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…4041434546…61

Comments

  • #1262
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    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.
    I didn't forget, I just don't believe your reading of that situation as you have trouble with basic reading comprehension, you don't understand complex terms and you invent things when it suits.
    It also doesn't change that those self same engineering groups don't believe your silly theory and specifically reject it.
    It also don't change the fact that the NIST was peer reviewed and used as a source for dozens of peer reviewed papers.
    It doesn't change the fact that the peer review of your pretend paper amounted to two of AE9/11s buddies.


  • #1263
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    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.

    Multiple calculations are provided in the report, not just this one. 
    552ib is not the new  force.

    You have to continue on reading. 

    He just placed a random calculatiion from the paper on his website and provided no written explantation to what its about. 


  • #1264
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Multiple calculations are provided in the report, not just this one. 
    552ib is not the new  force.

    You have to continue on reading. 

    He just placed a random calculatiion from the paper on his website and provided no written explantation to what its about. 
    But he gives the page number and the reports are freely available.

    It doesn't change the point or the problem.

    Also, you are now again displaying your ignorance of physics.
    There are many mistakes in this statement alone.
    552ib is not the new  force.

    The figure is not 552ib.
    "ib" is not a term used in physics. You are mistakenly writing this instead of lbs (i.e. lower case L) which is the symbol for pounds.
    Further, lbs or pounds is not a unit of force, it is a unit of weight. You are also leaving off the "per inch" or "/in" part of the term, which changes it's meaning in physics. The term is correctly written as 552lbs/in. (Though, it should even more correctly be written as 552lbf/in, as "lbf" differentiates this part of the term as "pounds of force" rather than weight. But this is an issue of the paper.)
    (Double, double pedantic, it should be written in the SI units...)

    Further still, the figure given is not a force at all. It is a measure of stiffness.

    Again, you cannot complain about anyone's level of knowledge when you so hilariously fail at every level any time you try to pretend to know what you are talking about.


  • #1265
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But he gives the page number and the reports are freely available.

    It doesn't change the point or the problem.

    Also, you are now again displaying your ignorance of physics.
    There are many mistakes in this statement alone.


    The figure is not 552ib.
    "ib" is not a term used in physics. You are mistakenly writing this instead of lbs (i.e. lower case L) which is the symbol for pounds.
    Further, lbs or pounds is not a unit of force, it is a unit of weight.
    Further still, the figure given is not a force at all. It is a measure of stiffness.

    Again, you cannot complain about anyone's level of knowledge when you so hilariously fail at every level any time you try to pretend to know what you are talking about.

    You be allowed to post here is a mistake. You offer nothing worthwhile to further the debate along. Go back and offer a honest explantation to why NIST wrongly identified G3500 as W22.55 floor beam. You will not do so because then you will have to actually debate the NIST theory.


  • #1266
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You be allowed to post here is a mistake. You offer nothing worthwhile to further the debate along. Go back and offer a honest explantation to why NIST wrongly identified G3500 as W22.55 floor beam. You will not do so because then you will have to actually debate the NIST theory.
    I don't have to. I don't believe this is the case because again, you have trouble with reading comprehension, identifying things in pictures and not understanding terms and figures. You demonstrate this in your previous few posts by incorrectly using a very basic, very simple tern like "pounds."
    I don't think the NIST wrongly identified anything. I think you are wrong because you don't know what you are talking about.

    And again, I have directly addressed a point in Hulsey's report that invalidates the entire thing.
    The draft report used an incorrect figure. Therefore it's conclusion is invalid.
    The final report uses the same conclusions even with different figures. Therefore, the report is invalid and the conclusion was fraudulent from the start.

    You however are only continuing to deflect and lie to avoid a point that you cannot address.


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,885 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    King Mob wrote: »
    The draft report used an incorrect figure. Therefore it's conclusion is invalid.
    The final report uses the same conclusions even with different figures. Therefore, the report is invalid and the conclusion was fraudulent from the start.

    Incredible really, years of "research" and they just fiddled with the numbers in the end to make it look like it works.

    Fraud of the highest order.

    Heres a very detailed PDF of comments - which they asked people to send in to be included - that were not included, as they didn't fit the agenda. It tears it apart actually.

    What a jokeshop. They have buried the truther movement. Its over.


  • #1268
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    I don't have to. I don't believe this is the case because again, you have trouble with reading comprehension, identifying things in pictures and not understanding terms and figures. You demonstrate this in your previous few posts by incorrectly using a very basic, very simple tern like "pounds."
    I don't think the NIST wrongly identified anything. I think you are wrong because you don't know what you are talking about.

    And again, I have directly addressed a point in Hulsey's report that invalidates the entire thing.
    The draft report used an incorrect figure. Therefore it's conclusion is invalid.
    The final report uses the same conclusions even with different figures. Therefore, the report is invalid and the conclusion was fraudulent from the start.

    You however are only continuing to deflect and lie to avoid a point that you cannot address.

    Post 1252. This is fun. Read my explantation

    By the way this is final calculation that Mick did not post.

    507095.png


  • #1269
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The Nal wrote: »
    Incredible really, years of "research" and they just fiddled with the numbers in the end to make it look like it works.

    Fraud of the highest order.

    Heres a very detailed PDF of comments - which they asked people to send in to be included - that were not included, as they didn't fit the agenda. It tears it apart actually.

    What a jokeshop. They have buried the truther movement. Its over.

    Your comment reminded me to follow up on something I reread on the metabunk forum that I thought was funny:
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/hulsey-uaf-report-data-release-analysis-thread.10963/#post-236576

    Tl:dr, the video shows a progression of the simulations they were running based on the dates the files were created.
    The simulations started looking more and more like the NIST's model the closer they got to one of their first release dates. Then suspiciously, it got delayed....


  • #1270
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Post 1252. This is fun. Read my explantation

    By the way this is final calculation that Mick did not post.
    Ok? And? How does that address any of the points?
    How does that address your inability to use physics terms correctly?
    :confused:

    I note however you provide no context for this equation and no page number...

    Also post 1252 does not address anything either. It only contains more examples of you misusing terms you don't understand. For example:
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
     
    Hulsey carried out a finite element anaysis to see if 632,00ib pounds of force can be applied.

    Again: "ib" is not correct. The correct term is "lbs" or "lbf".
    Also, when you use a term like that, it is not correct to say "632,00 lbs pounds of force" as it is redundant. It is more correct to say either "63,200 pounds of force" or simply "63,200 lbs".


  • #1271
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok? And? How does that address any of the points?
    How does that address your inability to use physics terms correctly?
    :confused:

    I note however you provide no context for this equation and no page number...

    Also post 1252 does not address anything either. It only contains more examples of you misusing terms you don't understand. For example:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass) ib is pounds.


    Page 90 of the final report.


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass) ib is pounds.
    But cheerful, you are typing i. As in the letter I.

    The correct letter to use is l, as in the letter L.

    From your link:
    The unit is descended from the Roman libra (hence the abbreviation "lb")

    Also, you are linking to the page about the unit of mass, not the unit of force.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
    The pound of force or pound-force (symbol: lbf[1], sometimes lbf,[2])
    Pound-force should not be confused with foot-pound, a unit of energy, or pound-foot, a unit of torque, that may be written as "lbf⋅ft"; nor should these be confused with pound-mass (symbol: lb),

    Again, this happens every single time you try and pretend to know what you are talking about.
    Why do you keep doing it when you know how it will look?

    The points that show the report to be fraudulent are still not being addressed.


  • #1273
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But cheerful, you are typing i. As in the letter I.

    The correct letter to use is l, as in the letter L.

    From your link:


    Also, you are linking to the page about the unit of mass, not the unit of force.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)



    Again, this happens every single time you try and pretend to know what you are talking about.
    Why do you keep doing it when you know how it will look?

    The points that show the report to be fraudulent are still not being addressed.

    You believe ib not the same as Ibs? Trying to understand what you getting at here?


  • #1274
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You believe ib not the same as Ibs? Trying to understand what you getting at here?
    You are incorrectly using the letter "i/I"(pronounced /ˈaɪ/ or "eye") when the correct letter is "l/L" (pronounced /ˈɛl/ or "el").

    ib is not a term used in physics.
    Neither is Ibs.

    The fact that you keep repeating this even when the link you post to try and prove your point disagrees with you is simply hilarious.


  • #1275
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are incorrectly using the letter "i/I"(pronounced /ˈaɪ/ or "eye") when the correct letter is "l/L" (pronounced /ˈɛl/ or "el").

    ib is not a term used in physics.
    Neither is Ibs.

    The fact that you keep repeating this even when the link you post to try and prove your point disagrees with you is simply hilarious.

    lol
    61,950 pounds is the weight. The impact that force would have.
    552ibs/inch calculation Mick showed is a stiffiness calculation of the girders.
    When they're looking for the mass you use ib or ibs (newton)


  • #1276
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    lol
    61,950 pounds is the weight. The impact that force would have.
    No cheerful, that's wrong again. Force is mass multiplied by velocity.
    61,950 pounds is not "the impact that force would have." That statement is meaningless.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    552ibs/inch calculation Mick showed is a stiffiness calculation of the girders.
    Again, you are incorrectly using an "i" instead of an "l".
    And 552lbs/in is not a calculation, it is a figure.
    And it's not a stiffness (No such word as "stiffiness") of the girders. It is the "stiffness of the falling beam and girder assembly".
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    When they're looking for the mass you use ib or ibs (newton)
    But we're not looking for the mass. And you don't use "ib" or "ibs" as they are not correct terms. "lb" and "lbs" are correct terms.

    Also, I'm not sure why you added the term "Newton" randomly. It seems like an attempt to add another technical term to appear as if you know what it means.

    "lb" or "lbs" do not equal "newtons" they are different terms.

    Again, every single time you try to say anything about physics, you embarrass yourself.


  • #1277
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Pound is a unit of force. That you don' understand that is on you my friend.


  • #1278
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Pound is a unit of force.

    I got some bad news for u lad


  • #1279
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Pound is a unit of force. That you don' understand that is on you my friend.
    Well pounds can be. You usually have to specific the difference between pound-mass and pound-force.
    "Pound" not so much. You have to type the "S". Like with Physics.

    But that's not the point I'm making.
    I've pointed out quite a lot of mistakes you have made in using physics terms, for example your continual incorrect use of "ib".

    This post where you're trying to flip it around as if I don't understand the terms is hilariously pathetic.

    And again, these are all just examples of the issue I keep pointing to.


  • #1280
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well pounds can be. You usually have to specific the difference between pound-mass and pound-force.
    "Pound" not so much. You have to type the "S". Like with Physics.

    But that's not the point I'm making.
    I've pointed out quite a lot of mistakes you have made in using physics terms, for example your continual incorrect use of "ib".

    This post where you're trying to flip it around as if I don't understand the terms is hilariously pathetic.

    And again, these are all just examples of the issue I keep pointing to.

    61,950 pounds= 61,950 pounds of force. You have a problem with me saying that for some reason, you have not yet explained why?


  • #1281
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    61,950 pounds= 61,950 pounds of force. You have a problem with me saying that for some reason, you have not yet explained why?
    Lol. No, that's not the point I was making. I pointed out many many mistakes you made.
    You are now trying to pretend that didn't happen and that's a bit sad.
    We can all see how embarassing it is and you can't make it go away by pretending that it didn't happen.

    Also:
    You said:
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    lol
    61,950 pounds is the weight.
    Weight and force are not the same thing.

    However my main problems with that post was with what you wrote after:
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    552ibs/inch calculation Mick showed is a stiffiness calculation of the girders.
    When they're looking for the mass you use ib or ibs (newton)
    Which is riddled with basic mistakes.
    Most notably the fact you still use "ib" when you've been shown that's incorrect.

    This is indicative of the issue you have.
    You know you're wrong. You know you messed up because your reading and writing ability is not good and that you don't actually understand those terms.
    We know it too. It's blindingly obvious.

    But rather than just admit to the mistake, you keep trying to dig in and you are trying to reinvent reality around you.


  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. No, that's not the point I was making. I pointed out many many mistakes you made.
    You are now trying to pretend that didn't happen and that's a bit sad.
    We can all see how embarassing it is and you can't make it go away by pretending that it didn't happen.

    Also:
    You said:

    Weight and force are not the same thing.

    However my main problems with that post was with what you wrote after:

    Which is riddled with basic mistakes.
    Most notably the fact you still use "ib" when you've been shown that's incorrect.

    This is indicative of the issue you have.
    You know you're wrong. You know you messed up because your reading and writing ability is not good and that you don't actually understand those terms.
    We know it too. It's blindingly obvious.

    But rather than just admit to the mistake, you keep trying to dig in and you are trying to reinvent reality around you.

    Read your posts sometime.

    I was not showing you an actual equation Ibm is mass and Ibf is force. Hulsey was looking for the impact force which was 61,950 pounds. Ib and Ibs are the same


  • #1283
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    lbs.”, which stands for libra, is the common abbreviation used in expressing pounds. The correct way of abbreviation in expressing singular or plural pounds is “lb


  • #1284
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Read your posts sometime.

    I was not showing you an actual equation Ibm is mass and Ibf is force. Hulsey was looking for the impact force which was 61,950 pounds. Ib and Ibs are the same
    Cheerful.
    There is no such term as "ib".

    I and L are different letters of the alphabet.

    The correct way to write it is using the lower case letter L.
    lb.


  • #1285
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    lbs.”, which stands for libra, is the common abbreviation used in expressing pounds. The correct way of abbreviation in expressing singular or plural pounds is “lb

    Cheerful, I quoted this to you already. It does not agree with how you are using the term.

    The word Libra.

    This is just getting more and more embarrassing


  • #1286
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    61.900 pounds is not weight?

    What do you believe changes with a force?

    Pound is a unit of force. 63,900 pounds equals 63,900 pounds of force.


  • #1287
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, I quoted this to you already. It does not agree with how you are using the term.

    The word Libra.

    This is just getting more and more embarrassing

    The only person who doesn't know ib and ibs is the symbol for the pound is you.


  • #1288
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The only person who doesn't know ib and ibs is the symbol for the pound is you.
    Lol.
    Cheerful, you are now confusing the letters I and L.


  • #1289
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Read the first line on top of the page.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)
    For the unit of weight or force, see Pound (force). "lb." and "lbs.


  • #1290
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Read the first line on top of the page.

    Yes cheerful. I can read.
    Are these letter "I"s or letter "L"s?
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    "lb." and "lbs.


  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol.
    Cheerful, you are now confusing the letters I and L.

    I just find it funny you think Ib is not the symbol for the pound.


Advertisement