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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Which conspiracy theories are real and which are not?

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,453 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    This show on History channel is excellent. Maybe the best I've seen on 9/11. You have to go back to the late 80s really to understand it.

    Spoiler - it wasn't a US government conspiracy.

    https://www.history.co.uk/shows/road-to-911


  • Options
    #123
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    This show on History channel is excellent. Maybe the best I've seen on 9/11. You have to go back to the late 80s really to understand it.

    Spoiler - it wasn't a US government conspiracy.

    https://www.history.co.uk/shows/road-to-911

    Mike West debunks are successfully rebuked online, but of course i can't respond, so you guys can keep lying over and over again.

    Nobody on 9/11 Skeptic forums has even touched this yet.There going to look very foolish, if they keep this up.

    How the beams buckle? NIST modelled the wrong beam spec! Go on Metabunk and let Mike West Respond and see what he says?

    Quote
    3.2.3 Lateral Support Beams Prevent Beam Buckling Figures 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 show our evaluation of NIST’s preliminary hypothesis, which NIST used to determine whether the shear studs on the floor beams would fail when the floor system was heated. The NIST report posits that beam G3005 buckled because its thermal 83 expansion was restrained by girder A2001. Our analysis found that this can only happen when the three lateral support beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 spanning from beam G3005 to the north exterior wall are not included in the model. While these short beams are observed in some of the figures in the NIST report, they are missing from the model(s) used in the thermal and structural analyses shown in the report. It is important to realize that the lateral support beams have a significant effect and therefore should not have been omitted from the model(s). In addition, the NIST report describes the response of beam G3005 based on the wrong size beam. Erection drawing E12/13 (Frankel Steel Limited, 1985) shows a W21x44 for G3005 and a W24x55 for the four adjacent beams (K3004, C3004, B3004, and A3004). The erection drawing shows G3005 framing into the wind girder. However, the NIST report shows analysis results for G3005 based on a W24x55, not a W21x44

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf


  • Options
    #124
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Mike is clueless about why a hypothetical model has a southeast tipping effect.

    Hulsey explained it here. Can you find this explantation on Mike Forum, i can't.

    Based on these analyses, we found that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building (e.g., from Floor 6 to 13 or Floor 13 to 21). We found that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the lower floors of the building would cause the building to tilt dramatically to the east, which would have been observed in the videos but was not, and that it would not cause the east penthouse to collapse, because the intact portions of Columns 79, 80, and 81 above where the columns failed would still support the penthouse. On the other hand, we found that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the upper floors of the building, especially at Floor 45 all the way up to the penthouse, would cause the penthouse to collapse into the building as observed, while causing minimal movement of the exterior. It appears, therefore, that Columns 79, 80, and 81 failed at the upper floors of the building.

    Based on this analysis, we found that a simultaneous failure of all core columns would
    cause the building to tip to the southwest. We attribute this behaviour to WTC 7 having fewer
    exterior columns on its south side than on its north side and on the reported damage to columns
    on the southwest corner caused by the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 — damage
    that we included in our model.
    We can also derive from this analysis that even if the horizontal progression of core
    column failures asserted by NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger had somehow occurred,
    leaving the exterior standing as a hollow shell momentarily, it would still not result in the
    observed straight-down collapse.


  • Options
    #125
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Notice Mike avoids this- fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.

    Hulsey discussed why all this was not possible due to fire. Mike pretends Hulsey jumped through hoops and just created a finite element model out of nothing.

    Hulsey debunked NIST thermal expansion heat failure.
    Hulsey actually did show why the Penthouse would stop where it did.
    Mike does not debunk Hulsey connection analyse assumptions- he complaining about a model
    Mike West failure, the model is hypothetical, and actual global model sim is a separate video.
    Mike also claims the Hulsey model did not break at the base, false again.

    Seen here, it did.
    489956.png


  • Options
    #126
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,453 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Hulseys model differs from the real video. Its as clear as day.

    Hulsey is a fraud.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Hulseys model differs from the real video. Its as clear as day.

    Hulsey is a fraud.

    It does not, here the video comparsion., 40 seconds in.



  • Options
    #128
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,453 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It does not, here the video comparsion., 40 seconds in.
    [/YOUTUBE]

    Penthouse collapse doesn't match.

    Hes a fraud.


  • Options
    #129
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring you’re still banned from 9/11 and this is not the subforum.

    don’t post in this thread again.


  • Options
    #130
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    Cheerful Spring you’re still banned from 9/11 and this is not the subforum.

    don’t post in this thread again.

    Someone has to debunk this nonsense. I not allowed to debunk Nal ridiculous stance about the Penthouse. Fine later, continue the silliness..


  • Options
    #131
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,453 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    So on the basis that Fraud Hulseys report is a total cobblers, as per below link, we can now add 9/11 to one of the theories that isn't real.

    https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report.t10890/

    They can't even provide honest valid evidence to show WT7 came down from something other than fire never mind form a coherent theory about who, why, what, when and so on. 18 years later.

    There was no conspiracy. Case closed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Someone has to debunk this nonsense. I not allowed to debunk Nal ridiculous stance about the Penthouse. Fine later, continue the silliness..

    That’s your own self-inflicted problem. You willfully ignored a warning that you were told in advance would result in a ban. This is the last post about the matter. Don’t respond to this post in thread, if you have anything else to say PM it to me, you have already been told not to post in this thread.


Advertisement