and that is supposed to help somehow? you still have not proven a damn thing and you know it! here I will make it easy for you, which building? there is the path of the cgi plane
do you really think everything you see on tv is real? https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-cgi-meaning-definition/ tell me you dont believe its all real please!
This is just absurd. You are denying this picture showing the ACTUAL BUILDING is the actual building?
Somebody identified the two buildings: This is where somebody with integrity simply withdraws their claim, it's clearly total nonsense.
I haven’t taken you seriously for years. CGI? Really? could you point to any other source that believes your nonsense? your way beyond any other troofer in terms of outlandishness …
He does not state where hezerkoni was standing, so you need to fill in the gap since without knowing that we cant know anything that he made is true other than the fact that he calls truthers dumb asses. Im telling you dont grab any debunker crap unless you check it out first, so where was he standing when he took that marvy shot?
So you automatically took on face value "ACE" Baker's garbage about the plane wing going behind a building when the building was some distance away from the WTC2! And you didn't check it? It helps also if you can actually spell the guy's name correctly - I've told you this and posted videos with it on. Hezarkhani. http://www.notnicemusic.com/battery.html Back of Battery Park, close to the ferry dock.
this would have been his line of sight, and we shouldnt have seen any plane until a nanosecond before the alleged impact.
Is this deliberate, or are you actually pretending to not understand this mind-numbingly obvious thing? He was CLEARLY exactly where that image says he was and he would catch the plane exactly as he did! You are grasping at invisible straws in the most nauseating way possible. You were proven wrong. It was a building in the foreground, the wing would have passed behind it and it wasn't the frickin' WTC2 - a claim so appallingly wrong it is almost frightening that you could even think it.
According to Wiki, this guy is nuclear physicist and a skeptic. A nuclear physicist is not the kind of background required for a proper review of a structural engineer's work and a skeptic already indicates this guy is pre-armed for extreme bias. So waddling through his critique, I have several observations. 1. This isn't a scientific paper, it's a blog. That already does not meet the requirement I asked for. 2. The guy references Metabunk and Mick West. That's an immediate disqualifier. Why would any respected scientist need Metabunk and Mick West's support? 3. The guy strongly hints at xenophobia and homophobia, not exactly something endearing and leans heavily into trash. 4. The guy labels it all "conspiracy", that's not science, that's total trash. 5. There is little or nothing scientific method about what he writes, it's a lot of all over the place. Then again the guy is a self-described skeptic, so there's that. 6. He does present some valid points at times but these are heavily obscured by his extreme bias. I would like to read an objective scientific review of those points he raises from someone who is legitimate and not a fan of Metabunk and Mick West. Sorry, it's not what I asked for and Hulsey's paper remains unchallenged by any legitimate scientific paper. But nice try, not.
Unlike you huh Bob? I mean no way you went in and didn't look at this objectively. How grandiose of you! "What you asked for"? There is no necessary requirement for critique of any scientific paper. They don't don't need anything of the sort, your observation is a progressive as hominem in which you create circular arguments to dismiss everything critiquing Hulsey! I agree, but certainly not a scientific method to dismiss his content. Nope. 100% accurate. This is your defense-mechanism kicking in. If you don't like being labelled a conspiracy-theorist then you need to stop posting things about mega-conspiracies that are off-the-scale unfeasible. How would you know, you have no relevant qualification. There is no scientific method to dismiss content because a person specializes in what he does. List them, let's have a discussion about them. I really don't care what you "would like". Critique doesn't work that way. A five year old can critique a science paper, the reponse should be answer their critique. All you have done is dismiss every single item because YOU label the critique as coming from unqualified people, this when you have taken no steps to determine relevant qualification. His critique is in methodology and any person versed in correct methodology is qualified. Keep telling yourself that, maybe you might even one day believe it. But Hulsey wrote a paper, not peer reviewed, doesn't do anything to correctly map the fires with the building, he was paid for his services with a goal that suspiciously must have been the one he ended up with. He is a bridge-engineer. How do you figure he has experience of skyscrapers?
It's difficult to take an alleged expert who doesn't immediately recognize 3 controlled demolitions seriously. Of course there is, a blog isn't it. That's false, I already stated he might have some legitimate points. Somewhat agree. Labeling scientific work as "conspiracy theory" because it challenges government narratives is 100% illegitimate. Understanding the scientific method requires no specific qualifications, just basic education. Peer review of a work of science is a primary component of the scientific method. This doesn't come close to either a work of science, not to mention a peer reviewed work of science. You should brush up on the scientific method, you show you have no understanding what it is. English language translation please, that makes no sense. I already told you I don't take your "technical" opinions (or even most of your opinions) seriously, that would be a waste of time. Obviously, since you haven't yet presented any legitimate expert challenge of Hulsey's work. You never will because it doesn't (yet) exist. There is nothing to support your claim that he is "versed in correct methodology". His background is not equal to Hulsey's and that's not the crux of what I was looking for anyway. Hulsey wrote a peer reviewed paper, that is irrefutable. Regardless, you have never presented any legitimate peer reviewed work so that's quite hypocritical.
