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 11th September 2019, 11:26 PM   #2961
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,990
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Source? NIST? If so, why would anyone wanting to preserve even an ounce of credibility use NIST as a source? The NIST report is a fraud. Why is that fact so hard to accept?
I blame it on passing college Algebra, an AA in English, and the fact that I stopped drinking and sobered up.


Quote:
So you're saying that rebuilding WTC7 using blueprints in two different engineering programs is not supported by facts? What is your definition of a fact? I think you might want to compare it with the one in any dictionary.
His models did not recreate the WTC7 collapse in full. The building began to fail 20 minutes before the final plunge. He should just used Legos.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 11:36 PM   #2962
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,990
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
Your post reminded me of a similar story. One day my coworker and I started talking about our experiences in the military. It turns out he is an ex Army demolitions expert with two tours in Iraq and a few years experience working for contractors who do our government's clandestine dirty work.

I asked him about the three WTC buildings and he did not hesitate to confirm they were all controlled demolitions. There was no doubt to this. The only thing he said is that they did not show those videos to the active duty soldiers in Iraq for obvious reasons. If they had, they would all have called ******** immediately.

The one other thing he said, which is off topic, but it's worth mentioning. He went to one of the same schools McVeigh did. The instructors are disappointed in McVeigh, but only because all four bombs did not go off. True story. Deny it all you want, but it's true.
Cool story, Bro.

Couple of problems. Today is 9-11, and just as they have since 2002, veterans all across social media relate their 9-11 stories. Every year tens of thousands of former active duty soldiers, Marines, sailors, and Airmen talk about HOW THEY WATCH THE TOWERS FALL ON LIVE TV, or saw the recordings later when they came in from whatever FTX they were on.

Every swinging D*** saw those buildings come down.

Right off, this ex-demolition guy is full of it.

Then the bigger lie is about Tim McVeigh. The only school McVeigh went to while in the US Army was Infantry School. He was Bradley gunner (Treadhead), not a Combat Engineer. If this clown went to the "same schools" as McVeigh then they were run by Oklahoma Neo-Nazis, although it seems Terry Nichols perfected the bomb mix.

By why let facts get in the way of a good story.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 02:44 AM   #2963
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
To summarise: some guy you met over a card game told you it was CD, so it must have been CD.
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
No, it was not some guy. How many people (outside this forum) pretend to be experts in demolition?
Actually, it was some guy. Some guy Tippit claimed to have met, and with whom he claimed to have had a conversation, in which said guy said it was CD.

Were you there? Can you confirm the identity of the anonymous gambler? Can you confirm his credentials and expertise? Did you personally review his research?

Are you aware that anecdotal evidence is essentially worthless? Do you know why this is?

Finally, note that I never said the guy was lying. That is your projection or assumption, and has nothing to do with my point.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 06:43 AM   #2964
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,795
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
List information exactly why the official account is verifiably false please.
I'm going to bump this because Matt has used the NIST report calling it a fraud
"The NIST report is a fraud."

So Matt list the information, please.

ETA: Include your specific training in building forensics to make the claims.

Last edited by bknight; 12th September 2019 at 06:47 AM. Reason: List knowledge
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 12th September 2019, 07:34 AM   #2965
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,945
Originally Posted by bknight View Post

ETA: Include your specific training in building forensics to make the claims.
one doesn't necessarily need qualifications to propose an explanation of the collapse of the towers... nor a background in building forensics.

The ideas should stand on their own merits.

Yes people with qualifications tend to have better grasp then the laymen.

It should be noted that before any theory can be developed... one needs comprehensive reliable and accurate observations. All thinking and theories must be informed by observations.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 2019, 08:41 AM   #2966
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,680
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
So you think that I can't show evidence that
1. Gage recruited Hulsey with the explicit goal of showing that explosives did WTC7 in
and
2. Hulsey refuses to say explosives did WTC7 in?

You'd be oh so wrong.

1. is found in AE911Truth's AGENDA for 2015, when Hulsey was recruited and MONEY was solicited from the gullible
2. Is found in his September 03 presentation of the Draft.
Here is the evidence I mentioned yesterday:

1. Source: A New Wave of WTC Research (AE911Truth Newsletter, January 28, 2015 - 2 months before the official start of Hulsey's work)
The objectives of hirung Hulsey were:
Originally Posted by AE911Truth
the goal of our computer modeling will be to demonstrate conclusively that NIST’s collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 could never have occurred, and, secondly, that the destruction we actually saw can be more easily and accurately replicated by simulating a controlled demolition.
2. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAEHhDCTaBw&t=1h8m35s
Quote:
Questioner:
1:08:35 You said that the fire did not cause the collapse. Do you any hypotheses of what DID cause the collapse?

Hulsey:
1:08:42 I'm not going there. (Background laughter) I can tell you what had to happen to make that, and I showed you that.
So with these sources, directly from AE911Truth and Hulsey, I proved that
  1. Hulsey's sponsor, AE911Truth, explicitly had the goal of finding controlled demolition as the cause of collaspe
  2. Hulsey refuses to say it was controlled demolition
You're welcome, PhotoMatt.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 12th September 2019 at 08:42 AM.
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 12th September 2019, 08:41 AM   #2967
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,795
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
one doesn't necessarily need qualifications to propose an explanation of the collapse of the towers... nor a background in building forensics.

The ideas should stand on their own merits.

Yes people with qualifications tend to have better grasp then the laymen.

It should be noted that before any theory can be developed... one needs comprehensive reliable and accurate observations. All thinking and theories must be informed by observations.
Agree that one doesn't necessarily need training to post a viewpoint, but no viewpoint has been submitted, other than the NIST explanation/findings are flawed. That is why I asked for a list and then the qualifications to make judgments on the validity of the investigation.
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 12th September 2019, 09:03 AM   #2968
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,680
Originally Posted by PhotoMatt View Post
OK. Here is the simplest task imaginable, but I KNOW you won't do it.

Post Hulsey's 3 objectives. Then, next to his objectives post exactly what you wrote above and then defend your statements.

Start with this - "The Professor who accepted US$316,000-ish from Gage to find that explosives killed WTC7 refuses to find explosives killed the WTC7"

You won't, because you can't. If you do, you will clearly make a fool out of yourself. It will clearly show that you do not, in any way whatsoever, understand the objectives of the study. If you don't understand even one objective, how on earth can you criticize the results?
So, I already showed the part in gray to be true.

Now as for Hulsey's alleged objectives - formulated after the MONEY was in. From the Abstract, page i of the DRAFT:
Originally Posted by Hulsey Draft
The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.
And I had said:
Quote:
Hulsey ... put out a draft for public comment where he proved 4 vital facts:
  1. If you don't do a sufficiently complete and detailed computer model of the building, you stand no chance to replicate the NIST analysis
  2. If you magically make the columns under the East Penthouse disappear 7 seconds before you make all the other columns magically disappear, the East Penthouse will fall 7 seconds earlier
  3. If you magically make the other core columns disappear 1.3 seconds before you make all the columns of the perimeter magically disappear, the core will fall a bit earlier than the north wall
  4. If you magically make all columns of the north wall disappear, the north wall will fall at free fall acceleration
Hulsey's first objective FAILED:
"(1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001"
and the reason is found in the first vital fact I listed:
"If you don't do a sufficiently complete and detailed computer model..."
I already layed out in a previous the many ways in which Hulsey's modelling is grossly incomplete and thus insufficient to achieve this goal.

Hulsey's second objective FAILED:
"(2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse"
For the reason already mentioned:
"If you don't do a sufficiently complete and detailed computer model of the building, you stand no chance to replicate the NIST analysis"
Again, his work is grossly insufficient to inform us on the value of NIST's scenario, and the same applies to the Arup scenario. Hulsey's findings differ from NIST's and Arup's, but that is inconclusive as he FAILED to model fire progression and the floors other than 12+13. As for Weidlinger, he could not possibly have found anything on Weidlinger, for Weidlinger found the collapse initiation on floors 9+10 - which Hulsey negleted entirely, AND Hulsey admits he doesn't really HAVE Weidlinger's work, so what he does is reject Weidling out of hand, with a bare, unsupported assertion (page 90):
Quote:
However, the details of the thermal analysis by Dr. Beyler are not shown in the Weidlinger report, and Beyler’s analysis has not been made public, despite its central importance to Weidlinger’s hypothesis. 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.
I higlighted the parts where Hulsey admits to not having studied the things he made assumptions about, and then makes unsupported assumptions. We can reject these assumptions by Hulsey out of hand.

Lastly, Hulsey's third objective FAILED:
"(3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed."
Hulsey flat-out refuses to address this objective. Let me quote again:
Quote:
Questioner: Do you have any hypotheses of what DID cause the collapse?
Hulsey: I'm not going there.
In effect, Hulsey merely conjured up the magical disappearance of all columns to make the building fall - which is so trivial it's really dumb. Invoking magic has ZERO explanatory value. So I was perfectly correct to summarize his findings about objective (3) as follows:
  1. .
  2. If you magically make the columns under the East Penthouse disappear 7 seconds before you make all the other columns magically disappear, the East Penthouse will fall 7 seconds earlier
  3. If you magically make the other core columns disappear 1.3 seconds before you make all the columns of the perimeter magically disappear, the core will fall a bit earlier than the north wall
  4. If you magically make all columns of the north wall disappear, the north wall will fall at free fall acceleration


So the Hulsey study FAILED all its purported objectives, in addition to the original purpose as published at the time MONEY donations were solicited from the gullible.
__________________
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 12th September 2019, 10:17 AM   #2969
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,795
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I'm going to bump this because Matt has used the NIST report calling it a fraud
"The NIST report is a fraud."

So Matt list the information, please.

ETA: Include your specific training in building forensics to make the claims.
I have been reminded that here are two Matts posting and I wanted to clarify as to which Matt.

PhotoMatt is the individual who ahs claimed the NIST investigation/reported is flawed. Then I asked to list the flaws.
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 12th September 2019, 11:28 AM   #2970
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,945
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I have been reminded that here are two Matts posting and I wanted to clarify as to which Matt.

PhotoMatt is the individual who ahs claimed the NIST investigation/reported is flawed. Then I asked to list the flaws.
I believe the report is flawed... in that the explanations for the collapses, though possible are not likely what happened. For example... ROOSD is completely not discussed. Sagging trusses is presented rather than a core failure.... and global collapse is a cop out term.

I don't see these as examples of fraud however. There is a lot of good info in their report.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 2019, 12:10 PM   #2971
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,795
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I believe the report is flawed... in that the explanations for the collapses, though possible are not likely what happened. For example... ROOSD is completely not discussed.
Quite likely because the top of the collapse did not have thousands of pounds of material and momentum continuing to crush the lower floors. So that wouldn't fly.
Quote:

Sagging trusses is presented rather than a core failure
This was not 1 or 2 where the break down loading of the core created the conditions for collapse.[/quote]

.... and global collapse is a cop out term.

I don't see these as examples of fraud however. There is a lot of good info in their report.[/quote]

There will always be aspects not studied/included in a report describing a massive event such as this. And I'm not saying that there exists possible events that might have been included, but I wasn't there and don't know the politics of any decision. That is why I asked for a list. You have provided some of your questions, which is a good indication of your knowledge of the event/report.
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 12th September 2019, 03:49 PM   #2972
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I believe the report is flawed... in that the explanations for the collapses, though possible are not likely what happened. For example... ROOSD is completely not discussed. Sagging trusses is presented rather than a core failure.... and global collapse is a cop out term.

I don't see these as examples of fraud however. There is a lot of good info in their report.
The report part saying global collapse was inevitable after initiation is not flawed, it is a fact. ROOSD is extra credit BS wannabe engineering, in a failed search for inside job from something as evil as SATAN.

Floor failures after initiation are explained by what a floor can hold, and can be estimated by floor to core and shell connections. Simple math and structural engineering. ROOSD, a pancake collapse, after initial failure. MT discovered, Pancake Collapse (PC) after looking for Satan.
__________________
"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 2019, 04:20 PM   #2973
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,945
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
ROOSD is extra credit BS wannabe engineering, in a failed search for inside job from something as evil as SATAN.

Floor failures after initiation are explained by what a floor can hold, and can be estimated by floor to core and shell connections. Simple math and structural engineering. ROOSD, a pancake collapse, after initial failure. MT discovered, Pancake Collapse (PC) after looking for Satan.
ROOSD appears to be an accurate description of what NIST called global collapse. MT and others have detailed the mechanisms. The reason I use the term cop out... is because explaining how these massive buildings collapsed is what the public wanted to understand. PBS did a program of I recalled and did a sim with the floors collapsing as plates... or pancakes and this is not what happened at all. You know that. The initiation destroyed the integrity of the region above the plane strike zone. Enormous mass from the upper "blocks" collapsed onto the top most intact floor which could not support it and this repeated all the way down. It was localized dynamic overloading of each floor plate.

As far as the initiation... I find the sagging trusses don't cut it and make no sense for 2wtc... which is obviously a core failure on one side, created a massive cantilever and failure. Sagging trusses played no role.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 2019, 08:02 AM   #2974
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,795
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
ROOSD appears to be an accurate description of what NIST called global collapse. MT and others have detailed the mechanisms. The reason I use the term cop out... is because explaining how these massive buildings collapsed is what the public wanted to understand. PBS did a program of I recalled and did a sim with the floors collapsing as plates... or pancakes and this is not what happened at all. You know that. The initiation destroyed the integrity of the region above the plane strike zone. Enormous mass from the upper "blocks" collapsed onto the top most intact floor which could not support it and this repeated all the way down. It was localized dynamic overloading of each floor plate.

As far as the initiation... I find the sagging trusses don't cut it and make no sense for 2wtc... which is obviously a core failure on one side, created a massive cantilever and failure. Sagging trusses played no role.
While the construction of the WTCs was based on a central core being the strong back for each floor etc. to the top of the building and loss of the external bracing in itself would not cause a collapsed, they do provide stability and yes sagging trusses put additional stress that likely the connectors were not designed. This created an additional side loading to the core, aiding in its failure. So indicating that they played no role is naïve at best. The whole dynamics of the system was something not seen or foreseen in the building of high rise buildings. While I'm no architect or architectural engineer, I'll bet this dynamic loading is given a look see in future high rise construction, but that is my speculation.
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 14th September 2019, 12:47 PM   #2975
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 678
It should be noted, that in the real world nobody, and I mean nobody, is looking at or taking this study seriously.

Of course, that is no big deal, the study was only written to energize Richard Gage’s base, and get donations flowing into AE 9/11 Truth. Hey, the guy just got married and needs to pay of that retirement home in Idaho.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2019, 01:39 PM   #2976
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,471
That reminds me, does anyone think the report has any chance of being published in a serious engineering journal?
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 14th September 2019, 03:29 PM   #2977
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
That reminds me, does anyone think the report has any chance of being published in a serious engineering journal?
Hard to predict. Would a peer reviewer "pass" it for publication so it could be responded to formally in accordance with the rituals for such publication? I dunno - but I tend to doubt it.

From another perspective would AE911 allow publication? Currently they have a "public review" process and a hand picked review team. Both of which lay the foundations for AE911 censorship control. I'll wait and see what happens down that path.

Overall it probably wont matter much to aE911 - they will get uncritical adulation from their supporters as they already are. And they will spin the issue whichever way they want - facts and realities notwithstanding.
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 14th September 2019, 05:53 PM   #2978
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,945
AE911T can't face the truth so ... to keep on keeping on the need to toss something new on the smoldering embers. It flares up and the get some attention... some money comes in until it begins to die down and then it's time again to get their addicted to cough up more cash and make technical promises which never materialize.

They need something to pitch or else one one will tune in nor pitch in.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 15th September 2019, 01:57 PM   #2979
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,680
My preliminary top-level assessment of the UAF Draft Report

According to the Executive Summary, page 1 of the Hulsey Draft Report...
Originally Posted by JL Hulsey
The objective of this study, therefore, was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.
The study fails all three objectives completely:

(1) By not modelling any heat loads at all on any and all floors other than floor 12+13, Hulsey is completely blind to any and all "fire loads that may have occurred" on floors 1 through 11 and floors 14 through 47, and he may also have missed loads on floors 12+13 that arose from differential heating relative to adjacent floors. In addition, by not modelling the developments of fires or heat loadings over several hours, he fails to capture loads and damages incurred e.g. on cooling cycles.

(2) For the reasons layed out in (1), it is not possible to validly apply Hulsey's results to a comparison with those won by NIST, Arup or Weidlinger., This is most blatant in the case of the Weidlinger study, which found an initiating event on floors 9+10. Hulsey dismisses Weidlinger's findings out of hand without any reasons or references.

(3) Hulsey explictly refuses to "[i]dentify types of failures" in his Section 4 animations - he rather makes columns disappear, as if by magic, without offering any hypothesis as to what may have been the cause of this. Furthermore, his collapse animations fail to replicate almost all interesting features of the real WTC7 collapse, including some that Hulsey lists himself. The only 3 (three) collapse features his animations replicate are not the results (output) of a collapse sequence with defined causes; rather, they are explicitly and straightforwardly modeled into the animation as premises (input) to the animation. These three are:
  1. Collapse of the EPH ca. 7 seconds before the rest of the building arises from Hulsey explicitly making columns under the EPH disappear, without explanation, ca. 7 seconds before making any other columns disappear
  2. Collapse of the screenwall and WPH about a second before the descent of the perimeter is doctored by Hulsey explicitly making all core columns under the screenwall and WPH disappear, without explanation, ca. 1.3 seconds before making any other columns disappear
  3. Freefall of the perimeter, including north wall, over a period of ca. 2.25 to 2.5 seconds, is doctored by Hulsey explicitly making all perimeter columns disappear simultaneously, without explanation, over 8 floors, and by having his software run with modelling settings where interactions between floor systems do not occure. Since an object falling freely from rest from a height of 8 WTC7 floors would take 2.25 to 2.5 seconds to reach the ground, the input assumptions trivially lead to the desired result
All three features follow directly from their being input to the model - tautologically.
A tautology has zero explanatory value.

Hulsey further writes in the Executive Summary, still page 1:
Quote:
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11
Since Hulsey failed to actually analyse the effects of fires on all parts of the structure that suffered fires, this conclusion must be considered logically invalid: A global negative claim can only be proven if the entire universe of possibilities has been explored and ruled out. However, Hulsey never attempted to do undertake such a task. Rather, he admits (page 111f):
Originally Posted by JL Hulsey
we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.
Note: "we were unable to identify". From personal inability does impossibility not follow.


As the study fails all of its objectives completely, and the principal conclusion of the study is logically invalid, it should not be published in the current form at all.
__________________
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 16th September 2019, 07:33 AM   #2980
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
NO
Are his reports of "explosions" then relevant to whether CD noises were detected when the building collapsed?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 16th September 2019, 01:39 PM   #2981
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,795
From the report:
"With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST’s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.
Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of ley no fraud the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]"

Unfortunately the report may be flawed, but fraud it is not. This is simply more distrust of big government by one individual, not the concern of 15000 scientists, who were signing because of what distrust?
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 16th September 2019, 04:45 PM   #2982
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,471
Following the Hulsey report, assuming the mysteriously disappearing columns were removed by explosives, I made a back-of-the-envelope calculation that more than 250 times the amount of explosives necessary to blow column 79 would be necessary.

That would definitively be recorded in audio, especially considering that many of these explosives would be placed in the perimeter columns, where they can't be muffled.

It wasn't recorded in any audio, therefore the columns could not be removed by explosives.
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 17th September 2019, 07:51 AM   #2983
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,160
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom,
boom.”
Doesn't this eyewitness description go against Hulsey's report claiming that "all columns were removed simultaneously"?
Gamolon 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 17th September 2019, 09:15 AM   #2984
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 86
The "news" were posted in the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet - probably hunting for clicks - calling it "The video everyone talks about". This is probably a new low for them, and their standards weren't high to begin with.

Article in Danish (actually, it mostly just summing up what some people have written on a message board)

EDIT:
The headline is even referring to "A team of scientists from Alaska", and later as: "A professor and a team of ph.d. students"

Last edited by AsbjornAndersen; 17th September 2019 at 09:18 AM.
AsbjornAndersen 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 17th September 2019, 09:38 AM   #2985
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by heymatto70 View Post
Better question is why bother with demolishing WTC7 (WTC 3-6 were all, if not destroyed damaged beyond all possible repairs that day, too) when no one really knew or cared about that building before 9/11? If you developed time travel and asked people on 9/10/01 how many buildings were in the WTC complex, they could name the Twin Towers, but not much beyond that. The building was just so anonymous, especially considering the two looming skyscrapers above it.
"there maybe were secret documents", waay too secret to shred and burn. You got to "pull it". Just got to.
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 17th September 2019, 11:24 AM   #2986
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,990
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Doesn't this eyewitness description go against Hulsey's report claiming that "all columns were removed simultaneously"?
Yes, yes it does.

Of course not everything that goes "Boom" is an explosion, or an explosion caused by explosives. I have been in a building where there was a partial concrete floor collapse above me. Take a wild guess what it sounded like.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 12:48 PM   #2987
Azrael 5
Philosopher
 
Azrael 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,897
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
"there maybe were secret documents", waay too secret to shred and burn. You got to "pull it". Just got to.
AH yes of course.The missing 2.3 million that Rumsfeld mentioned,but that was in the Pentagon ,maybe they left documents lying around in WTC7 that exposed it.
__________________
"I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown
Azrael 5 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 17th September 2019, 02:09 PM   #2988
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,945
The missing 3 trillion... What do you think this was stacks of $100 bills that some one made off with?

DOD funds are transferred to / thru bank accounts and then dispersed to vendors etc. You can't loose it. But large traunches are broken down and again and again and it gets hard to follow the money. But it is all or should be traceable using account audits.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 17th September 2019, 07:19 PM   #2989
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The missing 3 trillion... What do you think this was stacks of $100 bills that some one made off with?

DOD funds are transferred to / thru bank accounts and then dispersed to vendors etc. You can't loose it. But large traunches are broken down and again and again and it gets hard to follow the money. But it is all or should be traceable using account audits.
Rumsfeld was bemoaning poor accounting when he made the statement. The money went into gold toilets and whatnot.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 18th September 2019, 12:44 AM   #2990
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 86
Does anyone else think the video for Figure 4.16 makes it look like the top part of the building is being propelled towards the camera?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQkRR81haW8
AsbjornAndersen 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 18th September 2019, 01:21 AM   #2991
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: 29,678
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Doesn't this eyewitness description go against Hulsey's report claiming that "all columns were removed simultaneously"?
More than that; it proves that either (a) the sounds described cannot have been explosions, implying that it is therefore invalid to simply infer that all sudden loud reports heard around the time of the collapses were explosions, or (b) the results of Hulsey's modelling in no way resemble the actual collapses and are therefore of zero explanatory value. As with all carefully drawn inferences, the results are somewhat damning to the truther point of view.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 18th September 2019, 02:52 AM   #2992
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
Does anyone else think the video for Figure 4.16 makes it look like the top part of the building is being propelled towards the camera?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQkRR81haW8
Yes. I asked a similar question 10 days ago:
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Is it me, or does this video show also the bottom of the upper moving block coming towards the camera, following a completely physically unrealistic sideways path?

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


It looks like the perspective is very carefully chosen to try to hide that as much as possible. I'd like to see a side view of that.
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 18th September 2019, 05:51 AM   #2993
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Yes. I asked a similar question 10 days ago:
I have seen the video several times now. The stupidity of it makes me chuckle.
AsbjornAndersen 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 18th September 2019, 07:16 AM   #2994
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 678
All of Hulsey videos look like they have been produced by a CAD graphics program, not structural engineering analysis software.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 07:27 AM   #2995
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,680
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
All of Hulsey videos look like they have been produced by a CAD graphics program, not structural engineering analysis software.
Remember that any day now, the UAF project page will have hundreds of Gigabytes worth of data, models and results available for scrutiny.

What we need is someone with a) the software to use the data (SAP2000, ABAQUS...), b) the hardware to run it, c) the skills to make it happen.

Someone who knows this stuff should be able to understand and explain what Hulsey actually did. So far, we are somewhat speculating why the simulations look so anti-physics.
__________________
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 18th September 2019, 07:32 AM   #2996
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 678
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Remember that any day now, the UAF project page will have hundreds of Gigabytes worth of data, models and results available for scrutiny.

What we need is someone with a) the software to use the data (SAP2000, ABAQUS...), b) the hardware to run it, c) the skills to make it happen.

Someone who knows this stuff should be able to understand and explain what Hulsey actually did. So far, we are somewhat speculating why the simulations look so anti-physics.
I have SAP on my laptop...problem is finding the time to dig thru the data. If they did it correctly, the data should be massive.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 07:45 AM   #2997
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,795
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
I have SAP on my laptop...problem is finding the time to dig thru the data. If they did it correctly, the data should be massive.
All I may add is good hunting.
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 19th September 2019, 09:27 AM   #2998
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 86
I have skimmed the report now, and even though the technical details are out of my field, the basic academic standard is incredibly low. I can't imagine any university being proud of having their name associated with this.
Some of it is impressively bad - how can you fill half a report with "NIST claims... NIST says... NIST etc..." and not point to where in the 700+ page document these claim were made? (I know WHY they didn't, but it's still amazingly bad). And then to top it off with the "What would it look like, if Ed Wood were to do a computer simulation?"-videos ...
AsbjornAndersen 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 24th September 2019, 04:32 PM   #2999
Mick West
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 27
I've made a follow-up to my video about problems with Hulsey report. This one is perhaps a bit more technical, but I think it touches on some serious issues.
https://youtu.be/a-DadyW-LR4
Mick West 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 24th September 2019, 05:02 PM   #3000
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
ETA: I count 7 perimeter columns affected.
I can now elaborate on this.

Hulsey's report, p.93:
For all collapse models and analyses, we included the debris damage assumed by NIST, which involved six exterior columns on the southwest face of the building reportedly being severed by falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1.
That's wrong. NIST's debris damage includes seven exterior columns. NIST assumed Column 17 in particular to be missing or damaged at floors 8 and 9. See figures 5-96 and 5-97 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 (p.229 of the PDF) as well as figure 12-33 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 2 (p.227 of the PDF). Furthermore, NIST's failure estimation included the horizontal elements that would have provided bracing from the south for core columns 60, 63, 66 and 69 over at least two floors, with the corresponding floor slabs.

However, in Hulsey's report, column 17 is not considered as damaged, and is included in the analysis. See figures 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.17 and 4.18 of Hulsey's report.
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
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 03:53 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.