IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 3rd September 2019, 05:59 PM   #2761
Trojan
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 512
AE 9/11 should ask for their money back -- holy crap

Those poor bastards that put their name on this below Hulsey's. At least the one is in China, the other poor bastard has a public service engineering position - he's never going to move on from this.
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 09:10 PM   #2762
MattNelson
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 176
Caught the last minutes of the live presentation by Hulsey tonight on the UAF website:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhRoTC5NAn8

The only other clip I captured was from a few minutes before the start of the conclusion above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN8444tk_RE

Last edited by MattNelson; 3rd September 2019 at 09:14 PM.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 09:38 PM   #2763
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 446
Major Conclusions of the UAF WTC7 Study

1) Fire Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC 7 - The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.

2) Near-Simultaneous Failure of Every Column Explains the Collapse - The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse, whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior.

3) It is our conclusion based upon these findings that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building

UAF WTC7 Draft Report

There will be a two-month public comment period ending on November 1, 2019. The final report will be released later this year. During this period, the UAF research team and AE911Truth staff welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report.


Okay, now all the debunkies can put their heads together to see if they can come up with any substantive criticism. Maybe you can crib some snarky comments from "Rationalwiki".
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 09:44 PM   #2764
MattNelson
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The Draft Report is out!

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222438/uaf_...09-03-2019.pdf


And by golly, they went there: They modelled the T.Sz. mad fever fantasy of an East Penthouse falling just a few floors, then arresting - then a break, and then BLAST all other columns!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



ETA: This project page was updated at least 1.5 hours ago.
As I am writing this, the four simulation videos on the page (as Figures 4.16 = cQkRR81haW8 | 4.20 = aaPZfZ8tHRA | 4.24a = Hw7W55dBbAM | 4.24b = PY6nmOoovW0) have been viewed 154 | 126 | 184 | 129 times, respectively. It's 0:38 my time, Sept, 4th
The link to the report changed to:
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_...09-03-2019.pdf
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:14 AM   #2765
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,232
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
On a quick read, the failure analysis is as terrible as could be expected. It is just the same garbage analysis they presented and had debunked here and on metabunk two years ago. Didn't get to the blast scenarios yet, but am ready for knee slapper.
There are no blast scenarios.
He conjures up magically failing steel.
There is no explanation.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:42 AM   #2766
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,613
What price those who predicted:
(a) He would persist with the impossible to prove global negative claim "fire could not cause...'

..and
(b) the super cynics who suggested that T Szamboti was the puppet master pulling the strings?

THEN the bonus in the conclusions - he confesses "we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place...."
which looks like he failed "Scientific Method 001" AND "Elementary Burden of Proof 102"
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:46 AM   #2767
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
This site is largely a coordinated intelligence (FVEY) operation to control the narrative.
Evidence for this assertion, please.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post

These people aren’t serious about solving anything, they’re serious about dismissing dissent. They will ridicule, collaborate, and deceive.
Evidence for the highlighted, please.
Is there something about collaboration you don't like? I notice you are collaborating with fonebone. Do you disapprove of yourself?


Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Finite Element Analysis will crush these traitors and foreign enemies.
Which do you think I am, Notconvinced? A traitor or a foreign enemy?
Which country do you think I am betraying?
Of which foreign country do you think I am an enemy?
What evidence do you have for this conclusion?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 04:03 AM   #2768
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,742
Inquiring minds need to know if Hulsey's model collapsed at free-fall speed (for 2.25 seconds) straight down into its own footprint!
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 05:07 AM   #2769
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,660
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
There will be a two-month public comment period ending on November 1, 2019. The final report will be released later this year. During this period, the UAF research team and AE911Truth staff welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report.

Nah, it's fine the way it is. When you're ready, go ahead and do whatever you're planning to do with the final version. (Don't wait too long, or you'll miss the Christmas retail season.)
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 05:22 AM   #2770
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,224
This report will change nothing...
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 06:52 AM   #2771
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
This report will change nothing...
Agreed...
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else…
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 07:55 AM   #2772
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
This report will change nothing...
Not really unexpected.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 08:18 AM   #2773
Trojan
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 512
Did Hulsey release his data? All I see are videos.
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 08:33 AM   #2774
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,688
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
The link to the report changed to:
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_...09-03-2019.pdf
Out of curiosity, I've compared the previous one with the current one. They are identical. The only difference was in the formatting of the caption of figure 3.6, which said "being" (with the colorizing and the underlining) in the first version and "being" (no colorizing and no underlining) in the current one. The margin also showed a vertical line, in that caption and in the caption of figure 4.12, that I presume is a marker made by an auto-corrector or something like that.

ETA: To sum up, the changes are insignificant.

Last edited by pgimeno; 4th September 2019 at 09:35 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 08:59 AM   #2775
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Inquiring minds need to know if Hulsey's model collapsed at free-fall speed (for 2.25 seconds) straight down into its own footprint!

Inquiring minds will make it their business to find out ! They can begin here..
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_...09-03-2019.pdf


This is a summary of the conclusions these three PHD's developed over the life of the investigation.



Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.,
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Nanjing University of Science and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
[excerpt} page 1
Fire Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC 7
1
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.

This conclusion is based upon a number of findings from our different analyses.

Together, they show that 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.


Near-Simultaneous Failure of Every Column Explains the Collapse
2
The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior
columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse,
whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior.
We cannot completely rule out the possibility that an alternative scenario may have caused the observed collapse;
however, the near-simultaneous failure of every column is the only scenario we identified that was capable of producing

the observed behavior.[/excerpt}



__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw

Last edited by Fonebone; 4th September 2019 at 09:01 AM.
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 09:19 AM   #2776
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Inquiring minds will make it their business to find out ! They can begin here..
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_...09-03-2019.pdf


This is a summary of the conclusions these three PHD's developed over the life of the investigation.



Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.,
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Nanjing University of Science and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
[excerpt} page 1
Fire Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC 7
1
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.

This conclusion is based upon a number of findings from our different analyses.

Together, they show that 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.


Near-Simultaneous Failure of Every Column Explains the Collapse
2
The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior
columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse,
whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior.
We cannot completely rule out the possibility that an alternative scenario may have caused the observed collapse;
however, the near-simultaneous failure of every column is the only scenario we identified that was capable of producing

the observed behavior.[/excerpt}
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gif


The old outage. They are not positive about their conclusion, even though they state this is the ONLY possibility of the observed event. Given the previous post that the report is nearly identical to the previous one. So much for his investigation. big fail.
Fonebone why haven't you answered my question?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 09:54 AM   #2777
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The old outage. They are not positive about their conclusion, even though they state this is the ONLY possibility of the observed event. Given the previous post that the report is nearly identical to the previous one. So much for his investigation. big fail.
Fonebone why haven't you answered my question?

[Excerpt from excerpt}

This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior
columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse,


whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior.


We cannot completely rule out the possibility that an alternative scenario may have caused the observed collapse;
however, the near-simultaneous failure of every column is the only scenario we identified that was capable of producing the observed behavior. [/excerpt from excerpt}



Let's be clear about exactly what these three PHD's are stating..




__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 10:01 AM   #2778
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,605
Fonebone I understand what they are indicating.
Why haven't you answered my questions?

Fonebone exactly what do you believe occurred to WT 7? No links , just your words and thoughts.

Then what happened to WT 1 &2?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 10:13 AM   #2779
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,613
Very little serious comment so far.

As anticipated the most obvious error is that Hulsey persists with his "global negative" claim of "fire could not cause" - which - despite the fatal error - has been given little attention in commentary over the several years of the study.

Here - let's show Fonebone why he is actually identifying what is probably Hulsey's most obvious error of logic.
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Inquiring minds will make it their business to find out ! They can begin here..
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_...09-03-2019.pdf


The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.
OK that "fire did not cause" is the "global negative" which as we should all know CANNOT be supported in the setting of this study of WTC7.

He then claims that they did a few analyses:
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
This conclusion is based upon a number of findings from our different analyses.

Together, they show that 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.
...which - put simply - says "we couldn't find a fire driven failure scenario". Which by the way is the pre-determined conclusion he announced several years back.

He then claims an alternate possibility. Which is a strawman whether true or not. And - until someone does a detailed check of his logic - looks like a bare assertion. It doesn't matter - it is an irrelevant side track.. Mere speculation about what may be a plausible alternate.
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Near-Simultaneous Failure of Every Column Explains the Collapse
2
The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior
columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse,
whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior.
may have caused the observed collapse;
however, the near-simultaneous failure of every column is the only scenario we identified that was capable of producing

the observed behavior.[/excerpt}
So the proof in his own words that he is relying on an unsupportable "global negative" when he says:
We cannot completely rule out the possibility that an alternative scenario AKA he couldn't find the fire driven mechanism which may have actually happend.

