Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No cheerful, speed is not acceleration. They are different things that mean different concepts.
Literally the first part of the first chapter of most physics text books start by explaining what the difference between these two terms is and why you can't and shouldn't use them interchangeably.

The acceleration due to gravity is not 9.8 metres per second.
It's 9.8 metres per second squared.

The speed of gravity, which you stated was freefall, is equal to the speed of light.


Again, what is this sentance?
The speed of gravity in the atmosphere is still the speed of light.
The acceleration due to gravity in the atmosphere is still 9.8 m/s^2.
These things are not affected by the atmosphere...


Lol again, you are using terms to sound clever when they don't actually mean anything.
For example, what do you mean by "You have to account for"?


Lol.
How can a time be a speed?

You thinking in terms of travel on earth. Obviously, speed and acceleration are not the same.

You really annoying- It does not change what I said. Are you arriving at some different calculation in your head or something explain? Nobody would pull someone for saying 9.8 metres per second ( it correct info), only you do this. It not wrong because we not doing a math or physic exam here.

It increasing at 9.8 metres a second (factual info and Kingmob wants to place square in the wording as if it changes the outcome and speed)

The rules don't have to be what Kingmob says they should be. You even attacked me for math on freefall even though the answer I arrived at was correct. Kingmob does seem to understand you don't get correct answers if your math is wrong!

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What you want to be answered- did not see your post?

You said

I have seen enough already from Hulsey to know his doing the work correctly. 

Can you share with us what it is you have seen that has you so convinced?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You thinking in terms of travel on earth. Obviously, speed and acceleration are not the same.

You really annoying- It does not change what I said. Are you arriving at some different calculation in your head or something explain? Nobody would pull someone for saying 9.8 metres per second ( it correct info), only you do this. It not wrong because we not doing a math or physic exam here.

It increasing at 9.8 metres a second (factual info and Kingmob wants to place square in the wording as if it changes the outcome and speed)

The rules don't have to be what Kingmob says they should be. You even attacked me for math on freefall even though the answer I arrived at was correct. Kingmob does seem to understand you don't get correct answers if your math is wrong!

There’s a Billy Madison quote that is perfect here.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You thinking in terms of travel on earth.

Lol, what do you mean by this?
What other terms are being discussed?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Obviously, speed and acceleration are not the same.

Yet, you said:

Freefall is an object falling at the speed of gravity.

You were wrong.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You really annoying- It does not change what I said.

It does change what you said. These terms aren't technobabble you can pretend to understand. They have specific meanings.
You display how little you know by misusing and confusing these terms.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not wrong because we not doing a math or physic exam here.

It's wrong because it's wrong.
It's also physics.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It increasing at 9.8 metres a second (factual info and Kingmob wants to place square in the wording as if it changes the outcome and speed)

Lol.
The term squared is very important in these terms. By leaving it out, you are using incorrect terms and confusing acceleration and speed.
I think you don't know what "squared" actually means...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The rules don't have to be what Kingmob says they should be.

They aren't the rules because I say. They are the rules because they are physics.
You are free to continue to misuse them all you like.
It only makes you look more and more foolish.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You even attacked me for math on freefall even though the answer I arrived at was correct. Kingmob does seem to understand you don't get correct answers if your math is wrong!

But you only arrived at the correct answer after months of dodging, a bunch of wrong answers and a ton of hilariously pathetic attempts to pretend you know what you are talking about.
For example, using the term "speed of gravity" repeated.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a false claim. You (aka the conspiracy community you get all your information from) carefully cherry-pick and quote-mine the info you want, that suits your narrative. If there is one random comment along the lines of it looking like a CD, and 999 comments to the contrary. You highlight that one comment, ignore the rest. Not only that, but in your mind it becomes "evidence"

You do this all the time. It's faulty thinking.

Likewise, you ignore hundreds of experts who worked to build the case from the ground up, in favor of one expert who hasn't produced anything yet

Not true I read the Sceptic blogs and forums online when I have time. I even read the nanothermite debate on JREF forum and none of you have let us be honest. I'm familiar with the skeptic arguments about 9/11. Skeptics i call the excuse community, the always have stale explantation to explain something away.

