UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

a reply to: Jesushere

I see you posts ignore specific questions. Then you posting lots a random items with no formal argument. You talking about yourself? Other than forming specific items of concern, them forming a specific rebuttal in the context of that concern?

You just talk yourself up, belittle other people, then shotgun the answer with a big ball of random BS.

a reply to: carsforkids

Andy your ignoring thermal stresses.

a reply to: neutronflux

Smoke and mirrors

Here we have a building on fire!



Looks pretty hot huh?

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: neutronflux

Along with everything you listed...


911 is about the hardest, most expensive least secure way to start a war imaginable..


Look at gulf of Tonkin and other false flags...

All they had to do was fake a ship shooting at them..

no it is not the hardest way to start a war, it's a very inexpensive way to continue one...

a reply to: word4

I remember when it was Republicans spurred on by Jews to help further the nWo/illuminati/lizard population control/oil grab/creation of Greater Israel for being the reasons the war started via 9/11.
How times change...

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

None of what you just posted means squat partner. I do appreciate you
making a decent attempt at something intelligent but it's really just
much more simple than that. But if you can't follow a long and just be
honest this really is pointless. I know how things are built and the last
thing you're gonna do is tell me about structural iron. Believe me all that
garbage about minimal concrete use is retarded.

You'll have no problems in describing the differences in design you were talking about then

You dodging what I showed you?
Where you mate neutronflux response?

Two accounts huh? Think that's against the rules

originally posted by: carsforkids


All the bull# science in the world can't erase what people see
with their own eyes. WTC 7 did not experience the type of fire
it takes to weaken it. Any one who can't see that by just looking
at it. Certainly doesn't need prices of concrete and load bearing
data to prove their ignorance.

What do you mean by weaken"?

a reply to: mrthumpy

What do you mean what do I mean?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: mrthumpy

What do you mean what do I mean?

Weakened in what way? What is it you think the fire wasn't capable of?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

I see you posts ignore specific questions. Then you posting lots a random items with no formal argument. You talking about yourself? Other than forming specific items of concern, them forming a specific rebuttal in the context of that concern?

You just talk yourself up, belittle other people, then shotgun the answer with a big ball of random BS.

Just don't get it. NIST progressive collapse I ripped apart last night. Mick knows it. What do you see in the two images?

2017 WTC7 simulation of NIST progressive collapse


Hulsey 2019 finite model of NIST progressive collapse

a reply to: carsforkids

Ok? What does that have to do with?

How about less ranting and citing sources for logical and structured arguments?

For WTC 7:
You haven’t addressed the deficient fire insulation. The minimization of concrete, the unusual long floor spans, the lack of mid floor length columns, the unusual floor connection angles. That uneven heating can cause more thermal stress than a uniform inferno.

Your still trying to compare apples and oranges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: carsforkids

Ok? What does that have to do with?

How about less ranting and citing sources for logical and structured arguments?

For WTC 7:
You haven’t addressed the deficient fire insulation. The minimization of concrete, the unusual long floor spans, the lack of mid floor length columns, the unusual floor connection angles. That uneven heating can cause more thermal stress than a uniform inferno.

Your still trying to compare apples and oranges.

The non-truther group confirmed in 2017- Hulsey modelling assumptions are correct. The building would tilt southeast when you remove columns 76 and 81. They simulated the NIST conditions for collapse too. It's game over and Mick knows its a significant find and his now stopped replying to me lol.

a reply to: neutronflux

How about less ranting and citing sources for logical and structured arguments?

Sure okay I'm ask'n the questions. Where's the fire you claim brought building 7 down?

If you can't answer that then

a reply to: Jesushere

You

Just don't get it. NIST progressive collapse I ripped apart last night. Mick knows it. What do you see in the two images?

Do you have a quote as such from Mick West?

Do you have a link to what your referring to as “last night”?

For the Hulsey report.
The movement of the penthouse and roof top objects do not match the video evidence.

The Hulsey model is missing key elements of the collapse witnessed in the video evidence.

