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.
Reply
Old 12th September 2016, 04:39 AM   #1
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IVCSpalbA

discuss
egalicontrarian 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 12th September 2016, 04:42 AM   #2
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,138
Justify.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 12th September 2016, 04:52 AM   #3
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,871
For those of us who prefer the written word on grounds of fidelity of reproduction, is there any kind of written document we can study?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 12th September 2016, 04:59 AM   #4
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,319
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
The title of the thread means whatever the content in the video is is a lie.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is online now   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 12th September 2016, 05:02 AM   #5
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,513
And for those of us who prefer the written word on grounds of ease of review and citation, is there any kind of written document we can study?

Video is great for those who want their audience to uncritically consume a pre-packaged narrative. Not so much for those who want their audience to examine the evidence and the argument for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

Last edited by theprestige; 12th September 2016 at 05:04 AM.
theprestige 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 12th September 2016, 05:23 AM   #6
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And for those of us who prefer the written word on grounds of ease of review and citation, is there any kind of written document we can study?

Video is great for those who want their audience to uncritically consume a pre-packaged narrative. Not so much for those who want their audience to examine the evidence and the argument for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
I watched it and laughed my rear end off, I saw the mistakes instantly.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 12th September 2016, 05:32 AM   #7
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,655
Of course this is another attempt to debunk the NIST and a bunch of others who look at one column, one girder on one floor and find that "fire" was inadequate to trigger a progressive collapse.

There was not discussion of the collapse itself... and the whole thrust is to leave the impression that as fire didn't fail the connection/girder/column on floor 13 col 19 the causes was the unstated assertion without a smidgen of evidence that something such as CD was the culprit. No analysis by this fellow's team of the building movement.

No discussion of progressive runaway system collapse.

Even if his conclusion is correct about how the connection under study performed... it does not rule out fire as cause acting other places at other members etc.

Very unimpressive performance by this guy who seems to have had a belief that NIST was wrong and set out to show it.
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 12th September 2016, 05:50 AM   #8
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,140
The trees at the beginning were pretty, but I keep my sound off in the office, so gave up when the silent movie starring turtle man started.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 12th September 2016, 06:23 AM   #9
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
The first lie is the building fell strait down it didn't the granite landed on top.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 12th September 2016, 06:32 AM   #10
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Of course this is another attempt to debunk the NIST and a bunch of others who look at one column, one girder on one floor and find that "fire" was inadequate to trigger a progressive collapse.

There was not discussion of the collapse itself... and the whole thrust is to leave the impression that as fire didn't fail the connection/girder/column on floor 13 col 19 the causes was the unstated assertion without a smidgen of evidence that something such as CD was the culprit. No analysis by this fellow's team of the building movement.

No discussion of progressive runaway system collapse.

Even if his conclusion is correct about how the connection under study performed... it does not rule out fire as cause acting other places at other members etc.

Very unimpressive performance by this guy who seems to have had a belief that NIST was wrong and set out to show it.
ahh yes, 'prove NIST wrong..' next comes '..therefore CD'.

So now this is how many 'studies' of WTC7? ,,,, and the count is X fire caused destruction of WTC 7, versus Y fire did not cause destruction of WTC7? IIRC Y= zero even with Hulsey's study since all he has done is study a single component and components that frame directly into it, in basic isolation.

I also would like to see an actual paper on his study rather than a video of a presentation, or his interview with lawyers.
jaydeehess 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 12th September 2016, 06:34 AM   #11
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
One of the comments:
Quote:
According to some sources, there were micro nuclear bombs planted inside these buildings which clearly explained their sudden collapsed. These bombs were already used by Israeli army in the current Syrian conflict. Please refer to Zerohedge for more info.
Hmmm, nukes that were used on 9/11/01 were previously used in the present Syrian conflict...................
jaydeehess 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 12th September 2016, 06:56 AM   #12
BrianH
Thinker
 
BrianH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
One of the comments:


Hmmm, nukes that were used on 9/11/01 were previously used in the present Syrian conflict...................
Ahh yes, the time traveling jewish nuke theory. It's all making sense now.
BrianH 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 12th September 2016, 08:41 AM   #13
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
I said he sounded like a nutcase woo 9/11 truth nut; and he is.

You don't do a paper to show someone wrong, you do a paper to show something. When fire was the only element besides WTC 7, it was fire. Hulsey is another failed nut, he works and teaches. '

Okay, maybe he is out for more money and knows Gage's fringe group is only good for funding, thus he has no morals.

Hulsey; Nuts, or no scruples?

Anyone tell the university they have a dumber than dirt professor who lies about 911, who has no evidence it was not fire...
__________________
"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 12th September 2016, 08:52 AM   #14
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Why not tell us about your conclusions and thoughts regarding the video , you're the one that posted it.
Captain_Swoop 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 12th September 2016, 09:04 AM   #15
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
dicuss, you meant disgusted? If not you forgot to Discuss

Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
You left out your discuss, or did you mean Hulsey is dumber than dirt and your disgusted?
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 12th September 2016 at 09:30 AM.
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 12th September 2016, 09:29 AM   #16
Airfix
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 373
The fires massively weakened the structure (which had already been pummelled with debris from the twin towers), gravity did the rest.

Last edited by Airfix; 12th September 2016 at 09:30 AM.
Airfix 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 12th September 2016, 10:06 AM   #17
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,225
So do we have a TTFL on this video? What's the over/under?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   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 12th September 2016, 10:43 AM   #18
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,149
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Of course this is another attempt to debunk the NIST and a bunch of others who look at one column, one girder on one floor and find that "fire" was inadequate to trigger a progressive collapse.

There was not discussion of the collapse itself... and the whole thrust is to leave the impression that as fire didn't fail the connection/girder/column on floor 13 col 19 the causes was the unstated assertion without a smidgen of evidence that something such as CD was the culprit. No analysis by this fellow's team of the building movement.

No discussion of progressive runaway system collapse.

Even if his conclusion is correct about how the connection under study performed... it does not rule out fire as cause acting other places at other members etc.

Very unimpressive performance by this guy who seems to have had a belief that NIST was wrong and set out to show it.
Pretty much spot on.

The only think I would add is he seems to be backing away from a full model as was originally proposed. I think they got out of their league with that claim in the first place, I doubt they have the computing power available.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is online now   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 12th September 2016, 02:42 PM   #19
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,465
Very embarrassing that he's still using the "steel is a very fire resistant material trope.

A real scientist would have distributed copies of a conference paper in advance and invited comments from the audience. Assuming, of course that any of them had enough of a science/engineering background to be able to comment intelligently.
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 12th September 2016, 02:56 PM   #20
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,465
Gage pitches for contributions at the end to "continue this important project". Surprise, surprise! But if they've concluded that WTC 7 wasn't brought down by fires, what is there left to do but present their paper? It's relatively easy to present a conference paper at an engineering symposium.
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 12th September 2016, 06:59 PM   #21
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,108
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Even if his conclusion is correct about how the connection under study performed... it does not rule out fire as cause acting other places at other members etc.

Very unimpressive performance by this guy who seems to have had a belief that NIST was wrong and set out to show it.

I agree!! He is desparate to pin the blame on explosives for which there is no evidence.
skyeagle409 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 12th September 2016, 08:54 PM   #22
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 439
It seems there are potentially interesting aspects to Hulsey's study, but he loses much of his credibility by jumping from "we could not reproduce NIST's exact fire-induced collapse scenario using various different assumptions" to "fire did not destroy WTC 7". What???? The conclusion doesn't even come close to following from the research to date.

And from the sound of it, it appears the study is now moving on to testing the effects of various blast devices in the substation. (Spoiler alert: they will find that a blast device or combination of devices could bring down the building!)

But talk about getting ahead of themselves. Identifying a potential issue with the collapse mode NIST deemed most probable is not the same as disproving the possibility of a fire-induced collapse. After all, Dr. Bailey, Arup, and Weidlinger Associates have all identified alternative potential fire-induced failure modes than NIST's. (And I know Dr. Hulsey and his team had access to Bailey's and Arup's work because I sent those reports to him and his research team myself and got a response from his research team.) Come on, AE911Truth, try being just a little intellectually honest for once and see if that helps lead you to the truth you claim to be seeking. Yeesh.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 12th September 2016 at 08:57 PM.
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 12th September 2016, 09:20 PM   #23
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Nobody seems to have made the obvious comment --- yet.

How come a University Professor is claiming to prove a negative?

AND

Showing ZERO respect for the "Scientific Method"?


It seems to be an endemic problem in academia - the need for publicity at any cost.
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 12th September 2016, 09:23 PM   #24
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
And there is a big difference between:
"We cannot prove it was brought down by fire"

AND

"We cannot explain HOW it was brought down by fire."

