Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2019, 04:37:00 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

News: A NEW ERA IS HERE...

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: WTC Building 7 controlled demolition confirmed in new report  (Read 1025 times)
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« on: September 11, 2019, 11:08:58 AM »

This isn't some loony conspiracy theory, this is a study by multiple PHd qualified structural engineers at the University of Alaska funded by Architects and Engineers for truth who commissioned the study.

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

The TLDR:

It is our conclusion based upon these findings that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global
failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a
progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building


NIST claimed it was a progressive collapse caused by the weakening on a single key column. This means it almost certainly was a controlled demolition.

9/11 was an inside job.
Logged
Steve Göldby
Mountain King
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9 015



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2019, 12:07:36 PM »

The BBC reported it had collapsed before it actually had. Unbelievable that something bigger has never been made of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsjv9vKCGc
Logged
Ural Quntz
Phew thats better
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5 860

Pack o cunts


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2019, 12:18:34 PM »

Silly Billys

 :alf:
Logged

"football is an art form and I just want to sit next to the prettiest girl in the room" - Capio 2018
Teamboro
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 065



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2019, 12:21:02 PM »

The Yanks were told there was an attack going to happen by sources in Afgan and did fuck all to stop it :wanker: :wanker:just like the attack on Pearl Harbour the knew all about it
Logged
Jimmy Cooper
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22 782


The ace face.


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2019, 12:32:10 PM »

The BBC reported it had collapsed before it actually had. Unbelievable that something bigger has never been made of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsjv9vKCGc

interesting video, but all sides of the argument only ever present their version.


Logged

"you can take the mail and the franking machine and all that other rubbish I have to go about with and you can stuff them right up your arse!” "
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2019, 12:35:45 PM »

The BBC reported it had collapsed before it actually had. Unbelievable that something bigger has never been made of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsjv9vKCGc


That could be explained away if engineers had observed structural failing in the building prior to the collapse. Indeed before it came down firefighters and police removed people from around the building.

But the cause of the collapse as documented in the NIST report, small sporadic office fires which weakened a key supporting beam which then led to the systematic progressive failure of all the main supporting beams has been blown out of the water.

This study confirms all the beams collapsed simultaneously. That means there are only two remaining possibilities:

148 vertical steel beams structurally failed simultaneously or they were cut, likely with thermite.

Occam's razor - 9/11 was an inside job.
  

    
Logged
MF(c) DOOM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3 828



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2019, 01:00:41 PM »

For every structural engineer who suggests this theory you will find a 1000 specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who dismiss it and can explain how fire fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the structural steel buildings works.
Logged
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2019, 01:39:35 PM »

For every structural engineer who suggests this theory you will find a 1000 specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who dismiss it and can explain how fire fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the structural steel buildings works.

Yeah because someone's opinion is absolutely worth equal of that to a three year scientific study working with some of the most qualified scientists in the world in the field of material and structural engineering.

Quick, best jump on google and ask them for your next opinion.....






Logged
RIK MAYALL
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10 525


Once in every lifetime


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2019, 01:42:40 PM »

So the U.S deliberately KILLED nearly 3000 of their own people just to start a war with Bin Laden.


I suppose the bombs in London were a set up too.
Logged

Glory Glory Man United
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2019, 02:17:50 PM »

So the U.S deliberately KILLED nearly 3000 of their own people just to start a war with Bin Laden.


Who knows who was involved? They certainly didn't start a war with Bin Ladden, his family were given FBI protection and flown out of the country while every other none military plane was on enforced lock down.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

9/11 was used as a justification to invade 7 countries in 5 years.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

The age old question of why might have something to do with the missing $2.3 trillion the Pentagon couldn't account for...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ywpfOOn7k

I suppose the bombs in London were a set up too.

I don't believe that to be the case, do you have some evidence to suggest that? 
Logged
MF(c) DOOM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3 828



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2019, 09:24:21 PM »

For every structural engineer who suggests this theory you will find a 1000 specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who dismiss it and can explain how fire fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the structural steel buildings works.

Yeah because someone's opinion is absolutely worth equal of that to a three year scientific study working with some of the most qualified scientists in the world in the field of material and structural engineering.

Quick, best jump on google and ask them for your next opinion.....








Lol. So now you believe scientists but you dont when it comes to climate change.  You have referenced a draft document written by i don't t know who but the fact of the matter is the overwhelming weight of expert opinion dismiss your conspiracy theory as baloney. The collapse of WT7 has  been thoroughly explained and reasoned by the most credible expert opinion. You do what all conspiracy theorists do. Whether its climate change, 9/11 or moon landings. If there are 1000 expert studies that show one thng, but 1 that shows the other you back the one, even ifs largely discredited.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 11:54:28 PM by MF(c) DOOM » Logged
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2019, 09:54:37 PM »

For every structural engineer who suggests this theory you will find a 1000 specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who dismiss it and can explain how fire fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the structural steel buildings works.

Yeah because someone's opinion is absolutely worth equal of that to a three year scientific study working with some of the most qualified scientists in the world in the field of material and structural engineering.

Quick, best jump on google and ask them for your next opinion.....








Lol. So now you believe scientis but you when it comes to climate change.  You have referenced a draft document written by i do t know who but the fact of tbe matter is the overwhelming weight of expert opinion dismiss your conspiracy theory as baloney. The collapse of WT7 has  been thoroughly explained and reasoned by the most credible expert opinion. You do what all conspiracy theorists do. Whether its climate change, 9/11 or moon landings. If there is 1000 expert studies that show one thng, but 1 that shows the other you back the one, even ifs largely discredited.



Oh the fucking irony. You cited a climate change website who quoted a dozen scientists who refuted its claims.

£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.

You're a clown.
Logged
Ural Quntz
Phew thats better
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5 860

Pack o cunts


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2019, 11:42:16 PM »

For every structural engineer who suggests this theory you will find a 1000 specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who dismiss it and can explain how fire fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the structural steel buildings works.

Yeah because someone's opinion is absolutely worth equal of that to a three year scientific study working with some of the most qualified scientists in the world in the field of material and structural engineering.

Quick, best jump on google and ask them for your next opinion.....








Lol. So now you believe scientis but you when it comes to climate change.  You have referenced a draft document written by i do t know who but the fact of tbe matter is the overwhelming weight of expert opinion dismiss your conspiracy theory as baloney. The collapse of WT7 has  been thoroughly explained and reasoned by the most credible expert opinion. You do what all conspiracy theorists do. Whether its climate change, 9/11 or moon landings. If there is 1000 expert studies that show one thng, but 1 that shows the other you back the one, even ifs largely discredited.



Oh the fucking irony. You cited a climate change website who quoted a dozen scientists who refuted its claims.

£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.

You're a clown.

You are a very angry man...….. klins
Logged

"football is an art form and I just want to sit next to the prettiest girl in the room" - Capio 2018
Skinz
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 747


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2019, 12:30:13 AM »

Climate change is up there in the couldn't give a fuck part of my brain :lenin:
Logged
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2019, 08:50:52 AM »

For every structural engineer who suggests this theory you will find a 1000 specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who dismiss it and can explain how fire fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the structural steel buildings works.

Yeah because someone's opinion is absolutely worth equal of that to a three year scientific study working with some of the most qualified scientists in the world in the field of material and structural engineering.

Quick, best jump on google and ask them for your next opinion.....








Lol. So now you believe scientis but you when it comes to climate change.  You have referenced a draft document written by i do t know who but the fact of tbe matter is the overwhelming weight of expert opinion dismiss your conspiracy theory as baloney. The collapse of WT7 has  been thoroughly explained and reasoned by the most credible expert opinion. You do what all conspiracy theorists do. Whether its climate change, 9/11 or moon landings. If there is 1000 expert studies that show one thng, but 1 that shows the other you back the one, even ifs largely discredited.



Oh the fucking irony. You cited a climate change website who quoted a dozen scientists who refuted its claims.

£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.

You're a clown.

You are a very angry man...….. klins

I'm not even in the remotest bit angry.

Citing sources which are not credible and then accusing others of ignoring scientific data of those discredited sources is the height of intellectual ignorance.

It's the sort of bullshit Fox News and CNN are rightly pilloried for.
Logged
MF(c) DOOM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3 828



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2019, 01:15:44 PM »

For every structural engineer who suggests this theory you will find a 1000 specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who dismiss it and can explain how fire fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the structural steel buildings works.

Yeah because someone's opinion is absolutely worth equal of that to a three year scientific study working with some of the most qualified scientists in the world in the field of material and structural engineering.

Quick, best jump on google and ask them for your next opinion.....








Lol. So now you believe scientis but you when it comes to climate change.  You have referenced a draft document written by i do t know who but the fact of tbe matter is the overwhelming weight of expert opinion dismiss your conspiracy theory as baloney. The collapse of WT7 has  been thoroughly explained and reasoned by the most credible expert opinion. You do what all conspiracy theorists do. Whether its climate change, 9/11 or moon landings. If there is 1000 expert studies that show one thng, but 1 that shows the other you back the one, even ifs largely discredited.



Oh the fucking irony. You cited a climate change website who quoted a dozen scientists who refuted its claims.

£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.

You're a clown.

What you did on the climate change thread was link to a non peer reviewed report that was paid for and commissioned by climate change deniers. I then sent you a number of links that showed how the science community completely debunked your report showing how it was based on completely false premise and bad science assumptions. I asked you a couple of times what you thought of the debunk and the errors in the report but you wouldn't or couldn't respond. You did what all contrarian conspiracy theories did and reference minority bogus science and gave it higher value than the much more weight evidence of credible science.

You will be doing the same with this one, which by your own admission is a study commissioned,  paid for and published by a group who believe WT7 was brought down by controlled demolition (hardly likely to be impartial is it?). Its an age old conspiracy theory and I'm sure its pages full of theories on bending moments, progressive collapse and how steel performs under intense heat. Theories that have been conclusively dismissed by the NIST, Institue of Structural Engineers, American Society of civil Engineers and countless other specialist structural engineers. I'm sure this report just published will be similarly shot down
Logged
El Capitan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 38 870


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2019, 01:29:04 PM »


£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.



You fucking love this “loadsa dosh to a charity” line, you mental cunt  :alf:
Logged

Rob Nichols ruined my life.
MF(c) DOOM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3 828



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2019, 02:01:01 PM »


£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.



You fucking love this “loadsa dosh to a charity” line, you mental cunt  :alf:

Its a draft report just published in the last few days but some people have already had a quick look and pointed out the following. So with such glaring "mistakes" i'm sure it will be fully rebutted soon enough and Bob can take off his tin foil hat and make the charity payment. He wont though, as no matter how much evidence there is conspiracy theorists won't change. So, first reaction to the report...

T
  • here 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 . 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.
Logged
Steve Göldby
Mountain King
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9 015



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2019, 02:35:28 PM »

I reckon if you believe the official report into what happened, you are a mug with your head buried firmly in the sand.

The truth is in here...

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosions

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/

Logged
T_Bone
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 566


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2019, 02:52:24 PM »

I think the reason the bbc reporter said the tower had fell down is cos it had been evacuated and they knew it was gonna come down.

The reporter should of said it's about to fall cos of the damage and made a mistake.
Logged

You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. For me it's a full time job.
Steve Göldby
Mountain King
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9 015



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2019, 04:16:15 PM »

I think the reason the bbc reporter said the tower had fell down is cos it had been evacuated and they knew it was gonna come down.

The reporter should of said it's about to fall cos of the damage and made a mistake.

I think what happened was the time the powers that be were going to blow the building up was miscommunicated.

Have a read of this, including the reader comments, and let me know what you think.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

 
Logged
Jimmy Cooper
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22 782


The ace face.


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2019, 04:21:01 PM »

I think the reason the bbc reporter said the tower had fell down is cos it had been evacuated and they knew it was gonna come down.

The reporter should of said it's about to fall cos of the damage and made a mistake.

I think what happened was the time the powers that be were going to blow the building up was miscommunicated.

Have a read of this, including the reader comments, and let me know what you think.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

 
what's your take on how and why it happened.?
Logged

"you can take the mail and the franking machine and all that other rubbish I have to go about with and you can stuff them right up your arse!” "
Johnny Thunder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9 695


Shit Stirring Cunt.


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2019, 04:21:43 PM »

Some fuckin whacky backy kicking about on this thread like.



Ye fuckin space bastards.





 
Logged

Crocky lad is innocent. Free the COB One you admin cunts.
Steve Göldby
Mountain King
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9 015



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2019, 05:09:33 PM »

what's your take on how and why it happened.?