The Hulsey modeling is strangely manually drawn, and the full capabilities of the software used by Hulsey was not utilized.

Hulsey’s model ignores collisions and resistance of the collapsing building in his modeling.

Hulsey’s modeling project spent $300,000.00 to model the obvious. If your remove columns with disregard for real word evidence, your model will collapse.

Hulsey lists no references to the video, audio, seismic data for any real life mechanism that would cause all the columns to fail at the same instance.

a reply to: Jesushere

The non-truther group confirmed in 2017- Hulsey modelling assumptions are correct.

What group? Do you have a link? Based or their own modeling? Hulsey hasn’t released his modeling data at this time? So how do they know what data to verify? Through what modeling software?

a reply to: neutronflux

Do you see the gigantic unmistakable difference between WTC7 and the
Fire that occurred in Brazil?

This is a true test of common sense nothing more.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

How about less ranting and citing sources for logical and structured arguments?

Sure okay I'm ask'n the questions. Where's the fire you claim brought building 7 down?

If you can't answer that then

Do you have any proof the studies involving the WTC 7 fires NIST used to base their modeling off of was incorrect? I bet you haven’t even looked at the modeling.

I guess you have the fire studies concerning WTC to cite and quote, then provide evidence how they are wrong.

a reply to: neutronflux


Just answer the question partner? I know it's scary! lol

I just can't even believe you! lol

Carry on!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

Just don't get it. NIST progressive collapse I ripped apart last night. Mick knows it. What do you see in the two images?

Do you have a quote as such from Mick West?

Do you have a link to what your referring to as “last night”?

For the Hulsey report.
The movement of the penthouse and roof top objects do not match the video evidence.

The Hulsey model is missing key elements of the collapse witnessed in the video evidence.

The Hulsey modeling is strangely manually drawn, and the full capabilities of the software used by Hulsey was not utilized.

Hulsey’s model ignores collisions and resistance of the collapsing building in his modeling.

Hulsey’s modeling project spent $300,000.00 to model the obvious. If your remove columns with disregard for real word evidence, your model will collapse.

Hulsey lists no references to the video, audio, seismic data for any real life mechanism that would cause all the columns to fail at the same instance.

See how he got lippy with me.


Since he can't debunk my claim, he said this.


Either he's not getting or trying to deflect attention away.

I responded with this message
Mick Kostack says this below the page.
While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because of the removal of other columns.

Kostack building tipped over to southeast did not make whole sense in 2017, it now does because Hulsey analyses also showed WTC7 tower would tip over in the same direction.

Hulsey and Kostack both simulated the NIST collapse conditions (based on their study) and there building also toppled over towards the southeast.

Mick ran away after realising he can't debunk what i am saying.

If Mick claiming fire did it why did the Kostack model tilt southeast just like the Hulsey model!! NIST computer model there building did not topple southeast.

I have debunked most of Mick ridiculous claims on his Youtube channel.

a reply to: Jesushere

Probably he couldn’t debunk what your saying is because you don’t give a clear argument?

You do realize that Hulsey confused NIST models, and mixed and match the models as he saw fit? Claiming one model was wrong when using data from another mode?


Now, can you actually address what is post? Instead of you ranting?

Do you have a quote as such from Mick West?

Do you have a link to what your referring to as “last night”?

For the Hulsey report.
The movement of the penthouse and roof top objects do not match the video evidence.

The Hulsey model is missing key elements of the collapse witnessed in the video evidence.

The Hulsey modeling is strangely manually drawn, and the full capabilities of the software used by Hulsey was not utilized.

Hulsey’s model ignores collisions and resistance of the collapsing building in his modeling.

Hulsey’s modeling project spent $300,000.00 to model the obvious. If your remove columns with disregard for real word evidence, your model will collapse.

Hulsey lists no references to the video, audio, seismic data for any real life mechanism that would cause all the columns to fail at the same instance.


I guess your getting lippy, and cannot come to terms with the flaws in Hulsey model.