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

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 3:18pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow

You regularly state that bodies of experts and investigators and world historians are incorrect and that your kooky theories, that you make up on the spot, are the correct version of history/science

Preliminary results released by Hulsey have been criticised and contain flaws, but we can only really comment on the final product, if it's ever released

Considering isolated experts (e.g. Dr Judy Wood) can come up with all sorts of crap, and considering this guy is funded by a conspiracy group (potentially running a money-scam), it's normal to be skeptical about his claims

Posters on JREF forum are not engineers. Can you show an actual engineer
criticising his work on a Skeptic forum?

Dr Judy work is not accepted by AE911 truth.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 3:20pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It a process AE911 have decided on. I believe they are in the process of contacting engineering departments at Universities, they not affiliated with, to see if they'll review this study, and check its soundness ie the quality of the work.

This is not peer review.
It is not the typical process. It is bypassing the process.
They will either only provide the study to chosen professors who will not criticise the study, or they will pretend those rejecting the study are part of the conspiracy.

They have decided on fraud.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They also plan to publish the study in respectable mainstream engineering journals for peer review. I can only go by what they have said in public.

They have not stated this.
They have not provided the names of the journals they are submitting to.
They plan to publish the report by themselves before publishing in a journal which is bypassing peer review.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 3:23pm

xckjoo wrote: »

Hate to burst your bubble Cheerful, but I was pointing out that King Mob was correct. The second time unit is essential. I was assuming you missed the fact that time units are in it twice in different forms when it's written "9.8 m/s per second".

I hate to burst your bubble but the Physic professor answered the question using the same way I did.

He wrote
The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second

We not doing the equation here we just writing stuff shorthanded in a post about 9/11 topics.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 3:25pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I hate to burst your bubble but the Physic professor answered the question using the same way I did.

He wrote
The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second

We not doing the equation here we just writing stuff shorthanded in a post about 9/11 topics.

That's not what you posted though.
And that's not the total of the issues with your terminology.

You claim that the speed of gravity is the same as acceleration due to gravity.
It's not.

xckjoo · 11-04-2019 3:30pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I hate to burst your bubble but the Physic professor answered the question using the same way I did.

He wrote
The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second

We not doing the equation here we just writing stuff shorthanded in a post about 9/11 topics.

If you're arguing the physics of something then you need to be exact. It would be like mixing up speed and acceleration. Or Donald Trump and Melania Trump. Related but very different.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 3:33pm

xckjoo wrote: »

If you're arguing the physics of something then you need to be exact. It would be like mixing up speed and acceleration. Or Donald Trump and Melania Trump. Related but very different.

He has mixed up acceleration and speed many times.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 3:39pm

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what you posted though.
And that's not the total of the issues with your terminology.

You claim that the speed of gravity is the same as acceleration due to gravity.
It's not.

I posted a lot of stuff on freefall. You latch on to a few posts and nick pick every word. It sad and could this with you but can't be bothered.

I did explain it fully for you. Speed= gravity on earth ie the acceleration. I just put it together speed of gravity to short it down.

It's hilarious you say that when I was the one posting NIST claims of freefall on here and they state the stages. How was confusing the two?

Are you just going to pretend I was not the one posting this originally, none of you were?

NIST revised change to their study.
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

King Mob · 11-04-2019 3:43pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did explain it fully for you. Speed= gravity on earth ie the acceleration. I just put it together speed of gravity to short it down.

Yes, I know. You confuse speed and acceleration.
Speed is not acceleration. Acceleration is not speed.
You can't "put it together" and call it "speed of gravity". That is not the correct way to use those terms.
You are using the terms wrong because you don't know anything about physics.

The reason you don't understand what the NIST report says is because you don't know anything about physics and you are confused by basic terms like speed and acceleration.
:rolleyes:

You are deflecting from the topic again. This is because you are realising how much ignorance you are showing about peer review as well.
All around you are just displaying your utter lack of any knowledge.
It's very funny.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 3:52pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I know. You confuse speed and acceleration.
Speed is not acceleration. Acceleration is not speed.
You can't "put it together" and call it "speed of gravity". That is not the correct way to use those terms.
You are using the terms wrong because you don't know anything about physics.

The reason you don't understand what the NIST report says is because you don't know anything about physics and you are confused by basic terms like speed and acceleration.
:rolleyes:

You are deflecting from the topic again. This is because you are realising how much ignorance you are showing about peer review as well.
All around you are just displaying your utter lack of any knowledge.
It's very funny.

You need to stop saying that when speed was used in Professor equation. I never confused speed with acceleration. I never said speed+ accerleration= freefall. Its speed= acceleration 9.8 m/s2- the rate of falling object due to gravity on earth. The reason I put speed ( gravity on earth together)

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-04-2019 3:53pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You need to stop saying that when speed was used in Professor equation. I never confused speed with acceleration. I never said speed+ accerleration= freefall. Its speed= acceleration 9.8 m/s2- the rate of falling object due to gravity on earth. The reason I put speed ( gravity on earth together)

Still waiting for that evidence, why do you ignore this simple request?

King Mob · 11-04-2019 3:54pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You need to stop saying that when speed was used in Professor equation. I never confused speed with acceleration. I never said speed+ accerleration= freefall. Its speed= acceleration 9.8 m/s2- the rate of falling object due to gravity on earth. The reason I put speed ( gravity on earth together)

The grammar in this post is indecipherable.
Stop dodging Timberrrrrrrr's question.

11-04-2019 3:55pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The speed of the ball falling down will increase at the rate of 9.81 m/s every second.

Just a quick note.....this is where "metres per second squared" comes from.

I know you expressed a bit of confusion earlier in the thread so just thought I'd point out......Acceleration due to gravity increases the speed of an object by 9.81 metres per second, per second. This means that for every second, the speed increases by "9.81 metres per second".

And now back to the regular programming.

Edit: That'll learn me to try to be smart without reading the rest of the thread

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 3:57pm

xckjoo wrote: »

If you're arguing the physics of something then you need to be exact. It would be like mixing up speed and acceleration. Or Donald Trump and Melania Trump. Related but very different.

You don't need to be exact on this. Even a professor of Physics is aware of this.

He posted exactly what I said in reply to a question about freefall.

Dohnjoe · 11-04-2019 4:05pm

Here is one overview of the problems and issues with Hulsey's initial findings

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.
The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged.
The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.
The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210992/
The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/211186/
The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly.
The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/
The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/
The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow.
The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse.

The Nal · 11-04-2019 4:19pm

Dr. Hulsey in "bit of a fraud" shocker.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 4:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Just a quick note.....this is where "metres per second squared" comes from.

I know you expressed a bit of confusion earlier in the thread so just thought I'd point out......Acceleration due to gravity increases the speed of an object by 9.81 metres per second, per second. This means that for every second, the speed increases by "9.81 metres per second".

And now back to the regular programming.

Are you guys serious?

You only do this when
acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2

You must not realise Kingmob is arguing with me for- saying an item falling freely would not travel at 9.8 metres per second, every second?

He wanted me to write out 9.8 metres per second squared instead

When it made no difference.

11-04-2019 4:25pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It increasing at 9.8 metres a second (factual info and Kingmob wants to place square in the wording as if it changes the outcome and speed)

This is what you said, initially. There is a world of difference between 9.8m/s and 9.8m/s squared. It 100% categorically changes the outcome and the speed.This is basic, Junior cert level maths.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 4:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is what you said, initially. There is a world of difference between 9.8m/s and 9.8m/s squared. It 100% categorically changes the outcome and the speed.This is basic, Junior cert level maths.

He quoting a post of mine where I said the item would travel 9.8 metres a second on earth (freefall conditions)

You would not say 9.8 M/S squared you use 9.8 m/s^2 if you doing an equation.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 4:42pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you guys serious?

You only do this when
acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2

You must not realise Kingmob is arguing with me for- saying an item falling freely would not travel at 9.8 metres per second, every second?

He wanted me to write out 9.8 metres per second squared instead When it made no difference.

Cheerful, you have already proven how little you know about physics. You can't dig yourself out of that hole.

Please go back and address Timber's question.
Stop defecting and dodging.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 4:43pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He quoting a post of mine where I said the item would travel 9.8 metres a second on earth (freefall conditions)

You would not say 9.8 M/S squared you use 9.8 m/s^2 if you doing an equation.

lol
"s^2" means "seconds squared".
:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 4:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you have already proven how little you know about physics. You can't dig yourself out of that hole.

Please go back and address Timber's question.
Stop defecting and dodging.

Nobody writes out 9.8 M/S squared when doing a freefall equation. Only someone like you would do that.

Item that freefalling does fall at 9.8 metres per second. Tell a Physic teacher he should say 9.8 metres per second squared instead he laugh at you. You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation

11-04-2019 5:01pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 5:07pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here is one overview of the problems and issues with Hulsey's initial findings

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

This is from 2016 and 2017. The study is finished now.

Metabunk is posting false info. NIST categorically states in their report the collapse started at column 79 and moved up and down the building. They are ignoring NIST claim a girder slipping of its seat at column 79 started the progressive collapse. Events after it are irrelevant.

NIST version not Metabunk distorted view.

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

If they can't get this right why would I bother reading the rest?

11-04-2019 5:13pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

(1) Nobody writes out 9.8 M/S squared when doing a freefall equation. Only someone like you would do that.

(2) Item that freefalling does fall at 9.8 metres per second. (3) Tell a Physic teacher he should say 9.8 metres per second squared instead he laugh at you. (4) You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation

(1) Everybody writes 9.8m/s squared (or 9.8 m/s^2) when using any and every equation to do with acceleration due to gravity because, y'know, that's what the figure and measurement actually is

(2) An item that is freefalling, does fall at 9.8 metres per second BUT ONLY FOR THE FIRST SECOND. For the next second after that, it falls at 19.6 metres per second....etc.

(3) I very much doubt that a physics teacher would find any of this thread amusing

(4) I wasn't aware of any Kinematic equation that uses m/s squared in any shape or form. I suspect it is something that you picked up while googling something else. I also suspect you don't know what they are and haven't even the most basic understanding of what they are used to explain, demonstrate or prove. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 5:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

(1) Everybody writes 9.8m/s squared (or 9.8 m/s^2) when using any and every equation to do with acceleration due to gravity because, y'know, that's what the figure and measurement actually is

(2) An item that is freefalling, does fall at 9.8 metres per second BUT ONLY FOR THE FIRST SECOND. For the next second after that, it falls at 19.6 metres per second....etc.

(3) I very much doubt that a physics teacher would find any of this thread amusing

(4) I wasn't aware of any Kinematic equation that uses m/s squared in any shape or form. I suspect it is something that you picked up while googling something else. I also suspect you don't know what they are and haven't even the most basic understanding of what they are used to explain, demonstrate or prove. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will

Nobody serious would do that, as the Kinematic equation solves it for you. Nobody would express the equation as 9.8 metres per second squared unless you speaking to someone to inform them how to do it.

Yep did you read the post you quoted? I said it increasing 9.8 metres per second. Obviously another second it doubled.

Kingmob never read the post of mine correctly. He quote mined one line. He ignored the rest of the post where I said acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2 .

He attacked me for not saying 9.8 metres per second on one line. He then came in and said your wrong it 9.8 metres per second squared. Obviously but I posted the equation in the post.

M'/S is metre per second. 2 is a symbol for squared there was no need for me to go explaining it.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 5:37pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nobody writes out 9.8 M/S squared when doing a freefall equation. Only someone like you would do that.

Item that freefalling does fall at 9.8 metres per second. Tell a Physic teacher he should say 9.8 metres per second squared instead he laugh at you. You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation

Lol.
All of this post is nonsense.
How are you not embarrassed by your own posts.

And again: It's physicS

Also: which kinematic equation are you referring to?

King Mob · 11-04-2019 5:39pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nobody would express the equation as 9.8 metres per second squared unless you speaking to someone to inform them how to do it.

Lol. That's not what an equation is...

:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 5:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
All of these post is nonsense.
How are you not embarrassed by your own posts.

And again: It's physicS

Why would need to say 9.8 metres per second squared? When I provided the equation in the same post.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 5:49pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would need to say 9.8 metres per second squared? When I provided the equation in the same post.

9.8 metres per second is a speed.
9.8 metres per second squared is an acceleration.
This is lesson one physics.

Neither is an equation. You don't know what an equation even is.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 5:57pm

King Mob wrote: »

9.8 metres per second is a speed.
9.8 metres per second squared is an acceleration.
This is lesson one physics.

Neither is an equation. You don't know what an equation even is.

Its gravitational acceleration. I even gave you the equation in the post you quote mined. And what NIST said about freefall.

banie01 · 11-04-2019 6:00pm

This really is the thread that keeps on giving...
Absolute gold!

King Mob · 11-04-2019 6:01pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Its gravitational acceleration.

Yes. And...?
It's an acceleration. As such you have to use the term "metres per second squared".

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I even gave you the equation in the post you quote mined.

You said:

Nobody would express the equation as 9.8 metres per second squared unless you speaking to someone to inform them how to do it.

"9.8 metres per second squared" or "9.8 metres per second" are not equations.
You are once again misusing a term you do not understand.

Using fancy words you have heard or googled do not make you sound smarter when you misuse them.
They do the opposite.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 6:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And...?
It's an acceleration. As such you have to use the term "metres per second squared".

You said:

"9.8 metres per second squared" or "9.8 metres per second" are not equations.
You are once again misusing a term you do not understand.

Using fancy words you have heard or googled do not make you sound smarter when you misuse them.
They do the opposite.

I don't have to when I provided the gravitational acceleration Kinematic equation in the same post yesterday.

The equation was provided and I did not say it was speed equation. I said it was a gravational accleration equation for freefall.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 6:13pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't have to when I provided the gravitational acceleration Kinematic equation in the same post yesterday.

The equation was provided and I did not say it was speed equation. I said it was a gravational accleration equation for freefall.

Lol, this post is yet more nonsense.
It's a mix of lies, misunderstood terms and just terrible grammar.

You do have to express an acceleration using "metres per second squared".

You provided no equations yesterday. So either you are lying again or you don't know what an equation is.

The term "gravational accleration equation for freefall" is meaningless (on top of being poorly spelled).

You are again showing profound ignorance and it's baffling that you think you are somehow doing well here.

You're also still ignoring Timbers question. You are deflecting in desperation.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 6:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, this post is yet more nonsense.
It's a mix of lies, misunderstood terms and just terrible grammar.

You do have to express an acceleration using "metres per second squared".

You provided no equations yesterday. So either you are lying again or you don't know what an equation is.

The term "gravational accleration equation for freefall" is meaningless (on top of being poorly spelled).

You are again showing profound ignorance and it's baffling that you think you are somehow doing well here.

.

Go back and read the post you quote mined.

You see I posted the equation 9.8 m/s2 in the post. I did not say 9.8 M/S you are a liar and people will see it not the first time I posted this equation for gravitational acceleration.

Your just pain in the arse really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration

King Mob · 11-04-2019 6:23pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

.

Go back and read the post you quote mined.

You see I posted the equation 9.8 m/s2 in the post. I did not say 9.8 M/S you are a liar and people will see it not the first time I posted this equation for gravitational acceleration.

Your just pain in the arse really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration

Cheerful, it's 9.8 m/s^2. Not 9.8 m/s2. :rolleyes:
And again "9.8 m/s2" is not an equation. You are using the term "equation" wrong because you don't know what it means.

Address timber's question now. Stop deflecting and delaying.
You can't possibly do more to show how little about physics you know.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 6:27pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, it's 9.8 m/s^2. Not 9.8 m/s2. :rolleyes:
And again "9.8 m/s2" is not an equation. You are using the term "equation" wrong because you don't know what it means.

Address timber's question now. Stop deflecting and delaying.
You can't possibly do more to show how little about physics you know.

It obvious by your post you know I posted 9.8 m/s2, you looked did you :rolleyes:

By the way you can short it to 9.8 m/s2 but you're just trouble maker don't know that.

Google it Mr Physics you find that out.

King Mob · 11-04-2019 6:32pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It obvious by your post you know I posted 9.8 m/s2, you looked did you :rolleyes:

Again, your grammar is difficult to decipher.
Firstly, 9.8 m/s2 is wrong. Secondly, you called it an equation, this is wrong.
Literally every post you've made where you pretend to understand physics, you've been wrong about something.
It's very funny in a cringy way.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

By the way you can short it to 9.8 m/s2 but you're just trouble maker don't know that.