There's no doubt whatsoever it was a controlled demolition. i.e. it was blown up on purpose. The evidence for that is just overwhelming and indisputable.

The official report says it was hit by flying blocks of debris from one of the twin towers. As well as that theory being complete and utter bollocks, there's no evidence at all to support it.

Nothing the American authorities say about this adds up at all and everything points to an inside job. 
Logged
Ural Quntz
Phew thats better
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5 860

Pack o cunts


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2019, 05:37:58 PM »

what's your take on how and why it happened.?

There's no doubt whatsoever it was a controlled demolition. i.e. it was blown up on purpose. The evidence for that is just overwhelming and indisputable.

The official report says it was hit by flying blocks of debris from one of the twin towers. As well as that theory being complete and utter bollocks, there's no evidence at all to support it.

Nothing the American authorities say about this adds up at all and everything points to an inside job. 

Or in other words - because I want to believe it and so I've made stuff up.

Could have been the aliens amongst us of course?

 :alf: :alf:
Logged

"football is an art form and I just want to sit next to the prettiest girl in the room" - Capio 2018
Steve Göldby
Mountain King
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9 015



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2019, 06:10:34 PM »

what's your take on how and why it happened.?

There's no doubt whatsoever it was a controlled demolition. i.e. it was blown up on purpose. The evidence for that is just overwhelming and indisputable.

The official report says it was hit by flying blocks of debris from one of the twin towers. As well as that theory being complete and utter bollocks, there's no evidence at all to support it.

Nothing the American authorities say about this adds up at all and everything points to an inside job. 

Or in other words - because I want to believe it and so I've made stuff up.

Could have been the aliens amongst us of course?

 :alf: :alf:

Read the evidence and stop being a mug. It's not difficult not to be stupid.  :like:
Logged
T_Bone
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 566


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2019, 06:50:07 PM »

I think the reason the bbc reporter said the tower had fell down is cos it had been evacuated and they knew it was gonna come down.

The reporter should of said it's about to fall cos of the damage and made a mistake.

I think what happened was the time the powers that be were going to blow the building up was miscommunicated.

Have a read of this, including the reader comments, and let me know what you think.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

 

If they weren't told in advance that buildings were going to fall down then yeah it looks dodgy.

What I find weird though is he can see the building is still standing when he talks to the woman but still keeps talking about it collapsing.

Logged

You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. For me it's a full time job.
CLEM FANDANGO
*****
Online Online

Posts: 11 954



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2019, 07:28:04 PM »

Why did they bring it down?

The twin towers were already decimated - why bother?

 :pd:
Logged

Official COB Prediction League Winner 2017/18
Official COB Prediction League Winner 2018/19
Official CLEM vs THUNDER Winner 2016/17/18/19
Ural Quntz
Phew thats better
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5 860

Pack o cunts


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2019, 07:32:20 PM »

what's your take on how and why it happened.?

There's no doubt whatsoever it was a controlled demolition. i.e. it was blown up on purpose. The evidence for that is just overwhelming and indisputable.

The official report says it was hit by flying blocks of debris from one of the twin towers. As well as that theory being complete and utter bollocks, there's no evidence at all to support it.

Nothing the American authorities say about this adds up at all and everything points to an inside job. 

Or in other words - because I want to believe it and so I've made stuff up.

Could have been the aliens amongst us of course?

 :alf: :alf:

Read the evidence and stop being a mug. It's not difficult not to be stupid.  :like:

You seem to struggle...…

 :alf:
Logged

"football is an art form and I just want to sit next to the prettiest girl in the room" - Capio 2018
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2019, 07:57:10 PM »


£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.



You fucking love this “loadsa dosh to a charity” line, you mental cunt  :alf:

Its a draft report just published in the last few days but some people have already had a quick look and pointed out the following. So with such glaring "mistakes" i'm sure it will be fully rebutted soon enough and Bob can take off his tin foil hat and make the charity payment. He wont though, as no matter how much evidence there is conspiracy theorists won't change. So, first reaction to the report...

T
  • here 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 . 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.

This is literally hilarious. Does Mick West "scientist" post count as real science to you?

I say "scientist" because Mick West has no formal qualifications in structural engineering or material engineering. He's never published a paper on building design, architecture or structural engineering.
I don't believe he holds a masters degree or a doctorate and his Bachelor's degree was in Software Development.

He did co-write a paper once on why the contrails conspiracy was most likely rubbish and he does sell books to the skeptic community, so i guess that puts him on a par with a man who is:


Professor Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P. E., S.E., Civil Engineering

Education

1976 Ph.D. Structural Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla
1968-1971 Post Graduate, University of Illinois
1966 M. S. Civil Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla
1965 B. S. Civil Engineering, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy
Awards

UAF, Chi-Epsilon Award for Excellence in Teaching, Rocky Mountain District, 1999-2000
UMR, Outstanding Teaching Awards, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75
NCSU, Outstanding Teaching Award, 1979



Whose published papers include:

Wearing Surfaces for Orthotropic Steel Bridge Decks, 1999, Hulsey, J. L., Yang, L., and Raad, L., Transportation Research Record, Paper 991049, National Research Council.
Household Solid Waste and Disposal Site Selection, 1997, Koushki, P., Hulsey, J. L., and Bashaw, B. K., Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 123, No. 1, March, pp. 1-9.
Analysis of State Department Safety Expenditures and Highway Safety, 1995, Koushki, P. A., Yesean, S., & Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Research Record, Paper 1485, National Research Council, pp. 148-154.
Influence of Base Saturation on the Response of Rigid Pavements, 1995, Raad, L., Minassion, G. H., and Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Engineering Journal, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 121, No. 6, Nov/Dec, pp. 495-506.
On the Response Consistency of Questionnaire Surveys of State DOT Management, 1993, Hulsey, J. l., Koushki, P. a., Vaughn, C., Paper 930111, Transportation Record 1395, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 163-167.
A Rational Weather Model for Highway Structures, Hulsey, J. l., and Powell, D. T., 1993, Paper 931097, Transportation Research Record 1393, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 54-64.
Static Live Load Tests on a Cable Stayed Bridge, 1993, Hulsey, J. l., Delaney, D. K., Paper 930507, Transportation Research Record 1393, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 162-174.
Cold Region Logistics Planning and Management, Hulsey, J. l., Koushki, P. a., 1993, Bennett, F. L., and Kelly, J., Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 7, No. 1, Paper No. 3405, Mar. pp. 1-11.
Meridional Rib Stiffened Shells, Roy, D. k., Hulsey,J. l., and Zia, P., Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. EM1, proceedings paper 16037, Feb.. 1981, pp. 77-95.
Temperature Distributions in Composite Bridges," Emanuel, J. H. and Hulsey, J. l., 1980, Closure to the paper by Emanuel and Hulsey, Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 106, No. ST5, Proceedings paper 15380, May, pp 1219-1220.
Estimation of Air Temperature Extremes," Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., 1979, ASHRAE Transactions, 1978, Vol. 84, Pt. 2, Paper 2509.
Environmental Stresses in Flexibly Supported Bridges,", 1978, Hulsey, J. l. and Emanuel, J. h., Transportation Research Record 664, Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1, pp. 262-270.
Temperature Distributions in Composite Bridges", 1978, Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST1, Proceedings paper 13474, Jan., pp. 65-78.
Thermal Stresses and Deformations in Nonprismatic Indeterminate Composite Bridges," 1976, Emanuel, J. h., and Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Research Record 607, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.
Prediction of the Thermal Coefficient of Expansion of Concrete, 1977, Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol. 74, No. 4, Apr., pp. 149-155.


And who literally wrote the book on this very subject:

Professional Engineering Review Course, Civil Structural Analysis Hulsey E. Farzam, North Carolina State University, Carolina, 1983, 1986.


Should I spend 5 minutes finding the qualification of Dr Hulsey's project team?

Feng Xiao, Associate Professor, Nanjing University of Science and Technology
Zhili Quan, Bridge Engineer, South Carolina Department of Transportation

Because I suspect both of them are far more qualified than Mick too.

Can you just imagine how hard you would laugh, if in the face of the UN IPCC report, i cited an internet post by Steve from Manchester who's dabbled a bit in that weathery stuff?

Fucking hilarious.

Logged
MF(c) DOOM
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3 828



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2019, 09:09:58 PM »


£200 to a charity of your choice of you can find me a scientific rebuttal of this paper.



You fucking love this “loadsa dosh to a charity” line, you mental cunt  :alf:

Its a draft report just published in the last few days but some people have already had a quick look and pointed out the following. So with such glaring "mistakes" i'm sure it will be fully rebutted soon enough and Bob can take off his tin foil hat and make the charity payment. He wont though, as no matter how much evidence there is conspiracy theorists won't change. So, first reaction to the report...

T
  • here 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 . 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.

This is literally hilarious. Does Mick West "scientist" post count as real science to you?

I say "scientist" because Mick West has no formal qualifications in structural engineering or material engineering. He's never published a paper on building design, architecture or structural engineering.
I don't believe he holds a masters degree or a doctorate and his Bachelor's degree was in Software Development.

He did co-write a paper once on why the contrails conspiracy was most likely rubbish and he does sell books to the skeptic community, so i guess that puts him on a par with a man who is:


Professor Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P. E., S.E., Civil Engineering

Education

1976 Ph.D. Structural Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla
1968-1971 Post Graduate, University of Illinois
1966 M. S. Civil Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla
1965 B. S. Civil Engineering, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy
Awards

UAF, Chi-Epsilon Award for Excellence in Teaching, Rocky Mountain District, 1999-2000
UMR, Outstanding Teaching Awards, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75
NCSU, Outstanding Teaching Award, 1979



Whose published papers include:

Wearing Surfaces for Orthotropic Steel Bridge Decks, 1999, Hulsey, J. L., Yang, L., and Raad, L., Transportation Research Record, Paper 991049, National Research Council.
Household Solid Waste and Disposal Site Selection, 1997, Koushki, P., Hulsey, J. L., and Bashaw, B. K., Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 123, No. 1, March, pp. 1-9.
Analysis of State Department Safety Expenditures and Highway Safety, 1995, Koushki, P. A., Yesean, S., & Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Research Record, Paper 1485, National Research Council, pp. 148-154.
Influence of Base Saturation on the Response of Rigid Pavements, 1995, Raad, L., Minassion, G. H., and Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Engineering Journal, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 121, No. 6, Nov/Dec, pp. 495-506.
On the Response Consistency of Questionnaire Surveys of State DOT Management, 1993, Hulsey, J. l., Koushki, P. a., Vaughn, C., Paper 930111, Transportation Record 1395, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 163-167.
A Rational Weather Model for Highway Structures, Hulsey, J. l., and Powell, D. T., 1993, Paper 931097, Transportation Research Record 1393, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 54-64.
Static Live Load Tests on a Cable Stayed Bridge, 1993, Hulsey, J. l., Delaney, D. K., Paper 930507, Transportation Research Record 1393, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 162-174.
Cold Region Logistics Planning and Management, Hulsey, J. l., Koushki, P. a., 1993, Bennett, F. L., and Kelly, J., Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 7, No. 1, Paper No. 3405, Mar. pp. 1-11.
Meridional Rib Stiffened Shells, Roy, D. k., Hulsey,J. l., and Zia, P., Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. EM1, proceedings paper 16037, Feb.. 1981, pp. 77-95.
Temperature Distributions in Composite Bridges," Emanuel, J. H. and Hulsey, J. l., 1980, Closure to the paper by Emanuel and Hulsey, Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 106, No. ST5, Proceedings paper 15380, May, pp 1219-1220.
Estimation of Air Temperature Extremes," Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., 1979, ASHRAE Transactions, 1978, Vol. 84, Pt. 2, Paper 2509.
Environmental Stresses in Flexibly Supported Bridges,", 1978, Hulsey, J. l. and Emanuel, J. h., Transportation Research Record 664, Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1, pp. 262-270.
Temperature Distributions in Composite Bridges", 1978, Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST1, Proceedings paper 13474, Jan., pp. 65-78.
Thermal Stresses and Deformations in Nonprismatic Indeterminate Composite Bridges," 1976, Emanuel, J. h., and Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Research Record 607, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.
Prediction of the Thermal Coefficient of Expansion of Concrete, 1977, Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol. 74, No. 4, Apr., pp. 149-155.


And who literally wrote the book on this very subject:

Professional Engineering Review Course, Civil Structural Analysis Hulsey E. Farzam, North Carolina State University, Carolina, 1983, 1986.


