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.

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

1…89111314…61

Comments

  • #302
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    Hes using conspiracy theory sites as a base for his presentation.

    Hes a fraud who has produced nothing out for gullible sheeps money. He appears to be good at it.

    Only person claiming this nonsense is one poster on Metabunk. I even looked at his evidence and its weak.

    The words and paragraphs on the conspiracy sites he linked to don't match the info on Hulsey Slides.

    You find background details about the building on the conspiracy site and Hulsey slide, but that not the same as coping and pasting work from another website. Details about the building came be found on Wikipedia and non conspiracy sites. Just another example of rubbish posting on Metabunk.


  • #303
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You posted info belonging to Metabunk and you felt they were right.

    They claimed NIST had proposed several connection failures and they also claimed Column 79 failure was not where NIST said the collapse started in their gobal collapse models.

    The bolded part is not correct. The claims in the Metabunk post is that according to the NIST col 79 was the probable inititiation, but not the definitive

    The details of that are actually brought up in the one page thread on the matter I linked
    You have to provide evidence and the thread where this is discussed on their website, i asked for it and you still have not provided.

    No I don't have to provide. The point is discussed, and if you want further details on how they came to these conclusions you'll need to read the thread Nal linked

    Again, why are you not addressing any of the other highlighted issues with Hulsey's report?


  • #304
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The bolded part is not correct. The claims in the Metabunk post is that according to the NIST col 79 was the probable inititiation, but not the definitive

    The details of that are actually brought up in the one page thread on the matter I linked



    No I don't have to provide. The point is discussed, and if you want further details on how they came to these conclusions you'll need to read the thread Nal linked

    Again, why are you not addressing any of the other highlighted issues with Hulsey's report?

    This is not true Dohnjoe.

    I post this again. They are not my words they belong to NIST.

    Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    If NIST thought it was not the definitive one, they would not have said- column 79 was where the collapse of building seven started.

    If Metabunk is claiming column 79 is not the where the collapse started they need to be specfic and discuss where else they believe it begun. What floor what connection the column?

    I asked you for the thread where they discuss this alternative initiation event.


  • #305
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This is not true Dohnjoe.

    I post this again. They are not my words they belong to NIST.

    Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

    Yup, it was under "probable initiation event".

    You are just copy-pasting one argument from the thread which are addressed in the thread

    e.g.

    "What you quote is just NIST's description of the "probable initiation event". NIST identifies several failed connections from the ANSYS simulation, and these were the ones used for the global collapse LS_DYNA simulation."

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

    Why are you not addressing any of the other points they raised?


  • #306
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yup, it was under "probable initiation event".

    You are just copy-pasting one argument from the thread which are addressed in the thread

    e.g.

    "What you quote is just NIST's description of the "probable initiation event". NIST identifies several failed connections from the ANSYS simulation, and these were the ones used for the global collapse LS_DYNA simulation."

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

    Why are you not addressing any of the other points they raised?

    NIST said column 79 was the initiation event, it started there and only explanation given by NIST that caused the collapse of building seven.

    If several other failures happened before this and column 79 was not the initation event then in my opinion NIST would have mentioned it.

    Metabunk is deliberately trying to discredit Hulsey study either that or they don't understand the study they are supporting.

    Failures that occur next after the failure of column 79 are weaknesses in the connections and elements resulting from initiation event a trigger. They are irrelevent discussion points by Metabunk and they don't get that.

    They are also misrepresenting Hulsey research in this thread. Hulsey was specific- NIST did not model the local area failures around column 79 correctly. They left off and did not model the connection failures with shear studs, the web plate, and stiffners and fasteners attached. Connection failures at other columns on other floors throughout the buiiding were modelled by NIST. Why does this matter to Metabunk? Are these connection failures a cause or an after event?

    They also mispresenting the displacement errors by NIST. NIST orginally claimed the seat was 5.5 inches it was 6 inches, it was the truthers again who highlighted this and NIST changed their study again. Skeptics don't understand a girder can only move slighly a few inches with the concrete flooring and steel beams in the way stopping movement.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,547 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    You have to provide evidence and the thread where this is discussed on their website, i asked for it and you still have not provided.

    You're really tempting fate if you want to start trying to enforce a standard of evidence on others that you don't apply to yourself.

    Do not mention Column 79 again. This is a thread about Hulsey's MIA report.


