• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SEVEN released on streaming sites

PhotoMatt said:
It's foolish to comment if you haven't watched the documentary, but that doesn't seem to prevent people from still commenting. That speaks volumes to what is really going on in this forum.
Click to expand...
As I asked before, what does this film add to the report?

I am also a non-engineer and so cannot comment on the technical details of the report, but then again neither will the vast majority of the audience for this film. So how is it that they will be expected to draw any conclusions?
 
PhotoMatt said:
This begs the question, what makes me so certain that I'm right and the reality deniers are wrong? Simple. The WTC7 study was public and peer-reviewed. The data is public. Their models match what was observed. They have no reason to lie. None. It's absurd to think that Hulsey conned AE911T out of $400K to create a fraudulent report. Any argument along those lines is foolish and with no basis whatsoever in reality.
Click to expand...
Do you think that universities never produce reports that are what the client wants, rather than what the data suggests?

In general when research is paid for by a client who has a strong interest in getting a particular result then the research is viewed with suspicion.

It does not even have to be any kind of conscious dishonesty, rather an assumption here, a tweak there until the model comes out they way you want.

You say that the models match what was observed. How are you in a position to say this? Like me you are not an engineer and are unable to analyse the model, so you can't possibly be in a position to say if they really have a model which matches what was observed, you have only seen some animations which are like what we have seen. Even I could produce an animation that is like what we have seen.

I note that the signatories for their petition who are engineers, although they come from around the world, represent about 0.05% of the number of engineers in America. This from 20 years of advocacy.

I can see no reason why someone would choose to do a controlled demolition of this building. Even if someone had reason to bring it down, doing a controlled demolition would seem like a bizarre choice.

And they would have had to approached a series of experts and asked, or told, them to commit treason against their country and become accomplices to the mass murder of thousands of their fellow citizens. So all happily agreed to do so and never to tell a soul either before or in the two decades after? Or else they declined, but agreed to keep it quiet that they had been asked for the rest of their lives?

There is so much against the proposition that there was a controlled demolition of WTC7 and not very much at all in favour.
 
Last edited:
In short, the fact that a University department produced a computer model which showed what the people funding it really wanted to hear is not much evidence for anything.
 
Hulsey Report said:
The lack of combustibles was critically examined, as was the idea that primary damage by fires could occur on floors where financial centers were located. The questions we addressed were: Would this type of business have paper lying around or would privacy be most important and therefore paper stock locked in a fireproof safe? Why was a fire in this building so significant?
Click to expand...
OK, here is part of the report that I am qualified to comment on.

I worked for a large international financial company around that time and I led the project to move towards a paperless office. As part of that I made an audit of the paper based records, where and how they were stored. Previous to this I had been responsible for generating and distributing a large amount of their paper based records.

It was mind boggling how much prime city centre real estate was devoted to storing stacks of paper. I was able to justify the cost of the project easily just in the real estate cost savings. Each night batch jobs were run which produced dozens of reports, some quite large and these were printed out dozens of times and distributed around the office where they were stored in ring binders.

Most of these reports did not identify financial details of individuals and were not stored in fire proof safes.

And this was only a portion of the paper around the office. The output of the Y2K audit occupied a book shelf over an entire wall. Training manuals, procedure manuals, software manuals, tax manuals, security records, it goes on and on.

And of course this is in addition to the desks, partitions, bookshelves, etc

If these financial centres were anything like the offices where I worked then we would have expected an extraordinary amount of combustible materials.

In the report they say this was "critically examined" but I can't see where they mention any conclusion they came to or even mention it again in the report.

Why do they mention it at all, if not to suggest in the reader the conclusion that there would not be much combustible material?

So, a faulty assumption that favours the preferred conclusion. How many other similarly faulty assumptions are there in the technical part I wonder.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
As I asked before, what does this film add to the report?

I am also a non-engineer and so cannot comment on the technical details of the report, but then again neither will the vast majority of the audience for this film. So how is it that they will be expected to draw any conclusions?
Click to expand...
My take is that they couldn't get it accepted by any engineering journal, therefore they're trying the propaganda route (a mockumentary).
 
I forgot about Y2K. I recall everyone had their databases and important files backed up on paper. I wonder how much extra paper, in the form of files and binders, was inside of WTC1, 2, & 7 on 911 due to post Y2K?
 
PhotoMatt said:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...ntradicts-official-conclusions-301029854.html

https://canada.constructconnect.com...-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/university-report-9-11-building-180400328.html

http://www.newsminer.com/test3/univ...deo_970dc3b4-b840-5d9b-a3bd-14d499b35ee6.html

https://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth

Come on, beachnut. Quit pretending to have credibility when you can't do a quick Google search and find credible, mainstream links that clearly refute your claims.

AE911T constantly does press releases. They are just censored, which you can clearly see by the number of videos that get removed from YT.

Surely, you know this, right? Or, are you so delusional that the most obvious facts can't get through?
Click to expand...

We all agree there are gullible news reporters and that there is something interesting about 9/11, and for some people, its buildings.

That's all those articles prove.

AE911T haven't proved anything.
 
Robin said:
OK, here is part of the report that I am qualified to comment on.

I worked for a large international financial company around that time and [...]

It was mind boggling how much prime city centre real estate was devoted to storing stacks of paper. [...]

If these financial centres were anything like the offices where I worked then we would have expected an extraordinary amount of combustible materials.

In the report they say this was "critically examined" but I can't see where they mention any conclusion they came to or even mention it again in the report.

Why do they mention it at all, if not to suggest in the reader the conclusion that there would not be much combustible material?

So, a faulty assumption that favours the preferred conclusion. How many other similarly faulty assumptions are there in the technical part I wonder.
Click to expand...

Let us QUOTE the passage in the report that you are so aptly and relevantly commenting upon - page 21f:

Hulsey report said:
1.5 The UAF Team’s Approach to Examining the Structural Response of WTC 7

The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. The findings and conclusions of each approach are described in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 respectively.

1.5.1 Approach 1: Structural Response to Fire Loading

First, we modeled the structural framing and simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13. Several factors warranted extra technical examination:

a. WTC 7 was not symmetrical. Therefore, during collapse it would naturally sway towards the mass center for the floors. The mass center for the floors were initially evaluated and then used to examine the building’s response during collapse.

b. The lack of combustibles was critically examined, as was the idea that primary damage by fires could occur on floors where financial centers were located. The questions we addressed were: Would this type of business have paper lying around or would privacy be most important and therefore paper stock locked in a fireproof safe? Why was a fire in this building so significant?

c. We simulated fires in the building. [...]

d. We prepared a detailed simulation of the floor slab connection to the beams and floor slab connection to the girders. [...]
Click to expand...

It bears keeping in mind that "The findings and conclusions of" this subsection "1.5.1 Approach 1: Structural Response to Fire Loading" supposedly "are described in [Chapter] 2".

a. is essentially a bare claim - an assumption not actually justified. Do they imply that a "symmetrical" building would not "sway towards the mass center for the floors"? More importantly, this "swaying" "towards the mass center for the floors" has nothing to do with "CHAPTER 2.0" which covers, supposedly, the "STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO FIRE LOADING". And indeed, the string "symme" appears nowhere in Chapter 2 - Hulsey et al did not in fact subject the fact that "WTC 7 was not symmetrical" to any "extra technical examination". Why mention a bare fact, if it plays no role?

b. is the "paperless" claim Robin hitched upon.
Indeed, we again have a bare assertion at hand: No reference, not even appeal to personal experience - just idle musing and imagination and asking "Would this type of business have paper lying around...?" -> Notice: They do not answer this question, nor is the question of "paper lying around" brought up in any way, shape or form elsewhere in the report. The very word "paper" appears only one other time in the report - in the "References" appendix on page 112, where it has no discernible connection to Section 1.5.1 or Chapter 2.
Again, Hulsey et al did not in fact subject the idle question whether there would be any "paper lying around" to any "extra technical examination".

c. is a straight-up lie: They did NOT "simulate fires in the building". Period.

d. is the only "factor" brought up in 1.5.1 that they apparently did subject to any kind examiniation.


The entire section 1.5.1 is bunk. To confuse the gullible, if it wasn't indeed Hulsey himself who confused himself.


You can do the same with any section of the report - wherever you dig, you find that there is zero viable substance to it.
 
PhotoMatt said:
...
This begs the question, what makes me so certain that I'm right and the reality deniers are wrong? Simple. The WTC7 study was public and peer-reviewed. ...
Click to expand...

Two questions:
  1. Who were the peer reviewers?
  2. Who chose the peer reviewers?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I can't be the only person who saw the thread title not understanding how there could possibly be a conspiracy over the Brad Pitt / Morgan Freeman serial killer movie being on streaming...
Click to expand...

Haha nope, you're not. I was wondering what the big deal was, a 20 odd year old film released on streaming sites :D
 
Ok, its weird when you have an independant investigation and Tony Szamboti is litterally telling Hulsey what happened according to AE911 truth, before the investigation started. so independant it was not
 
Oystein said:
Two questions:
  1. Who were the peer reviewers?
  2. Who chose the peer reviewers?
Click to expand...

EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS
Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D
Chartered Consulting Engineer
Analytical Service Company

Robert Korol, Ph.D
Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering
McMaster University

https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...ollapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf

Korol and Gregory Szuladzinski have both worked with szamboti and Jones, so not sure how that counts as external peer reviewer.

https://experts.mcmaster.ca/display/publication1404588

https://www.researchgate.net/public...derstandings_Related_to_WTC_Collapse_Analysis
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom