Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 09-20-2019, 08:48 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Thanks. Maybe he can explain how the debris fell faster, because it was ejected downward, or slower, and I am not sure what that would prove.

Regards,
Shodan
"Proof" isn't the objective of Truther CTs. Spreading disinformation and ignorance in a general population in order to seed mistrust of otherwise reliable, non-political, institutions is the objective. At least among those who peddle them. Because they know the P.T. Barnum hypothesis is reliably accurate, and can be monetized.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #352  
Old 09-20-2019, 10:31 AM
Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Man I thought for SURE I would wake up today and find the calculations of the speed of falling debris.
The only numbers split p&j seems able to provide are the time/data stamps of his posts.
  #353  
Old 09-20-2019, 11:47 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,924

The Moderator Speaks


Let’s keep the personal shots under control, please.
  #354  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:08 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Ph.D. Structural Engineer Ibrahim Soudy: “$10,000 to Anyone Who Can Refute New U. of Alaska WTC-7 Study”

https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_p...a-wtc-7-study/
  #355  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:14 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Ph.D. Structural Engineer Ibrahim Soudy: “$10,000 to Anyone Who Can Refute New U. of Alaska WTC-7 Study”

https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_p...a-wtc-7-study/
Uhuh. Even if it was worth the while of most engineers, this part would give me pause:

Quote:
The question of whether the reward seeker has successfully rebutted the U. of Alaska study will be decided by a panel of qualified judges.
So, who exactly are the 'qualified judges', and what criteria are they using to judge it? I mean, basically anyone who looks at the paper and thinks, yeah, that definitely shows the 'official story' is 'a pack of lies' is going to be suspect...yet, I'm fairly confident that this is exactly who the 'qualified judges' would be comprised of.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #356  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:19 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Uhuh. Even if it was worth the while of most engineers, this part would give me pause:



So, who exactly are the 'qualified judges', and what criteria are they using to judge it? I mean, basically anyone who looks at the paper and thinks, yeah, that definitely shows the 'official story' is 'a pack of lies' is going to be suspect...yet, I'm fairly confident that this is exactly who the 'qualified judges' would be comprised of.

Translation: Nobody's gonna refute
  #357  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:22 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Uhuh. Even if it was worth the while of most engineers, this part would give me pause:



So, who exactly are the 'qualified judges', and what criteria are they using to judge it? I mean, basically anyone who looks at the paper and thinks, yeah, that definitely shows the 'official story' is 'a pack of lies' is going to be suspect...yet, I'm fairly confident that this is exactly who the 'qualified judges' would be comprised of.


Yep. Every time one of the woo-woos tries to copy James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, they put so many thumbs on the scale you can't even see the scale. There's no way this offer is in any way objective or honest.
  #358  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:24 AM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,178
He also announces a $25,000 reward for anyone who writes a technical paper rebutting the study, provides it to an engineering journal, and has it accepted and published.

I'm not aware of how much a structural engineer makes, but I'm guessing the time it takes to do all that would be worth more that 25k.
  #359  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:25 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Translation: Nobody's gonna refute
Nope. If you set it up this way, you could basically 'prove' anything. You set up a prize that folks can get, but you pick your 'experts' and use your own stance to judge the merit of those who are submitting for the prize and Bob's Your Uncle, no one wins! Which means that you were right all along...lizardmen DO control the world, and there IS no Queen of England!

If this guy wanted to be taken seriously, he'd make the prize bigger, and then put it in the hands of a 3rd party agency with respected credentials...maybe one of the respected international civil engineering organizations, to judge based on their own criteria. That won't happen, as they would almost certainly judge the Alaskan paper to be flawed and certainly not some sort of proof that the 'official story' is 'a pack of lies'. This is only going to be something that one of the faithful would look at seriously as 'proof' of, well, anything.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #360  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:28 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Ph.D. Structural Engineer Ibrahim Soudy: “$10,000 to Anyone Who Can Refute New U. of Alaska WTC-7 Study”

https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_p...a-wtc-7-study/
Never get into a mud wrestling contest with a pig.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #361  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:32 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Nope. If you set it up this way, you could basically 'prove' anything. You set up a prize that folks can get, but you pick your 'experts' and use your own stance to judge the merit of those who are submitting for the prize and Bob's Your Uncle, no one wins! Which means that you were right all along...lizardmen DO control the world, and there IS no Queen of England!

If this guy wanted to be taken seriously, he'd make the prize bigger, and then put it in the hands of a 3rd party agency with respected credentials...maybe one of the respected international civil engineering organizations, to judge based on their own criteria. That won't happen, as they would almost certainly judge the Alaskan paper to be flawed and certainly not some sort of proof that the 'official story' is 'a pack of lies'. This is only going to be something that one of the faithful would look at seriously as 'proof' of, well, anything.
If this guy wanted to be taken seriously? He already is being taken seriously by his target audience.
  #362  
Old 09-28-2019, 11:04 PM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
He also announces a $25,000 reward for anyone who writes a technical paper rebutting the study, provides it to an engineering journal, and has it accepted and published.

I'm not aware of how much a structural engineer makes, but I'm guessing the time it takes to do all that would be worth more that 25k.
Refuting would probably require use of some rather expensive engineering software that only large firms could afford and don’t appreciate being used for stunts.

Honestly, you can refute this by pointing out the magically disappearing columns and the fact that their demo is just a (poorly)animated CAD program.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #363  
Old 10-01-2019, 03:14 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
Refuting would probably require use of some rather expensive engineering software that only large firms could afford and don’t appreciate being used for stunts.

Honestly, you can refute this by pointing out the magically disappearing columns and the fact that their demo is just a (poorly)animated CAD program.
Structural engineers, depending on location and experience, probably make six figures. $25k is not negligible.

The software you would use to run this sort of analysis is probably a couple thousand a year for a continuing commercial license. I'm not sure how standard it is, but my company owns anything I use company resources for. So if I stay late and run FEA models for a side project, they own that regardless if I'm charging that time. Defeats the purpose of the prize.

In any case, they could just say your model differs from what the original paper did. Is their complete model available to look at? I'd guess not.
  #364  
Old 10-01-2019, 05:31 PM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
Structural engineers, depending on location and experience, probably make six figures. $25k is not negligible.

The software you would use to run this sort of analysis is probably a couple thousand a year for a continuing commercial license. I'm not sure how standard it is, but my company owns anything I use company resources for. So if I stay late and run FEA models for a side project, they own that regardless if I'm charging that time. Defeats the purpose of the prize.

In any case, they could just say your model differs from what the original paper did. Is their complete model available to look at? I'd guess not.
There’s a thread on the website metabunk.org that goes over what has been released by Hulsey, et al. It does not inspire fear for the NIST analysis or confidence for the 9/11 truther crowd.

https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019...alysis.t10890/
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #365  
Old 10-01-2019, 08:58 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
There’s a thread on the website metabunk.org that goes over what has been released by Hulsey, et al. It does not inspire fear for the NIST analysis or confidence for the 9/11 truther crowd.

https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019...alysis.t10890/
Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand.

The money shouldn't be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don't people still enjoy intellectual debate?
  #366  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:02 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand.

The money shouldn't be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don't people still enjoy intellectual debate?
Perhaps you could read through the link that was provided and discuss where you find fault with it?
  #367  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand.

The money shouldn't be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don't people still enjoy intellectual debate?
If you understand the side you support, you should be able to understand the response that decimated the side you support. Of course if you are claiming that both sides are too difficult for you to understand, I have to question why you support one side over the other.
  #368  
Old 10-02-2019, 06:01 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand.

The money shouldn't be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don't people still enjoy intellectual debate?
Intellectual debate? Yes. Repeatedly debunking conspiracy theories that aren't remotely based on evidence, science or basic logic? No.

CTs don't get "put to rest" by debating them; engaging them only gives them life (as this thread demonstrates). Another thing this thread demonstrates is any rebuttal of the CT points, no matter how robust, will simply be handwaved away. As has been frequently said, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. 9/11 truthers, moon landing deniers, Flat Earthers - all have had their ludicrous arguments knocked down again and again and their response is simply to set them back up as if nothing has happened. You yourself have repeatedly ignored the various points debunking your particular CT.

