Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…5681011…61

Comments

  • #212
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You need to stop saying that when speed was used in Professor equation. I never confused speed with acceleration. I never said speed+ accerleration= freefall. Its speed= acceleration 9.8 m/s2- the rate of falling object due to gravity on earth. The reason I put speed ( gravity on earth together)
    The grammar in this post is indecipherable.
    Stop dodging Timberrrrrrrr's question.


  • #213
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The speed of the ball falling down will increase at the rate of 9.81 m/s every second.

    Just a quick note.....this is where "metres per second squared" comes from.


    I know you expressed a bit of confusion earlier in the thread so just thought I'd point out......Acceleration due to gravity increases the speed of an object by 9.81 metres per second, per second. This means that for every second, the speed increases by "9.81 metres per second".


    And now back to the regular programming.

    Edit: That'll learn me to try to be smart without reading the rest of the thread


  • #214
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    xckjoo wrote: »
    If you're arguing the physics of something then you need to be exact. It would be like mixing up speed and acceleration. Or Donald Trump and Melania Trump. Related but very different.

    You don't need to be exact on this. Even a professor of Physics is aware of this.

    He posted exactly what I said in reply to a question about freefall.


  • #215
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,160 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Here is one overview of the problems and issues with Hulsey's initial findings

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/
    The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.
    The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. 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.


  • #216
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,977 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Dr. Hulsey in "bit of a fraud" shocker.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Just a quick note.....this is where "metres per second squared" comes from.


    I know you expressed a bit of confusion earlier in the thread so just thought I'd point out......Acceleration due to gravity increases the speed of an object by 9.81 metres per second, per second. This means that for every second, the speed increases by "9.81 metres per second".


    And now back to the regular programming.

    Are you guys serious?

    You only do this when
    acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2

    You must not realise Kingmob is arguing with me for- saying an item falling freely would not travel at 9.8 metres per second, every second?

    He wanted me to write out 9.8 metres per second squared instead:confused: When it made no difference.


  • #218
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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)

    This is what you said, initially. There is a world of difference between 9.8m/s and 9.8m/s squared. It 100% categorically changes the outcome and the speed.This is basic, Junior cert level maths.


  • #219
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is what you said, initially. There is a world of difference between 9.8m/s and 9.8m/s squared. It 100% categorically changes the outcome and the speed.This is basic, Junior cert level maths.

    He quoting a post of mine where I said the item would travel 9.8 metres a second on earth (freefall conditions)

    You would not say 9.8 M/S squared you use 9.8 m/s^2 if you doing an equation.


  • #220
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Are you guys serious?

    You only do this when
    acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2

    You must not realise Kingmob is arguing with me for- saying an item falling freely would not travel at 9.8 metres per second, every second?

    He wanted me to write out 9.8 metres per second squared instead:confused: When it made no difference.
    Cheerful, you have already proven how little you know about physics. You can't dig yourself out of that hole.

    Please go back and address Timber's question.
    Stop defecting and dodging.


  • #221
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    He quoting a post of mine where I said the item would travel 9.8 metres a second on earth (freefall conditions)

    You would not say 9.8 M/S squared you use 9.8 m/s^2 if you doing an equation.
    lol
    "s^2" means "seconds squared".
    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, you have already proven how little you know about physics. You can't dig yourself out of that hole.

    Please go back and address Timber's question.
    Stop defecting and dodging.

    Nobody writes out 9.8 M/S squared when doing a freefall equation. Only someone like you would do that.

    Item that freefalling does fall at 9.8 metres per second. Tell a Physic teacher he should say 9.8 metres per second squared instead he laugh at you. You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation


  • #223
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation



    Wat8.jpg


  • #224
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Here is one overview of the problems and issues with Hulsey's initial findings

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

    This is from 2016 and 2017. The study is finished now.

    Metabunk is posting false info. NIST categorically states in their report the collapse started at column 79 and moved up and down the building. They are ignoring NIST claim a girder slipping of its seat at column 79 started the progressive collapse. Events after it are irrelevant.


    NIST version not Metabunk distorted view.

    5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

    The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

    According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

    Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    If they can't get this right why would I bother reading the rest?


  • #225
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    (1) Nobody writes out 9.8 M/S squared when doing a freefall equation. Only someone like you would do that.

    (2) Item that freefalling does fall at 9.8 metres per second. (3) Tell a Physic teacher he should say 9.8 metres per second squared instead he laugh at you. (4) You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation



    (1) Everybody writes 9.8m/s squared (or 9.8 m/s^2) when using any and every equation to do with acceleration due to gravity because, y'know, that's what the figure and measurement actually is


    (2) An item that is freefalling, does fall at 9.8 metres per second BUT ONLY FOR THE FIRST SECOND. For the next second after that, it falls at 19.6 metres per second....etc.


    (3) I very much doubt that a physics teacher would find any of this thread amusing


    (4) I wasn't aware of any Kinematic equation that uses m/s squared in any shape or form. I suspect it is something that you picked up while googling something else. I also suspect you don't know what they are and haven't even the most basic understanding of what they are used to explain, demonstrate or prove. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will


  • #226
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Deleted User wrote: »
    (1) Everybody writes 9.8m/s squared (or 9.8 m/s^2) when using any and every equation to do with acceleration due to gravity because, y'know, that's what the figure and measurement actually is


    (2) An item that is freefalling, does fall at 9.8 metres per second BUT ONLY FOR THE FIRST SECOND. For the next second after that, it falls at 19.6 metres per second....etc.


    (3) I very much doubt that a physics teacher would find any of this thread amusing


    (4) I wasn't aware of any Kinematic equation that uses m/s squared in any shape or form. I suspect it is something that you picked up while googling something else. I also suspect you don't know what they are and haven't even the most basic understanding of what they are used to explain, demonstrate or prove. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will

    Nobody serious would do that, as the Kinematic equation solves it for you. Nobody would express the equation as 9.8 metres per second squared unless you speaking to someone to inform them how to do it.

    Yep did you read the post you quoted? I said it increasing 9.8 metres per second. Obviously another second it doubled.

    Kingmob never read the post of mine correctly. He quote mined one line. He ignored the rest of the post where I said acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s^2 .

    He attacked me for not saying 9.8 metres per second on one line. He then came in and said your wrong it 9.8 metres per second squared. Obviously but I posted the equation in the post.

    M'/S is metre per second. 2 is a symbol for squared there was no need for me to go explaining it.


  • #227
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Nobody writes out 9.8 M/S squared when doing a freefall equation. Only someone like you would do that.

    Item that freefalling does fall at 9.8 metres per second. Tell a Physic teacher he should say 9.8 metres per second squared instead he laugh at you. You only use squared when your doing the Kinematic equation
    Lol.
    All of this post is nonsense.
    How are you not embarrassed by your own posts.

    And again: It's physicS

    Also: which kinematic equation are you referring to?


  • #228
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Nobody would express the equation as 9.8 metres per second squared unless you speaking to someone to inform them how to do it.
    Lol. That's not what an equation is...

    :rolleyes:


  • #229
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol.
    All of these post is nonsense.
    How are you not embarrassed by your own posts.

    And again: It's physicS

    Why would need to say 9.8 metres per second squared? When I provided the equation in the same post.


  • #230
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would need to say 9.8 metres per second squared? When I provided the equation in the same post.

    9.8 metres per second is a speed.
    9.8 metres per second squared is an acceleration.
    This is lesson one physics.

    Neither is an equation. You don't know what an equation even is.


  • #231
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    9.8 metres per second is a speed.
    9.8 metres per second squared is an acceleration.
    This is lesson one physics.

    Neither is an equation. You don't know what an equation even is.

    Its gravitational acceleration. I even gave you the equation in the post you quote mined. And what NIST said about freefall.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    This really is the thread that keeps on giving...
    Absolute gold!


  • #233
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Its gravitational acceleration.
    Yes. And...?
    It's an acceleration. As such you have to use the term "metres per second squared".


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I even gave you the equation in the post you quote mined.
    You said:
    Nobody would express the equation as 9.8 metres per second squared unless you speaking to someone to inform them how to do it.
    "9.8 metres per second squared" or "9.8 metres per second" are not equations.
    You are once again misusing a term you do not understand.

    Using fancy words you have heard or googled do not make you sound smarter when you misuse them.
    They do the opposite.


  • #234
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. And...?
    It's an acceleration. As such you have to use the term "metres per second squared".




    You said:

    "9.8 metres per second squared" or "9.8 metres per second" are not equations.
    You are once again misusing a term you do not understand.

    Using fancy words you have heard or googled do not make you sound smarter when you misuse them.
    They do the opposite.

    I don't have to when I provided the gravitational acceleration Kinematic equation in the same post yesterday.

    The equation was provided and I did not say it was speed equation. I said it was a gravational accleration equation for freefall.


  • #235
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I don't have to when I provided the gravitational acceleration Kinematic equation in the same post yesterday.

    The equation was provided and I did not say it was speed equation. I said it was a gravational accleration equation for freefall.
    Lol, this post is yet more nonsense.
    It's a mix of lies, misunderstood terms and just terrible grammar.

    You do have to express an acceleration using "metres per second squared".

    You provided no equations yesterday. So either you are lying again or you don't know what an equation is.

    The term "gravational accleration equation for freefall" is meaningless (on top of being poorly spelled).

    You are again showing profound ignorance and it's baffling that you think you are somehow doing well here.

    You're also still ignoring Timbers question. You are deflecting in desperation.


  • #236
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, this post is yet more nonsense.
    It's a mix of lies, misunderstood terms and just terrible grammar.

    You do have to express an acceleration using "metres per second squared".

    You provided no equations yesterday. So either you are lying again or you don't know what an equation is.

    The term "gravational accleration equation for freefall" is meaningless (on top of being poorly spelled).

    You are again showing profound ignorance and it's baffling that you think you are somehow doing well here.

    .

    Go back and read the post you quote mined.

    You see I posted the equation 9.8 m/s2 in the post. I did not say 9.8 M/S you are a liar and people will see it not the first time I posted this equation for gravitational acceleration.

    Your just pain in the arse really.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration


  • #237
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    .

    Go back and read the post you quote mined.

    You see I posted the equation 9.8 m/s2 in the post. I did not say 9.8 M/S you are a liar and people will see it not the first time I posted this equation for gravitational acceleration.

    Your just pain in the arse really.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
    Cheerful, it's 9.8 m/s^2. Not 9.8 m/s2. :rolleyes:
    And again "9.8 m/s2" is not an equation. You are using the term "equation" wrong because you don't know what it means.

    Address timber's question now. Stop deflecting and delaying.
    You can't possibly do more to show how little about physics you know.


  • #238
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, it's 9.8 m/s^2. Not 9.8 m/s2. :rolleyes:
    And again "9.8 m/s2" is not an equation. You are using the term "equation" wrong because you don't know what it means.

    Address timber's question now. Stop deflecting and delaying.
    You can't possibly do more to show how little about physics you know.

    It obvious by your post you know I posted 9.8 m/s2, you looked did you :rolleyes:

    By the way you can short it to 9.8 m/s2 but you're just trouble maker don't know that.

    Google it Mr Physics you find that out.


  • #239
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,248 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It obvious by your post you know I posted 9.8 m/s2, you looked did you :rolleyes:
    Again, your grammar is difficult to decipher.
    Firstly, 9.8 m/s2 is wrong. Secondly, you called it an equation, this is wrong.
    Literally every post you've made where you pretend to understand physics, you've been wrong about something.
    It's very funny in a cringy way.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    By the way you can short it to 9.8 m/s2 but you're just trouble maker don't know that.
    No, you can't.
    s2 is not the same as s^2.
    They mean different things.

    You can use a superscript 2, however I don't actually know how to format that on this forum, and really not bothered to learn.

    You are still deflecting.
    Address timber's post.


  • #240
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,629 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would need to say 9.8 metres per second squared? When I provided the equation in the same post.

    Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

    At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,160 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Why are you not replying to my question and posting the evidence i have ask you for?

    At this stage it's looking like you have ied about this so called evidence.

    The evidence is coming, the whole process will be fully transparent, and it will be revealed in a few years


Advertisement