The First 9/11 Sceptic

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Why do you need this information and who cares after column 79? What Oystein, Mick and Neutron still can not understand is symmetrical and freefall.

How about you simulate Hulsey wrong.

Shrugs?

To bad all evidence points to an internal WTC 7 progressive collapse that hollowed out the building to leave the facade to fall last once unsupported.

Is it false that Hulsey’s model does not reproduce all the key features of the WTC 7 collapse at key moments of collapse progression.


With no real world evidence that something like over 600 chargers simultaneously cut ever column for a length of eight floors. And that is not including the number of kicker charges to misaligned the supposed cut columns. With thermite burning to slow. With no way a controlled demolition system of over 600 charges would survive the hours of heat, smoke, and wide spread fires.

You have no real grasp of reality.

a reply to: neutronflux

To bad all evidence points to an internal WTC 7 progressive collapse that hollowed out the building to leave the facade to fall last once unsupported.

The Who made that call?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

To bad all evidence points to an internal WTC 7 progressive collapse that hollowed out the building to leave the facade to fall last once unsupported.

The Who made that call?

Show where the video evidence shows otherwise.

a reply to: neutronflux



All the years parroting made that call Neutron.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

All the years parroting made that call Neutron.

Way to post blatant falsehoods without actually posting a word. Innuendo to the max.

Notice your trying to change the subject.

Is it false that Hulsey’s model does not reproduce all the key features of the WTC 7 collapse at key moments of collapse progression.

Hulsey’s magical model that instantaneously and simultaneously removes all resistance over an eight floor span with no evidence of a real world event is missing key collapse features seen in the video that evidently can be only be explained by a progressive interior collapse.

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

And that is not even getting into...

With no real world evidence that something like over 600 chargers simultaneously cut ever column for a length of eight floors. And that is not including the number of kicker charges to misaligned the supposed cut columns. With thermite burning to slow. With no way a controlled demolition system of over 600 charges would survive the hours of heat, smoke, and wide spread fires.

You have no real grasp of reality.

a reply to: neutronflux

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

Who is this Oystein by trade you quote?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

Who is this Oystein by trade you quote?

Changing the subject again.

Sad.

The subject is why Hulsey’s model is missing key elements of the WTC 7 collapse.

You can start with this by pgimeno if you like...

By pgimeno

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska


Post 3273
www.internationalskeptics.com...
Figure 4.17(c) is still that joke of a simulation, where the penthouse cracks like an egg, pivoting on the top right instead of the bottom right. The Metabunk guys found that the animation was specifically crafted to produce the collapse seen in the videos, by means of manipulating certain parameters, and was NOT the result of the removal of all columns as the report seems to imply. They did NOT obtain an animation of the global collapse from an accurate physics simulation. Therefore this point (p.110, PDF p.123) is a lie:

a reply to: neutronflux

Changing the subject again.

Not answering a direct question, again.

By pgimeno

And who, pray tell, is this one? You post this nonsense made by some username - a persona unknown. I'll ask the same guestion again; username pgimeno and username Oystein, who are they? What level engineering degrees do they have?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Changing the subject again.

Not answering a direct question, again.

By pgimeno

And who, pray tell, is this one? You post this nonsense made by some username - a persona unknown. I'll ask the same guestion again; username pgimeno and username Oystein, who are they? What level engineering degrees do they have?

Still changing the subject.

What do you not understand Hulsey’s “report” is truth movement bought propaganda paid for by AE truth 911 that has nothing to do with engineering.

Is this a false statement by pgimeno.

The Metabunk guys found that the animation was specifically crafted to produce the collapse seen in the videos, by means of manipulating certain parameters, and was NOT the result of the removal of all columns as the report seems to imply. They did NOT obtain an animation of the global collapse from an accurate physics simulation. Therefore this point (p.110, PDF p.123) is a lie:

Truth is truth. And the truth is Hulsey’s report is documented and proven junk science.

a reply to: democracydemo

I thought about this some more. Mick West is very vocal on the flaws and junk science of the Hulsey’s WTC 7 modeling. And clear on what was forced by hand in the simulation.

Mike West is very clear who he is. And not hiding behind a screen name.

If Mick West was lying, it would be easy for Hulsey and the team of AE 9/11 Truth Lawyers to sue Mick Wast for slander. And retract comments. The fact the AE 9/11 truth lawyers do not file a cease and desist order, then sue Mick West, or challenge his assessment of the Hulsey model in court speaks volumes.

a reply to: neutronflux

I thought about this some more. Mick West is very vocal on the flaws and junk science of the Hulsey’s WTC 7 modeling. And clear on what was forced by hand in the simulation.

Mick West (retired video game programmer) has no backround to in this field, nor does username "pgimeno" or "Oystein". Yet you trust on their judgment that Hulsey's study is flawed?

If Mick West was lying, it would be easy for Hulsey and the team of AE 9/11 Truth Lawyers to sue Mick Wast for slander. And retract comments. The fact the AE 9/11 truth lawyers do not file a cease and desist order, then sue Mick West, or challenge his assessment of the Hulsey model in court speaks volumes.

Simple and blunt for you:
Mick is talking out of his *ss.
Nullius in verba neutronflux

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher



WoW Man , Far Out !

a reply to: democracydemo

You

Mick West (retired video game programmer) has no backround to in this field, nor does username "pgimeno" or "Oystein". Yet you trust on their judgment that Hulsey's study is flawed?

Then it should be extra easy to sue Mick West for slander.

Then. By your logic.

Husked has no experience overseeing a high rise building construction, maintaining a high rise building, forensic science/engineering, and no degree in computer science for modeling. Is this a false statement?


Changing the subject. Again.

What do you not understand Hulsey’s “report” is truth movement bought propaganda paid for by AE truth 911 that has nothing to do with engineering.

Is this a false statement by pgimeno.

The Metabunk guys found that the animation was specifically crafted to produce the collapse seen in the videos, by means of manipulating certain parameters, and was NOT the result of the removal of all columns as the report seems to imply. They did NOT obtain an animation of the global collapse from an accurate physics simulation. Therefore this point (p.110, PDF p.123) is a lie:

Truth is truth. And the truth is Hulsey’s report is documented and proven junk science.

a reply to: democracydemo

If Mick West was talking out his a$$. Why don’t the AE 9/11 Truth Lawyers take Mick West’s a$$ to court for slander. What’s the point of having a legal team?

a reply to: neutronflux

Husked has no experience overseeing a high rise building construction, maintaining a high rise building, forensic science/engineering, and no degree in computer science for modeling. Is this a false statement?

Hulsey is a Professor of Structural Engineering, Emeritus.

Mick, username pgimeno and username Oystein (The Metabunk guys) know square root of jack about structural engineering. Is this false?

Truth is truth. And the truth is Hulsey’s report is documented and proven junk science.

By whom? The Metabunk guys again?

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

Some good perspective you offer, and maybe it is accurate to assign David McGowan the title.

It took me 4 years to realize the official story could not possibly be true, but Kevin Ryan who worked for the company that certifies steel and other parts of the building industry for the insurance industry knew right away the claim that jetfuel melted the steel could not possibly be true.

He spoke out quickly, his company told him to STFU and he did not. He was then fired for speaking the truth.

Here is his blog. digwithin.net...

a reply to: democracydemo

You

Hulsey is a Professor of Structural Engineering, Emeritus.

What structures did he actual design and over see construction. What experience does you he have with fire protection of high rise buildings. What’s his background in forensic science, building demolitions, and pyrotechnics? Who did Hulsey consul that was Knowledgeable with credentials in the listed fiends, and computer modeling of damaged buildings?

Mick, username pgimeno and username Oystein (The Metabunk guys) know square root of jack about structural engineering. Is this false?

You seem the expert deeming who knows what. You tell me with proof to back up your opinion.


So what’s your expertise to deem Hulsey’s isn’t a paid propagandist?


But one thing is evident. They are a hell of a lot more truthfully than Hulsey’s, and not paid by AE truth to help sale a conspiracy product. And there is what, three studies with individuals as qualified, and probably more qualified than Hulsey concerning the WTC 7 collapse that concluded fire related collapse.


So what’s your expertise to deem Hulsey’s isn’t pushing truth movement propaganda that is used by AE truth to keep its livelihood? AE truth in much more dependent on WTC 7 as a cash cow than Mick West. Metabunk keeps finding new material. AE truth is dying a slow death as an organization.

Anyway. Back topic. If you thank the below are lies. Prove it.

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

And that is not even getting into...

With no real world evidence that something like over 600 chargers simultaneously cut ever column for a length of eight floors. And that is not including the number of kicker charges to misaligned the supposed cut columns. With thermite burning to slow. With no way a controlled demolition system of over 600 charges would survive the hours of heat, smoke, and wide spread fires.

You have no real grasp of reality.


Changing the subject. Again.

What do you not understand Hulsey’s “report” is truth movement bought propaganda paid for by AE truth 911 that has nothing to do with engineering.

Is this a false statement by pgimeno.

The Metabunk guys found that the animation was specifically crafted to produce the collapse seen in the videos, by means of manipulating certain parameters, and was NOT the result of the removal of all columns as the report seems to imply. They did NOT obtain an animation of the global collapse from an accurate physics simulation. Therefore this point (p.110, PDF p.123) is a lie:

Truth is truth. And the truth is Hulsey’s report is documented and proven junk science.

You

Hulsey is a Professor of Structural Engineering, Emeritus.

What structures did he actual design and oversee construction. What experience does he have with fire protection of highruse buildings. What’s his background in forensic science, building demolitions, and pyrotechnics? Who did Hulsey consul that was Knowledgeable with credentials in the listed fiends, and computer modeling of damaged buildings?

Mick, username pgimeno and username Oystein (The Metabunk guys) know square root of jack about structural engineering. Is this false?

You seem the expert deeming who knows what. You tell me with proof to back up your opinion.

Wasn’t the WTC 7 Hulsey report open to public comment by anyone. Can you show the listed people submitted questions that lacked knowledge concerning the comprehension of the subject of WTC 7. The listed people have studied the subject for almost 20 years now.

So what’s your expertise to deem Hulsey’s isn’t a paid propagandist?

But one thing is evident. They are a hell of a lot more truthfully than Hulsey, and not paid by AE truth to help sale a conspiracy product. And there is what, three studies with individuals as qualified, and probably more qualified than Hulsey concerning the WTC 7 collapse that concluded fire related collapse.


So what’s your expertise to deem Hulsey’s isn’t pushing truth movement propaganda that is used by AE truth to keep its livelihood? AE truth is much more dependent on WTC 7 as a cash cow than Mick West. Metabunk keeps finding new material. AE truth is dying a slow death as an organization.

Anyway. Back to the topic. If you thank the below are lies. Prove it.

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

And that is not even getting into...

With no real world evidence that something like over 600 chargers simultaneously cut ever column for a length of eight floors. And that is not including the number of kicker charges to misaligned the supposed cut columns. With thermite burning to slow. With no way a controlled demolition system of over 600 charges would survive the hours of heat, smoke, and wide spread fires.

You have no real grasp of reality.


Changing the subject. Again.

What do you not understand Hulsey’s “report” is truth movement bought propaganda paid for by AE truth 911 that has nothing to do with engineering.

Is this a false statement by pgimeno.

The Metabunk guys found that the animation was specifically crafted to produce the collapse seen in the videos, by means of manipulating certain parameters, and was NOT the result of the removal of all columns as the report seems to imply. They did NOT obtain an animation of the global collapse from an accurate physics simulation. Therefore this point (p.110, PDF p.123) is a lie:

Truth is truth. And the truth is Hulsey’s report is documented and proven junk science.

a reply to: neutronflux

Here we go again...


Mick, username pgimeno and username Oystein (The Metabunk guys) know square root of jack about structural engineering. Is this false?

You seem the expert deeming who knows what. You tell me with proof to back up your opinion.

That my dear neutroflux is credentials lacking which you must provide, since you base your case solely on theyr "expertise".

a reply to: democracydemo

And there is what, three studies with individuals as qualified, and probably more qualified than Hulsey concerning the WTC 7 collapse that concluded fire related collapse.

So how many people with the right credentials that out weigh Hulsey and his two or three understudies?

As in Hulsey missing the listed credentials.

Still want to play the academic game. Because three studies conclude fire related collapse to Hulsey’s paid for study with these flaws.

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

And that is not even getting into...

With no real world evidence that something like over 600 chargers simultaneously cut ever column for a length of eight floors. And that is not including the number of kicker charges to misaligned the supposed cut columns. With thermite burning to slow. With no way a controlled demolition system of over 600 charges would survive the hours of heat, smoke, and wide spread fires.

You have no real grasp of reality.


Changing the subject. Again.

What do you not understand Hulsey’s “report” is truth movement bought propaganda paid for by AE truth 911 that has nothing to do with engineering.

Is this a false statement by pgimeno.

The Metabunk guys found that the animation was specifically crafted to produce the collapse seen in the videos, by means of manipulating certain parameters, and was NOT the result of the removal of all columns as the report seems to imply. They did NOT obtain an animation of the global collapse from an accurate physics simulation. Therefore this point (p.110, PDF p.123) is a lie:

Truth is truth. And the truth is Hulsey’s report is documented and proven junk science