No, you can't.
s2 is not the same as s^2.
They mean different things.

You can use a superscript 2, however I don't actually know how to format that on this forum, and really not bothered to learn.

You are still deflecting.
Address timber's post.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-04-2019 6:34pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would need to say 9.8 metres per second squared? When I provided the equation in the same post.

Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.

Dohnjoe · 11-04-2019 6:46pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.

The evidence is coming, the whole process will be fully transparent, and it will be revealed in a few years

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-04-2019 6:48pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The evidence is coming, the whole process will be fully transparent, and it will be revealed in a few years

Yeah but he claimed earlier he had seen some work and i would lile to see this work so we can make our own minds up on how well the report is going. For some reason he wants to keep it all to himself.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 6:55pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again, your grammar is difficult to decipher.
Firstly, 9.8 m/s2 is wrong. Secondly, you called it an equation, this is wrong.
Literally every post you've made where you pretend to understand physics, you've been wrong about something.
It's very funny in a cringy way.

No, you can't.
s2 is not the same as s^2.
They mean different things.

You can use a superscript 2, however I don't actually know how to format that on this forum, and really not bothered to learn.

You are still deflecting.
Address timber's post.

You can express M/S with 2 as long as you place over the S symbol, it will not work for me it just places the 2 beside the S. Tried it few times can't get to work Yep the s^2 fine too I posted this, not you.

To find the freefall (seconds of descent) of the object you have to use an equation.

It used in an equation G = the value is 9.8 m/s2

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-04-2019 7:00pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can express M/S with 2 as long as you place over the S symbol, it will not work for me it just places the 2 beside the S. Tried it few times can't get to work Yep the s^2 fine too I posted this, not you.

To find the freefall (seconds of descent) of the object you have to use an equation.

It used in an equation G = the value is 9.8 m/s2

Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 7:04pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The evidence is coming, the whole process will be fully transparent, and it will be revealed in a few years

Funny person will you not admit Metabunk lied? Probably be waiting.

I even posted NIST own words about the collapse. And then you claim the truthers misquoted NIST.

How about a honest post for change and state were I misquoted NIST about the collapse of building seven and how it began.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-04-2019 7:15pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Funny person will you not admit Metabunk lied? Probably be waiting.

I even posted NIST own words about the collapse. And then you claim the truthers misquoted NIST.

How about a honest post for change and state were I misquoted NIST about the collapse of building seven and how it began.

Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.

Dohnjoe · 11-04-2019 7:20pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Funny person will you not admit Metabunk lied? Probably be waiting.

About what?

Also Metabunk is a forum, not a person

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 7:40pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

About what?

Also Metabunk is a forum, not a person

It's your evidence- debunking Hulsey. You posted the info belonging to Metabunk.

This is nonsense.
The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.

This is so dumb when NIST even said column 79 (girder and steel) failure caused the progressive collapse. I posted the info from NIST website.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-04-2019 7:43pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's your evidence- debunking Hulsey. You posted the info belonging to Metabunk.

This is nonsense.
The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.

This so dumb when NIST even said column 79 (girder and steel) failure caused the progressive collapse. I posted the info from NIST website.

Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.

Cheerful Spring · 11-04-2019 7:51pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.

I have already his presentations are on video, and I posted some of them. He shows some of the images belonging to them on video. You have to watch it and listen to his words and hear what he's found already.

Again for you guys it better to wait for the full report. Partial evidence is not going to convince you guys.

For Skeptics they want mainstream engineer groups peer reviewing it. That's ok and I believe that is the right way to do it. I have seen enough already to be convinced.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-04-2019 7:58pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have already his presentations are on video, and I posted some of them. He shows some of the images belonging to them on video. You have to watch it and listen to his words and hear what he's found already.

Again for you guys it better to wait for the full report. Partial evidence is not going to convince you guys.

For Skeptics they want mainstream engineer groups peer reviewing it. That's ok and I believe that is the right way to do it. I have seen enough already to be convinced.

You said

I have seen some of the Abaqus modelling by Hulsey already

Please link to this as i have searched your posts and not seen it.

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

Comments