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 November 2019, 02:10 AM   #3201
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,759
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Danny Jowenko, a respected professional building demolition engineer said in a later interview, that after his research into WTC7’s construction, combined with his examination of the available News recordings, he was standing behind his original opinion that “absolutely” WTC7 was subjected to a controlled-demolition implosion.
Beyond watching a YouTube video, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Danny Jowenko did any research at all.
For the third time of asking: Do you have that research? Have you read it, have you evaluated it, and can you link to it so the rest of us can do the same?
__________________
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 11th November 2019, 02:37 AM   #3202
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,158
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And and an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere in which the shock-waves from the necessary explosive charges would have traveled up to 20 miles. Had it been CD they would have heard it in New Jersey.
A point that Criteria (and his mentor, MirageMemories) has failed to address countless times. Don't expect anything different this time.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 November 2019, 07:37 AM   #3203
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,313
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
A point that Criteria (and his mentor, MirageMemories) has failed to address countless times. Don't expect anything different this time.
Well I did refrain from holding my breath.
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 11th November 2019, 08:12 AM   #3204
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,084
Jawenko has presented nothing of merit other than he has a resume that includes building demolitions. I'd be surprised if he was an engineer.

All 911 conspiracy thinking (not) is informed by the unfounded belief that fire cannot cause a steel framed building to collapse. This is likely because virtually all other steel framed building fires are fought and controlled and put down before critical point of no return damage is done.
__________________
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 11th November 2019, 01:56 PM   #3205
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
The biggest problem with Jowenko in this thread is that he is neither Hulsey nor mentioned in Hulsey's draft report.
__________________
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 November 2019, 06:09 AM   #3206
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The biggest problem with Jowenko in this thread is that he is neither Hulsey nor mentioned in Hulsey's draft report.
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.

He supports the Hulsey Report through his conviction that WTC7 absolutely could not have collapsed the way it did as a result of fire.
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 12th November 2019, 06:23 AM   #3207
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,313
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.

He supports the Hulsey Report through his conviction that WTC7 absolutely could not have collapsed the way it did as a result of fire.
Wat do you believe happened at WTC 7?
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 November 2019, 06:25 AM   #3208
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: 31,637
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.
Well, three, actually, two of which were based on reasonably adequate information and the third on a single viewing of a video with no soundtrack. But we all understand why you insist that the latter is unarguably correct whereas the former can be quietly ignored.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
He supports the Hulsey Report through his conviction that WTC7 absolutely could not have collapsed the way it did as a result of fire despite having died years before the study leading to the report was even commissioned.
FTFY. Voting the graveyard, apparently, is now a valid way to uncover The Truth [tm].

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 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 November 2019, 09:15 AM   #3209
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.

He supports the Hulsey Report through his conviction that WTC7 absolutely could not have collapsed the way it did as a result of fire.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Albert Einstein and Gaius Iulius Caesar all support my proposition that Truthers cannot think and are best defined as "individuals who are fundamentally wrong about 9/11".

This, because my proposition is reasonable and fact based, and these dead men were all pretty smart while they lived.

But I do not think Jowenko would have supported the failed Hulsey report, had he lived and taken time to actually study it. I think he was smart enough to be able to see that Hulsey fails to meet all of his key objectives, and openly invokes magic in the non-explanatory, worse-than-cartoon "full collapse" animations.
__________________
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 November 2019, 09:24 AM   #3210
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,377
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
But I do not think Jowenko would have supported the failed Hulsey report,
Speaking of failed Hulsey report, I just saw this over at AE 9/11:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/609-...-7-documentary

Quote:
Dear Friends,

This past September saw the release of a major university study proving that the government’s account of the collapse of Building 7 is essentially fraudulent. And yet, while the study has attracted some attention, this explosive development has gone almost completely ignored in the mainstream media.

I need your help now to bring this information to millions more people. Starting today, AE911Truth is teaming up with Loose Change creator Dylan Avery to produce a powerful documentary highlighting the extraordinary conclusions of this study and the epic failure of our institutions to tell the truth about Building 7 — and we need your support to make it possible.
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 12th November 2019, 10:49 AM   #3211
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
They have a week to raise $20,000 so that Dylan Avery can make a "documentary" about this nonsense.