AND

"It was NOT brought down by fire"
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 12th September 2016, 09:24 PM   #25
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
A semi-serious question:

would the two PhD's resulting from this project and supervised by this professor be reduced in "marketable value"?

Would both candidates when applying for future jobs need to be coy about identifying what the topic and who the supervisor was?

I would expect "Yes" to both BUT academic ranking can be a funny business.

Last edited by ozeco41; 12th September 2016 at 09:32 PM.
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 12th September 2016, 11:38 PM   #26
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Nobody seems to have made the obvious comment --- yet.

How come a University Professor is claiming to prove a negative?
Well, it is possible to prove some negatives, if you can disprove the affirmative. In this case, for example, if you could conclusively prove that there wasn't really any fire, or if you could conclusively prove that something else initiated the collapses, then you've proved it wasn't fire. But of course, Hulsey hasn't done anything like that. Like the Harrit study, invalid conclusions will certainly disqualify the study in a legitimate and competent peer review, so I look for it to be published in an obscure "open" journal, if at all.
WilliamSeger is online now   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 13th September 2016, 01:52 AM   #27
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, it is possible to prove some negatives, if you can disprove the affirmative. In this case, for example, if you could conclusively prove that there wasn't really any fire, or if you could conclusively prove that something else initiated the collapses, then you've proved it wasn't fire. But of course, Hulsey hasn't done anything like that. Like the Harrit study, invalid conclusions will certainly disqualify the study in a legitimate and competent peer review, so I look for it to be published in an obscure "open" journal, if at all.
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 13th September 2016, 02:42 AM   #28
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, it is possible to prove some negatives, if you can disprove the affirmative. In this case, for example, if you could conclusively prove that there wasn't really any fire, or if you could conclusively prove that something else initiated the collapses, then you've proved it wasn't fire. But of course, Hulsey hasn't done anything like that. Like the Harrit study, invalid conclusions will certainly disqualify the study in a legitimate and competent peer review, so I look for it to be published in an obscure "open" journal, if at all.
Vanity published with his students having Cracker Jack PHDs that no one will really respect,
way to go Hulsey destroy your students for political objectives.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 13th September 2016, 03:27 AM   #29
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,655
Where was the attempt to relate the observed building movements, damage, fires etc to their root causes?

Why would the examination of one node based on assumed energy inputs in isolation from the rest of the structure with much of it engorged in flames for a 7 hr period and having suffered structural damage from steel panels from 1wtc falling on it show conclusively that fire was not the cause of the collapse?

This character really revealed his confirmation bias and his real objective was a NIST hit job...

Is this the sort of investigation AE wants to see? Seems so!
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 13th September 2016, 03:40 AM   #30
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Where was the attempt to relate the observed building movements, damage, fires etc to their root causes?

Why would the examination of one node based on assumed energy inputs in isolation from the rest of the structure with much of it engorged in flames for a 7 hr period and having suffered structural damage from steel panels from 1wtc falling on it show conclusively that fire was not the cause of the collapse?

This character really revealed his confirmation bias and his real objective was a NIST hit job...

Is this the sort of investigation AE wants to see? Seems so!
AE are clearly nothing but hucksters, playing a con game.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 13th September 2016, 05:47 AM   #31
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,053
Hold the phone,...

I thought at the beginning of this thing Hulsey said he was going to ignore any and all previous work and start fresh. So why is there any comparison to NIST? Why is NIST mentioned at all?

Or am I missing something
__________________
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 13th September 2016, 06:06 AM   #32
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Nobody seems to have made the obvious comment --- yet.

How come a University Professor is claiming to prove a negative?

AND

Showing ZERO respect for the "Scientific Method"?


It seems to be an endemic problem in academia - the need for publicity at any cost.
I really had little issue with much of what he said in his discussion of heat effects on steel. He later goes off the rails, especially in his conclusion that fire did not bring the structure down (more further down)

I also have little issue with his examining a single aspect of one of the several papers on the demise of the structure. Call it a peer review of that single isolated aspect. Perhaps now he will move on to the ARUP or Nordenson papers and the mode by which they describe fire bringing down the structure.

His declaration that fire did not bring down the WTC 7 is rather premature given that he has examined one aspect of collapse and in that, only one of several proposed mechanisms by which that one aspect occurred.
jaydeehess 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 13th September 2016, 06:15 AM   #33
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Where was the attempt to relate the observed building movements, damage, fires etc to their root causes?

Why would the examination of one node based on assumed energy inputs in isolation from the rest of the structure with much of it engorged in flames for a 7 hr period and having suffered structural damage from steel panels from 1wtc falling on it show conclusively that fire was not the cause of the collapse?