It faulty thinking for highlighting the errors in the NIST report? You think it ok to claim a girder was unsupported when it was not? Don't you think a supported girder would have harder time collapsing during a fire?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true I read the Sceptic blogs and forums online when I have time. I even read the nanothermite debate on JREF forum and none of you have let us be honest. I'm familiar with the skeptic arguments about 9/11. Skeptics i call the excuse community, the always have stale explantation to explain something away.

Yeah, it's called the truth, and it interferes with your imaginings, so you don't like it or the messenger

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, what do you mean by this?
What other terms are being discussed?

Yet, you said:


You were wrong.

It does change what you said. These terms aren't technobabble you can pretend to understand. They have specific meanings.
You display how little you know by misusing and confusing these terms.


It's wrong because it's wrong.
It's also physics.

Lol.
The term squared is very important in these terms. By leaving it out, you are using incorrect terms and confusing acceleration and speed.
I think you don't know what "squared" actually means...


They aren't the rules because I say. They are the rules because they are physics.
You are free to continue to misuse them all you like.
It only makes you look more and more foolish.


But you only arrived at the correct answer after months of dodging, a bunch of wrong answers and a ton of hilariously pathetic attempts to pretend you know what you are talking about.
For example, using the term "speed of gravity" repeated.

I just post this instead, I just googled it and you can debate this Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Univ. of British Columbia

It is gravitational acceleration. Suppose you have a ball freely falling from a top of a building which means its speed was 0 m/s when you released that ball. The speed of the ball falling down will increase at the rate of 9.81 m/s every second.

Speed of ball at the moment you release it = 0 m/s
Speed of ball after 1st second = 9.81 m/s
Speed of ball after 2nd second = 19.62 m/s
Speed of ball after 3rd second = 29.43 m/s
And so on till ball hits the ground...

Higher the ball, more will be it's speed when it hits the ground.

You can tell him to remove speed from his calculation. Since you so hell bound on its wrong.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-g-9-81-m-s2-mean

Your freefall question was dumb and still is but you never get that.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just post this instead, I just googled it and you can debate this Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Univ. of British Columbia

It is gravitational acceleration. Suppose you have a ball freely falling from a top of a building which means its speed was 0 m/s when you released that ball. The speed of the ball falling down will increase at the rate of 9.81 m/s every second.

Speed of ball at the moment you release it = 0 m/s
Speed of ball after 1st second = 9.81 m/s
Speed of ball after 2nd second = 19.62 m/s
Speed of ball after 3rd second = 29.43 m/s
And so on till ball hits the ground...

Higher the ball, more will be it's speed when it hits the ground.

You can tell him to remove speed from his calculation. Since you so hell bound on its wrong.

Your freefall question was dumb and still is but you never get that.

Lol, what?

None of that is wrong. Or had anything to do with anything in my post.
Why would I tell him to remove speed from his calculation?

You said:

Freefall is an object falling at the speed of gravity.

The speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.
So you wrongly said that WTC fell down at the speed of light.

This is because you confused speed and acceleration as you do not understand basic physics.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, what?

None of that is wrong. Or had anything to do with anything in my post.
Why would I tell him to remove speed from his calculation?

You said:

The speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.
So you wrongly said that WTC fell down at the speed of light.

This is because you confused speed and acceleration as you do not understand basic physics.

And Yet the professor is using speed and acceleration in his freefall calculation.

The building fell down at speed gravity of this earth, you agree or not agree?

I just place speed- gravity of the earth together and that was I was getting at, but if you going to be hardnosed about definitions then you're correct. And I stop using speed of gravity if makes you happy.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

And Yet the professor is using speed and acceleration in his freefall calculation.

Yes. However, he is using terms and expressions correctly. You are not.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The the building fell down at speed gravity of this earth, you agree or not agree?

I do not agree with any part of that sentence. It is wrong at every level.

Firstly: The building did not free fall. It did for a part of the collapse, but overall, it took longer to fall than it would if it experienced no resistance.
Secondly, it did not fall down at the speed of gravity because, again, the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. The building did not fall down at the speed of light.
Thirdly, the speed of gravity is a constant. It doesn't change by being "of this earth".
Fourthly, acceleration due to gravity is not usually clarified with "of this earth" or any such term as in this case, it's assumed.
Fifthly, I don't understand what you mean by "this earth". What other earth is there?
Sixthly: you only need one "the" and Earth should be capitalised. Also it's "do you agree..."

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just place speed- gravity of the earth together and that was i was getting at, but if you going to hardnosed about definitions they your correct. And i stop using speed of gravity if makes you happy.

Yes, I know that's what you are doing. You are confusing acceleration and speed.

This is not a "hardnosed" definition. It is a basic definition in physics. Literally it's the first one in the book.
But, because you are totally and utterly ignorant of physics, you don't understand this.
Your arrogance and dishonesty are preventing you from owning up to your mistake and lack of education.
The bizarre thing is that you keep trying.
No one is fooled. Everyone reading this thread and this forum realise how little you know.

There's no point in pretending. Just man up, be an adult and admit it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. However, he is using terms and expressions correctly. You are not.

I do not agree with any part of that sentence. It is wrong at every level.

Firstly: The building did not free fall. It did for a part of the collapse, but overall, it took longer to fall than it would if it experienced no resistance.
Secondly, it did not fall down at the speed of gravity because, again, the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. The building did not fall down at the speed of light.
Thirdly, the speed of gravity is a constant.
Fourthly, acceleration due to gravity is not usually clarified with "of this earth" or any such term as in this case, it's assumed.
Fifthly, I don't understand what you mean by "this earth". What other earth is there?

Yes, I know that's what you are doing. You are confusing acceleration and speed.

This is not a "hardnosed" definition. It is a basic definition in physics. Literally it's the first one in the book.
But, because you are totally and utterly ignorant of physics, you don't understand this.
Your arrogance and dishonesty are preventing you from owning up to your mistake and lack of education.
The bizarre thing is that you keep trying.
No one is fooled. Everyone reading this thread and this forum realise how little you know.

There's no point in pretending. Just man up, be an adult and admit it.

You claimed speed and acceleration could not be used in a freefall calculation. A false statement the professor used speed and acceleration in his post.

He's using this in his freefall calculation.
Speed
The gravity of this earth- acceleration

You think it's alien to add them together, but it not really he using speed + gravity on this earth ( acceleration) and obviously not talking about space.

This sentence does not make sense. Needs explaining.
Firstly: The building did not free fall. It did for a part of the collapse, but overall, it took longer to fall than it would if it experienced no resistance.

Never said it fell down at speed of light, those are your words, not mine. I posted what NIST said about freefall and the stages they added in their revised study.

We experience gravity on earth. Why would just ignore the term gravity when your talking about an object falling from a height like building seven roof?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You claimed speed and acceleration could not be used in a freefall calculation.

Nope. Never once said this or claimed this.
Quote where I did.

This is another example of you lying about what I said.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You think it's alien to add them together, but it not really he using speed + gravity on this earth ( acceleration) and obviously not talking about space.

Um... ok? That doesn't really explain why you are using the term "of this earth".
I think it's something you are using to sound more technical.

However Speed + gravity does not equal acceleration. You are again misusing terms and expressions that you don't understand.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Never said it fell down at speed of light, those are your word, not mine.

But you did. And you did again two posts ago:

The the building fell down at speed gravity of this earth, you agree or not agree?

The speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We experience gravity on earth. Why would just ignore the term gravity when your talking about an object falling from a height like building seven roof?

We experience gravity everywhere cheerful, not just on Earth. Again, your ignorance is showing.

This sentence does not make sense. Needs explaining.
Firstly: The building did not free fall. It did for a part of the collapse, but overall, it took longer to fall than it would if it experienced no resistance.

Not sure I can make it any simpler for you. Sorry.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. Never once said this or claimed this.
Quote where I did.

This is another example of you lying about what I said.

Um... ok? That doesn't really explain why you are using the term "of this earth".
I think it's something you are using to sound more technical.

However Speed + gravity does not equal acceleration. You are again misusing terms and expressions that you don't understand.


But you did. And you did again two posts ago:
The the building fell down at speed gravity of this earth, you agree or not agree?
The speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.


We experience gravity everywhere cheerful, not just on Earth. Again, your ignorance is showing.

Here is another posting on Quora

What is the speed of free fall gravity]

The same professor answered and nobody on there said edit your post there no such thing as the speed of freefall gravity. They just explained what is. You want to restrict yourself to definitions online fine.


He even said The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second. You pulled me on this for saying seconds and not adding squared. You need to tell an actual professor he is wrong:)

Never said speed+ gravity equals acceleration. Your words again not mine.

Anyone done with this conversation. And nice deflect to not answering the firstly response. You just sidestepped a direct question again and then demand answers from me every day. I used to this now.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-speed-of-free-fall-gravity

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah, it's called the truth, and it interferes with your imaginings, so you don't like it or the messenger

Skeptics have been more wrong in history then they have been right.

Your entire world view is based on images you saw on TV and what the Bush administration told you.

You ignore the Pentagon put together war plans to carry out false flag attacks against US citizens. They were going to carry out shootings and bombings in American cities to blame it on the Cubans and have a pretext to invade. It was only stopped by Kennedy and Kennedy later fired generals over it.

If they were willing to stage a false attack then what not a few decades later? When also have reliable information the CIA knew the hijackers arrived in America to carry out attacks, yet they never stopped them. It naive to believe the CIA did not follow two leading Al Qaeda operatives involved in the Cole bombing it's alleged.

Dohnjoe

Getting baited off-topic again

Hulsey is scheduled to speak on May 15th, ASCE Fairbanks - 1 hour. Will be interesting to see if he will give any up-to-date developments or will just stall for more time

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Skeptics have been more wrong in history then they have been right.

Your entire world view is based on images you saw on TV and what the Bush administration told you.

You ignore the Pentagon put together war plans to carry out false flag attacks against US citizens. They were going to carry out shootings and bombings in American cities to blame it on the Cubans and have a pretext to invade. It was only stopped by Kennedy and Kennedy later fired generals over it.

If they were willing to stage a false attack then what not a few decades later? When also have reliable information the CIA knew the hijackers arrived in America to carry out attacks, yet they never stopped them. It naive to believe the CIA did not follow two leading Al Qaeda operatives involved in the Cole bombing it's alleged.

I'm still waiting for your reply to the question i have asked twice now

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you share with us what it is you have seen that has you so convinced?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Here is another posting on Quora

What is the speed of free fall gravity]

The same professor answered and nobody on there said edit your post there no such thing as the speed of freefall gravity. They just explained what is. You want to restrict yourself to definitions online fine.


He even said The acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2, so your speed will increase 9.8m/s every second. You pulled me on this for saying seconds and not adding squared. You need to tell an actual professor he is wrong:)

Never said speed+ gravity equals acceleration. Your words again not mine.

Anyone done with this conversation. And nice deflect to not answering the firstly response. You just sidestepped a direct question again and then demand answers from me every day. I used to this now.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-speed-of-free-fall-gravity

Lol pathetic rambling.
Some one asked a question on quora therefore all your incorrect usage of terms is correct.

You also again accuse me of saying something but then fail to show that I said any such thing.
Again you lied.

I'm not restricting myself to definitions I find online. Im using the actual definitions of the words and phrases and terms as defined in actual physics.
You are unaware of these definitions because you dont know anything about physics , science or math. You continually prove this the more you try to pretend you do know anything.
Googling for something to back up your incorrect usage isnt making you look better.
Its making you look foolish and desperate.

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Getting baited off-topic again

Hulsey is scheduled to speak on May 15th, ASCE Fairbanks - 1 hour. Will be interesting to see if he will give any up-to-date developments or will just stall for more time

He'll be stalling for more time and asking for more money.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

He'll be stalling for more time and asking for more money.

My money's on it being pretty much the same powerpoint with a minimal amount of new content and an excuse for why the research will have to continue.

Also, I was looking into the presentation, and it really should be clarified that this is a presentation to a local branch of the organisation, not the organisation as a whole.

Dohnjoe

The Mark Basile study (funded by truther donations) for the presence of "thermite" started in 2014, there's been no proper updates and no transparency - and it still hasn't finished after 5 years. I don't hold much hope for Hulsey's study

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Getting baited off-topic again

Hulsey is scheduled to speak on May 15th, ASCE Fairbanks - 1 hour. Will be interesting to see if he will give any up-to-date developments or will just stall for more time

The report is completed since Feb. Am I not sure why he be stalling for more time? AE911 said they plan is to send the report to well-known universities for peer review. I guessing they want them to repeat their findings.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm still waiting for your reply to the question i have asked twice now

I have seen some of the Abaqus modelling by Hulsey already of column 79 on floor 12 and 13. The girder could not have expanded and slid off its seat by fire. NIST theory is based around failure at column 79 on Floor 12 and 13. Prove them wrong then their theory is junk science. Hulsey is doing more work than this, but you have to wait for the full report.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The report is completed since Feb. Am I not sure why he be stalling for more time? AE911 said they plan is to send the report to well-known universities for peer review. I guessing they want them to repeat their findings.

Again: that is not peer review. It's not how the proper procedure goes.

By sending the "study" to universities unsolicited, the study will either be ignored or the universities will say that they aren't going to review them. (This is because this is not how peer review is conducted. Universities do not conduct peer review.)
The people at AE911 will then point to that, claim it's part of the conspiracy and therefore avoid having to have their study peer reviewed.

The proper way to do it would be to publish it in a journal.
They won't do this however as it would expose the problems with their study.

You have also claimed that the ASCE were going to peer review it.
No such thing has been said by the ASCE.
Why did you lie?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol pathetic rambling.
Some one asked a question on quora therefore all your incorrect usage of terms is correct.

You also again accuse me of saying something but then fail to show that I said any such thing.
Again you lied.

I'm not restricting myself to definitions I find online. Im using the actual definitions of the words and phrases and terms as defined in actual physics.
You are unaware of these definitions because you dont know anything about physics , science or math. You continually prove this the more you try to pretend you do know anything.
Googling for something to back up your incorrect usage isnt making you look better.
Its making you look foolish and desperate.

A question a physic professor understand and replied to. He did think it was weird he said the speed of free fall gravity. Only you do think this and your not a physic teacher or anything like it. You looked up the speed of gravity and then just posted info from it I know it and you know it.

Never mind the same professor used speed and acceleration in his equation.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A question a physic professor understand and replied to.

Again: It's Physics not physic.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He did think it was weird he said the speed of free fall gravity.

He didn't comment on it.
Did he use the term? If so, quote it please.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Only you do think this and your not a physic teacher or anything like it.

Again, never claimed I was. I just have a basic understanding of physics. Something you do not have.

The speed of gravity is the speed of light.
No one with an understanding of physics uses the term to mean acceleration due to gravity.
They do not do so as it is incorrect.

If you disagree, point to a physics professor who uses it repeatedly in that way.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You looked up the speed of gravity and then just posted info from it I know it and you know it.

Lol, nope. It's something you googled and posted without actually reading the article.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447303&postcount=2108
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109447355&postcount=2110

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Never mind the same professor used speed and acceleration in his equation.

And again, he was using speed and acceleration properly with the actual definitions because he understands how they work and what they mean.
You have shown again and again you don't know anything about physics and it's really funny.

You have also failed to back up your claims about what I said.
You lied again.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

My money's on it being pretty much the same powerpoint with a minimal amount of new content and an excuse for why the research will have to continue.

Also, I was looking into the presentation, and it really should be clarified that this is a presentation to a local branch of the organisation, not the organisation as a whole.

It is an ASCE group. It, not a truther group, it a group of ASCE engineers who more than qualified to judge. Silly Kingmob.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It is an ASCE group. It, not a truther group, it a group of ASCE engineers who more than qualified to judge. Silly Kingmob.

It's a small local chapter.
Of which many members and attendees are undergraduates.

You are dishonestly pretending that this is a presentation to the group as a whole or that is somehow endorsed by the group.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have seen some of the Abaqus modelling by Hulsey already of column 79 on floor 12 and 13. The girder could not have expanded and slid off its seat by fire. NIST theory is based around failure at column 79 on Floor 12 and 13. Prove them wrong then their theory is junk science. Hulsey is doing more work than this, but you have to wait for the full report.

So link here what you have seen so we can review it and understand what work he is doing.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again: that is not peer review. It's not how the proper procedure goes.

By sending the "study" to universities unsolicited, the study will either be ignored or the universities will say that they aren't going to review them. (This is because this is not how peer review is conducted. Universities do not conduct peer review.)
The people at AE911 will then point to that, claim it's part of the conspiracy and therefore avoid having to have their study peer reviewed.

The proper way to do it would be to publish it in a journal.
They won't do this however as it would expose the problems with their study.

You have also claimed that the ASCE were going to peer review it.
No such thing has been said by the ASCE.
Why did you lie?

Why would the universities ignore a research paper? Professors at different universities are experts they can review a paper and check the work. You again are just basing opinions on nothing. Dr Hulsey is a professor at respectable engineering school I fairly certain colleagues and peers of his would review it. They are doing it right way.

Who said they are not going to publish it in a journal?

Overheal

You really don’t understand what peer review is.