Be honest - is there any point at which you will ever abandon your theory? Any evidence that could actually assuage your doubts? Because if the answer is "no", then there's no point in any of us trying. At best, we can hope to enlighten the unseen lurkers who may be more receptive to an actual evidence-based approach to the matter. You'll just have to choose for yourself what you want to accept as the truth.
  #369  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:53 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Perhaps Mick West or someone else from that site could debate Professor Soudy or Hulsey? Or perhaps a representative from NIST? The material is far too complex for a layman to understand.

The money shouldn't be the issue. Putting to rest this conspiracy should be their prime motivation. Don't people still enjoy intellectual debate?
There’s a lot of technical info in there to be sure, but what part of “why do 3 columns just disappear in the Hulsey model” do you not get? Or, “why do the lower columns stretch like taffy in the Hulsey model?”.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #370  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:37 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
There’s a lot of technical info in there to be sure, but what part of “why do 3 columns just disappear in the Hulsey model” do you not get? Or, “why do the lower columns stretch like taffy in the Hulsey model?”.
Hulsey or someone equally qualified like Soudy needs to respond to these criticisms. I do not know if they are legitimate or not. It is possible both the NIST and UAF studies are flawed. Or that structural engineering or the prediction of how a structure will react to adverse circumstances is not an exact science and require a certain amount of guess work?
  #371  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:42 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Hulsey or someone equally qualified like Soudy needs to respond to these criticisms. I do not know if they are legitimate or not. It is possible both the NIST and UAF studies are flawed. Or that structural engineering or the prediction of how a structure will react to adverse circumstances is not an exact science and require a certain amount of guess work?
Been there, done that, and further free press is not deserved. If they want to advertise, they can pay for it.
  #372  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:18 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Hulsey or someone equally qualified like Soudy needs to respond to these criticisms. I do not know if they are legitimate or not.
You don't know if objecting to columns simply vanishing in the Hulsey model is a legitimate criticism?

Quote:
It is possible both the NIST and UAF studies are flawed.
It's also "possible" aliens beamed the buildings away and altered all our memories of the event. The problem, as Richard Feynman once said (about extraterrestrials, appropriately enough) isn't to determine what is "possible" but to assess what actually happened or is happening. If the NIST study is flawed, that is demonstrable. Saying it might be flawed is meaningless.

Quote:
Or that structural engineering or the prediction of how a structure will react to adverse circumstances is not an exact science and require a certain amount of guess work?
It's a pretty rigorous science. There are margins of error and material resilience factors and probabilistic analysis of resistance to various stresses. What there isn't, in any meaningful sense, is "guess work". Any "guesses" about anything important are heavily backed up with numbers.

Last edited by Gyrate; 10-02-2019 at 10:19 AM.
  #373  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:01 AM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
It's also "possible" aliens beamed the buildings away and altered all our memories of the event.
I read a novel with that premise. The WTC collapses occurred in 2017 - we just think they happened in 2001 due to altered memories.
  #374  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:06 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Let's sidestep the physics and math for a moment. One issue 9/11 Truthers have never answered is why the U.S. government (or whoever was nefarious enough to rig this thing) would want to knock down WTC7. What does knocking down the relatively-obscure, little-known building called WTC7 get them that knocking down the two big Twin Towers alone didn't?
I have only ever seen two "explanations". Either it was because some evidence of the conspiracy was being stored in there and/or because Larry Silverstein is Jewish (insert conspiracy theory and/or stereotypes about Jews).
  #375  
Old 10-03-2019, 08:14 AM
CurtC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
I have only ever seen two "explanations". Either it was because some evidence of the conspiracy was being stored in there...
... because it makes SO much sense to get rid of evidence by having the contents of the building be strewn all over lower Manhattan. Have they never heard of a paper shredder?
  #376  
Old 10-03-2019, 09:21 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
I have yet to see a 9-11 conspiracy theory that didn't sound like came from the writers over at "The Onion".
  #377  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:45 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
It's a pretty rigorous science. There are margins of error and material resilience factors and probabilistic analysis of resistance to various stresses. What there isn't, in any meaningful sense, is "guess work". Any "guesses" about anything important are heavily backed up with numbers.
Are you saying that if we were to repeat the fires in the WTC7 that we would get the exact same outcome every time?

I'm certain that assumptions are made in both models especially the NIST model to explain what they think happened rather than predict what might happen if burning debris from the Twin Towers struck WTC7 . That's a big difference.

NIST was charged with finding an explanation for the main stream narrative. Hulsey was trying to find out if fire could cause WTC7 to collapse in the way it did and found it was not possible.
  #378  
Old 10-03-2019, 11:05 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
NIST was charged with finding an explanation for the main stream narrative. Hulsey was trying to find out if fire could cause WTC7 to collapse in the way it did and found it was not possible.
You can repeat this 'til the cows come home-it still doesn't make it true.
  #379  
Old 10-03-2019, 11:08 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie
Are you saying that if we were to repeat the fires in the WTC7 that we would get the exact same outcome every time?
Well, you'd have to repeat the fires AND the fact that there were no fire fighters available AND the fact that there was no water for the fire suppression system AND that it was left to burn for an entire day AND that a large part of the building too sever structural damage from falling debris and...

But, yeah...if you replicated all of that, you'd pretty much get the same result. Hell, if you just replicated some of that you'd probably still get a building collapse at some point. Just letting the building burn all day would almost certainly do it. And we've actually seen buildings under similar circumstances to that (i.e. burning out of control for many hours) collapse. It's just very unusual for such a thing to happen, so it's pretty rare that one of these buildings has basically no mitigation at all (normally, at a minimum, the fire suppression system is at least partially functional and fire fighters are at least nominally available...and, of course, normally large parts of other buildings aren't falling on the burning building in question).

As I said earlier, this one is the least mysterious wrt why or how it collapsed. I have no idea why the loopy 9/11 CT crowd has latched onto it, as it really shows their vast ignorance...or their vast powers of deception and the ignorance of their target audience. Or both, really.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #380  
Old 10-03-2019, 11:19 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
But, yeah...if you replicated all of that, you'd pretty much get the same result. Hell, if you just replicated some of that you'd probably still get a building collapse at some point. Just letting the building burn all day would almost certainly do it. And we've actually seen buildings under similar circumstances to that (i.e. burning out of control for many hours) collapse.
Even Windsor Tower in Spain, which gets trotted out every so often as evidence against fire-induced collapse, lost the top third of its structural steel.
  #381  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:52 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Even Windsor Tower in Spain, which gets trotted out every so often as evidence against fire-induced collapse, lost the top third of its structural steel.
Exactly. And they really aren't good analogues because of one thing that often seems to be overlooked (I think, in some cases, intentionally...in others, just ignorance) is the method of the fires origins. A normal fire starts in one place, or on one floor. It's very rare for a fire to simultaneously start on multiple floors, and to cover multiple floors right off the bat. In the case of every one of the WTC buildings, we have fires starting, simultaneously and VERY rapidly (as well as starting off covering a huge initial area) on multiple floors. In WTC 7's case, burning debris from the north tower started fires all along the south side, including in the big atrium. And there was nothing to mitigate those fires due to all the other things brought up.

But rarely do the CT types even acknowledge this point, as if fires regularly start on multiple floors (and I mean ACROSS THE MAJORITY OF THAT FLOOR SPACE) at once. Of course, they rarely acknowledge any of the points.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #382  
Old 10-03-2019, 09:59 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Even Windsor Tower in Spain, which gets trotted out every so often as evidence against fire-induced collapse
This is a straw man argument.

I've never stated that fire cannot cause the structural collapse of a steel building.

My skepticism rests solely on the idea that the collapse of WTC7 cannot be symmetrical as if it were a controlled demolition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Lost the top third of its structural steel.
Exactly!

Partial collapse or gradual collapse is what one would expect when a building is being firebombed by the debris of the Twin Towers.

Some portion of the building will give way before others.
  #383  
Old 10-03-2019, 11:47 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I've never stated that fire cannot cause the structural collapse of a steel building.
And I never stated that you did.
Quote:
My skepticism rests solely on the idea that the collapse of WTC7 cannot be symmetrical as if it were a controlled demolition.
What's so "symmetrical" about the majority of 7 crossing the street to fall on the CUNY building at 30 West Broadway followed by the southwest corner separating and sliding into the Verizon building?