AND "the only scenario we identified" AKA "we didn't look hard enough".

Last edited by ozeco41; 4th September 2019 at 10:16 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 10:26 AM   #2780
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
[Excerpt from excerpt}

This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior
columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse,


whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior.


We cannot completely rule out the possibility that an alternative scenario may have caused the observed collapse;
however, the near-simultaneous failure of every column is the only scenario we identified that was capable of producing the observed behavior. [/excerpt from excerpt}



Let's be clear about exactly what these three PHD's are stating..


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gifhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...4c6c4d7266.gif
Wow. That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 11:11 AM   #2781
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Fonebone I understand what they are indicating.
Why haven't you answered my questions?

Fonebone exactly what do you believe occurred to WT 7? No links , just your words and thoughts.

Then what happened to WT 1 &2?

Firstly

I'm a student - I came here to learn. I don't possess all of the answers to
all of the questions.
Secondly See my signature...
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 11:42 AM   #2782
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Firstly

I'm a student - I came here to learn. I don't possess all of the answers to
all of the questions.
Secondly See my signature...
You were being asked to give your opinion. Seems even a student could do that.

You may enjoy learning from this
https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019...report.t10890/

Last edited by FFTR; 4th September 2019 at 11:46 AM.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 12:39 PM   #2783
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,688
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
From that link (post #6):
It's totally different. There's also a lot more realistic deformation. This makes me think that the videos they posted on YouTube were manually animated, and not genuine simulations.
That's exactly what I thought when I saw their "simulation" of the penthouse falling. It doesn't seem to accelerate, it just looks like moving at a constant velocity until it suddenly stops. I wanted to verify it before bringing it up, but since someone already mentioned it, I thought it'd be good to say this in advance.

If the videos are a fake piecewise animation, and not the actual result of a simulation, it casts serious doubt about the simulations used to draw their conclusions.

I'd also want to emphasize the absence of damage to the southwest corner and to the south façade in any of the images shown. It's not the building in the conditions that happened in 9/11 that they are simulating.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:28 PM   #2784
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
You were being asked to give your opinion. Seems even a student could do that.

You may enjoy learning from this
*original metabunk link removed because I have less than 15 posts*
Why would you direct someone to learn from a site whose sole purpose is to deceive and misrepresent the truth?
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:30 PM   #2785
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
So much for his investigation. big fail.
Why is the investigation a "big fail"? Is it merely because it does not agree with your perception of reality?
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:31 PM   #2786
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I'd also want to emphasize the absence of damage to the southwest corner and to the south façade in any of the images shown. It's not the building in the conditions that happened in 9/11 that they are simulating.
Is that relevant? What did NIST have to say about this damage? Was it included in their models?
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:46 PM   #2787
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
There are no blast scenarios.
Is that necessary? Their goal was to prove NIST's claim was wrong. They have done that.

Quote:
He conjures up magically failing steel.
Is your claim that the steel did not fall?

Quote:
There is no explanation.
What was the purpose of this investigation? Was the investigation conducted for the purpose of determining what did happen, or did NOT happen?
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:49 PM   #2788
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Why is the investigation a "big fail"? Is it merely because it does not agree with your perception of reality?
No it fails because the conclusion does not include the fact the building was extensively damaged by WTC 1 falling into it and perhaps the worst oversite, fires on 16+ floors uninhibited for several hours prior to the collapse. Read the first hand reports of those firefighters that were in or near the building.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=82689

And these fires were/are ignored in the report, because he/they don't consider it a major factor in the building collapse.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:51 PM   #2789
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,232
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Is that relevant?
AE911Truth have been howling for 10 years because of some bolts here, some sideplate there that NIST allegedly left out.

I think AE911Truth will rightfully reprimand Hulsey for the glaring oversight of leaving out the destruction of entire, huge columns over many stories from the model - they would not want to be caught as judging with two different standards - or would they, PhotoMatt?


Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
What did NIST have to say about this damage? Was it included in their models?
Yes, of course NIST tested this! They ran two simulations - one with the damage to the south and west faces incurred by the collapsing North Tower, and one without that damage.

The difference was dramatic:






Do you see how the structure folds up wildly in one scenario, but doesn't in the other? Can you guess which is which?

So initial conditions play a significant role in how the collapse will look like.





(Note to mods: Hotlinking my own webspace is okay)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 01:59 PM   #2790
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,232
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Is that necessary?
In my opinion, yes. NIST actually did simulate a blast scenario with all the relevant predictions you can make, like sound levels of the explosion at a known camera position, or which windows would get blasted out.

Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Their goal was to prove NIST's claim was wrong.
This is FALSE. This was only a small, and, IMO, rather irrelevant bit of the objectives.

Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
They have done that.
This is, at this point in time, doubtful - we have not seen Hulsey's simulations - the input and output data.

Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Is your claim that the steel did not fall?
No. I wrote: "He conjures up magically failing steel." "Failing". Not "falling".
And I claim that, in Hulsey's model, there is no physical cause for the failures which he simply assuimes- which is equivalent to conjuring up magic as the cause of all these columns failing.

Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
What was the purpose of this investigation? Was the investigation conducted for the purpose of determining what did happen, or did NOT happen?
Actually, I'd like to hear your answer to this question first, before I give you mine (which will then be the correct answer).
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 02:22 PM   #2791
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Firstly

I'm a student - I came here to learn. I don't possess all of the answers to
all of the questions.
Secondly See my signature...
Your post do not indicate you are attempting to learn, just post 9/11 Truther concepts, do you understand the difference between what you indicate is your reason for posting and what you have been doing?

As FFTR indicated I am asking your opinion of what occurred on that day, surely you have an opinion.
As far as you sig line, yes truth finally comes out whether people believe it or have another agenda.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 02:58 PM   #2792
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,688
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I'd also want to emphasize the absence of damage to the southwest corner and to the south façade in any of the images shown. It's not the building in the conditions that happened in 9/11 that they are simulating.
Is that relevant? What did NIST have to say about this damage? Was it included in their models?
It's extremely relevant when it comes to discussing the way the building should or should not have tilted, which is something that the Hulsey report does.

It's irrelevant what NIST did. As it happens, NIST used the cases of damage and no damage, but the one that reproduced the actual conditions of the building was the most relevant one. The fact that in NIST's simulations, the building collapsed either way, is just additional support for the obvious (for anyone except the willingly blind) thesis that fire is a powerful cause of building collapses.

Hulsey is claiming that fire didn't do it, using a pristine building with only certain column sections removed. That's cheating. These conditions were not remotely close to the ones that happened in 9/11. He's claiming that NIST was wrong, but he's only checking the no-damage case and leaving out the full-damage case which was the real one.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:10 PM   #2793
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
No it fails because the conclusion does not include the fact the building was extensively damaged by WTC 1 falling into it
Where is the proof of this claim?

If the damage was so extensive, why is it not included in NIST's theory of "progressive collapse due to normal office fires"?
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:11 PM   #2794
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
It's irrelevant what NIST did.
If this is true, why are there tens of thousands of posts on this forum claiming the exact opposite?
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:21 PM   #2795
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,688
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
If this is true, why are there tens of thousands of posts on this forum claiming the exact opposite?
It's irrelevant what NIST did, in the context of whether the building collapsed due to fire or not. Whatever NIST did, was after the building collapsed and therefore it can't have an influence on the past.

NIST titled the chapter "Probable collapse sequence". They may have gotten it wrong in some aspects, and therefore what they think was probable may not have been. That doesn't change the evidence, which is there for anyone to study, and shows no signs of intentional demolition.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:24 PM   #2796
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Why is the investigation a "big fail"? Is it merely because it does not agree with your perception of reality?
The NIST investigation was rejected by truthers because it didn't agree with their superficial perception of reality. At best they could find the parts wrong with it, not any evidence at all for your imaginary demolition.

Hulsey report fails because it can't rule out fire like they said and thought it would.

15+ years of failure for "9/11 Truth".
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:34 PM   #2797
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
AE911Truth have been howling for 10 years because of some bolts here, some sideplate there that NIST allegedly left out.
If the engineers put them in the building, don't you think it would have been important for them to do so? I can't imagine an architect/engineer submitting a building design and saying, "Well, the real cost is 50 million, but we added an extra 100K with nuts and bolts we didn't really need."

Quote:
I think AE911Truth will rightfully reprimand Hulsey for the glaring oversight of leaving out the destruction of entire, huge columns over many stories from the model - they would not want to be caught as judging with two different standards - or would they, PhotoMatt?
What oversight? The report alleges nearly simultaneous removal of all columns.

Quote:

Yes, of course NIST tested this! They ran two simulations - one with the damage to the south and west faces incurred by the collapsing North Tower, and one without that damage.

The difference was dramatic:

*links removed cuz I'm still a scrub*

Do you see how the structure folds up wildly in one scenario, but doesn't in the other? Can you guess which is which?

So initial conditions play a significant role in how the collapse will look like.
And how does either simulation actually match what has been observed on video?
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:36 PM   #2798
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,232
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Where is the proof of this claim?

If the damage was so extensive, why is it not included in NIST's theory of "progressive collapse due to normal office fires"?
Your question is loaded with a FALSE premise: You assume that NIST did not include the extensive damage - but that is FALSE, and the opposite is true: NIST did include the extensive damage, and they demonstrated how significant it is.

Can you please scroll back to post #2789, the one with the large images? It demonstrates the significance by showing how very different the collapse would look like from the outside, if the impact damage were not considered.

Since NIST established the significance of the externally induced damage, and did include it in their model, I consider it grave negligence if Hulsey FAILED to do the same.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:45 PM   #2799
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,232
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
If the engineers put them in the building, don't you think it would have been important for them to do so? I can't imagine an architect/engineer submitting a building design and saying, "Well, the real cost is 50 million, but we added an extra 100K with nuts and bolts we didn't really need."
STRAWMAN (that's a logical fallacy): I do not claim it would not have been important.
My point is that AE911Truth places utmost importance on including every last bolt and plate. This sets a standard of exactitude.


Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
What oversight? The report alleges nearly simultaneous removal of all columns.
MOVING GOAL POSTS (that's an informal fallacy): What has this allegation got to do with what we are currently debating? Nothing.

The oversight is literally contained in the quote, to which you replied "What oversight?". I suggest you simply read for comprehension that which you quote. I said:
"The glaring oversight of leaving out the destruction of entire, huge columns over many stories from the model"


Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
And how does either simulation actually match what has been observed on video?
Way to miss the point entirely.

The point is that the result - what the collapse looks like from the outside - is significantly influenced by the extent of prior damage included in the model. This shows that you cannot leave out any and all such prior damage and hope to get a faithful replication of the real collapse.

In other words: By leaving out the damage, Hulsey made his simulation set up to fail.

Remember the beginning of this post? I pointed you to AE911Truth setting a standard of exactitude.
If they judge Hulsey by the same Standard of Exactitude by which they jufged NIST, they will reprimand him most sternly for leaving out far larger and relevant features in his model - namely the horrible damage incurred by the collapse of the North Tower.
If they judge Hulsey by a different standard.................. (please end the sentence yourself).
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 4th September 2019 at 03:47 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 03:49 PM   #2800
PhotoMatt
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
In my opinion, yes. NIST actually did simulate a blast scenario with all the relevant predictions you can make, like sound levels of the explosion at a known camera position, or which windows would get blasted out.
No, they did not simulate a blast scenario. They simulated what would happen if all columns were removed nearly simultaneously. You have made the connection that a blast would be required to accomplish this.

Gotcha.

Quote:

This is FALSE. This was only a small, and, IMO, rather irrelevant bit of the objectives.
From their website -
The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

How are those three objectives small and irrelevant?

Quote:
This is, at this point in time, doubtful - we have not seen Hulsey's simulations - the input and output data.
This is kinda funny considering that NIST has had 10 years to do exactly what you are requesting. Hulsey said he will do it by the end of the month. Not only that, but the data will be available for anyone to access, and he welcomes public review.

Quote:
No. I wrote: "He conjures up magically failing steel." "Failing". Not "falling".
And I claim that, in Hulsey's model, there is no physical cause for the failures which he simply assuimes- which is equivalent to conjuring up magic as the cause of all these columns failing.
The objective of the study was not to determine the cause of the nearly simultaneous collapse of all columns. Hulsey simply pointed out that this was the most likely cause of the collapse. What caused the nearly simultaneous collapse is the subject of another investigation.

Quote:
Actually, I'd like to hear your answer to this question first, before I give you mine (which will then be the correct answer).
I already listed the correct answer. I copied and pasted it from their website. Unless you are going to copy and paste the same information, you can't possibly be correct.
PhotoMatt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.