The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9561  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 11, 2019 6:17 am

18!

[676913]
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1400

Print view this post

Ads by Google


The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9562  Postby felltoearth » Sep 11, 2019 12:49 pm

n-n-n-nineteen!

"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11513
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9563  Postby newolder » Sep 11, 2019 1:13 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:18!

[676913]


Nope.

18! = 6.4023737x1015 -ish
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6316
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9564  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 11, 2019 8:19 pm

newolder wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:18!

[676913]


Nope.

18! = 6.4023737x1015 -ish


LOL

That was not for factorial. Merely an exclamation for the anniversary. The number in the brackets was the view count.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1400

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9565  Postby Hermit » Sep 12, 2019 12:48 am

Commemorating 9/11 Trump and Obama style.

Trump_and_Obama_commemorate_9-11.jpg
Trump_and_Obama_commemorate_9-11.jpg (86.09 KiB) Viewed 159 times
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2431
Age: 66
Male

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9566  Postby Tremilberg » Sep 12, 2019 7:05 pm

One might wonder why no one on a thread devoted to discussing 9/11 still hasn't mentioned the University of Fairbanks study of the collapse of WTC7. In short the study finds that the building did not, and could not have collapsed as a result of fire, even when they used faulty NIST data, and the only way to get the building to collapse the way it did, was if all supporting columns were taken out simultaneously. http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Don´t listen to the words I say, their meaning misconstrued, listen to unspoken words, the wind has blown away...
User avatar
Tremilberg
 
Posts: 27

Country: Norway
Norway (no)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9567  Postby felltoearth » Sep 12, 2019 8:38 pm

Tremilberg wrote:One might wonder why no one on a thread devoted to discussing 9/11 still hasn't mentioned the University of Fairbanks study of the collapse of WTC7. In short the study finds that the building did not, and could not have collapsed as a result of fire, even when they used faulty NIST data, and the only way to get the building to collapse the way it did, was if all supporting columns were taken out simultaneously. http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Do you have a copy of the report? I'm not giving those cranks my personal info.
Screenshot 2019-09-12 16.35.23.jpg
Screenshot 2019-09-12 16.35.23.jpg (551.52 KiB) Viewed 132 times
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11513
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9568  Postby chango369 » Sep 13, 2019 10:17 pm

“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”

Frank Zappa
User avatar
chango369
 
Name: Chris
Posts: 1506
Age: 59
Male

Country: думфукистан
Cuba (cu)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9569  Postby econ41 » Sep 14, 2019 6:09 am

Maybe I should drag myself out of retirement to post a summary critique of the Hulsey UAF Project for AE911Truth.

In brief it is a load of crap with results obviously fiddled to suit the needs of AE911.

It has serious errors of "big picture" of which these three are probably the worst examples:
1) Hulsey has throughout the process been making two claims - viz He would and now has proved (a) "Fire could not cause the collapse of WTC7" and (b) NIST was wrong. The first is a "global negative" claim which cannot be proved in the setting of this program - it requires every alternative collapse scenario to be falsified and he only tried a few. So all he can legitimately claim is "I, Hulsey, could not find a fire causes collapse scenario" And even that requires him to get the engineering correct - and he hasn't.

2) He has blatantly fudged parameters to make his simulation graphics more closely resemble the visual appearance of the real event. Recall that the NIST simulation is grossly exaggerated. Also remember that truthers seem to think that better visual representation means a more accurate model. Not so for a legitimate engineering model which for factors such as scaling will almost always NOT look like the real thing. Bottom line - he seems to be playing for the AE911 and truther audience. No way can a professor of engineering be ignorant of the characteristics of valid engineering models or simulations.

3) He has blatantly but without acknowledgement cut and past included the T Szamboti explanation of EPH collapse .. including the "dead give away" of at least one of Tony's high precision multi decimal place numbers. (Maybe we were not supposed to notice :naughty: ) I'm not sure if I have posted it here but through the last several years of the project I've been expressing my opinion that T Szamboti was probably the puppet master and Hulsey the puppet. I'm now near certain that is true... which explains a lot of the AE911 truther style comments Hulsey makes and some of which have got into the report.

And those are only three "big picture" concerns. I could post several more kilobytes of detailed stuff - not my own work - as per my SOP I'm waiting to a number of others to do the "leg work" on the details. Call it "laziness" or "delegation" :grin: :popcorn:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 78
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9570  Postby Tremilberg » Sep 14, 2019 12:04 pm

In brief it is a load of crap with results obviously fiddled to suit the needs of AE911.


In other words, you're saying that the study is a conspiracy?

I find it peculiar that a new study that contradicts the official NIST findings isn't considered to be newsworthy, even at the 18th anniversary of the event. If there are issues with the study, those issues should be discussed openly, as one should have discussed the methodology and findings in the NIST report. Instead it seems their findings are uncritically taken as gospel, and anyone doubting or criticizing the officially accepted theory are effectively being vilified, if not simply muted and ignored.

I still doubt that it's even theoretically possible to design a building in such a way that a self supporting construction goes from standing to global free fall due to random, local damage due to fire or any other cause. I suggest that unless all supporting columns are simultaneously «neutralized», the expected scenario would be a partial collapse with several columns resisting total failure, at least for more time than the «freefall» scenario suggests, and even just one column still standing would be enough to drastically alter the visual appearance of the outcome.

The NIST conclusions imply that local failures can trigger global instantaneous collapse of some steel frame buildings. If that is true, building codes would need to be altered. I don't think they have been, which I take as a hint of what they really think about this.
Don´t listen to the words I say, their meaning misconstrued, listen to unspoken words, the wind has blown away...
User avatar
Tremilberg
 
Posts: 27

Country: Norway
Norway (no)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9571  Postby felltoearth » Sep 14, 2019 12:35 pm

"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11513
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9572  Postby econ41 » Sep 15, 2019 5:57 am

Tremilberg wrote:
In brief it is a load of crap with results obviously fiddled to suit the needs of AE911.


In other words, you're saying that the study is a conspiracy?
I'm seeing if there is any interest in the topic given that serious and intensive discussion of 9/11 and WTC matters ceased on this forum some years back.

Tremilberg wrote:I find it peculiar that a new study that contradicts the official NIST findings isn't considered to be newsworthy, even at the 18th anniversary of the event.
Prior to the release I couldn't predict whether or not it would raise any interest. All the major shortcomings had been anticipated for years. The only surprise to me as a person with long involvement in explaining WTC collapses is that Hulsey made it so obvious that he has been scripted by Szamboti and that he was prepared to do such obvious fiddling with the simulations.

I still cannot predict whether NIST or Weidlinger, Arup, Nordenson et al - the real professionals that Hulsey denigrates - would bother to comment because to a professional the shortcomings are so obvious. So any heavy handed denunciation of the report causing media controversy would play into R Gage and AE911's strategy. They are not interested in serious comment or honesty - only the uncritical adulation of their supporters. Who would all believe what Gage tells them to believe.

Tremilberg wrote: If there are issues with the study, those issues should be discussed openly, as one should have discussed the methodology and findings in the NIST report. Instead it seems their findings are uncritically taken as gospel, and anyone doubting or criticizing the officially accepted theory are effectively being vilified, if not simply muted and ignored.
False analogy. The NIST report was of a formal authorised statutory investigation. i.e. the product of US Governance and rule of law. Why should a private report sponsored by a fringe group of supporters of a dying conspiracy theory raise any interest? Especially when all the real questions have already been subject of extended debate at high professional levels?

Tremilberg wrote:I still doubt that it's even theoretically possible to design a building in such a way that a self supporting construction goes from standing to global free fall due to random, local damage due to fire or any other cause.
Well it is your dishonest straw-man. No point me commenting on the real event in which there was no "global free fall". Nor the obsession that conspiracy theorists have with "free fall".

Tremilberg wrote:
The NIST conclusions imply that local failures can trigger global instantaneous collapse of some steel frame buildings. If that is true, building codes would need to be altered. I don't think they have been, which I take as a hint of what they really think about this.
More straw.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 78
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9573  Postby econ41 » Sep 21, 2019 4:05 am

Well I asked a question:
econ41 wrote:I'm seeing if there is any interest in the topic.

...looks like I got the answer. :popcorn: :cheers:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 78
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests