are truthers. And on top of that, they've deleted public comments from the draft they had open, for public comments.

    The fraud is breathtaking.

    Thankfully only fringe crazies believe this nonsense now.

    https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1242920118155382787


  • #1233
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Lads, ignore his blatant deflection, only ask/answer questions about the report. It's obvious he doesn't want to talk about it

    Avoid chatting about the evidence is your guys' way of dealing with it. All the Information brought up yesterday was in the final report! You would not notice that because the sole research you guys do is to go on Metabunk and read Mick the liar posts and quote them!

    I not going to be here all day answering resident debunkers questions when they're too lazy to even open the report and read it for themselves.  


  • #1234
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Avoid chatting about the evidence is your guys' way of dealing with it.  

    You have absolutely no credible evidence of your theory - yet you vehemently believe it

    There is overwhelming evidence 19 hijackers flew planes into the buildings causing them to collapse - yet you reject it all

    That makes no sense. You think this is a "make-up-your-own-history" adventure where you can invent whatever you like.


  • #1235
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    What a joke of a study. Two peer reviews. Both "peers" are truthers. And on top of that, they've deleted public comments from the draft they had open, for public comments.

    The fraud is breathtaking.

    Thankfully only fringe crazies believe this nonsense now.

    https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1242920118155382787

    Lies again. Ae911 truth published public comments and even Mick West video was included in the paper.

    Open the paper and look.
    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments.pdf


  • #1236
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,886 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Lies again. Ae911 truth published public comments and even Mick West video was included in the paper.

    Open the paper and look.
    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments.pdf

    Yep, and they have deleted comments too.

    Absolute fraudsters.


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Yep, and they have deleted comments too.

    Absolute fraudsters.

    Evidence please? Are you reading more of those silly comments on Metabunk?


  • #1238
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The Nal wrote: »
    Yep, and they have deleted comments too.

    Absolute fraudsters.

    Why the eff would anyone with a sane mind trust a conspiracy group to produce a study on anything

    Oh that's right, no one does, except for a bunch of.. wait for it.. conspiracy theorists, who paid for the study in the first place


  • #1239
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,886 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why the eff would anyone with a sane mind trust a conspiracy group to produce a study on anything

    Oh that's right, no one does, except for a bunch of.. wait for it.. conspiracy theorists, who paid for the study in the first place

    This Gage guy, have to admire him in a way. A total fraud obviously but hes made a nice living off this for 15 years.

    A pro truther group, producing a study, funded by truthers, and peer reviewed by truthers. lol.


  • #1240
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why the eff would anyone with a sane mind trust a conspiracy group to produce a study on anything

    Oh that's right, no one does, except for a bunch of.. wait for it.. conspiracy theorists, who paid for the study in the first place

    You’re a careless thinker. The Truth group presented the actual steel frame plan/designs for the building in 2013!  
    All they did was measure NIST assumptions to the actual construction drawings and then attacked the NIST final report.  
    The Truth movement can detect where NIST lied and covered up based on that. I marked out another flaw in their report yesterday.

    NIST maintained the floor beam (g3500) was W22X55
    In actual reality (Frankel Steel construction plan) it was a W21X44 beam.

    Supplementary evidence ( Frankel steel; construction drawings) backs up their claim, the NIST study was a fraud. 

    You not find that discussion on Metabunk. 


  • #1241
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The Nal wrote: »
    This Gage guy, have to admire him in a way. A total fraud obviously but hes made a nice living off this for 15 years.

    A pro truther group, producing a study, funded by truthers, and peer reviewed by truthers. lol.

    Yes but running this pseudo-scientific outfit is a full-time job apparently so his nice annual salary from his subscribers is all justified according to them

    I reckon he models his group off the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yes but running this pseudo-scientific outfit is a full-time job apparently so his nice annual salary from his subscribers is all justified according to them

    I reckon he models his group off the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

    Construction drawings are available online. The difference in the NIST report is staggering.

    Be an idiot to deny that G3500 is a 21x44 floor beam.

    507082.png


    This image taken from NIST final report. They maintain its a 24x55 beam

    507083.png


  • #1243
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The Truth group presented the actual steel frame plan/designs for the building in 2013!

    It's a pseudo-scientific group of quacks who have obviously impressed you because of your beliefs

    Does Richard Gage believe a group of secret Nazi's pulled off 9/11? I would highly doubt it, but you are his target audience. Without people like you, he doesn't draw that nice salary. And the other $240,000 - who knows where or who that goes to. Maybe Alex Jones whom AE911 have had such a good relationship with, or Tony S, who knows.


  • #1244
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Construction drawings are available online. The difference in the NIST report is staggering.

    A denial study by a bunch of cranks has different technical details from other investigations? no way

    That must mean that secret Nazi's did carry off 9/11. Belief validated. Case closed!


  • #1245
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's a pseudo-scientific group of quacks who have obviously impressed you because of your beliefs

    Does Richard Gage believe a group of secret Nazi's pulled off 9/11? I would highly doubt it, but you are his target audience. Without people like you, he doesn't draw that nice salary. And the other $240,000 - who knows where or who that goes to. Maybe Alex Jones whom AE911 have had such a good relationship with, or Tony S, who knows.

    Get your head out of the sand. AE911 noticed NIST removed the stiffeners, web plate and shear studs, by looking at the construction drawings!


  • #1246
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Get your head out of the sand. AE911 noticed NIST removed the stiffeners, web plate and shear studs, by looking at the construction drawings!
    Funny you bring up stiffness.
    In the draft paper they gave an incorrect figure for the stiffness of part of the building. Then in the final version they gave a very different figure.

    It's not possible for the draft paper to have the incorrect figure and then have correct conclusions. It's also not possible for the final paper to have the same conclusion as the draft paper if they use different figures. Yet they are the same.
    They offer no explanation for this.
    Therefore it's a clear case of fraud on their part.

    You have rejected far more reliable papers from much more qualified experts from much more respected organisations for much much less.

    You don't reject this paper despite knowing this because it's a irrational religious belief you have.


  • #1247
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Get your head out of the sand. AE911 noticed NIST removed the stiffeners, web plate and shear studs, by looking at the construction drawings!

    Haha, as part of the peer review, they just used other truthers

    This "study" is insane


  • #1248
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Haha, as part of the peer review, they just used other truthers

    This "study" is insane

    Frankel steel construction drawings from 1984 can be found online.
    NIST floor layout for 13 is not the same. They changed the floor plan to fit a predetermined outcome. 

    Truth movement sticking to the construction design.


  • #1249
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Truth movement sticking to the construction plan. 

    I like how Hulsey is now part of the "movement", like all this is a religion


  • #1250
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I like how Hulsey is now part of the "movement", like all this is a religion

    lol construction drawings matter. You can't just throw them out. The fire has to alter the actual building on 9/11


  • #1251
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I like how Hulsey is now part of the "movement", like all this is a religion
    That was only when it was important to pretend the study was fair and unbiased.


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Funny you bring up stiffness.
    In the draft paper they gave an incorrect figure for the stiffness of part of the building. Then in the final version they gave a very different figure.

    It's not possible for the draft paper to have the incorrect figure and then have correct conclusions. It's also not possible for the final paper to have the same conclusion as the draft paper if they use different figures. Yet they are the same.
    They offer no explanation for this.
    Therefore it's a clear case of fraud on their part.

    You have rejected far more reliable papers from much more qualified experts from much more respected organisations for much much less.

    You don't reject this paper despite knowing this because it's a irrational religious belief you have.

    Nordenson determined in their report that would take 632,000 ib of load to shear the welds of the support plates under the bearing seat (girder A2001) column 79 ( floor 13)

    Hulsey agreed with their assumption.

     Hulsey says the overestimated the girder stiffiness asserting it was infinite and had no deflection. Nordenson did not determine how the concrete would act with the steel. Thats a significant mistake on their part to not consider this. 

    Hulsey carried out a finite element anaysis to see if 632,00ib pounds of force can be applied.

    There is a discrepancy in both reports. 

    Draft it only amounted to 32 per cent of the required  force: 215, 211ib
    Final report its now down to 10 per cent at  61, 950ib. 

    You of course will suspect trickery. I will await clarification to why the load/force fallen by 22 per cent.  
    Draft paper is not final. Engineers often provide recommendations, and highlight errors in the draft, and recommend changes, to be made for it to more rigorous in the final report. 

    In both reports 632,000 ib of force was not met. Mick hasn’t found anything significant. All this could be explained by just asking them why the change. Hulsey will undoubtedly have an explantation.

    Nordensen analysis is totally at odds with NIST anyway. They differ about a girder slipping off its seat at column 79 due to thermal expansion. Nordensen believes the girder would be trapped by the side plate. NIST of course removed in their final report and claimed there was none.


  • #1253
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Nordenson determined in their report that would take 632,000 ib of load to shear the welds of the support plates under the bearing seat (girder A2001) column 79 ( floor 13)

    Hulsey agreed with their assumption.

     Hulsey says the overestimated the girder stiffiness asserting it was infinite and had no deflection. Nordenson did not determine how the concrete would act with the steel. Thats a significant mistake on their part to not consider this. 

    Hulsey carried out a finite element anaysis to see if 632,00ib pounds of force can be applied.

    There is a discrepancy in both reports. 

    Draft it only amounted to 32 per cent of the required  force: 215, 211ib
    Final report its now down to 10 per cent at  61, 950ib. 

    You of course will suspect trickery. I will await clarification to why the load/force fallen to 22 per cent.  
    Draft paper is not final. Engineers often provide recommendations, and highlight errors in the draft, and recommend changes, to be made for it to more rigorous in the final report. 

    In both reports 632,000 ib of force was not met.
    None of this actually addresses the point.
    Why are you awaiting clarification? The study was supposed to be entirely open and transparent. You should already have this clarification.
    But you don't because it's not.

    Again, the figure in the draft report is wrong, therefore all it's conclusions are wrong.
    The conclusions are not different in the final report. Therefore they are wrong also. The fact the conclusions didn't change indicates fraud.

    You've also lied about what Mick West reported. So you are likewise being dishonest to defend a fraudulent paper.


  • #1254
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    None of this actually addresses the point.
    Why are you awaiting clarification? The study was supposed to be entirely open and transparent. You should already have this clarification.
    But you don't because it's not.

    Again, the figure in the draft report is wrong, therefore all it's conclusions are wrong.
    The conclusions are not different in the final report. Therefore they are wrong also. The fact the conclusions didn't change indicates fraud.

    You've also lied about what Mick West reported. So you are likewise being dishonest to defend a fraudulent paper.

    Mick hasn't a clue what the calculation is. He provided no context. He saw a figure that looked different and posted it. I looked at both reports and provided context.


  • #1255
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,012 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Draft paper is not final. Engineers often provide recommendations, and highlight errors in the draft, and recommend changes, to be made for it to more rigorous in the final report. 

    LOL, it's not a real report or study. It's just dressed up as such, in the same way AE911 are dressed up to lend themselves false scientific authority and credibility

    The whole thing is a charade

    I would love to see a real engineering group peer review this thing, but we all know that isn't going to happen


  • #1256
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Mick hasn't a clue what the calculation is. He provided no context. He saw a figure that looked different and posted it. I looked at both reports and provided context.
    But he did provide context and showed where in the reports it was. You are lying and distorting things to defend a fraudulent report.
    You are also lying by pretending to know what the calculation is. We all know you do not as you do not know basic math or physics. This had been proven many times.

    The context does not change the fact that the draft report was wrong, which in turn makes the conclusions of the final report fraudulent.


  • #1257
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    LOL, it's not a real report or study. It's just dressed up as such, in the same way AE911 are dressed up to lend themselves false scientific authority and credibility

    The whole thing is a charade

    I would love to see a real engineering group peer review this thing, but we all know that isn't going to happen

    You have this view hundreds of thousands of engineers have studied the NIST report and came away convinced. The reality is only 500 people have downloaded their paper on ASCE website. The engineering community has never truly considered their paper truthfulness and the majority don’t even realize a third building collapsed on 9/11. The executives are telling their members to not look into this, too much at stake for them to allow this paper to be peer reviewed.

    ASCE leaders told their members they be kicked out if they kept talking to AE911 Truth. It's a sad world we live in. And even worse a government body (NIST) was allowed to change the construction drawings to fit a predetermined outcome. This is defended by debunkers online. We live in cuckoo world. 


  • #1258
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But he did provide context and showed where in the reports it was. You are lying and distorting things to defend a fraudulent report.
    You are also lying by pretending to know what the calculation is. We all know you do not as you do not know basic math or physics. This had been proven many times.

    The context does not change the fact that the draft report was wrong, which in turn makes the conclusions of the final report fraudulent.

    Stop lying.

    Post 8
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/final-report-hulsey-ae911truths-wtc7-study.11169/


  • #1259
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You have this view hundreds of thousands of engineers have studied the NIST report and came away convinced. The reality is only 500 people have downloaded their paper on ASCE website.
    Big old lie here.
    The NIST report has actually been peer reviewed and used as a source in dozens more peer reviewed papers.
    If there was real problems in the report they would have been found and discussed by real engineers.

    Your pretend report, on top of being flawed in dozens of ways, completely clandestine and closed to scrutiny and with suspicious funding was peer reviewed by two truthers who collaborated with the management of AE9/11 in previous questionable work.


  • #1260
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Stop lying.

    Post 8
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/final-report-hulsey-ae911truths-wtc7-study.11169/
    I'm not lying. You can see it there plain as day. He provides the page numbers and all.

    Which you claimed he didn't, then cropped out of your screenshot.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Big old lie here.
    The NIST report has actually been peer reviewed and used as a source in dozens more peer reviewed papers.
    If there was real problems in the report they would have been found and discussed by real engineers.

    Your pretend report, on top of being flawed in dozens of ways, completely clandestine and closed to scrutiny and with suspicious funding was peer reviewed by two truthers who collaborated with the management of AE9/11 in previous questionable work.

    Did you forget that mainstream enigneering groups clashed in court over the collapse of building seven?

    None of them accepted NIST theory was correct about a girder thermally expanding off its seat.


Advertisement