ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 29th August 2019, 06:09 PM   #2721
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
By the way, this is a picture of the WTC2 footprint area. Try to match it with the LIDAR image and think a bit about what the LIDAR image actually shows.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum
/6/wtc2south2.jpg

OK The long tubular shaped linear object is the pedestrian bridge that crosses over west side at Liberty street.
The WTC2 west facing wall is in the foreground with the south facing wall is seen at the right.
The link you provide shows the WTC2 footprint as viewed from the north
and the south wall partially standing in the background.In between the WTC2 west facing wall and the pedestrian bridge
is the southern portion of the WTC3 Marriott. The LIDAR shows the WTC3 between the bridge
and the WTC2 south wall.
Now it's your turn to think a bit.




__________________
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 30th August 2019, 04:14 AM   #2722
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,734
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Truth movement's use of the phrase -controlled demolition- is not intended to be read literally I suspect. What they seem to suggest is not that the destruction was controlled... but that some group engineered and placed devices which was led to the collapse of each building. The presumed goal was not to mimic a CD but to collapse/destroy the building. Falling into the footprint was not an objective... I suspect if the towers toppled they would be OK with that result.
I disagree. Because they also use phrases like "fell in their own footprint" I think the CT crowd very much literally means the demolitions were controlled.
__________________
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 30th August 2019, 06:47 AM   #2723
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,931
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I disagree. Because they also use phrases like "fell in their own footprint" I think the CT crowd very much literally means the demolitions were controlled.
Not work the key strokes to argue about this point.

It seems that to engineer a demo that falls "over" might not only be more difficult... but it would serve no purpose unless the intent was to damage adjacent property.

My hunch is whether it was AQ or the truther bombers... they were really only interested in the Twins. Truthers used 7wtc to pitch their CD rubbish because it looked very much like a CD (the structural failure was down low) and the twins destruction did not resemble and CD or building collapse either on film, video or eyewitness reports. And consider how many (truthers) claim that the top "falling into the bottom" can't even destroy it.... meaning that the "devices" were unseen and through out the height??????

Never did account for the fact the 2wtc's top tipped as 1wtc's did not.

7wtc was an easy match for CD and you see how they did side by side with an actual CD.
__________________
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 30th August 2019, 07:52 AM   #2724
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
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 30th August 2019, 07:57 AM   #2725
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,861
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Not work the key strokes to argue about this point.

It seems that to engineer a demo that falls "over" might not only be more difficult... but it would serve no purpose unless the intent was to damage adjacent property.
I'm not a CD expert, but I do ave some training in demolitions. It's not only more difficult, it's MUCH more difficult and would take a crap ton more explosives and engineering.

Buildings are HEAVY. The average skyscraper weighs about 225,000 TONS, and must be at least 150m tall to be called a skyscraper. To make it fall over, you have to provide enough force in a lateral direction to push that much weight a significant distance. If you think you can cut one side of the bottom like a tree, you're vastly over-estimating the strength of the building. They aren't over-engineered to anything resembling that degree. They're designed to hold the weight of themselves, and the weight of equipment and people on the floors. That people and equipment weight is a fraction of the building weight. Try to make it fall over, and it will fall apart and fall down.

CDs are all about letting gravity do the work. Even in military demolitions, say when blowing a bridge, we don't even think about trying to get enough explosives to blow the whole bridge to pieces; that'd be insane. Instead, you cut the moorings on each end and let gravity take over (more or less, may need to cut the span depending on whether there are center supports and such, but the same basic principle).

Just for a quick comparison:

225000 tons is roughly 224,190,700 Newtons. Let's round that to 200,000,000 for easier math. Heck, let's make it 100,000,000.
The building would fall an average of 75m, assuming the shortest skyscraper possible. That would take about 3.91s.

That would release 73,500,000,000 Joules of energy. 7.35x1010.

That energy alone is equivalent to 200kg of TNT all by itself (.1 megaton).

And that's, by far, a LOW end estimate for a not-really-exceptional skyscraper.

When you're talking about the twin towers, the weight and height go up considerably. Anything less than a nuke, or a MOAB equivalent, is simply inconsequential in comparison.

And that's the kind of force you need to exert to have it move sideways instead of down.

NOTE: I use "you" in the general sense through this, not specific JSanderO. Just used you as a jumping off point
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound 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 30th August 2019, 12:00 PM   #2726
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,931
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I'm not a CD expert, .....

And that's the kind of force you need to exert to have it move sideways instead of down.

NOTE: I use "you" in the general sense through this, not specific JSanderO. Just used you as a jumping off point
Nor am I!... But I suppose to make a building topple in one direction... you would destroy support on the one side... much like a tree is toppled by cutting a notch. I have no idea how much force or energy would be required... but it sure as heck wouldn't fall straight down. I believe some CDs use these ideas to direct the "fall".
__________________
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 30th August 2019, 01:06 PM   #2727
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,508
It's not unusual to bring down a building to one side in a demolition.
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
Redwood 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 30th August 2019, 01:12 PM   #2728
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,861
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Nor am I!... But I suppose to make a building topple in one direction... you would destroy support on the one side... much like a tree is toppled by cutting a notch. I have no idea how much force or energy would be required... but it sure as heck wouldn't fall straight down. I believe some CDs use these ideas to direct the "fall".
To a degree, yes, but most of it is still going to drop inside the footprint. There's just so much mass coming down that the structure is going to fail before you get much sideways motion, especially if you're trying to drop the whole thing.

I have seen that type of thing done with structures that have a relatively high strength to mass ratio, things like tall industrial smokestacks and similar. There's just too much stuff there for larger buildings to do much of that sort without a lot of work.

Basically, getting one to fall outside it's footprint is more of a feat than getting one to drop mostly inside. If the twin towers had fallen over sideways I'd be supporting the CD theory
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound 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 30th August 2019, 05:07 PM   #2729
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
... The draft report will be published that same week at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Originally Posted by ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building.
We knew in advance that that was the predetermined conclusion and that the work by Mr. Hulsey et al. was aimed at finding ways to support that conclusion. It's no surprise that it did, but that's not how science works.


And there's this (anticipated) point:
Originally Posted by ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.
Can anyone in this forum please enlighten me as to how is it possible that a simulation shows such a thing?

Because it is my understanding that, in order to show it, the simulation itself needs to somehow be able to prove that EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE SCENARIO (not restricted to just those scenarios considered by NIST) leads to a different outcome, and a single simulation (or even a number of them) is unable to do such thing.

There's a few variables that were known from observation of WTC7, but there's a lot more that remained unknown, such as intensity of the unseen parts of the fires, the state of the fires in the Edison substation below WTC7 and its influence on the trusses that held the building, degree of mismatch between specifications and actual construction, contents of the fuel material in the different floors, and so on and on and on.

The number of unknown variables gets so big, that the claim of being able to tell that fires did not bring down the building is just not credible.

Let me illustrate the wrongness of Hulsey's approach with a story.

A man called WTC7 is in a kitchen. He has tried a bit of juggling with balls, but he was too shy to show his abilities in public. While using a knife to prepare a meal, he suddenly figures that juggling with knives could be an exciting, even if dangerous, game, and decides to test his abilities out of boredom. He starts juggling with a few knives. He fails, and one of the knives cuts his neck. He dies as a consequence.

A forensic investigator called NIST quickly determines that his neck was cut with the knife that lies on the floor, which was obvious from the let go. But, unable to determine where the knife came from (because they never thought the man could be juggling, as he was never seen doing that), after a lot of analysis and investigation, NIST determines as the most probable cause that the knife came from the cupboard that was above him, which was open at the time, and therefore the death was accidental.

After reading the NIST investigative report, an intrepid knife expert called Hulsey determines that it's impossible for the knife to have fallen from the cupboard because the angle of the knife cut was 5 degrees off with respect to the expected angle if it had fallen from the cupboard, and proves so with a physics simulation that simulates the knife falling from the cupboard, and showing errors in the estimations of the NIST simulation.

This, Hulsey says, proves that someone murdered the man, because he has proven that it's impossible that the knife came from the cupboard as NIST said. Who did it, why and how? Hulsey doesn't say. But he insists that, because NIST was wrong, it was a murder. Hulsey even goes as far as proving with a simulation that someone holding a knife behind Mr. WTC7 was able to inflict a cut just like the one that the man exhibited.

Can you spot what's wrong with Hulsey's reasoning? Yes, that's right: he hasn't really proven that any other scenario where the knife cuts at that angle may result in an accidental death, and therefore his conclusion that the death was not accidental does not follow from the simulations he provides. In this little story we have a luxury that we didn't have in September 11, 2001: to know in advance the hidden variable that the investigators didn't have access to.

Last edited by pgimeno; 30th August 2019 at 05:17 PM.
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 30th August 2019, 06:00 PM   #2730
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
I agree with Hellbound, skyscrapers have a lot of mass and the relatively thin columns make it harder for the structure to tip over than e.g. in the Las Gladiolas example shown by Redwood. See Bazant and Zhou, 2002 Appendix II: Why Didn't the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?

Basically, the first attempt at pivoting over the base makes the top section gain rotational momentum. The columns can't stand the lateral reaction force exerted by the part of the structure situated below the CoG, and the result is that the top pivots mostly over its CoG instead of over its base.

It's not hard to see with a thought experiment. Say you have three sticks holding a somewhat heavy box. The sticks are not glued to the box; they just hold it. We can simplify it to a 2D case with just two sticks:

Code:
   +----+
   |    |
   +----+
   |    |
   |    |
Now you remove one of the sticks. What is going to happen to the other one (to the other two in the case of 3D)?

Case A: The stick remains vertical as the box tips over.
Code:
     +_
    /  --+
   +_   /
   | --+
   |
Case B: The stick rotates in the same direction as the box.
Code:
     +_
    /  --+
   +_   /
  /  --+
 /
Case C: The stick rotates in the opposite direction of that of the box.
Code:
   +_
  /  --+
 +_   /
  \--+
   \
Case A will only happen if the stick is glued to the floor. Case B will only happen if the stick is glued to the box. Case C is the one that will happen if the stick isn't glued to either side.

There are some assumptions in this model. The sticks should have a thick enough base as to be able to hold the box without any stick tipping over, but that base should also be thin enough as to not be able to withstand the lateral momentum of the box once it starts rotating.
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 31st August 2019, 04:52 AM   #2731
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,654


Now, pgimeno, post this in the Hulsey thread, and we have a winner!
__________________
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 31st August 2019, 06:24 AM   #2732
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post


Now, pgimeno, post this in the Hulsey thread, and we have a winner!
If anyone pays attention. By my count that is three who agree across several forums and FaceBook groups. Maybe the timing is appropriate - just before the Hulsey paper is released.

Last edited by ozeco41; 31st August 2019 at 06:26 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 31st August 2019, 08:15 AM   #2733
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post


[snipped]
A man called WTC7 is in a kitchen. He has tried a bit of juggling with balls, but he was too shy to show his abilities in public. While using a knife to prepare a meal, he suddenly figures that juggling with knives could be an exciting, even if dangerous, game, and decides to test his abilities out of boredom. He starts juggling with a few knives. He fails, and one of the knives cuts his neck. He dies as a consequence.

A forensic investigator called NIST quickly determines that his neck was cut with the knife that lies on the floor, which was obvious from the let go. But, unable to determine where the knife came from (because they never thought the man could be juggling, as he was never seen doing that), after a lot of analysis and investigation, NIST determines as the most probable cause that the knife came from the cupboard that was above him, which was open at the time, and therefore the death was accidental.

After reading the NIST investigative report, an intrepid knife expert called Hulsey determines that it's impossible for the knife to have fallen from the cupboard because the angle of the knife cut was 5 degrees off with respect to the expected angle if it had fallen from the cupboard, and proves so with a physics simulation that simulates the knife falling from the cupboard, and showing errors in the estimations of the NIST simulation.

This, Hulsey says, proves that someone murdered the man, because he has proven that it's impossible that the knife came from the cupboard as NIST said. Who did it, why and how? Hulsey doesn't say. But he insists that, because NIST was wrong, it was a murder. Hulsey even goes as far as proving with a simulation that someone holding a knife behind Mr. WTC7 was able to inflict a cut just like the one that the man exhibited.

Can you spot what's wrong with Hulsey's reasoning? Yes, that's right: he hasn't really proven that any other scenario where the knife cuts at that angle may result in an accidental death, and therefore his conclusion that the death was not accidental does not follow from the simulations he provides. In this little story we have a luxury that we didn't have in September 11, 2001: to know in advance the hidden variable that the investigators didn't have access to.


HOT DAMN pgimeno- I think you're on to something here !
Doing some cursory investigation I uncovered much more evidence we should be considering. Turns out that our protagonist WTC7 was a chef at the infamous Russian Coffee house in NYC and was place under surveillance
last year in an FBI DEA & homeland security joint counterterrorism dragnet.
Undercover cameras were placed in the kitchen area captured several instances of the main suspect , mr.WTC7, playing with his balls on company time,and one video captured was leaked by a anonymous source close to the investigation.
https://external-preview.redd.it/9ms...t=mp4&1a87a2fb
(LINK redacted due to national security concerns)







http://www.jugglingworld.biz/more-ju...juggling-gifs/

Further investigations revealed mr. WTC7 was undergoing a sex change operation with hormone treatments to create larger mammary glands needed to prefect the final action of the performance seen in the undercover video. Mr.WTC7 fatal flaw was revealed during the NIST investigation that determined one of the five butcher knives Mr WTC7 selected was unbalanced which distorted the vertical spin axis causing the knife to miss his heart and land in his neck,severing his juggler vein.
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/f...ling/85140567/

All of this new evidence proves conclusively that fire alone brought down the WTC7 tower straight down into it's footprint. [/sarc]
__________________
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 31st August 2019, 02:38 PM   #2734
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
I've run a simulation with the Box2D physics engine as implemented in the Love2D framework. I created a 2D box and two 2D sticks holding it, then with the space key I moved one of the sticks away. The trajectory of the centre of mass of the box was traced. Here's the result:



As you can see, the centre of mass of the box does barely move from the vertical; not even by one pixel in this simulation.

Here's the complete Lua program for reference and reproducibility:

Code:
love.physics.setMeter(10)
local save_frames = false
--save_frames = true
local box_mass = false
--box_mass = 15

local world = love.physics.newWorld(0, 98, false)

local boxB = love.physics.newBody(world, 0, -100, "dynamic")
local boxS = love.physics.newRectangleShape(121, 179)
local boxF = love.physics.newFixture(boxB, boxS)
if box_mass then
  boxB:setMass(box_mass)
end

local stick1B = love.physics.newBody(world, -58, 50, "dynamic")
local stick1S = love.physics.newRectangleShape(5, 121)
local stick1F = love.physics.newFixture(stick1B, stick1S)

local stick2B = love.physics.newBody(world, 58, 50, "dynamic")
local stick2S = love.physics.newRectangleShape(5, 121)
local stick2F = love.physics.newFixture(stick2B, stick2S)

local groundB = love.physics.newBody(world, 0, 118, "static")
local groundS = love.physics.newRectangleShape(781, 15)
local groundF = love.physics.newFixture(groundB, groundS)

local points = {boxB:getPosition()}
love.graphics.setBackgroundColor(255, 255, 255)

function love.update(dt)
  if save_frames then
    -- update 10 times at 100 fps, to get 10 fps
    for i = 1, 10 do
      world:update(1/100)
    end
  else
    world:update(dt)
  end
  local posX, posY = boxB:getPosition()
  local idx = #points
  if posX ~= points[idx - 1] or posY ~= points[idx] then
    points[idx + 1] = posX
    points[idx + 2] = posY
  end
end

local frame = 0

love.graphics.setLineStyle("rough")
love.graphics.setLineJoin("none")

function love.draw()
  love.graphics.translate(love.graphics.getWidth()/2, love.graphics.getHeight()/2)
  love.graphics.setColor(0, 0, 0)
  love.graphics.polygon("line", boxB:getWorldPoints(boxS:getPoints()))
  love.graphics.polygon("line", stick1B:getWorldPoints(stick1S:getPoints()))
  love.graphics.polygon("line", stick2B:getWorldPoints(stick2S:getPoints()))
  love.graphics.polygon("line", groundB:getWorldPoints(groundS:getPoints()))

  love.graphics.setColor(255, 0, 0)
  if #points > 4 then
    love.graphics.line(points)
  else
    love.graphics.rectangle("fill", points[1], points[2], 1, 1)
  end

  frame = frame + 1
  if save_frames then
    love.graphics.captureScreenshot(string.format("frm%05d.png", frame))
  end
end

function love.keypressed(k)
  if k == "escape" then return love.event.quit() end
  if k == "space" or k == " " then
    stick2B:setPosition(stick2B:getX() + 300, stick2B:getY())
  end
end
If you want to try it yourself, you can download the Love2D framework from https://love2d.org/ then save the above code as main.lua and then call love passing as a parameter the folder where main.lua is.
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 31st August 2019, 03:39 PM   #2735
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
All of this new evidence proves conclusively that fire alone brought down the WTC7 tower straight down into it's footprint. [/sarc]
The point of the story was to show why Hulsey can't prove what he claims to prove using simulations, not to prove that fire did it.

There's no evidence for anything other than fire, therefore fire remains the only credible explanation. Showing that explosives could possibly have caused an effect that looks somewhat similar to the one observed, is not a proof that they were actually used. No explosives have ever been found, and no other signs of their use have ever been shown by anyone.
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 31st August 2019, 04:52 PM   #2736
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 362
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
We knew in advance that that was the predetermined conclusion and that the work by Mr. Hulsey et al. was aimed at finding ways to support that conclusion. It's no surprise that it did, but that's not how science works..
But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this? Hulsey and team created a worse case scenario. They still assumed that there were fires on floor 12, 13 around column 79 at the time of the collapse(the photographic evidence does not support this) and they still could not get any collapse.

So why can't any of the true believers in the official story demonstrate this?


Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
After reading the NIST investigative report, an intrepid knife expert called Hulsey determines that it's impossible for the knife to have fallen from the cupboard because the angle of the knife cut was 5 degrees off with respect to the expected angle if it had fallen from the cupboard, and proves so with a physics simulation that simulates the knife falling from the cupboard, and showing errors in the estimations of the NIST simulation.

This, Hulsey says, proves that someone murdered the man, because he has proven that it's impossible that the knife came from the cupboard as NIST said. Who did it, why and how? Hulsey doesn't say. But he insists that, because NIST was wrong, it was a murder. Hulsey even goes as far as proving with a simulation that someone holding a knife behind Mr. WTC7 was able to inflict a cut just like the one that the man exhibited.

Can you spot what's wrong with Hulsey's reasoning? Yes, that's right: he hasn't really proven that any other scenario where the knife cuts at that angle may result in an accidental death, and therefore his conclusion that the death was not accidental does not follow from the simulations he provides. In this little story we have a luxury that we didn't have in September 11, 2001: to know in advance the hidden variable that the investigators didn't have access to.
Your analogy fails because we know that knives can do what you say here. We don't know that fire can destroy a steel-framed high rise with the same features as WTC7. To create a model that mirrors the collapse of the actual building many massive columns have to be cut almost simultaneously. To date there is no experimental evidence to support any aspect of the official story.

The 9/11 false narrative is just prolefeed for the masses.
__________________
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 1st September 2019, 01:28 AM   #2737
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
A neat bit of modelling pgimeno. Here is near enough the Twin Towers equivalent. A drastically shortened motion gif - courtesy of truther researcher "achimspok". The full length original may be linked on The911Forum or Major_Tom's site. I've lost my copy.


Last edited by ozeco41; 1st September 2019 at 01:29 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 1st September 2019, 04:04 AM   #2738
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this?
Demonstrate how?

There are two forensic reports from independent engineering analysts, both for the same lawsuit (Aegis Insurance vs 7 WTC), one from the plaintiff and one from the defendant. Both came to the same conclusion, namely that the cause of the collapse was fire; the plaintiff tried to prove that a negligence in its construction was directly related to the collapse, while the defendant tried to prove that the building could have failed without the intervention of any negligence. The defendant won the case.

To my knowledge, while at least one critical issue was found in the reports by the plaintiffs, no serious objections have been raised against the report presented by the defendants, performed by Najib N. Abboud of Weidlinger Associates, Inc. (available here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pd...ent_Report.pdf).

This report reaches a conclusion about the initiation event that is completely different to that of NIST, in that the critical failure did not happen at the girder that the NIST report claims, not even on the same floor. Instead, the report says, the failure happened in floor 10. But from there, it agrees in the overall details with NIST: column 79 ended up losing lateral support and failed, initiating a progressive collapse that reached the rest of the structure.

And I assure you that the defendants would have been extremely interested if the cause of the collapse was intentional demolition. They had many means to investigate that possibility, but there's no evidence whatsoever that it happened.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Hulsey and team created a worse case scenario. They still assumed that there were fires on floor 12, 13 around column 79 at the time of the collapse(the photographic evidence does not support this) and they still could not get any collapse.
Hulsey didn't create a worst case scenario. He may have created a worst case scenario for NIST's hypothesis of initiation at the girder of floor 13, but that is not necessarily the worst case for all possible failure scenarios. As you can see, the Weidlinger report came up with a different scenario where there weren't (significant) fires in that area.

Therefore the point stands that Hulsey is not discarding many other possible scenarios, including the one contemplated in the Weidlinger report and many others. Progression and actual temperature of the fires near the structure is one of the most important variables that remain hidden. Fire can affect buildings in many ways, and often the cooling phase is the one causing the collapse, not the heating phase. We are in a case where "chaos theory" applies to some extent. The order in which fires affected the structure can be crucial, and creating a worst case for the collapse of the building is not so easy as raising the temperature of a certain area to maximum levels.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So why can't any of the true believers in the official story demonstrate this?
Lack of interest? Normal people (and insurance companies) know that there was no trace of explosives, that there was no evidence for anything other than fire, that fire can bring down buildings and that steel is vulnerable to fire, and don't need a report to prove it. It took a lawsuit to get the motivation to fund such a study.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Your analogy fails because we know that knives can do what you say here. We don't know that fire can destroy a steel-framed high rise with the same features as WTC7.
Oh, but Mr. WTC7 was an exceptionally tall man, and his carotid artery was exceptionally deep. No one has ever shown how a cut with a knife can inflict such damage in a tall man with a carotid that deep. It's unlikely that the carotid could be reached by just a gravity fall of a knife in the conditions of a kitchen, so murder is the only explanation.

We know that fire can bring down buildings, and that high rises are buildings too. We know that steel is vulnerable to fire, and that fire codes prescribe protection for steel not to prevent the structural failure, but to give it time for the occupants to evacuate. We know of a high rise building in Tehran (the Plasco building) made of steel that totally collapsed due to fire, and another high rise in Brazil (not made of steel in this case) that suffered the same fate. We have at least three studies that show how fire can bring down WTC7 (each in a different way).

That's why I think that your criticism to my analogy fails. You're isolating WTC7 as if it had something special that made it invulnerable to fire for some reason, but you don't mention what, and still you claim that it's somehow different. It is not; it's a building that can collapse due to fire like so many other buildings, just like Mr. WTC7's carotid is vulnerable to a knife cut like so many carotid arteries.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
To create a model that mirrors the collapse of the actual building many massive columns have to be cut almost simultaneously.
That is a meme of the conspiracy theorists, and like most other similar memes, is wrong. The façade of the building was very sturdy; the internal collapse progressed horizontally and that took a few seconds, but that was not visible because the façade hid it. We only have some indirect observations that confirm it (daylight visible from the upper windows after the east mechanical penthouse collapsed; windows breaking in many places). By the time the façade started falling, the core had already totally collapsed, and not simultaneously, but by a progressive collapse mechanism.

I believe that the beams that were still connected to the core pulled from the façade down until it gave way, causing it to fall almost simultaneously. But there's nothing special about that; many total collapses are practically instantaneous.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
The 9/11 false narrative is just prolefeed for the masses.
I think we agree on that point; we just disagree on what the false narrative is.
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 1st September 2019, 06:42 AM   #2739
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,654
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this?
This is not the question - it is a no-brainer really that a general fire can destroy a steel-frame highrise. This is the very reason why the steel is fireproofed, and that firecodes exist and are an integral part of structural design considerations. It is actually very difficult to build this tall without the slightest of disturbances making the whole thing collapse. Simply put: If you or I built a 186 m tall steel frame highrise, and we managed to top it out without collapse during construction, it could not survive the slightest of fires or the most moderate of winds. It would collapse completely.

Do you understand these two points?
1. Fires are guaranteed to reduce the capacity of steel structures
2. It is very difficult to build tall such that the structure survives at all

So the question is not whether fire can cause collapse, nor whether a tall builing can collapse completely by accident.

The question is: Can we simulate a given historical collapse to an arbitrary degree of accuracy - a) as a result of fires b) as a result of hypothetical explosives.
b) is almost trivial: Of course you can, just invent a blast even whereever and whenever your simulations do not pan out the way you want them to.
So the question is really a)

And the answer to this should be a counter-question: Why? Why are you interested in mimicking the actual collapse to an arbitrary degree of accuracy?
The problem really is that you cannot have enough information about the building's conditions at the time fires began, and the ins and outs of the fire event, to get there, or to ever be sure that the simulated scenario you hit upon is the hidden, unknown "truth".

To illustrate this, just look at two simulations that NIST did on WTC7: One was started with an undamaged structure, and the other was started with damage sustained by WTC1 crashing into WTC7 earlier - or rather NIST's estimate thereof, for we can't know the true extent of that damage.





Do you see how the structure folds up wildly in one scenario, but doen't in the other? That's the effect of having a few columns broken somwhere on the south and east side, out of view.

So initial conditions play a significant role in how the collapse will look like.
Which initial conditions did Hulsey assume? We should be looking for that.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Hulsey and team created a worse case scenario.
Very likely untrue.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
They still assumed that there were fires on floor 12, 13 around column 79 at the time of the collapse(the photographic evidence does not support this) and they still could not get any collapse.
You point the finger to one of the HUGEST problems with the Hulsey study - without realizing it: Yes, he ONLY modeled heat effect on two floors, when 7 consecutive floors were affected by the dynamic heat load of fires.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So why can't any of the true believers in the official story demonstrate this?
What exactly do youi require?
NIST showed in 2008 that fires can bring down this structure in the manner observed.
Oh and by the way, it is a misconception (though admittedly fed by NIST's own presentatios and summaries) that they had only this one (1) local failure, the walk-off of one girder on one floor, that triggered collapse. They found numerous failed connections.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Your analogy fails because we know that knives can do what you say here. We don't know that fire can destroy a steel-framed high rise with the same features as WTC7.
This statement makes little sense.
Fire merely triggered a global collapse.
What the global collapse looked like, in arbitrarily fine detail, many seconds later is a function of many things, of which the fire damage is just one element.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
To create a model that mirrors the collapse of the actual building many massive columns have to be cut almost simultaneously.
No.
Have to FAIL almost simultaneously - because that is what was actually observed: The west core had its columns failing in rapid succession from east to west, in a matter of under a second, I believe. NIST showed that this is possible, given the accrued fire damage and the earlier impact damage.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
To date there is no experimental evidence to support any aspect of the official story.
Experimental??

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
The 9/11 false narrative is just prolefeed for the masses.
AE911Truth surely is telling a false narrative, and the paid job that Hulsey does serves to feed that false narrative.
__________________
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 1st September 2019, 06:55 AM   #2740
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
But if fire is capable of destroying a steel-frame high-rise in the manner of world trade tower 7 why can't anyone demonstrate this?
There are two fundamental problems with your assertions.

1) The first is wrong allocation of burden of proof - and possible ignorance of some basic facts about steel framed high rise towers.

These are the basic technical facts. Steel frames are vulnerable to fires and their designs are premised on providing a "fire rating" - a period of hours that the building should withstand likely fires allowing for occupant escape and commencement of active fire fighting. All three WTC towers were taken well outside the design parameters. The default hypothesis effectively wrote itself - unfought fires caused collapse. And subsequent investigations confirmed that as the extant hypothesis.

So the claim before us is your claim (AKA the Truth Movement claim) that the extant hypothesis is wrong (or the alternate - that there was some "help" from CD). Your burden of proof - to satisfy it you have to falsify the extant hypothesis that "No CD help was needed" AND present an alternate affirmative hypothesis if you want to claim that CD was performed.

So there is no need - no obligation - for anyone "demonstrate". The burden of proof is clear.. those alleging the extant hypothesis is wrong have to prove it is wrong. AND - taking the next step - those asserting CD need to prove CD.


2) The second is your faith in Hulsey's work. Hulsey has been asserting that he can prove or has proved "Fire could not cause collapse". That is a global negative and it cannot be proved in the context of this Hulsey study. Whether or not his engineering is right his base logic has a fatal error. That error was identified when Hulsey first made the false claims how ever many years back. And has re-posted at intervals since across several forums. And recently it has been clearly restated and explained by pgimeno here on this forum and by other persons on two other forums I'm aware of.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st September 2019 at 07:14 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 1st September 2019, 08:20 AM   #2741
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
They still assumed that there were fires on floor 12, 13 around column 79 at the time of the collapse(the photographic evidence does not support this) and they still could not get any collapse.
You point the finger to one of the HUGEST problems with the Hulsey study - without realizing it: Yes, he ONLY modeled heat effect on two floors, when 7 consecutive floors were affected by the dynamic heat load of fires.
I think he's pointing fingers to an even bigger problem:

Hulsey's study is only addressing the initiation event described by NIST, and completely ignoring every other possible scenario (for example, the fires at floor 10 causing a failure as described by the Weidlinger report).

And it bears repeating, that NIST's scenario is not the only possible one. I intentionally modelled my little story in a way that it in fact wasn't (although in the end it still was an accidental, gravity-driven knife cut as NIST described). I believe that NIST proved conclusively that fire could bring down the building, but that they didn't get their initiation event right with the means they had 11-14 years ago. In the Weidlinger report, the first fatal failure happens actually around column 81, not 79, yet the sequence of events after that led to the same result as NIST later described, with 79 being the column that buckled first. And I'm sure that a different analyst could find yet another way in which the building would have collapsed due to fire with the same result.

As you note, there are too many unknowns for anyone to be able to make a simulation of what actually happened. One simply can't try every possible distribution of fires and loads and damage until one of them reproduces the effects that we saw. You're very right when you say that even if one was found, it wouldn't mean that the parameters were correct. And the fact that Hulsey is claiming that he has proven that fire couldn't bring down the building, demonstrates that either he is lying, or he is not understanding the problem.

Last edited by pgimeno; 1st September 2019 at 08:27 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 1st September 2019, 08:36 AM   #2742
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
A neat bit of modelling pgimeno. Here is near enough the Twin Towers equivalent. A drastically shortened motion gif - courtesy of truther researcher "achimspok". The full length original may be linked on The911Forum or Major_Tom's site. I've lost my copy.
For the sake of clarification, as it could be confusing, what achimspok calls "pivot" is not the rotation point of the top. Said point is actually far above, near the centre of mass of the falling structure.

Last edited by pgimeno; 1st September 2019 at 08:44 AM. Reason: structure -> falling structure
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 1st September 2019, 08:30 PM   #2743
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
For the sake of clarification, as it could be confusing, what achimspok calls "pivot" is not the rotation point of the top. Said point is actually far above, near the centre of mass of the falling structure.
Yes. But the clip shows - left to right reversed - the same style of mechanism as your model. Which is why I posted it.

I've actually made more use of the motion gif than achimspok did. I'll "spoiler" it because we are drifting off topic

This is a single frame showing the direction of motion of the perimeter walls - yellow arrows - and the original line of the floor joists - blue lines.



It actually clearly resolves what were for many years contentious issues viz how did the sequenced "pancaking" separation of floors from columns get started. i.e. concentrated load from perimeter NOT accumulation of debris .
And one of the reasons why "crush down/crush up" is not valid at the Twin Towers.

Both of those go several steps further than achimspok went.

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 2nd September 2019, 04:17 AM   #2744
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 344
‘Fonebone’ your time is valuable. This site is largely a coordinated intelligence (FVEY) operation to control the narrative. These people aren’t serious about solving anything, they’re serious about dismissing dissent. They will ridicule, collaborate, and deceive.

Just look at that preposterous animation they’re all rallying around to try and dismiss your concerns about the centroid. Do you really think a failing support (and all of the immense structure beneath it) just disappears to allow an upper block to rotate freely and on a different axis and fall straight down? Of course not. Your supposition is correct, the structure would meet resistance and the building would topple from angular momentum. Just watch ‘hung structure’ demolitions.

“Buildings are stronger than trees”.... If you blasted out the side supports of a structure, it will topple sideways. These people are desperate. It doesn’t take post nominals to see.

Finite Element Analysis will crush these traitors and foreign enemies. It’s all unraveling as it should. The Hulsey Report is going to be eviscerating.

GLTA
Notconvinced 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 2nd September 2019, 06:12 AM   #2745
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,654
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
...Do you really think a failing support (and all of the immense structure beneath it) just disappears to allow an upper block to rotate freely and on a different axis and fall straight down? Of course not....
Are you saying that gravity would make things go sideways (as opposed to "strictly straight down"), if this were a "natural", accidental collapse?
__________________
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 2nd September 2019, 07:46 AM   #2746
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
<snip soap box>
Finite Element Analysis will crush these traitors and foreign enemies. It’s all unraveling as it should. The Hulsey Report is going to be eviscerating.

GLTA
You don't believe a finite element analysis was undertaken by the 9/11 commission? Why?

I'm neither a traitor or a foreign enemy, but 19 terrorists brought down a number of buildings on 9/11 using nothing more than flying passenger jets, no Government (or otherwise) conspiracy to aid the terrorist conspiracy supervised by KSM and funded by UBL.
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 2nd September 2019, 09:28 AM   #2747
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Do you really think a failing support (and all of the immense structure beneath it) just disappears to allow an upper block to rotate freely and on a different axis and fall straight down? Of course not. Your supposition is correct, the structure would meet resistance and the building would topple from angular momentum.
I invite you to prove your contention. I've provided proof of mine, and cited a paper that provides mathematical background, including support for the fact that the WTC columns were more than 10 times weaker than what was necessary to arrest the movement at the base due to rotational momentum.


Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Just watch ‘hung structure’ demolitions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean "hanging structure", we're talking about a structure completely different to that of any WTC building.

Anyway, the first hit for 'hung structure demolition' that appears in my Youtube search is this video:

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


Yes, just watch it. While on it, don't forget to listen to it: loud bangs such as those were NOT heard instants before any of the WTC buildings fell.

Now, pay special attention to the emptiness of the upper structure on the side that falls first. That's very little mass in comparison with the columns; it's easier to displace a light structure laterally than a heavy structure.

Pay also special attention to the back side, where the heaviest part (the concrete cylinders) is. Here's what can be seen on this side:



As you can see, the base moves outwards in the way predicted by the theory. The mass of these cylinders is not so big proportionally as in the WTC case, though, plus the mass of the other side displaces the centre of mass of the falling block as a whole, so this effect is not so pronounced in this case. But it's still visible.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
“Buildings are stronger than trees”.... If you blasted out the side supports of a structure, it will topple sideways. These people are desperate. It doesn’t take post nominals to see.
Again, you're invited to provide examples. Make sure the mass that topples is big compared to the sturdiness of its supports, as it has been emphasized in the thread.


Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Finite Element Analysis will crush these traitors and foreign enemies. It’s all unraveling as it should. The Hulsey Report is going to be eviscerating.
FEA will not crush anything, no it isn't unravelling, and no it won't be eviscerating. My discussion of why is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post12804118

Once again, you're invited to provide rebuttals. tanabear has tried, unsuccessfully so far.

Last edited by pgimeno; 2nd September 2019 at 09:50 AM. Reason: minor wording change
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 2nd September 2019, 09:34 AM   #2748
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You don't believe a finite element analysis was undertaken by the 9/11 commission? Why?
Ahem, no it wasn't. It was undertaken by NIST. The 9/11 Commission didn't deal with building performance. NIST was tasked with reporting on the lessons that could be learned from a technical standpoint, to try to make safer buildings; the 9/11 Commission was tasked with reporting on the lessons that could be learned from a political/tactical standpoint, to try to prevent future attacks.
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 2nd September 2019, 09:54 AM   #2749
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You don't believe a finite element analysis was undertaken by the 9/11 commission? Why?

I'm neither a traitor or a foreign enemy, but 19 terrorists brought down a number of buildings on 9/11 using nothing more than flying passenger jets, no Government (or otherwise) conspiracy to aid the terrorist conspiracy supervised by KSM and funded by UBL.

gurggle produced a hit on the search string with all four terms
1 .... 9-11 commission

2 .... finite

3 .... element
4 .... analysis


the 9/11 commission report - NPR



https://www.npr.org › documents › 9-11 › 911reportexec
THE 9/11. COMMISSION. REPORT. Final Report of the. National .... The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were far ..... and strategic analysis capabilities, a limited capacity to share information both .... finite group of people. ... success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, ...


Fonebone< Why don't you post a link to 9-11 commission finite element analysis information before you ask WHY they don't believe

"a finite element analysis was undertaken by the 9/11 commission?"


Again --gurggle shows nothing
__________________
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 2nd September 2019, 12:05 PM   #2750
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Fonebone exactly what do you believe occurred to WT 7? No links , just your words and thoughts.

Then what happened to WT 1 &2?
I will bump this question for you Fonebone, as you have ignored or refused to supply your thoughts.
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 2nd September 2019, 03:59 PM   #2751
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,264
fooled by liars and frauds?

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
... Finite Element Analysis will crush these traitors and foreign enemies. It’s all unraveling as it should. The Hulsey Report is going to be eviscerating. ...
Unraveling? for 18 years? That is funny. You will have better luck with Bigfoot belief, than your blind allegiance to liars and frauds like Gage and Hulsey.

Hulsey is either nuts, or he took the money from Gage to buy computers and lab stuff, and has to produce BS to satisfy Gage. Nuts or typical research hound for cash - which is it?

Fire caused the collapse, Hulsey failed. Believing 9/11 truth claims, indicative of gullibility and willful ignorance.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 2nd September 2019, 05:52 PM   #2752
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,973
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Finite Element Analysis will crush these traitors and foreign enemies. It’s all unraveling as it should. The Hulsey Report is going to be eviscerating.
GLTA
Using your own words and ideas, explain to me how it's not possible for someone to use finite element analysis to obtain predetermined results by carefully setting constraints and factors.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 2nd September 2019 at 05:53 PM.
LSSBB 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, 10:00 AM   #2753
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
It's been a couple of years since I read these pages but I feel it might be good for both Fonebone and Notconvinced to read them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=82689
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 3rd September 2019, 01:43 PM   #2754
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,861
Buildings are, decidedly, NOT stronger than trees...at least in regards to lateral forces.

That's why you often see trees survive events like tornado or hurricanes, when the "stronger" buildings are wiped out.

Of course, it's easy enough to prove everyone wrong. Buildings have collapsed throughout history, we just need an example of a building of similar type falling sideways, rather than mostly into itself.

WE seen numerous examples of buildings collapsing on themselves, including in cases due only to fire, just like happened with the WTC buildings.

Still waiting to see a building topple like a tree.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound 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, 03:26 PM   #2755
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,654
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
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 3rd September 2019 at 03:35 PM. Reason: ETA
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 3rd September 2019, 03:35 PM   #2756
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,910
Truther talking points strewn in every section of this report.

"first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building due to fire"
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 3rd September 2019, 04:15 PM   #2757
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
I've only read the conclusion.

I'll count to 10... no count to 100 before I comment..

But this nonsense is far worse than I could have imagined.
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 3rd September 2019, 05:25 PM   #2758
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Yeah, he's parroting each of Szamboti's arguments. As expected, his only counter-argument to the plausibility of the Weidlinger report is the same as Szamboti's: incredulity about the steel reaching a temperature of ~750 °C in an office fire.
It is important to understand that steel structural members reaching temperatures of 750°C due to office fires can be considered extraordinary. Without any analysis provided to substantiate such temperatures, Weidlinger's collapse initiation hypothesis must be viewed skeptically and can only be assumed to have a very low probability of occurrence.
1000 °C room temperature is easily reached with an office fire.

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


Given enough time and fuel, and enough damage to the thermal protection or incorrect application of it (as claimed by the plaintiffs), it's plausible that the steel temperature reaches the values in the Weidlinger report. Damage to the fire-resistant materials is easy: they break easily in flakes even with minor deformations. In fact, there was much more unprotected steel visible in the photographs of ground zero than protected, because the fire-resistant materials completely dislodged.

The reason given in the Hulsey report to rule out fire is that they couldn't get the East Mechanical Penthouse (EMP) to collapse by removing column sections of columns 79, 80 and 81 at lower floors, only at upper floors where there was no fire. Of course the fact that it didn't collapse in their simulation doesn't mean it couldn't in the real event. It does in NIST's and Weidlinger's, so Hulsey's model could be wrong.

Fundamental to that argument is the analysis data. The report claims that "[a]ll input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during this study are available at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7" but I can't find any data there as of this writing. I'm interested in the load assigned to the EMP and the details of the global model. At first sight, judging by the images, it doesn't appear that the simulated building includes the damage by WTC1. That would be the first problem. We'll see when more data is available.
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 3rd September 2019, 05:40 PM   #2759
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 558
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.
benthamitemetric 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, 05:42 PM   #2760
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,264
Hulsey confirms his origional fantasy claim, fire can't do it

How much did Gage pay? Fire did it, Hulsey can't figure it out. Fire did not do it was his thesis. It is hard to go into a study with a preordained conclusion and change it.

I doubt if they can figure out how the penthouse fell many seconds before the exterior.

The effect of fire caused the collapse, confirmed by Hulsey?


On the science side, did they study possible problems when the expanded heated steel cooled? I did not see a discussion of what happens when the steel cools after being deformed by heat.

Quote:
It is our conclusion 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.
Which is BS because the penthouse collapsed into WTC 7 more than 6 seconds prior to the rest of the building falling. What did I miss? The fact is making the visual of the WTC 7 model look like the collapse is also BS. Models are not Hollywood FX, they are math, and might not look like the real world event, but are based on the engineering.


E=mc2 does not look like the massive explosion of a nuke, or the decay of atomic particles.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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

Bookmarks

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 09:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.