This character really revealed his confirmation bias and his real objective was a NIST hit job...

Is this the sort of investigation AE wants to see? Seems so!
Exactly. At best he has shown that in a pristine WTC 7 with only one compartment on fire, it would be unlikely that the girder would be moved far enough on it's seat on col79, due solely to beam and girder expansion, to fail. How much did the structure twist with the loss of the SW corner? Firefighters reported one elevator car out of it's shaft. That indicates core damage or at least movement. How much did fires on other floors, or the same fire earlier in other locations on the floors in question, twist or otherwise deform the structure? What of the other reports that call into the equation the action on the knife edge connections?, the movement of col 79 itself?

Hulsey has a bit more work to do before claiming, on the basis of examining the NIST scenario (which apparently is not to be considered 'previous" work on the issue), before declaring that fire did not cause WTC 7's demise.
jaydeehess 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 13th September 2016, 08:13 AM   #34
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 442
ZERO chance that the fires caused the collapse of WTC7!

All you non-engineers can continue projecting unfounded beliefs, but your arguments opposing Dr. Hulsey's findings will only land you with a fat zero on a test paper.

There is no wiggle room.

Your admired spokesperson, Mr. SanderO, has often admitted to having very limited understanding of engineering but that does not stop him from dismissing those that do.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of 9/11 conspiracies, if fire did not bring down WTC7, than the NIST recommendations for building safety are based on a false premise and are therefore meaningless.

It is far from the public interest to let WTC7's collapse remain a mystery.
Criteria 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 13th September 2016, 08:17 AM   #35
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 54
So the fires that were raging in WTC7 unchecked for hours upon end did....nothing? Were just for show?
heymatto70 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 13th September 2016, 08:25 AM   #36
Airfix
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 373
Structural damage from debris strikes + sustained thermal damage from fire over seven hours + gravity = collapse.

Simple.


Last edited by Airfix; 13th September 2016 at 08:28 AM.
Airfix 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 13th September 2016, 08:28 AM   #37
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,726
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
ZERO chance that the fires caused the collapse of WTC7!

All you non-engineers can continue projecting unfounded beliefs, but your arguments opposing Dr. Hulsey's findings will only land you with a fat zero on a test paper.

There is no wiggle room.

Your admired spokesperson, Mr. SanderO, has often admitted to having very limited understanding of engineering but that does not stop him from dismissing those that do.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of 9/11 conspiracies, if fire did not bring down WTC7, than the NIST recommendations for building safety are based on a false premise and are therefore meaningless.

It is far from the public interest to let WTC7's collapse remain a mystery.
Let's see your fault tree or probability analysis that led to your determination of zero chance - including the probabilities you attach to each factor and your logic for each branch, and your estimates for the current states of each structural element of each building involved.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
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 13th September 2016, 08:49 AM   #38
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
All you non-engineers can continue projecting unfounded beliefs, but your arguments opposing Dr. Hulsey's findings will only land you with a fat zero on a test paper.

There is no wiggle room.
I'm not a structural engineer, but as a software engineer I'm somewhat familiar with the principles of logic, which Hulsey apparently is not. But then, neither is the target audience. It's not a cheap shot, but rather a demonstrable fact, to say that one characteristic of a "truther" is, ummm, underdeveloped reasoning skills.
WilliamSeger is online now   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 13th September 2016, 09:40 AM   #39
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
ZERO chance that the fires caused the collapse of WTC7!

All you non-engineers can continue projecting unfounded beliefs, but your arguments opposing Dr. Hulsey's findings will only land you with a fat zero on a test paper.

There is no wiggle room.

Your admired spokesperson, Mr. SanderO, has often admitted to having very limited understanding of engineering but that does not stop him from dismissing those that do.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of 9/11 conspiracies, if fire did not bring down WTC7, than the NIST recommendations for building safety are based on a false premise and are therefore meaningless.

It is far from the public interest to let WTC7's collapse remain a mystery.
Huckster fails because he limited the fluid dynamic of the fire to a simple on floor fire, not the more complex real event, that will show up when the paper is published on rolls of Charmin Toilet tissue. That's the only way this political motivated bull crap will be of use to any engineer.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 13th September 2016, 10:01 AM   #40
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,120
Dr Hulsey's extensive experience qualifies him to opine as an expert on the collapse of WTC-7
's pedestrian bridge linking it to the rest of the WTC complex.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   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 05:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.