WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

mike2810 said:

Since you brought it up to check. McAllister worked for NIST. Do you have a problem with that?
If so, answer this, why don't you have a problem with the Dr. Husley WTC7 study? You might want to google and find out who financed the study.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

How's your very technical friend Mr West, who's expertise you directed people toward for guidance on this specific topic, doing ?

You should maybe go and check he's feeling okay just now. I think he could do with a bit cheering up maybe. Ask him how his public attack on the study is going for him. :lamo

gerrycan said:

How's your very technical friend Mr West, who's expertise you directed people toward for guidance on this specific topic, doing ?

You should maybe go and check he's feeling okay just now. I think he could do with a bit cheering up maybe. Ask him how his public attack on the study is going for him. :lamo

Click to expand...

Same old gerrycan.
Why don't you answer the question asked? Why don't you have an issue with WTC7 study done by Husley when it was paid for by AE911T. Yet you question a paper who one of the authors worked for NIST?

Your hypocrisy is noted. You just proved you don't accept any source that does not fit your opinion.

Gdjjr said:

CIA Coined and Weaponized The Label “Conspiracy Theory”

CIA Coined and Weaponized The Label "Conspiracy Theory" | coreysdigs.com

Click to expand...

I always preferred the term 'irrational stories' myself, in reference to silly tales such as CD on 9/11, Sandy Hook Hoax, etc. You get the idea.

From metabunk. Interesting comparison of NIST and Husley dynamic models.
For those who think West is wrong. Please explain why. Provide sources to back up your opinion, if you have any.

mike2810 said:

From metabunk. Interesting comparison of NIST and Husley dynamic models.
For those who think West is wrong. Please explain why. Provide sources to back up your opinion, if you have any.

Click to expand...

Here's a tweet or two from Mick West, owner of metabunk, and Mike's favourite tech guy......

He is discussing just how outraged he is that these know nothing professors and PHDs have had the audacity to use a "static linear analysis". Mick states how ridiculous this is and dismisses the analysis on the basis of his judgement.



Here's an extract from a published paper in this journal here. It's one of the top journals on the planet, and the paper is written by 3 of the world's best FEA experts
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41130(369)323

Inside the paper talks about how to model column removal, like the analysis that Mick says was terrible for using a static linear analysis. They are even using the exact same program as one that Mick is talking about through this study, SAP2000.

Here's what it says re column removal and analysis.

"1. Linear static analysis
In linear static analysis column is removed from the location being considered and analysis is carried out for following vertical load which shall be applied downward on the structure. "

it goes on..........

"Steps to perform linear static analysis: Linear static analysis procedure involves the following steps
Step-1: Build a computer model;
Step-2: Remove the column from the model.
Step-4: Apply static load combinations as per GSA guidelines
Step-5: Perform static linear analysis, a standard analysis procedure in SAP2000 Step-6: Find DCR for beams and Columns. "

So this is the opposite to what Mick West has pinned 100% of his attack up until now on. He has exposed himself as a charlatan, by publicly insisting that a universally accepted analysis technique is outragous, and getting it 100% wrong.

I almost felt sorry doing that to him. Not quite though Mike.

Mick West actually said (and doubled down on) that the test described in the program's own manual as "a standard analysis procedure in SAP2000" for column analysis, is "ridiculous".

So who is right. Every paper ever published on the topic, and every expert and every program......... Or Mick West.

Someone try to find me even one person (not even an engineer) who agrees with Mick Wst on this.

gerrycan said:

Here's a tweet or two from Mick West, owner of metabunk, and Mike's favourite tech guy......

He is discussing just how outraged he is that these know nothing professors and PHDs have had the audacity to use a "static linear analysis". Mick states how ridiculous this is and dismisses the analysis on the basis of his judgement.

View attachment 67263338

Here's an extract from a published paper in this journal here. It's one of the top journals on the planet, and the paper is written by 3 of the world's best FEA experts
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41130(369)323

Inside the paper talks about how to model column removal, like the analysis that Mick says was terrible for using a static linear analysis. They are even using the exact same program as one that Mick is talking about through this study, SAP2000.

Here's what it says re column removal and analysis.

"1. Linear static analysis
In linear static analysis column is removed from the location being considered and analysis is carried out for following vertical load which shall be applied downward on the structure. "

it goes on..........

"Steps to perform linear static analysis: Linear static analysis procedure involves the following steps
Step-1: Build a computer model;
Step-2: Remove the column from the model.
Step-4: Apply static load combinations as per GSA guidelines
Step-5: Perform static linear analysis, a standard analysis procedure in SAP2000 Step-6: Find DCR for beams and Columns. "

So this is the opposite to what Mick West has pinned 100% of his attack up until now on. He has exposed himself as a charlatan, by publicly insisting that a universally accepted analysis technique is outragous, and getting it 100% wrong.

I almost felt sorry doing that to him. Not quite though Mike.

Mick West actually said (and doubled down on) that the test described in the program's own manual as "a standard analysis procedure in SAP2000" for column analysis, is "ridiculous".

So who is right. Every paper ever published on the topic, and every expert and every program......... Or Mick West.

Someone try to find me even one person (not even an engineer) who agrees with Mick Wst on this.

Click to expand...

Great. a link where one has to pay for a download and only a partial summary is available. Very informative, not.:lamo

So gerrycan. you really believe Husley report is better than NIST.
Why did Husley not simulate the fire behavior but held it constant.
Why did Husley only simulate fire on two floors.?

imo, the paper by Husley is an attempt to say NIST was wrong. If correct, does that prove controlled demolition. If so, why didn't the paper state such. Why so vague.
Explain it to us poor layman.

Tony Sz would be proud of you sticking up for him. Are you on his payroll? :lamo
Seems yours still mad at Mick for getting yourself banned.

mike2810 said:

Great. a link where one has to pay for a download and only a partial summary is available. Very informative, not.:lamo

So gerrycan. you really believe Husley report is better than NIST.
Why did Husley not simulate the fire behavior but held it constant.
Why did Husley only simulate fire on two floors.?

imo, the paper by Husley is an attempt to say NIST was wrong. If correct, does that prove controlled demolition. If so, why didn't the paper state such. Why so vague.
Explain it to us poor layman.

Tony Sz would be proud of you sticking up for him. Are you on his payroll? :lamo
Seems yours still mad at Mick for getting yourself banned.

Click to expand...

Alaska recreates the collapse a lot closer than NIST. No inputs from NIST, all inputs coming from Alaska. You trust the science that you can quantify and test. Recreate. If you can't do that with it, it's not science. NIST is not science. No data.

your friend Mick has really shown himself up stating that something so obviously wrong was so outragously bad. The program tells you if an analysis is way out, it's how it works, and Mick knocked himself out within the first 10 seconds of the first round of this whole debate.

What an absolute clown. Still will not accept that he's wrong although EVERY single opinion on the planet screams disagreement with him in plain black and white and not one agrees with him.
Clown.

mike2810 said:

imo, the paper by Husley is an attempt to say NIST was wrong. If correct, does that prove controlled demolition. If so, why didn't the paper state such. Why so vague.
Explain it to us poor layman.

Click to expand...

Mike - as all this foggy talk round in circles "debate" progresses just keep a few key points in mind:
1) Stated simply Hulsey set two objectives which are:
(a) Prove that fire could not cause the WTC7 collapse; AND
(b) Prove that NIST was wrong.

"(a)" asserts a global negative which CANNOT be proved in the setting of the UAF WTC7 project. Hulsey is WRONG. I am aware that you have already identified the fatal error. You one one of a small handful and the fatal error is being ignored in most discussion - it is an endemic problem with engineers. (For reasons we could discuss but let's not derail .... yet!!!)
"(b)" is a mainline AE911 and Szamboti objective. It is strictly irrelevant to understanding the true event which happend on 9/11 BUT see my comment under heading "3)" later. And we are seeing the usual mental gymnastics in debate in other places.

2) For whatever reasons of mental gymnastics Hulsey avoids the terms "CD", "explosive" et simile but uses "roundabout" language which means the same thing;
AND
3) It does NOT prove controlled demolition. However be aware that Hulsey is obviously writing to suit the needs of AE911 and T Szamboti. And Szamboti's strategy for recent years has been "false dichotomy" in the form of "I've proved "X" wrong - that means I am right" Utter bovine faeces. BUT AE911 will find ready acceptance among so called "truthers" of the false dichotomy "NIST is wrong - that proves we are right" Faeces of the male bovine as I said before.
AND
4) Gerrycan's "party line" comment about "Alaska recreates the collapse a lot closer than NIST." That is a topic in its own right BUT the "truther party line" conflates two very different clases of models or simulations. Viz (a() Visual representations; and rigorous quantifiable scientific modelling. Rigorous engineering models rarely if ever "LOOK LIKE" the real event. Rigorous quantifiable models have to deal with many factors including scale management. The NIST models obviously grossly distort deformations. Of course they do. It is the nature of such models. But truthers want something that "looks like" the real thing. And Hulsey has made sure that his models meet that criterion. Manipulation to suit the target audience??? Can't prove it...yet. But keep it in mind as "debate" progresses.

mike2810 said:

Tony Sz would be proud of you sticking up for him. Are you on his payroll? :lamo

Click to expand...

It is becoming increasingly clear that T Szamboti has been playing puppet master with Hulsey playing puppet. Debunkers tend to underrate Tony's successes - which successes are probably due to his persistence rather than deliberate manipulation. But recall that most debunkers still accept the second of Tony's false premises underpinning "Missing Jolt" (i.e. the nonsense of "drop to impact") And his influence in this UAF/Hulsey project has clearly created a false direction that many debunkers are already following. Matters not whether it was deliberate deviousness or simply sticking stubbornly to his false claims. Debunkers have fallen and continue to fall for Szamboti traps.

mike2810 said:

Seems yours still mad at Mick for getting yourself banned.

Click to expand...

The Moderation at Metabunk is..... "quixotic"

Mike
YouTube

Is there no dynamic analysis of the simulation by Husley ?

mike2810 said:

Is there no dynamic analysis of the simulation by Husley ?

Click to expand...

Mike, it's in the report. Mick just made at least 7 howlers of errors that a 12 year old kid could have picked up on. Of course there's a dynamic analysis, just not the one mick is looking at.
Dynamic Vs linear just means a curved graph Vs a straight line for material properties.

And that video up there, that's pixels mike - that's not what a FEA prog puts out.

NIST have pixels - Alaska has data. Which one can you check ?

OH MY GOD!!!


Enough with the ****ing WTC Conspiracy Theories!!!

gerrycan said:

Mike, it's in the report. Mick just made at least 7 howlers of errors that a 12 year old kid could have picked up on. Of course there's a dynamic analysis, just not the one mick is looking at.
Dynamic Vs linear just means a curved graph Vs a straight line for material properties.

And that video up there, that's pixels mike - that's not what a FEA prog puts out.

NIST have pixels - Alaska has data. Which one can you check ?

Click to expand...

So you have seen the Alaska data? Thought it was not going to be available for a month. So did you lie?

Did you not notice the source of the vid in post 35?

Interesting how the Alaska report goes out of its way not to mention CD.

Bodhisattva said:

OH MY GOD!!!


Enough with the ****ing WTC Conspiracy Theories!!!

Click to expand...

Groundhog Day!

mike2810 said:

So you have seen the Alaska data? Thought it was not going to be available for a month. So did you lie?

Did you not notice the source of the vid in post 35?

Interesting how the Alaska report goes out of its way not to mention CD.

Click to expand...

I noticed the source of the video yes. It's PIXELS. It would take a particular kind of moron to believe that represented FEA data.

I haven't seen the data yet for Alaska but it will be released.

What can you tell from your pixel video - tell me why WTC7 is all shimmering blue when it should be still.

gerrycan said:

I noticed the source of the video yes. It's PIXELS. It would take a particular kind of moron to believe that represented FEA data.

I haven't seen the data yet for Alaska but it will be released.

What can you tell from your pixel video - tell me why WTC7 is all shimmering blue when it should be still.

Click to expand...

How's your buddy Mark Basile and his dust study coming along. Seems it has been over 5 years since he received the donations needed to send the sample off to a lab. Either he has not done what he said he would do or the results were not what he wanted to see.

/sarcasm on
Why is the WTC7 shimmering blue? It is the result of the mini neutron bombs going off. The bombs were aided by nanothermite. Isn't that correct?:lamo
/sarcasm off

mike2810 said:

How's your buddy Mark Basile and his dust study coming along. Seems it has been over 5 years since he received the donations needed to send the sample off to a lab. Either he has not done what he said he would do or the results were not what he wanted to see.

/sarcasm on
Why is the WTC7 shimmering blue? It is the result of the mini neutron bombs going off. The bombs were aided by nanothermite. Isn't that correct?:lamo
/sarcasm off

Click to expand...

That's the NIST model that's blue you clown. :lamo

I don't know Mark, not my buddy, and nothing to do with this thread, so maybe better if you just stfu about that and stick to what you are good at, which is humping Mick West's leg.
So do you agree with Mick re this FEA study, or do you agree with me and every published paper on the issue ?

gerrycan said:

That's the NIST model that's blue you clown. :lamo

I don't know Mark, not my buddy, and nothing to do with this thread, so maybe better if you just stfu about that and stick to what you are good at, which is humping Mick West's leg.
So do you agree with Mick re this FEA study, or do you agree with me and every published paper on the issue ?

Click to expand...

We can be done. I don't respond to people who want to insult rather than discuss.

warning by me. Insult me again and it will be reported.