9/11 truth is so far beyond parody.
carlitos 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 November 2019, 03:28 PM   #3212
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.

He supports the Hulsey Report through his conviction that WTC7 absolutely could not have collapsed the way it did as a result of fire.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

Voting the graveyard, apparently, is now a valid way to uncover The Truth

Dave
Unbelievable...........

I wonder if Criteria will acknowledge the fact he knows Mr Jowenko died before the Hulsey study even started........
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 12th November 2019 at 03:33 PM.
DGM 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 November 2019, 05:31 PM   #3213
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,629
Why was fire not the cause of WTC7 collapse?

Hoping that we're back to the topic again...

I was interested in this specific part of the report: Why does Hulsey make this bold claim, that fires did not cause the collapse?

The best explanation I can find is from section 4.7, Summary and Conclusion, page 111 (PDF p. 123), where it says:
1. Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse.
Well, that explanation is somewhat sound: if the cause of the collapse WAS in a place where there were no fires, then the fires could not be the cause. That WAS is a big WAS: it needs to be shown without any shadow of doubt to be taken seriously. So let's examine the claim. What do they base their claim that these columns did not fail at the lower floors on?

If I'm understanding the report correctly, the claim comes from the results shown in figures 4.2-4.7 (pp. 95-97, PDF pp. 107-109). These figures are cited in this text (p.94, PDF p.106):
4.3 Results of the East Penthouse Collapse Analyses

The linear static analysis results for the simulations where we removed Columns 79, 80, and 81 at different floor intervals are shown in Figures 4.2 to 4.7 below.

Based on these analyses, we found that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building (e.g., from Floor 6 to 13 or Floor 13 to 21). We found that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the lower floors of the building would cause the building to tilt dramatically to the east, which would have been observed in the videos but was not, and that it would not cause the east penthouse to collapse, because the intact portions of Columns 79, 80, and 81 above where the columns failed would still support the penthouse.
(Emphasis and colouring mine). Let's start first with the claim in teal, namely that it would not cause the east penthouse to collapse. I haven't had the opportunity to critically examine the data that led them to this conclusion, because I don't have the required SAP2000 software, or a license to use the ABAQUS software included in the UAF download, but I'd venture that the load assigned to the penthouse or to the upper floors was probably insufficient to cause a collapse. Let's remind that according to NIST's investigation, the roof was reinforced in order to fit the new pieces of machinery housed when the EPH was installed:
The east penthouse was added to the WTC 7 building in 1989. To accommodate the added load of equipment within the east penthouse, the roof beams and girders were reinforced using cover plates welded to their lower flanges, and a thick concrete pad was cast to support the air-conditioning equipment housed within the penthouse. Steel columns (or "posts" as they were termed on drawings) supported the new penthouse structure. [...] The east penthouse posts framed into existing interior columns that fell within the east penthouse footprint (Columns 76, 77, 79, and 80). The other posts were supported by beams at the roof level.
(NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1, p.21, PDF p.65)

Why do I think that the loads assigned must have been wrong? Well, because of Dr. Hulsey's results themselves. Let's now examine the claim in brown, namely that the building would tilt dramatically to the east. How dramatic is dramatic, in this context? The answer is in the captions of the aforementioned figures, which I cite below:
Figure 4.2: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 6 to Floor 13. The building tilts to the east almost 10 inches. The penthouse does not collapse.

Figure 4.3: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 13 to Floor 21. The building tilts to the east 7.2 inches. The penthouse does not collapse.

Figure 4.4: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 21 to Floor 29. The building tilts to the east 5.4 inches. The penthouse does not collapse, though penthouse deflection increases.

Figure 4.5: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 29 to Floor 37. The building tilts to the east 3.85 inches. The penthouse does not collapse, thought its deflection increases.

Figure 4.6: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 37 to Floor 45. Tilting of the building is now negligible, whereas the deflection of the penthouse is now much greater.

Figure 4.7: Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed from Floor 45 to the penthouse. Tilting of the building is now negligible. The penthouse now collapses, as demonstrated from the significant amount of deflection given in the figure.
I've highlighted some parts of figure 4.3, because NIST performed an analysis in appendix C of NCSTAR 1-9 (the "moiré analysis" that I elaborated on in another thread; cf. NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p.679, PDF p.341; relevant graph reproduced below; this movement was confirmed and refined by forum member femr2). According to NIST's analysis, the building tilted east about 6 inches, before it "bounced" west about 8 inches. That's pretty close to Hulsey's deflection estimation of 7.2 inches.



From this result I think it is safe to say that:
  1. Dr. Hulsey is not qualified to make an estimation on how visible the tilting was, based on the blue text highlighted above ("would have been observed in the videos but was not");
  2. Dr. Hulsey did not read the NIST report all the way to the end, otherwise he'd be familiar with Appendix C cited above;
  3. Dr. Hulsey confirms that the collapse happened in the lower floors, based on the observed tilting of the building;
  4. Dr. Hulsey's failure to reproduce the penthouse collapse does not rely on correct data, because the predicted tilting happened despite not obtaining said collapse, and other simulations do produce a collapse of the penthouse;
  5. Dr. Hulsey's conclusion and claim that fire did not cause the collapse is DEBUNKED.

PS: In Metabunk, Christopher7 cites a video where Dr. Hulsey claims that the reason for fire not being a cause of the collapse is that NIST was wrong. I won't go into the inanity of that reasoning.

Last edited by pgimeno; 12th November 2019 at 05:59 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 13th November 2019, 01:42 AM   #3214
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,759
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Beyond watching a YouTube video, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Danny Jowenko did any research at all.
For the third time of asking: Do you have that research? Have you read it, have you evaluated it, and can you link to it so the rest of us can do the same?
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.
Weasel words.
Fourth time of asking: Do you have the research you claim Jowenko carried out? Have you read it, have you evaluated it, and can you link to it so the rest of us can do the same?
__________________
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 13th November 2019, 07:36 AM   #3215
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,313
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Unbelievable...........

I wonder if Criteria will acknowledge the fact he knows Mr Jowenko died before the Hulsey study even started........
If not he knows now.
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 13th November 2019, 07:46 AM   #3216
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,313
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
<snip>
[/indent]
I've highlighted some parts of figure 4.3, because NIST performed an analysis in appendix C of NCSTAR 1-9 (the "moiré analysis" that I elaborated on in another thread; cf. NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p.679, PDF p.341; relevant graph reproduced below; this movement was confirmed and refined by forum member femr2). According to NIST's analysis, the building tilted east about 6 inches, before it "bounced" west about 8 inches. That's pretty close to Hulsey's deflection estimation of 7.2 inches.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...-9_fig_C-8.jpg

From this result I think it is safe to say that:
  1. Dr. Hulsey is not qualified to make an estimation on how visible the tilting was, based on the blue text highlighted above ("would have been observed in the videos but was not");
  2. Dr. Hulsey did not read the NIST report all the way to the end, otherwise he'd be familiar with Appendix C cited above;
  3. Dr. Hulsey confirms that the collapse happened in the lower floors, based on the observed tilting of the building;
  4. Dr. Hulsey's failure to reproduce the penthouse collapse does not rely on correct data, because the predicted tilting happened despite not obtaining said collapse, and other simulations do produce a collapse of the penthouse;
  5. Dr. Hulsey's conclusion and claim that fire did not cause the collapse is DEBUNKED.

PS: In Metabunk, Christopher7 cites a video where Dr. Hulsey claims that the reason for fire not being a cause of the collapse is that NIST was wrong. I won't go into the inanity of that reasoning.
It is obvious from the graph that the building WAS tilting toward the east 2+ inches during the rebound from the westerly tilt prior to the Penthouse collapse. Very telling.
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 13th November 2019, 09:33 AM   #3217
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,629
Now let's revisit the animation that Dr. Hulsey presents to defend his claim that the simultaneous disappearance ("failure", using his words) of ALL core columns for 8 floors is what best reproduces the observed collapse. He gives no explanation as to how these columns would suddenly disappear out of the way. And he offers this animation as a proof that it reproduces the collapse better.

We now know, from the published data, that the acceleration profile was entered into the simulation in order to reproduce the collapse, i.e. that this result is not the output of the simulation, but the input.

Using that same approach and a physics engine, I've made my own animation. Here are the results (warning: 12 MB GIF animated image):

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...n-vs-video.gif

I used this video for the comparison: https://archive.org/download/nsia-CB...0Dub5%2024.avi and rotated it 2.46° CCW. Note the tilting, apparently induced by the east side starting to fall earlier than the west, refuting the "simultaneous failure of all columns" meme. For an object with that mass, this tilting was pretty significant. Not so noticeably, as the collapse progresses this tilting reverts in direction, probably due to the resistance of the still intact columns as they meet the already collapsed part.

If you can't see the difference that this tilting makes, here's a comparison with the same thing without tilting:



This should settle the question of whether the building tilted during the collapse: yes it did, and Dr. Hulsey's animation does not represent this tilting.

Observe also the wedge that forms between the EPH and the screen wall while the EPH falls, not visible in Hulsey's simulation. I situated the pivot point at the base of the penthouse. In Hulsey's simulation, the penthouse appears to pivot around the rooftop's corner, impeding the wedge to form. Therefore, Hulsey's animation is less accurate with regards to the penthouse.

The animation, without the video background:



Now one question that may arise: since my animation is more precise than Hulsey's and NIST's, does it mean it's of superior quality than any of these?

It's definitely of better quality than Hulsey's, because being based on the same approach of forcing it to follow the actual collapse, it does so with better precision. Unlike Hulsey's, it's able to exhibit the pivot point of the penthouse accurately as well as the tilting of the building. That's quite an accomplishment for it to be using a 2D physics engine!

And what about NIST's? NO, it's not of superior quality than NIST's. In fact, like Hulsey's, it's CRAP compared to NIST's, because NIST's animation is the output of the simulation, rather than the input. NIST did not just enter the positions where the video should be at specific frames, to produce the desired visual effect; instead, they performed a dynamic finite element analysis whose input was the initial conditions necessary for the collapse to start, and whose output was the animation they produced. Having it resemble the actual chaotic collapse to even some extent is quite an achievement.

Last edited by pgimeno; 13th November 2019 at 09:38 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 10th December 2019, 12:58 PM   #3218
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 231
Anything interesting going on, on the Hulsey front?
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus 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 10th December 2019, 07:26 PM   #3219
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,554
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
Anything interesting going on, on the Hulsey front?
Not much new in the debate of technical details.

One aspect which may be of interest to members who care to take a cynical perspective on the more strategic aspects.

Chris Sarns AKA "Christpher 7" or "C7" is engaging with Mick West and other members over on Metabunk. Members may recall that C7, a core member of Gage's AE911 team, was a regular poster here some years back. Usually in episodic "spurts" of activity tag-teaming with other AE911 high profilers such as Tony Szamboti.

My cynical interpretation of his role is unchanged. His purpose is to drag out debate as per the aE911 agenda. I've judged him - with a bit of reluctant admiration - as a clever troll. His technique is to engage in rational debate including occasionally yielding on an issue or two under debate. Thereby convincing members that he is a serious debater. I cannot recall any other truther side troll who was clever enough to play that sort of "game".

And - as far as I can tell - the Metabunk discussion is the most active followed by whatever remnants of discussion there still is here.

Otherwise it looks like Hulsey/UAF is dead in the water in terms of rational or debunker side interest.

Meanwhile AE911 has resuscitated J Bermas to work on a documentary... Preceded by the usual expected hyperbolic hoopla.

So - my summary - beating a dead horse.
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 10th December 2019, 09:41 PM   #3220
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.

He supports the Hulsey Report through his conviction that WTC7 absolutely could not have collapsed the way it did as a result of fire.
And Tony Sambozzi admitted it could Jowenko is dead any conclusions he had, died with him, why are we still talking about a little problem of conservation of Momentum Inertia? Simple column kicking explains theobserved collapses.
Hulsey's report has serious discrepancies, least of which is he is over limiting the fires.
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 10th December 2019, 09:48 PM   #3221
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Now let's revisit the animation that Dr. Hulsey presents to defend his claim that the simultaneous disappearance ("failure", using his words) of ALL core columns for 8 floors is what best reproduces the observed collapse. He gives no explanation as to how these columns would suddenly disappear out of the way. And he offers this animation as a proof that it reproduces the collapse better.

We now know, from the published data, that the acceleration profile was entered into the simulation in order to reproduce the collapse, i.e. that this result is not the output of the simulation, but the input.

Using that same approach and a physics engine, I've made my own animation. Here are the results (warning: 12 MB GIF animated image):

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...n-vs-video.gif

I used this video for the comparison: https://archive.org/download/nsia-CB...0Dub5%2024.avi and rotated it 2.46° CCW. Note the tilting, apparently induced by the east side starting to fall earlier than the west, refuting the "simultaneous failure of all columns" meme. For an object with that mass, this tilting was pretty significant. Not so noticeably, as the collapse progresses this tilting reverts in direction, probably due to the resistance of the still intact columns as they meet the already collapsed part.

If you can't see the difference that this tilting makes, here's a comparison with the same thing without tilting:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...t-rotation.png

This should settle the question of whether the building tilted during the collapse: yes it did, and Dr. Hulsey's animation does not represent this tilting.

Observe also the wedge that forms between the EPH and the screen wall while the EPH falls, not visible in Hulsey's simulation. I situated the pivot point at the base of the penthouse. In Hulsey's simulation, the penthouse appears to pivot around the rooftop's corner, impeding the wedge to form. Therefore, Hulsey's animation is less accurate with regards to the penthouse.

The animation, without the video background:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...tion-solid.gif

Now one question that may arise: since my animation is more precise than Hulsey's and NIST's, does it mean it's of superior quality than any of these?

It's definitely of better quality than Hulsey's, because being based on the same approach of forcing it to follow the actual collapse, it does so with better precision. Unlike Hulsey's, it's able to exhibit the pivot point of the penthouse accurately as well as the tilting of the building. That's quite an accomplishment for it to be using a 2D physics engine!

And what about NIST's? NO, it's not of superior quality than NIST's. In fact, like Hulsey's, it's CRAP compared to NIST's, because NIST's animation is the output of the simulation, rather than the input. NIST did not just enter the positions where the video should be at specific frames, to produce the desired visual effect; instead, they performed a dynamic finite element analysis whose input was the initial conditions necessary for the collapse to start, and whose output was the animation they produced. Having it resemble the actual chaotic collapse to even some extent is quite an achievement.
In fact all evidence points to the building falling over on itself, as it did in 2005 when Dr. Steven E Jone proposed it was a CD.
Nothing has really changed since 2005 Hulsey's physics are the same as Jones's essentially worthless.
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 11th December 2019, 04:26 AM   #3222
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
Anything interesting going on, on the Hulsey front?
No. Interest in the Hulsey Report - from both sides - seems to have petered out after about a month with almost no substantive contributions from the pro-Hulsey side. It seems unlikely they will make their $320k back in additional fundraising. But I could be wrong.
__________________
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 11th December 2019, 07:13 AM   #3223
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
No. Interest in the Hulsey Report - from both sides - seems to have petered out after about a month with almost no substantive contributions from the pro-Hulsey side. It seems unlikely they will make their $320k back in additional fundraising. But I could be wrong.
They have been morally bankrupt for Quite some time let's hope financial Bankrupcy also embrasses them.
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 11th December 2019, 03:47 PM   #3224
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...
Chris Sarns AKA "Christpher 7" or "C7" is engaging with Mick West and other members over on Metabunk. Members may recall that C7, a core member of Gage's AE911 team, was a regular poster here some years back. Usually in episodic "spurts" of activity tag-teaming with other AE911 high profilers such as Tony Szamboti.

My cynical interpretation of his role is unchanged. His purpose is to drag out debate as per the aE911 agenda. I've judged him - with a bit of reluctant admiration - as a clever troll. His technique is to engage in rational debate including occasionally yielding on an issue or two under debate. Thereby convincing members that he is a serious debater. I cannot recall any other truther side troll who was clever enough to play that sort of "game".
...
A week ago, C7 hinted that representatives of Hulsey's sponsor, AE911Truth, are unhappy with the obviously unphysical models Hulsey has presented in his draft report:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/235339/
Quote:
I checked out the video and it appears that you are right. I notified the AE911Truth team of this and our mutual concerns about the unrealistic collapse models. The info has been forwarded to Dr. Hulsey. There will be a response to these and other questions/criticisms but it may take a while. Thank you for your observations. They will help Dr. Hulsey make these things clear.
__________________
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 December 2019, 01:17 AM   #3225
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,554
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
A week ago, C7 hinted that representatives of Hulsey's sponsor, AE911Truth, are unhappy with the obviously unphysical models Hulsey has presented in his draft report:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/235339/
Just recognise the point I made. C7's history of participation on this forum shows that many members were persuaded that he was engaging in reasoned rational debate. His most persuasive ploy was that he would occasionally agree with debunker critiques and or yield a point in debate. IMNSHO - and cynical assessment - a clever, devious and successful ploy.

Also don't overlook another strategic initiative on AE911 - the Chandler Coste led "push" to support plane at Pentagon. The pair who preach how committed they are to scientific method to support their pro-plane at Pentagon position. But no sign whatsoever of then retro-fitting scientific method reasoning to their CD at WTC claims.

Both strategies - C7's and Chandler/Coste's are yielding a debunker counter-claim point. To win support. Or rather to make them look more credible to debunkers. AND without the least change of position on their main themes. "Come in you debunker suckers - we will give you a couple of little points to distract you from the reality that we are set fast on our main points."

Now how long - how often - can they get away with it. Maybe another 10 years???? Maybe less? What is Gage's target horizon for his income security and ego tripping "job"?? Most truth leaders must know they lost the battle. Way back before the WTC 7 report. Since then their strategy has - de facto - been "play for time...keep the truther suckers fooled...no need to make arguments rigorous enough to defeat debunking counter claims...play for time....play for time...)

Last edited by ozeco41; 12th December 2019 at 01:19 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 12th December 2019, 03:01 AM   #3226
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Just recognise the point I made. C7's history of participation on this forum shows that many members were persuaded that he was engaging in reasoned rational debate. His most persuasive ploy was that he would occasionally agree with debunker critiques and or yield a point in debate. IMNSHO - and cynical assessment - a clever, devious and successful ploy.

Also don't overlook another strategic initiative on AE911 - the Chandler Coste led "push" to support plane at Pentagon. The pair who preach how committed they are to scientific method to support their pro-plane at Pentagon position. But no sign whatsoever of then retro-fitting scientific method reasoning to their CD at WTC claims.

Both strategies - C7's and Chandler/Coste's are yielding a debunker counter-claim point. To win support. Or rather to make them look more credible to debunkers. AND without the least change of position on their main themes. "Come in you debunker suckers - we will give you a couple of little points to distract you from the reality that we are set fast on our main points."

Now how long - how often - can they get away with it. Maybe another 10 years???? Maybe less? What is Gage's target horizon for his income security and ego tripping "job"?? Most truth leaders must know they lost the battle. Way back before the WTC 7 report. Since then their strategy has - de facto - been "play for time...keep the truther suckers fooled...no need to make arguments rigorous enough to defeat debunking counter claims...play for time....play for time...)
They have nothing else left to them all the Science is in they are only fooling the gullible.
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 December 2019, 06:33 AM   #3227
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Just recognise the point I made.
I did recognize the point you made by linking to and quoting the latest example of what you described

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...
Both strategies - C7's and Chandler/Coste's are yielding a debunker counter-claim point. To win support. Or rather to make them look more credible to debunkers. ...
I am not sure they are both doing it specifically with debunkers in mind. At least Coste, I believe, is seriously into it for credibility with the general population. He mostly avoids engaging debunkers.
He confesses to one conversion - from one who thought the Pentagon no-plane claims to be at least plausible. I suspect he has faint inklings that other beliefs may be false, too, and shuts his eyes and ears (and blocks me from his groups on Facebook ) to avoid having to write off his last 10+ years of toil and ridicule.
__________________
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 December 2019, 04:56 PM   #3228
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,554
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I did recognize the point you made by linking to and quoting the latest example of what you described
My post was a bit too blunt.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
At least Coste, I believe, is seriously into it for credibility with the general population. He mostly avoids engaging debunkers.
You are probaly correct - I have less experience of assessing Coste. And in one experience that we shared I deliberately did not take him "on" as a direct target for critique. I saw him as the far better guy than McKee.
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 December 2019, 08:56 AM   #3229
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,084
I actually encountered Coste who set up a table to pass out AE911T at an event help at I believe John J College with speakers about fire catastrophes. I recall meeting Sally Regenhard whose sun was a young fire fighter who died on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Regenhard

There were some investigators from NIST who spoke too. It was informative and not focused on 9/11 as much a response to fire disasters...

Pushing 9/11 swill was, in my opinion, at that talk entirely inappropriate.

I think my car was towed or I got a ticket so it stays in my memory.
__________________
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 16th December 2019, 02:38 AM   #3230
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 485
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Jowenko gave a professionally related opinion.

He supports the Hulsey Report through his conviction that WTC7 absolutely could not have collapsed the way it did as a result of fire.
You do know he is dead right. For a few years now

And I am always amazed at truthers. Because for some reason, he is right about WTC7, but he is mistaken about WTC1 and 2.

But I guess everything is alowed to give any credit to the Hulsey report, which is getting no traction in the scientific comunity
Jaytje46 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 December 2019, 02:42 AM   #3231
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 485
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Not much new in the debate of technical details.

Meanwhile AE911 has resuscitated J Bermas to work on a documentary... Preceded by the usual expected hyperbolic hoopla.

So - my summary - beating a dead horse.
And they asked the community $20.000 to make this movie, I guess truth has a price, because before they did it at own expenses

I am sure thats the reason, that he is broke and needs cash
Jaytje46 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 December 2019, 06:01 AM   #3232
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
And they asked the community $20.000 to make this movie, I guess truth has a price, because before they did it at own expenses

I am sure thats the reason, that he is broke and needs cash
Yes 9/11Truth is the giant Nothing Burger that keeps on giving nothing.
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 16th December 2019, 09:32 AM   #3233
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Panama City Beach, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes 9/11Truth is the giant Nothing Burger that keeps on giving nothing.

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
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 20th December 2019, 03:12 PM   #3234
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
AE911Truth today has announced (vaguely) "that the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks computer modeling study on World Trade Center Building 7 will be published early next year".

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/631-...nsive-outreach

They do not say what "early next year" means. The first days of January? Before July 1st?

So far, they had said that the final report was expected to be released before the end of this year.
__________________
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 21st December 2019, 02:50 AM   #3235
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 485
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
AE911Truth today has announced (vaguely) "that the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks computer modeling study on World Trade Center Building 7 will be published early next year".

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/631-...nsive-outreach

They do not say what "early next year" means. The first days of January? Before July 1st?

So far, they had said that the final report was expected to be released before the end of this year.
I just read that Message from them. I wonder who commented on the report, and if they, like NIST, will show the comments. Although I only think truthers will comment on this "report".

Its all just to help truthers sleep better at night.
Jaytje46 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 21st December 2019, 04:48 AM   #3236
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
I just read that Message from them. I wonder who commented on the report, and if they, like NIST, will show the comments. Although I only think truthers will comment on this "report".

Its all just to help truthers sleep better at night.
I am pretty sure they received serious critique. There should be at least two comments that rip the draft report apart.

Yes, I wonder, too, if they'll faithfully publish all received comments without censorship
__________________
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 21st December 2019, 10:02 AM   #3237
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I am pretty sure they received serious critique. There should be at least two comments that rip the draft report apart.

Yes, I wonder, too, if they'll faithfully publish all received comments without censorship
No they never published mine.
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 22nd December 2019, 02:29 AM   #3238
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
No they never published mine.
?

Your what?
You submitted comments to the Hulsey draft of September 03, 2019?
Then don't expect it to be published before "early next year".
__________________
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 22nd December 2019, 03:59 AM   #3239
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
?

Your what?
You submitted comments to the Hulsey draft of September 03, 2019?
Then don't expect it to be published before "early next year".
I don't, I know it will not be published Already.
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 23rd December 2019, 03:22 PM   #3240
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
I don't, I know it will not be published Already.
I am confused if this implies answers to my first two questions:

Your what?
You submitted comments to the Hulsey draft of September 03, 2019?
__________________
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
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 09:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.