Should I spend 5 minutes finding the qualification of Dr Hulsey's project team?

Feng Xiao, Associate Professor, Nanjing University of Science and Technology
Zhili Quan, Bridge Engineer, South Carolina Department of Transportation

Because I suspect both of them are far more qualified than Mick too.

Can you just imagine how hard you would laugh, if in the face of the UN IPCC report, i cited an internet post by Steve from Manchester who's dabbled a bit in that weathery stuff?

Fucking hilarious.



Fuck me you are obtuse.  I never said your man isn't a structural engineer, although why he has uses false references to temperatures and misrepresents other reports i don't know. So he is one of a small group of structural engineers who believes the building could not have been brought down by fire.. there are a few of them, but the majority of their equally qualified counterparts and their professional institutes and trade publicatuons disagree with them.

So the majority of the experts say their is nothing unusual about that tower collapse, a few believe there is  you believe the few because is suits your political conspiracy theories. Your report will get countered in no time at all, it already has  been really
Logged
Jethro Tull
We need to win football matches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9 558



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2019, 09:48:06 PM »

I always thought lunatic muslim bastards flying planes into the towers brought them down.
Logged

All about fine margins.We are what we are.It is what it is.
RedcarJJ
Chubby Chaser
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 518



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2019, 05:35:11 AM »

Doom you are stupid and a perfect specimen to be told tosh and believe it.

No other steel and concrete high rise structure has collapsed because of an office fire before or after 9/11. WTC 07 is unique. If there was a chance it did collapse from fire the Architect, Structural Engineer and Fire Engineer that designed WTC 07 would be in jail now and every high rise in the world shut down
Logged

Chunts
nekder365
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2019, 08:44:50 AM »

Its probaly been mentioned somewhere here but wtc7 was "built on" different supports to the twin towers and it was the weaking of them from debris that caused it to collaspe.

But,sitting on the fence,the leaseholders comments before the collaspe of "just pull it" adds intrigue to the comments of the 9/11 truth movement beliefs....
Logged
Robbso
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13 185


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2019, 08:52:17 AM »

I’ve been to the memorial site, surreal and very moving. I don’t care what conspiracists ramble on about.
Logged
Ural Quntz
Phew thats better
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5 860

Pack o cunts


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2019, 09:06:27 AM »

Seems pretty conclusive to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzInIjD6nKw

Then if you drop all that shit on something its going to suffer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

 :like:
« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 09:11:05 AM by Ural Quntz » Logged

"football is an art form and I just want to sit next to the prettiest girl in the room" - Capio 2018
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2019, 09:10:47 AM »

Its probaly been mentioned somewhere here but wtc7 was "built on" different supports to the twin towers and it was the weaking of them from debris that caused it to collaspe.

I'm sorry but that's just bullshit. That's not documented in the NIST report at all, nor has it been cited by any official sources.

The NIST report says that internal office fires weakened a single supporting beam which caused a systematic progressive failure of all the other supporting beams.

I mean you only need to look at the video to see that rationale is bullshit.
 
Logged
nekder365
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2019, 09:19:47 AM »

Its probaly been mentioned somewhere here but wtc7 was "built on" different supports to the twin towers and it was the weaking of them from debris that caused it to collaspe.

I'm sorry but that's just bullshit. That's not documented in the NIST report at all, nor has it been cited by any official sources.

The NIST report says that internal office fires weakened a single supporting beam which caused a systematic progressive failure of all the other supporting beams.

?

I mean you only need to look at the video to see that rationale is bullshit.
 
I will admit im 70/30 against a conspiracy but a doc on history channel featured a great deal of time on wtc7
collaspe which listed stuff such as vacated building,the offices of C.I.A etc.
But i do wonder if stuff like that just fits the conspiracy agenda?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 09:22:59 AM by nekder365 » Logged
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2019, 09:24:42 AM »

Fuck me you are obtuse.  I never said your man isn't a structural engineer, although why he has uses false references to temperatures and misrepresents other reports i don't know.

I challenged you to find a scientific rebuttal of the report, you posted a response from a skeptic who has no formal training or education in the subject matter.

At least when I challenge your climate narrative I have the decency to quote actual scientists qualified in the field they are talking about.  


