World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

[Q-reeus]

You've answered your own question. You cannot accurately predict chaotic events. Once chaos dominates, no simulation is accurate.

The collapse of WTC7, as explained by the NIST, matches reality when you look at it closely. From the damage by the debris to the collapse of the penthouse to the fuel for the fires - it all adds up. There is no need to invent any additional conspiracies to explain the collapse.

NIST's 'accurate' MKII simulation, ostensibly correctly accounting for both fires and structural damage from earlier WTC collapses, very obviously predicts a collapse scenario looking nothing close to the recorded for all to see, actual free-fall of the essentially intact upper stories. NO chaotic puckering collapse there at all, just straight down. Fail.

Stonewalling all FOI requests for independent access to NIST's simulation code and data, continued on for 20 years, speaks volumes. They obviously have much to keep hidden. The absurd justification given, that releasing their simulation code and data "could endanger public safety", is the exact opposite of any sane reasoning. Or brazen excuse hiding the need for massive fudging/massaging in order to get as close as possible to a predetermined outcome. Goal driven.

Hulsey's team tried many times to simulate what was observed based on NIST's claimed scenario, but could never get anything other than a highly non-symmetric collapse.

 

[James R]

....very obviously predicts a collapse scenario looking nothing close to the recorded for all to see, actual free-fall of the essentially intact upper stories. ...

It's been 20 years. You still don't know that the towers fell more slowly than free fall? Really? After all these years you're still stuck at square one basics like this one?

NO chaotic puckering collapse there at all, just straight down.

You're denying that the outer walls of the towers "puckered"? Despite the abundant footage that shows otherwise? Really?

Stonewalling all FOI requests for independent access to NIST's simulation code and data, continued on for 20 years, speaks volumes.

Why don't you do your own simulation? Why don't any of you conspiracy nutters do any of your own work, ever?

Hulsey's team tried many times to simulate what was observed based on NIST's claimed scenario, but could never get anything other than a highly non-symmetric collapse.

Why do you trust Hulsey and not the NIST experts?

 

[Q-reeus]

It's been 20 years. You still don't know that the towers fell more slowly than free fall? Really? After all these years you're still stuck at square one basics like this one?

You're denying that the outer walls of the towers "puckered"? Despite the abundant footage that shows otherwise? Really?

Why don't you do your own simulation? Why don't any of you conspiracy nutters do any of your own work, ever?

Why do you trust Hulsey and not the NIST experts?

Because for starters Hulsey et. al. have made their simulation code and data freely available for anyone to scrutinize. Nothing to hide. Unlike the criminal culpability implied by NIST's refusal to disclose theirs. REFUSAL!
The rest of your trash response doesn't deserve answering.

 

[James R]

Because for starters Hulsey et. al. have made their simulation code and data freely available for anyone to scrutinize.

Have you checked Hulsey's code, personally? If not, why do you believe it is accurate? What does it show, by the way?

Unlike the criminal culpability implied by NIST's refusal to disclose theirs. REFUSAL!

How very Trumpian of you. REFUSAL!

Why haven't the police arrested the criminals at NIST yet? Why haven't they been prosecuted for their crimes?

The rest of your trash response doesn't deserve answering.

You're never able to refute the most important points in my posts. Most of what you write is just personal insults. That's apparently the best you can do.

Don't think I didn't notice, by the way, your utter inability or REFUSAL to answer any of the direct questions I put to you - apart from the easy one about Hulsey. FAIL!

 

[David C]

Because for starters Hulsey et. al. have made their simulation code and data freely available for anyone to scrutinize.

Who is "et al", can you list them please. It almost makes it sound that it was more qualified people involved.

You missed this below deliberately?

The building was burning everywhere, out of control, the fire crews reported this, the footage shows this. How the hell does demolition material survive that? Then we have the breathtakingly obvious - what was the actual point of bringing down the building when it was pretty much going to be a burnt out husk anyway - with almost 100% guaranteed need for it to be demolished anyway?

Detailed answer please, preferably one that doesn't involve splattering paper all over Manhattan. Please don't embarrass yourself by talking about confidential documents needing destroying (the fire - duh) or some idiotic nonsense about insurance claims (building was burnt out anyway).

 

[Q-reeus]

Have you checked Hulsey's code, personally? If not, why do you believe it is accurate?

Why reveal your feigned idiocy so openly? The code and data are freely available, obviously for a team of highly experienced experts in the relevant fields to examine for fidelity. Something for instance those commissioned by NIST to generate their flawed simulations, should be up to. But all too predictably, it's a hot potato afaik all outside of Hulsey's team have so far avoided.Word gets around as to how those questioning the Official Line do career wise. Not well.

What does it show, by the way?

You have already been told what it shows - NIST's simulations are predetermined goal driven crap, that NIST's best effort fudges cannot hide without looking to be outright sci-fi absurdity.

Why haven't the police arrested the criminals at NIST yet? Why haven't they been prosecuted for their crimes?

How about - protected from above, by the criminal cabal that gave them their clear agenda, requiring an outcome close enough to the Official Story to pass muster with an ill-informed public.
And of course having been given carte blanche by that same cabal to refuse all FOI requests for disclosure of their simulation code and data, including assumptions used. Inexcusable.

Your not-so-innocent question is of course just bait to allow yet another 'conspiracy theorist' jibe.

 

[Q-reeus]

Who is "et al", can you list them please. It almost makes it sound that it was more qualified people involved.

You missed this below deliberately?

The building was burning everywhere, out of control, the fire crews reported this, the footage shows this. How the hell does demolition material survive that? Then we have the breathtakingly obvious - what was the actual point of bringing down the building when it was pretty much going to be a burnt out husk anyway - with almost 100% guaranteed need for it to be demolished anyway?

Detailed answer please, preferably one that doesn't involve splattering paper all over Manhattan. Please don't embarrass yourself by talking about confidential documents needing destroying (the fire - duh) or some idiotic nonsense about insurance claims (building was burnt out anyway).

No I didn't miss. The full reasons for bringing WTC 7 (and WTC's 1 & 2) down via controlled demolition are obviously only known to the criminal cabal responsible. You hint at awareness of some potential motivations re WTC 7, and of course dismiss them as 'crazy'. Just like the extremely lucrative windfall garnered by 'lucky' Larry Silverstein's 'lucky' decision to insure both WTC 1 & 2 for billions each, specifically including acts of terrorism, just 6 weeks ahead of the 'unfortunate and unpredictable' 9-11 collapse of both towers 1 & 2. Throw in just for good measure, his (and - 'amazingly', both his children's) even more extraordinarily 'lucky' decision to miss their habitual routine of lunching together every day at the top of WTC 1. Oh so conveniently cancelled just on that day! Yahweh looking after His Chosen Ones? Or perfidy tragically rewarded - as usual? The latter option fits far better imo.

David C likely considers those incriminating facts to be 'totally unremarkable'. SURE. Suspiciously timed insurance policies involving WTC 7 demolition otoh seem nonexistent. A red herring.

As for the other participants in developing and running the UAF simulations, are you seriously saying you never bothered to find out? Not hard:
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Unlike the undisclosed but likely many millions of $$s available to NIST, UAF study was on a lean budget and had to make every $ count.

 

[David C]

No I didn't miss. The full reasons for bringing WTC 7 (and WTC's 1 & 2) down via controlled demolition are obviously only known to the criminal cabal responsible.

Wait what!! You say WTC7 was demolished but have no explanation for why? It's a secret because you lot say so and nobody knows the truf.

You hint at awareness of some potential motivations re WTC 7, and of course dismiss them as 'crazy'.

For quite compelling reasons. The building got battered on one side with chunks of WTC1/2 material and caught fire. It burnt for most of the day, almost gutted out.

Just like the extremely lucrative windfall garnered by 'lucky' Larry Silverstein's 'lucky' decision to insure both WTC 1 & 2 for billions each, specifically including acts of terrorism, just 6 weeks ahead of the 'unfortunate and unpredictable' 9-11 collapse of both towers 1 & 2. Throw in just for good measure, his (and - 'amazingly', both his children's) even more extraordinarily 'lucky' decision to miss their habitual routine of lunching together every day at the top of WTC 1. Oh so conveniently cancelled just on that day! Yahweh looking after His Chosen Ones? Or perfidy tragically rewarded - as usual? The latter option fits far better imo.

So Larry did it? Do you hate the jooos? Do you?

Did a WTC Leaseholder Buy Terrorism Insurance Just Before 9/11? | Snopes.com

David C likely considers those incriminating facts to be 'totally unremarkable'. SURE. Suspiciously timed insurance policies involving WTC 7 demolition otoh seem nonexistent. A red herring.

So lucky Larry knew that big chunks were going to hit WTC7 and it would burn out of control for the entire day and the explosives unbelievably managed to survive this maelstrom?

As for the other participants in developing and running the UAF simulations, are you seriously saying you never bothered to find out? Not hard:
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Well I was waiting to see if you had determined how qualified they were, what with both of them being bridge engineers - et al. - makes it sound so special doesn't it.

 

[Q-reeus]

...So Larry did it? Do you hate the jooos? Do you?...

Hating people, individually or collectively, vs despising their actions and/or worldviews, are two different things. Anyway, turns out Lucky Larry actually made a tidy net profit from WTC 7 insurance payout:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy..._a_reminder_that_larry_lucky_silverstein_who/
Not that even the billions from WTC 1 & 2 payouts was the main aim. Instead - likely gaining total control over the premises leading up to that 'unexpected event'. Private ownership having never before been granted. All pure coincidence of course.
Only ratbag twoofers would smell a rat there! How silly!

Such truly amazing luck though his wife insisted he visit his dermatologist on the day. Naturally his son and daughter just had to cancel their customary Top-Of-The-World lunch appointment too! Yahweh be exalted!

 

[David C]

Anyway, turns out Lucky Larry actually made a tidy net profit from WTC 7 insurance payout:

But how in any crazy world does he plan chunks of burning building smack into WTC7 and burn it for the whole day? Is logic that hard for you?

Only ratbag twoofers would smell a rat there! How silly!

Exactly, one day you may get to genuinely realise it, like everybody else not crazily obsessed about this oh, 20 years later!

Such truly amazing luck though his wife insisted he visit his dermatologist on the day. Naturally his son and daughter just had to cancel their customary Top-Of-The-World lunch appointment too! Yahweh be exalted!

How do you know this? Because they let on about it. Now why would they do that? Are you one of these daft twooofers who thinks "pull it" was not about the fire?

 

[billvon]

NIST's 'accurate' MKII simulation, ostensibly correctly accounting for both fires and structural damage from earlier WTC collapses, very obviously predicts a collapse scenario looking nothing close to the recorded for all to see, actual free-fall of the essentially intact upper stories. NO chaotic puckering collapse there at all, just straight down. Fail.

It did pucker. The penthouse collapsed first. Then the center. Then the sides. Then the entire building. Watch the video if you don't believe me.

You fail miserably. Your claim doesn't even match reality.

 

[Q-reeus]

Too much time spent responding to disingenuous posters. I'm out.

 

[billvon]

Too much time spent responding to disingenuous posters. I'm out.

That's probably for the best. A science forum is not the best place for this sort of woo.

 

[psikeyhackr]

That's probably for the best. A science forum is not the best place for this sort of woo.

Especially a science forum that can dismiss the distributions of steel and concrete to the point of not wanting the data.

 

[DaveC426913]

Especially a science forum that can dismiss the distributions of steel and concrete to the point of not wanting the data.

Right. Cuz this science forum is the outlier when it comes to 9/11. All the other science forums apparently have all the data you can take. Why don't you bring it here?

Still waiting for your alternate ideas. Still waiting for the slightest whiff of evidence to support them. Not holding our breath.
After all, you've had twenty years.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Right. Cuz this science forum is the outlier when it comes to 9/11. All the other science forums apparently have all the data you can take. Why don't you bring it here?

Still waiting for your alternate ideas. Still waiting for the slightest whiff of evidence to support them. Not holding our breath.
After all, you've had twenty years.

I am not the one who put it in the outlier. It is not my fault that some people cannot figure out that skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Some people cannot put the core in their diagrams while trying to prove something about center of gravity.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not the one who put it in the outlier. It is not my fault that some people cannot figure out that skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Some people cannot put the core in their diagrams while trying to prove something about center of gravity.

So redraw the diagram yourself to make your point.

Oh that's right, you only tear down discussion, you don't contribute constructively.

The diagram is fine without internal detail. Remember what you said: you don't care about lateral distribution - only vertical distribution. And you were right there. The inclusion or exclusion of a core structure in an analysis will not have any effect on the CoG, since it's laterally symmetrical.


But it doesn't matter. You will not contribute anything constructive or illuminatory. Your raison d'etre is destructive and obfuscatory. Prove me wrong. Draw a diagram. Explain it and describe what you expect to happen that didn't happen. I won't hold my breath.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So redraw the diagram yourself to make your point.

Why would I do that?

I would prefer that you advertise your incompetence.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why would I do that?
I would prefer that you advertise your incompetence.

Perfect. You just freely acknowledged that you are more interested in trolling the thread than in discussing the thread topic.

You're done.

 

[billvon]

Perfect. You just freely acknowledged that you are more interested in trolling the thread than in discussing the thread topic.

Yep. That's been clear for the last dozen or so pages.

PKH: "Here is an ERROR I think is present in the simulation! But they refuse to release the data on the error!"
Us: "So run your own simulation. Show us the math."
PKH: "Uh, yeah, about that. . . . look, here's ANOTHER error that I think is present!"