The feeling is mutual. What does that have do with your "scant" reference? Physics and mathematics are not an inexact science, it's the standard by which all experts who use it operate. One expert can prove an another expert's hypothesis to be incorrect using physics and mathematics (as well as other appropriate sciences). Unqualified and irrelevant opinion that has nothing to do with the hypotheses/conclusions of the 4 major engineering studies and especially Hulsey's proofs. Benthamitemetric??? Anonymous, unqualified and irrelevant. Did you not read it? If you dispute the claim please provide a link to any expert study that challenges Hulsey's study. You have yet to do so. Johnnyplectrum??? Seriously now, is that a joke? Mick West again? What are his qualifications and what paper has he written? Right, unqualified and irrelevant, that's all you ever come up with. Thanks. As usual, nothing to see here. When and IF you provide a link to an expert, qualified study that challenges Hulsey's findings I will certainly review it in detail. Unless and until Hulsey's findings are challenged by qualified experts, Hulsey's conclusions remain the de facto standard for the WTC7 study. As well, the work of Arup/Nordenson, Weidlinger and the Request for Correction endorsed by about 90 qualified structural engineers and architects also invalidate NIST's study (which is to this day still the official party line).
The science of building collapse! There are so many things not known, plus Hulsey's complete failure to do any sufficient fire mapping. It's almost as though this bridge-engineer was trying to reach a foregone conclusion on a high-rise skyscraper. Oh wait! Summarizing your own opinions. Hulsey's "proofs" aren't proofs. They are his opinions. Ad hominem. Anonymity on forums doesn't discount the content. You cannot debate the content because you don't actually understand any of it. All the other reports challenge Hulsey by pointing out issues he fails to address. Ad hominem. Anonymity on forums doesn't discount the content. You cannot debate the content because you don't actually understand any of it. Ad hominem. Anonymity on forums doesn't discount the content. You cannot debate the content because you don't actually understand any of it. Hulsey the "de facto" by ignoring all challenges. Got ya.
Unqualified and irrelevant opinion. Unqualified and irrelevant opinion. They are proof unless and until proven otherwise by expert qualified proof, not your irrelevant personal opinion. They are all unqualified and irrelevant opinion. They are not valid scientific studies. Content is strictly for discussion purposes by forum members, nothing more, nothing less. There are no qualified scientific studies/reports that challenge Hulsey's findings. Again please post the link to any. Forum posts are not valid scientific studies. No known valid scientific study even references Hulsey's study. (repetitive claims ignored)
Hulsey report critique by Dr Holm Gero Hümmler Every few years, the 11th of September groundhog greets – Relative quantum quark (quantenquark-com.translate.goog) Firstly a quote concerning Hulsey's expert status: "Like his two PhD students, Hulsey is actually a civil engineer. However, there is nothing to indicate he had any experience building or studying skyscrapers: his publication list revolves almost exclusively around the construction of bridges in subarctic conditions, apart from a few works on road surfaces. Hulsey's focus on more horizontal, self-supporting constructions can certainly be recognized in the "reassessment": The modeling of individual load-bearing parts in the lower floors, which were probably the first to fall, is described with great meticulousness, and their properties under thermal stress are discussed in detail. When it comes to the statics of the building as a whole, however, he rather casually recites the results of his model calculations without going into the implications or even questioning their plausibility." Now his co-authors : "The draft names three authors from different institutions (including an associate professor from Nanjing Technical University in China), giving the impression of cross-institutional collaboration. In fact, however, the two co-authors were graduate students of lead author Leroy Hulsey at UAF at the time of their involvement. Both come from China and only came to the USA after their bachelor's degrees, directly to the UAF. For the two of them, the design was not part of their doctoral theses, but at best a sideline: one did his doctorate on the fire resistance of plasterboard , the other on the monitoring of damage to bridges. So it remains unclear whether their contribution to the draft goes beyond pure data coding." Now the report location: "Hulsey is officially a lecturer at the UAF and supervises according to the homepage scientific work, but at the age of 78 he is well into retirement age. The text is therefore not a publication in a scientific journal or an official statement by the university, but rather the freedom of research of a pensioner who, due to his previous work, is still allowed to use the university facilities for this purpose. Similar to emeritus professors in Germany, it is not uncommon in the USA for such professors to no longer have teaching commitments, but to still be able to use the university's resources for their own research, and no one usually interferes with their choice of topic. In view of the catastrophic financial crisis of this university This should apply all the more to projects that are financed from third-party funds. In the case of the "reassessment", these third-party funds come from the conspiracy-believer organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth , which means that the result of the investigation is no longer particularly surprising. Of course, the outcome of a scientific investigation does not depend on the sponsor, as long as it is carried out and published seriously, but this propaganda association would hardly have entrusted its donations collected from concerned citizens to a scientist from whom the result of the investigation would have been in question." Read the translated page for problems with his content. Hümmler doesn't claim to have building experience, but none is required when analyzing methodology, on which he is an expert. His post indicates major problems with generalizations and the complete absence of proper DYNAMIC analysis.
You're just doing the ad hominem dismissal and failing to address rebuttal. Like this: YOU make claims about Hulsey's expertise, a retired man who designs bridges and roads, given money to produce a report and use this as the only yardstick! You go on about his "peer-reviewed" report when the "peers" are "911-truthers"! Somebody points out a problem with the report. Instead of countering this by showing why it isn't a problem, you ignore it and say something akin to "but my Hulsey report".
But you were wrong again. You said I didn't post them when I did and there they are. I don't actually NEED to have a PhD to cite reports from people who do have them. Are you going to actually address them after a half dozen posts claiming they weren't made? How would you know, "you arent a PhD"? If people make CLAIMS that there are problems it's customary to refute them with explanations for why they aren't problems.
@Kokomojojo http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tc-conclusions.551799/page-15#post-1074221567 May I have your full retraction on the wing "behind the building" that caused you to "LMFAO"?
Thank you. I will check out this guy's credentials and read it thoroughly when I get a chance. But upon first glance I already see some issues that smacks of extreme unscientific bias. Whatever, I will go over it assuming this guy is qualified.
I'm sure you will view it with total impartiality and objectivity. Problems with Hulsey's methodology: "Hulsey's presentations make clear that he only modeled fire damage on portions of floors 12 and 13 and that he did not model the fire progression anywhere, ergo he did not replicate NIST's ANSYS model of fire damage, which involved floors 1 through 16 and a full fire progression simulation on each such floor on which there was a fire observed on 9-11. NIST generated its thermal load data from FDS and then applied the temperatures over time to its ANSYS model using FSI, from which it calculated damage to the floors. Once it was determined that enough damage to the floors had occurred for the collapse to progress globally, then NIST output the temperature data from the ANSYS model at that point in time into the LS-DYNA model so that the LS-DYNA model could take over the event simulation where the ANSYS model left off. NIST's floor damage calculations were absolutely done in accordance with a varied temperature progression applied from its FDS data, and even the temperature output to the LS-DYNA model was not "even heating"--it was just the output of the FDS-derived variable temperatures at the time of global failure. This is all described in incredible detail in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, chapters 10, 11 and 12." "...if you do not control for the single most important independent variable in a model (in the case of NIST's model, it's temperatures), then you cannot properly assess the effect on that model of other different parameters (such as adding shear studs, etc.)." "If Hulsey wants to say NIST treated the exterior columns as fixed while the NIST report explicitly says otherwise, the burden is on him to provide evidence that they did." AND THIS - Completely ignored: Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire | Metabunk "There are numerous problems with the claim that the study shows that WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire: The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged. The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models. The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210992/ The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/211186/ The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly. The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/ The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/210990/ The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow. The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse. While it is possible that Dr. Hulsey's study will eventually yield some interesting results, it is factually incorrect to say that it proves that fire could not have caused the collapse."
It proves you were wrong and since you cannot even admit even a small irrelevant side issue it shows the futility with direct engagement with you. Anybody who examines the wing going behind a building will see it quite easily in the image I posted, camera zoomed out and the gif I posted zoomed in, just the edge of the foreground building.
Addressed above, clearly this is appalling failure to use proper quality footage and and to examine it properly! REALLY? Are you saying that is WTC2 that the wing goes behind? Or is that another one of your "typos"? Hushabooms? What are we seeing here? Static discharges and vast kinetic energy perhaps? Facepalming nonsense. Are you an authority on special effects in the early century? We can see an airplane impacting at over 500mph tearing a hole and creating an extreme drag behind it. Right where the engine impacts the building at 500mph+ Who would have though that huh? The onomatopoeia for a flatulent donkey would be more appropriate.
Post a real video with no cgi and baker will pay you 100,000 bucks! what are you doing here send it to him right away!
That is a very long time. If you move around in 1/24 fps. However 3 odd frames equates to between 1 and 2 tenths of a second. Strawman. Define "instant there and gone" - supply a time and a reference. Haha, this no-plane hogwash is worse than flat Earth. Just like we see in the video! Nope, Really you can't.
Yes it can. No he won't. This is one of those bogus "offers" where the person "offering" the money decided what is valid. Since "ACE" Baker has no intention to pay out anything there is no way to win the bullshit "offer" My picture shows the building in the foreground. My animated gif shows the plane in 10 times better quality with its wing naturally being obscured by foreground building. Ask Bob, see what he says.
Try not to make such absurd claims. Your stills and gifs are from multi-generational, compressed-to-crap versions.
extreme blow ups (no pun intended) not my problem the video quality sucks bitch at hezerkoni for having a ty cam
