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
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Avoid chatting about the evidence is your guys' way of dealing with it.
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
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
The Nal wrote: » Yep, and they have deleted comments too. Absolute fraudsters.
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
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.
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
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » The Truth group presented the actual steel frame plan/designs for the building in 2013!
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Construction drawings are available online. The difference in the NIST report is staggering.
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.
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!
Dohnjoe wrote: » Haha, as part of the peer review, they just used other truthers This "study" is insane
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Truth movement sticking to the construction plan.
Dohnjoe wrote: » I like how Hulsey is now part of the "movement", like all this is a religion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Stop lying. Post 8 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/final-report-hulsey-ae911truths-wtc7-study.11169/
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)