7 did not fall "straight down" as conspiracy theorists would have us believe; rather it fell with a twisting motion as evidenced by the northeast corner falling toward the northwest, the location of 30 West Broadway.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 10-03-2019 at 11:52 PM.
  #384  
Old 10-04-2019, 12:03 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
I was looking for a good image of the WTC 7 debris pile and found this great discussion of the Hulsey report at Metabunk.
  #385  
Old 10-04-2019, 08:05 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
I was looking for a good image of the WTC 7 debris pile and found this great discussion of the Hulsey report at Metabunk.
Man, great link! I had seen the NIST model before, but I hadn't bothered to really read the report the OP was talking about. That first video, especially, is one to watch to get some good basic understanding of what the report in question is trying to do wrt their deception. I urge LAZombie and anyone else who doesn't seem to get this stuff to watch that one. Especially, go to time mark 6:19 and watch the ACTUAL NIST model of the collapse, then go back and watch starting around 3:50 or so on how the report shows the NIST model. It's quite a contrast, and it's one of the key deceptions that you'd never even understand you were being deceived on if you didn't watch both. At 6:19, watch the actual model and then come back and talk about 'symmetrical collapse'. If, after watching it, you can STILL say this with a straight face, then all I can say is there is no point in further discussion, because either you are deliberately being deceptive as well or you are so hopelessly biased that even showing you something that directly contradicts your expectations can't shake you from that.

Anyway, thanks for linking to that, Skywatcher!
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #386  
Old 10-04-2019, 09:11 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,535
Look, guys, there's only one way to solve this "debate" once and for all : we need to crash another pair of airliners at high speed into some big tower (I'm partial to the Burj Khalifa - you know, for the irony of it). In order for the crash to be equivalent in terms of mass and chaos and things, the airliners must regrettably be filled with passengers - I'd suggest a full cast and crew of Truthers, who would benefit the most from seeing up close, irrefutable evidence with their own eyes.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-04-2019 at 09:11 AM.
  #387  
Old 10-04-2019, 10:22 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I urge LAZombie and anyone else who doesn't seem to get this stuff to watch that one.
If nothing else, read post #156, which contains an email to Hulsey from 20 February 2017. The author related that 7 was actually damaged worse than what the NIST accounted for; Hulsey, of course, ignored it.
Quote:
Anyway, thanks for linking to that, Skywatcher!
Sure! I'm glad I found it.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 10-04-2019 at 10:23 AM.
  #388  
Old 10-04-2019, 11:00 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Look, guys, there's only one way to solve this "debate" once and for all : we need to crash another pair of airliners at high speed into some big tower (I'm partial to the Burj Khalifa - you know, for the irony of it). In order for the crash to be equivalent in terms of mass and chaos and things, the airliners must regrettably be filled with passengers - I'd suggest a full cast and crew of Truthers, who would benefit the most from seeing up close, irrefutable evidence with their own eyes.
Are you mad?!?!? Have you done the calculations for that much ignorance and and deception (I'm thinking of the famous Bozo equation that relates ignorance and deception to energy...isn't it EsubB=(IsubB*DsubB)*Csquared?) on a air craft crashing into a building? At a minimum, the kinetic energy and hot air released would be devastating. At worst though we could form a singularity that might drop a significant sized black hole into the core of the planet, causing all sorts of havoc and mayhem! That much ignorance and deception should never be concentrated that way!

Think of the children...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 10-04-2019 at 11:05 AM.
  #389  
Old 10-04-2019, 12:26 PM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
I was looking for a good image of the WTC 7 debris pile and found this great discussion of the Hulsey report at Metabunk.
*cough* post 364 *cough*
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #390  
Old 10-04-2019, 12:43 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
*cough* post 364 *cough*
My apologies.

However, there have been more posts since Tuesday night. Notably that AE have claimed "technical issues" are preventing them from releasing the data Hulsey used.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 10-04-2019 at 12:48 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017