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

The Nal wrote: »

Where is CS these days?

Another gif from metabunk that highlights a ton of issues.



Note how the collapsing section would be under the ground long before the top did.

According to the report, the "simulation" posits that all of the supports on one floor were removed at once (the implication being that it's a controlled demolition) and that the collapsing part of the building fell under free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds from that point. The "simulation" covers this entire period.
They also claim that this is confirmed by the NIST themselves.
However, according to that model, such a thing is impossible.

The removed floor is here:

If this were the case, at that moment the upper portion of the building would fall at free fall acceleration for the height of that floor.
After that, it would encounter resistance as the floors of the upper and lower sections pancake against each other. Therefore, it could not possibly fall at freefall acceleration. In the "simulation" the upper part of the building seems to just pass through the lower part as if it were intangible.
Further, the time of free fall acceleration would be far less than 2.25 seconds as it would only be allowed to do so for the height of a single story.
Even if we are extremely generous and allow that the entire lower section was removed all at once, (18 floors were every support was cut all at the same instant. yet with no noticeable explosion.) there's still an issue. This is because the upper part of the building of the building would start impacting the ground if not the pile of rubble of the lower half before the 2.25 seconds were up and would also start experiencing less acceleration downward.

The only way for it to be a free fall collapse is if every single support in the building were removed all at once from every floor. But this is impossible.

Again, this is something that should be apparent to the people who worked on this paper... Yet it's being held up like a new testament of the bible.

It should also be noted that the collapse theory presented by Hulsey is entirely and completely incompatible with the theory presented by Cheerful.
Hulsey's "simulation" requires that all supports on one floor are removed all at once in an instant. This requires explosives and it is not something that can be done with any kind of thermite. All types of thermite require time to cut through metal and they cannot be precisely timed to all finish cutting at the exact same moment.

That cost $300,000?

Where did all the cash go? Effectively it was one man and one PhD assistant (they get paid peanuts in comparison)

banie01 wrote: »

Anyone else been PM'd by our resident Hulseyite?

Speaking of Whom....
I see he has just opened a thread in DRP because of Overheal's bias in banning him! :pac:

The Nal wrote: »

Hes not happy he has to answer questions!

But he has presented "evidence"??? :pac:
Nothing he has presented has any evidential value, has all been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.
He has solo run brain storm theories that he then either contradicts himself, or better yet presents evidence he doesn't understand to support his position...
But which actually completely undermines it because he has no understanding of the context or nuance of what he is presenting.

He has been extended more patience than any other poster I've encountered.
Across the 9/11 threads he constantly derails and deflects, same on the Kennedy thread.

That he now has the gall to cry foul?
Not a single shred of honest or indeed cogent debate from them and now crying that due their embarking on a recent round of deflection and insult that they finally got a ban that was held back for far longer than I've ever seen any other poster get away with...

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Is everybody posting here a structural engineer?

Can’t speak for everyone but I am a mechanical engineer in pursuit of my master of science. Why?

If anyone wants a translation of banie’s credentials: he makes me look like a child.

Overheal wrote: »

WTC 7 (1987-2001) was 190 meters tall. For it to completely free-fall it would need to be down in a mere 6.22 seconds (t = sqrt (2*a*h), v0 = 0).

It didnt free fall all the way

They use the 7 second part because that is when the roof line started to come down

The collapse of the penthouse is irrelevant when calculating free fall

We talked about this in the other thread before it was closed by you ... you want me to go over it again with you or do you want to read up on the unanswered questions in the other thread and take it from there ?

I thought you guys knew all this basic stuff

weisses wrote: »

It didnt free fall all the way

They use the 7 second part because that is when the roof line started to come down

The collapse of the penthouse is irrelevant when calculating free fall

We talked about this in the other thread before it was closed by you ... you want me to go over it again with you or do you want to read up on the unanswered questions in the other thread and take it from there ?

I thought you guys knew all this basic stuff

Weisses, in the last thread you demonstrated that you don't understand what freefall is or how acceleration works.
You claimed that gravitational acceleration "needs time to get up to speed."

We have also shown that the "animations" are not compatible with the notion of free fall for either 7 seconds or 2.25 seconds as claimed.

You cannot simply ignore the collapse of the penthouse because it's inconvenient.
Neither you, nor Hulsey are able to explain the collapse of the penthouse in a conspiracy context.

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses, in the last thread you demonstrated that you don't understand what freefall is or how acceleration works.
You claimed that gravitational acceleration "needs time to get up to speed."

We have also shown that the "animations" are not compatible with the notion of free fall for either 7 seconds or 2.25 seconds as claimed.

You cannot simply ignore the collapse of the penthouse because it's inconvenient.
Neither you, nor Hulsey are able to explain the collapse of the penthouse in a conspiracy context.

dont pull that crap on me ... you managed to get 1 person banned with your demands ... Not falling for it

weisses wrote: »

dont pull that crap on me ... you managed to get 1 person banned with your demands ... Not falling for it

Huh?
I'm not demanding anything from anyone.
And not sure how I can get anyone banned as I'm not a moderator.

I'm just pointing out facts that highlight the hypocrisy in your post.
You don't understand what freefall means and don't know what acceleration means. You made comments that show this.
You don't have an explanation for how the penthouse fell and either does the Hulsey report.

Is the full thing out yet ?

That's not really a comment or a response.

What will be changed between now and the full release that will address any of the issues that have been pointed out?
I don't think any of the issues can be easily cleared up as many of them seem to be fundamentally baked into the conclusions of the study.