This is curious. Newtonian physics would be required before any student got to the nuclear stuff so I would tend to expect anyone with a degree in physics to be able to solve this skyscraper problem on his own. Funny story though: I read Tau Zero by Poul Anderson when it was still a recent book. The story depends on Einsteinian physics. I was a freshman taking electrical engineering so I went to a senior physics major to discuss it. He said, "You don't try to understand it. You memorize the equations and how to apply them." This was somewhat of a shock to my 18 year old brain. Since then I accept that some people can get degrees by just memorizing and not actually understanding the subject.
In about a nanosecond. I majored in engineering for about 1 semester then switched my major to mathematics (more than a half century ago). My heart was in mathematics and I often had to reconstruct equations to solve problems because memorizing them was not one of my "skills". Doing that helped develop my computer programming skills, which is in fact problem solving.
Would you like me to explain to you what circular reasoning is and why that is a perfect example of it? It suggests immediately that you began your "analysis" without any objectivity. Reread what I said. There is no necessity for any specific media to make a critique of a scientific claim or paper. A blog from a nuclear physicist is his personal online journal, dismissing it because you don't like the source is just evasion. And you falsely took part of my quote again to alter its meaning! You are making circular arguments again about people who he agrees with. People who have provided content that you have failed at every request to address. And again you distort my quote! He labels the CLAIMS as conspiracy theories. "Nope. 100% accurate. This is your defense-mechanism kicking in. If you don't like being labelled a conspiracy-theorist then you need to stop posting things about mega-conspiracies that are off-the-scale unfeasible." I'm sure the basic education you had served you well, but you don't get to claim (when you have no relevant qualification) that a doctorate level nuclear physicist has no scientific method! Well, all you needed to do was to refer to the line it replies to. You dismiss his content because he is a "skeptic" and that is not a scientific thing to do, so much for your "basic education" in understanding it. Are you actually afraid to directly discuss things? You are kidding right? He is a doctorate level physicist. His entire career is about methodology! You aren't actually looking for anything to "challenge" Hulsey, you completely ignore everything presented to you. No he didn't. Peers are supposed to be impartial!. None of his "peers" were. ASCE Publication Policies (ascelibrary.org) Really! You regard the American Society of Civil Engineers as maybe not an authority!? The Total Collapse of the Twin Towers: What It Would Have Taken to Prevent It Once Collapse Was Initiated | Journal of Structural Engineering | Vol 148, No 2 (ascelibrary.org)
Leroy Hulsey question: Did Hulsey do fire modelling on all the floors of WTC7 that were on fire, unfought for the whole time before collapse?
@undertheradar They can do when their engines are being maxed out beyond safety levels and they're hitting things on their way to crashing: 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 - YouTube It doesn't only happen at high altitude - circular reasoning. We have to get rid of the actual plane. Create loads of pieces for it. Magically distribute them around the crash scene and hope nobody notices. We need to get rid of the passengers. Chop them up and stick a few body parts around. They have to be burnt and then we need the DNA from them so they can be identified. We need to convince air traffic control it's been hijacked. We need to fabricate some passenger cell phone conversations. If we're firing a missile we need to involve military or 3rd party and it must be accurate. Oh, we also need some lamp post demolition performed. We also need some deformations of other things near the Pentagon. We need EVERY witness to the plane (and there were many!) to lie. We cannot have any witnesses to it being a missile. With no actual flight! Don't forget to fake all the actual passengers. They can't be alive. All their relatives. Their funeral/memorials. All subsequent compensation litigation. The take off The actual plane All air traffic control interactions! All radar readings. Don't accept any actual bookings for the "fake flight" even though it's scheduled regularly. Still have to fake all the cell phone conversations. Here is the quote: "They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, (garbled) missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." Conspiracy theorist have deceptively changed the bolded garbled/unclear words to "and the" , from what he almost certainly said "as a". He is referring to "using a passenger jet" which logic denotes that he means AS something. Ergo a missile. Simple.
Regarding the collapse Tony Szamboti suggested it only went down a few floors, but that is provably not true. It goes right down to at least 3 major support columns! Just look at that wave through the windows. Then 5 seconds later the rest gives way. So not only did Hulsey do insufficient fire modeling (just floors 11 and 12), he failed to make simple observations that any good scientist would do. Had he done so, he would clearly see that as the Penthouse collapses, the building shows this rippling all the way to the bottom!
Not possible from that position unless the plane was in a literal nose dive at an extreme bank then you might have seen bits of the right wing through the buildings not the whole plane then it would have appeared from behind the buildings directly in front of wtc 2. Other videos show it coming in nearly flat. Your claim is grossly over simplified and not paying attention to the forensic facts.