So he is one of a small group of structural engineers who believes the building could not have been brought down by fire.. there are a few of them, but the majority of their equally qualified counterparts and their professional institutes and trade publicatuons disagree with them.


You are deliberately conflating science and opinion. This paper is science, what Mick West writes is opinion.

For the record there are over 3000 architects and engineers involved in the Architects and Engineers for truth organisation. They funded this independent scientific research.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Incidentally it was one of these guys who caused NIST to retract their original report on the collapse of WTC7.

So the majority of the experts say their is nothing unusual about that tower collapse, a few believe there is  you believe the few because is suits your political conspiracy theories. Your report will get countered in no time at all, it already has  been really

The majority? Did you take a straw poll?  souey

How many independent scientific studies have been carried out? To my knowledge there are only 3.

The first NIST report which was so comically bad they had to retract it.  
The second NIST report in which NIST refused to share the computer models they used to prove the single beam theory and finally this one carried out by the University of Alaska.

The University of Alaska study is the only scientific study which has published its numbers and asked for peer review.

Why do NIST refuse to publish their computer models? What kind of scientists don't show their working out?
Logged
nekder365
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2019, 09:37:00 AM »

This site has a lot of nist reports.....https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

Heavy reading......Why cant someone put it in laymans terms?
Logged
RedcarJJ
Chubby Chaser
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 518



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 13, 2019, 10:33:10 AM »

In layman's terms look at the Grenfell tower. The entire building was on fire and its aluminium cladding fueling the fire. Did it collapse.

Then you believe a few desks and paper manage to melt a nearby structural steel column and cause an almost perfect symmetrical collapse of the entire building.

Its laughable
Logged

Chunts
nekder365
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 13, 2019, 10:41:28 AM »

In layman's terms look at the Grenfell tower. The entire building was on fire and its aluminium cladding fueling the fire. Did it collapse.

Then you believe a few desks and paper manage to melt a nearby structural steel column and cause an almost perfect symmetrical collapse of the entire building.

Its laughable
I dont believe a few desks etc caused it but i have no structual engineering knowledge so any simpler explanations are helpful to dumbos like me to form an opinion so thanks JJ and will read up on Grenfell to understand it better :)
Logged
Ural Quntz
Phew thats better
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5 860

Pack o cunts


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2019, 01:35:21 PM »

In layman's terms look at the Grenfell tower. The entire building was on fire and its aluminium cladding fueling the fire. Did it collapse.

Then you believe a few desks and paper manage to melt a nearby structural steel column and cause an almost perfect symmetrical collapse of the entire building.

Its laughable

The Grenfell tower fire did not involve thousands of gallons of aviation fuel nor ( in the case of WT7) did it have thousands of tons of rubble dropped on it.


Logged

"football is an art form and I just want to sit next to the prettiest girl in the room" - Capio 2018
Bobupanddown
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2019, 01:51:09 PM »

The Grenfell tower fire did not involve thousands of gallons of aviation fuel nor ( in the case of WT7) did it have thousands of tons of rubble dropped on it.


Total nonsense, there was no aviation fuel in WTC7 as it wasn't hit by a plane.
The building collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint, it didn't fail where it was damaged and tipple over.
Not even the NIST report attributes its collapse to falling rubble or debris from the other WTC buildings although that is the cause of the fires.

We've been building steel frame buildings since 1890, there has only ever been three to entirely collapse due to fire WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

WTC7 is the only one that wasn't hit with a plane first.
Logged
RedcarJJ
Chubby Chaser
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 518



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 14, 2019, 03:53:35 AM »

In layman's terms look at the Grenfell tower. The entire building was on fire and its aluminium cladding fueling the fire. Did it collapse.

Then you believe a few desks and paper manage to melt a nearby structural steel column and cause an almost perfect symmetrical collapse of the entire building.

Its laughable

The Grenfell tower fire did not involve thousands of gallons of aviation fuel nor ( in the case of WT7) did it have thousands of tons of rubble dropped on it.




Another tool!

There was no significant rubble dropped on it and there were closer buildings to the twin towers. Another sore point because the material from the twin towers was all pulverised ash NOT RUBBLE as would be expected

People like you are a gift for MSM. Dumb as fk and do no research.
Logged

Chunts
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!