  • #308
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,547 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring is on a 3-day timeout.


  • #309
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,420 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    How is this fraud still receiving funding? How many years does it take to produce a report paid for by conspiracy theorists?


  • #310
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The Nal wrote: »
    How is this fraud still receiving funding? How many years does it take to produce a report paid for by conspiracy theorists?

    If someone paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct a bizarre study you knew you could fake or spin out for years with no real damage to your credibility, would you take it? would certainly tempt some experts

    Hulsey is pushing 80 years old, he'll probably pop his clogs before anything is produced, perhaps that's what he's counting on, it's not like anyone apart from a tiny cliche is waiting for this obscure report


  • #311
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,420 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If someone paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct a bizarre study you knew you could fake or spin out for years with no real damage to your credibility, would you take it? would certainly tempt some experts

    Hulsey is pushing 80 years old, he'll probably pop his clogs before anything is produced, perhaps that's what he's counting on, it's not like anyone apart from a tiny cliche is waiting for this obscure report

    Can't blame him I suppose. Ride that gravy train!


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,441 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The Nal wrote: »
    How is this fraud still receiving funding? How many years does it take to produce a report paid for by conspiracy theorists?

    As I said very early on in this thread....
    banie01 wrote: »
    I don't find it odd really.
    I am by nature a cynical bollox though.

    My thinking on it currently runs like this.
    Set up a new study, promising to debunk NIST and expose the real reason for the collapse of WTC7.
    Become lauded and funded by the truther brigade as their scientific Messiah!
    The rock of truth that will shatter the "conspirators" lies.

    Carry out said study in the hope of proving the negative that has already been claimed.
    3 yrs of research are starting to show that NIST are in the main correct....

    Postpone publication and peer review...
    Blame a funding crunch, ask for more donations and continue to study the problem...
    Rinse and repeat above as needed.

    Delay publishing until overtaken by death to avoid needing to defend oneself against either academia or the truthers depending upon actual report conclusion.


  • #313
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So it's been a week since this important presentation.
    I assume that the conspiracy has been cracked and then American government is collapsing as we speak?


  • #314
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,441 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    King Mob wrote: »
    So it's been a week since this important presentation.
    I assume that the conspiracy has been cracked and then American government is collapsing as we speak?

    He presented?
    I'm shocked at the resounding silence ;)


  • #315
    mikekerry
    Registered Users Posts: 613 ✭✭✭mikekerry


    any link to it?


  • #316
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Decided to check in on this, delayed again: this time until Sept 2019. No status reports, no transparency.

    http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

    The man is in his late seventies, looks like he's just done AE911 for his portion of $300,000


  • #317
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Decided to check in on this, delayed again: this time until Sept 2019. No status reports, no transparency.

    http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

    The man is in his late seventies, looks like he's just done AE911 for his portion of $300,000

    Delayed is a strong word. It was scheduled for release in Summer 2019, no date was given.


  • #318
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Delayed is a strong word. It was scheduled for release in Summer 2019, no date was given.

    Didn't you claim it was definitely coming out earlier this year? I'm sure you wrote that

    It was supposed to be finished in 2017, then it was due 2018, now we are over halfway through 2019. Delayed is an understatement.
    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/385-news-media-events-wtc-7-final-report-due-in-august


  • #319
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Didn't you claim it was definitely coming out earlier this year? I'm sure you wrote that

    It was supposed to be finished in 2017, then it was due 2018, now we are over halfway through 2019. Delayed is an understatement.
    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/385-news-media-events-wtc-7-final-report-due-in-august

    I said it was scheduled to come out in Summer 2019. It was finished in March i heard, but no release till Summer was latest i heard.

    I thought he record the talk he gave at the ASCE in May, but that never happened unfortunately.


  • #320
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I said it was scheduled to come out in Summer 2019. It was finished in March i heard, but no release till Summer was latest i heard.

    Yeah, you wrote back in March that it was completed. That it was going to be released in a matter of weeks for peer review.

    So were you mistaken or were you misled?


  • #321
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yeah, you wrote back in March that it was completed. That it was going to be released in a matter of weeks for peer review.

    So were you mistaken or were you misled?

    When i left last time i said i heard it was coming out in the Summer time. I heard no date.

    Yes, i heard the report was completed in March. If it not out this year criticise away.

    I said they want the study to be peer-reviewed and i have no updates on their progress with this endevour.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,420 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    This fraud will continue to milk it for as long as people are willing to pay him to do so.


  • #323
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    When i left last time i said i heard it was coming out in the Summer time. I heard no date.

    You said it was complete in February this year
    Dr Hulsey is a professor at Fairbank University in Alaska. He has just completed a three-year study

    and that it would be released in a matter of weeks
    Dr Hulsey study cost the truthers 300,000 dollars and is due to be released in a couple of weeks

    911, Hulsey's study - why do you feel so emotionally attached to these arbitrary events that you feel the need to distort info and be dishonest


  • #324
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You said it was complete in February this year



    and that it would be released in a matter of weeks



    911, Hulsey's study - why do you feel so emotionally attached to these arbitrary events that you feel the need to distort info and be dishonest

    I heard it might be out at the end of 2018 after Hulsey did an interview with Free Fall radio. Then i heard news it was completed in March and might be hearing some news in a few weeks. I heard then the report underwent an editorial process to catch mistakes and errors. Dr Hulsey had a car accident in April and he had to recover from this and there was a delay. Then i heard the report will be released in the summer time.

    Now Richard Gage has confirmed the report will be released Sep 11th 2019. We now have real specific date. The report was completed in March, but was not yet ready to be released.


  • #325
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I heard it might be out at the end of 2018 after Hulsey did an interview with Free Fall radio. Then i heard news it was completed in March and might be hearing some news in a few weeks. I heard then the report underwent an editorial process to catch mistakes and errors. Dr Hulsey had a car accident in April and he had to recover from this and there was a delay. Then i heard the report will be released in the summer time.

    Now Richard Gage has confirmed the report will be released Sep 11th 2019. We now have real specific date. The report was completed in March, but was not yet ready to be released.
    And if it isn't released then?

    You've already been wrong about this. No reason to believe you will be right this time.
    Come September you will be desperately coming up with excuses and saying that it will be "Soon".


  • #326
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    When its released on Sep 11th as its first time i got a specfic date, the Skeptics will move past that to the next thing. Some of the Skeptics claim Hulsey will never release a report, we see in 5 weeks how accurate this estimate was.


  • #327
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    When its released on Sep 11th as its first time i got a specfic date, the Skeptics will move past that to the next thing. Some of the Skeptics claim Hulsey will never release a report, we see in 5 weeks how accurate this estimate was.
    Ok, but what happens if he doesn't supply it?
    Will you continue to support him and his organisation?


  • #328
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    When its released on Sep 11th as its first time i got a specfic date, the Skeptics will move past that to the next thing. Some of the Skeptics claim Hulsey will never release a report, we see in 5 weeks how accurate this estimate was.

    Constantly fed misinformation. No transparency whatsoever.

    If it's not out in Sept 11 this year you'll still make more excuses for it, just like you did when it didn't come out in the first half of this year, and again when it didn't come out at the end of the last year (and it's been due for much longer than that)

    If it's actually released but skeptics immediately find glaring issues with it, I guarantee you'll treat it like gospel

    It's a fairly obscure report by a 78 year old man in Alaska, it's quite possible that no one will peer review and that potentially few scientific or engineering organisations will even look at it. But even if they do, and they produce anything that criticises the report, it will be rejected by the truther community (and by yourself obviously)

    If Hulsey dies in the interim, it will be treated as a conspiracy

    There's some real predictions


  • #329
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Constantly fed misinformation. No transparency whatsoever.
    I remember this being billed as "totally transparent and open".
    Yet, there doesn't seem to be any information about why these delays are happening.
    Or about this "editorial process to catch mistakes and error".

    Weird...


  • #330
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    I remember this being billed as "totally transparent and open".
    Yet, there doesn't seem to be any information about why these delays are happening.
    Or about this "editorial process to catch mistakes and error".

    Weird...

    And it's paid for by a conspiracy group, huge conflict of interest right there

    It's attempting to prove a negative (makes zero sense)

    It's the equivalent of Alex Jones finding one willing private investigator in the US who claims he/she will prove that A Lanza didn't do it (not who did it, who didn't do it, bizarre) and is funded by Jones, and doesn't produce the report for years


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    And it's paid for by a conspiracy group, huge conflict of interest right there
    Well I assume that since it's open and completely transparent, it had a good break down of where that money came from and where all of it went and why.
    Right...?


Advertisement