Do you think that the flaws we have pointed out don't exist?
Do you think that we are mistaken in some way?
Are you actually going to engage in any kind of debate or is it another snarky flyby posting?

weisses wrote: »

Ohh King Mob ...

The Irony ...You blaming me of hypocrisy

I pointed out to you that you need to debunk the person who explained free fall acceleration occurred

heads up ... You can't

What i do or dont understand about free fall is irrelevant

you weasel your way out of debunking him by claiming i wouldn't understand it anyway ... which is disingenuous in a discussion ... you tried to pull that one on CS as well ..... your posts look like a broken record at this stage

This post is weirdly personally and very confusing but ok...

I don't know who you are referring to. Which person and what needs to be debunked?

I think the fact that you don't understand what freefall is is very relevant as your entire personal belief in the conspiracy theory hinges on your misunderstanding of what it is, what it means and how it works.

However, this discussion is about Hulseys report.
I take it you have no comments on the issues raised?

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It really couldn’t be clear to a non expert. Either way.

Of course a lot of conspiracy re 9/11 is bunk, but it’s not entirely impossible to believe that US would, if it could, engage in this kind of false flag which it definitely had planned in the past.

This particular "false flag", even leaving aside the basic logistics.
Would need to involve so many people at so many levels along with organisations both private and public that it's being still a "conspiracy" rather than a blown wide open news story and matter of record speaks very much against it IMO.
This isn't a matter of an order being misinterpreted, or a destroyer not taking fire.
It would need thousands of people each with some knowledge of a plan, acting in concert...
And then never speaking of it in the 18yrs since to date.
Along with no paper trail or credible theory that actually ties it all together.

The belief that the flaws in Hulsey's reports wouldn't be clear to a non expert.
I do take your point.
I am not an engineering expert, but if you review the many 9/11 threads that are on here you will see that there is a cohort of posters who do have something more than just rudimentary knowledge.
Hulsey's report was highlighted as likely fraudulent by myself and others before it was ever published.

I honestly thought it would never be published, that it would be constantly close but in need of more money for additional research.
I'll hold my hands up to being both wrong, and surprised that it has seen daylight even with the cash grab that accompanied it.

The report itself, it's structuring, it's data points, it's confusion about what exactly it is trying to do however are all as I expected.

Hulsey has not modelled a collapse, he has animated a line diagram to fit with his and AE911's theory.
There is no dynamic load modelling, the penthouse collapse as moddeled is IMO an impossibility and the building rotating on a pivot point rather than the mode of collapse actually witnessed is completely at odds with what has been surmised in every investigation and fits none of the actual collapse witnessed.

I'm happy to read the report, to review new data and to try and fit my view of the collapse to any new information presented.
However the report presented, doesn't actually present anything new other than a magically disappearing floor which given its location on Hulsey's model cannot have initiated the collapse they claim, and is completely at odds with the passionate theories espoused by our resident, but thread banned Hulseyite.
Namely multiple demolition charges and advanced "nano-thermite" that has never been used in any other known application, military or demolition and is currently a fantasy tech.

Ae911 commissioned a survey last month to see who believes the official story of WTC 7

The questions they asked were pretty loaded, and they steered respondents to answers they wanted

https://f002.backblazeb2.com/file/public-download/Results-for-AE911Truth-WTC7-202-8.23.2019.xlsx

Another quick video showing serious flaws in Hulseys "work".

King Mob wrote: »

How much have they spent on it?

Not as much as they've raised I would bet.

We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. (Update: Please be advised the data has not been posted yet due to technical issues encountered while uploading several hundred gigabytes of data. It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.)

banie01 wrote: »

So basically it boils down to...
We made shít up, lied about our "simulation" created an animation based on flawed data.
Now that someone wants to check our math, we ain't releasing anything other than another dodgy video :pac:

The actual radio silence from any and all credible news and academic sources on the thesis of the "report" is damning in and of itself.

Well, the only people who seem to follow this stuff are a handful of truthers and the lunatics (ourselves) who debate them. It's highly unlikely that many if any in the academic/scientific world are even aware of this report, let alone would bother addressing it

The Nal wrote: »

We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. (Update: Please be advised the data has not been posted yet due to technical issues encountered while uploading several hundred gigabytes of data. It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.)

Somehow 3000 architects and engineers can't figure out how to upload a file to the internet.

600 odd GBs of Data!!!

Haven't downloaded any and at that size it would take a while

I heard about the release over on r/conspiracy. My 1st visit after seeing news about the release on Reddits front page, also it will be my last! Sheer distilled lunacy on so many of the topics.
Those folks make CS appear a paragon of rationality!
Will be interesting to see both how the data stacks up against the report Hulsey presented?

And how that relates to wider funding issues at the University of Alaska and Fairbanks in particular?
Chasing the AE911 dollars to insulate from funding issues?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There only one study that had the balls to release its data to be checked.

They did release data

All these studies disagree with each other and that's telling they can't even agree on the floor that collapsed first because of fire.

They all come to the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire

You can't comprehend how or why studies can differ, how or why historians can differ - and because of that you feel you can insert a loony conspiracy theory

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Two of the studies disagree with the NIST hypothesis.

Nope. All of the investigations point to fire as the cause of collapse.

None point to explosives. You passionately believe it was explosives, but you can't support that, so you relentlessly attack the facts, try to discredit the investigations, it's the only way you can bring your nonsensical unsupported theory "to life"

That's how all this works. It's why not a single 911 truther can support their claims - they all rely on this same bizarre denial tactic.

You continue to go round in circles doing this, we'll just continue calling you out on it