|
Just in time for lunch. Thanks! e: 
no_recall fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 8, 2019 |
#
?
May 8, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:But why? An excellent question, and one which i don't really have an answer for. I do enjoy a good debate though, and this one hasn't started flinging too much poo
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:Unknown. We know there's a convergence on the horizon with their last $40+ million last-ditch infusion, and their sudden "hard" deadline for Squadon 42. My prediction at this point is that they'll release an incredibly cut-down and compromised version of SQ42 (complete with the usual bullshit of saying it will be improved over time, episodes will come out, etc.) and at the same time "Star Citizen" will be officially "launched" in its current state, with the exact same promises attached. SQ42 will sell jack poo poo, and the whole thing will begin the final spiral into nonexistence. You know, you raise a good point. I was thinking the reason that all the missions from SQ42 were "scrapped and restarted" because in reality CIG had nothing and were lying through their teeth that most missions were almost ready. But now i'm thinking they were not lying, but that last polish required was going to take them years to actually achieve, and Calder asked them for info and saw this was the case and said basically, look, stop dicking around, you need something that you can release in a year or two, so basically the vision had to be compromised and everything scaled back in order to make something that can hit their deadline. I think that is a possibility. Of course, that would mean that SQ42 is not going to be the magnum opus CR dreamed of.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
Star Citizen must continue until Elite releases space-legs. I really want to see Reddit's self implosion when that happens.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Flared Basic Bitch posted:I’m a fan of this post, because the thread typically equates the modern legacy of the Wing Commander franchise with the significance of the first couple Wing Commander games when they came out. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Wing Commander I was like a bomb going off among my crowd. The only game with something like modern cinematics that I can remember playing before that was Karateka, and say what you want about the “flying in circles and shooting” gameplay, there’d been nothing that could touch that experience to that point. It was probably the closest that Roberts ever came to capturing the excitement of that Star Wars experience he never shuts up about. WC II followed the next year and was essentially more of the same, but I think it’s fair to say that most of the fans were A-OK with more of the same at that point. It boils down to this; Chris is a game storyteller, not a game developer. What made WC special was that it pushed the envelope in terms of narrative experience. The game play was bad, but it wasn't so bad that it took away from the story. He's never given a poo poo about how his game plays, only that it can be used to tell a story.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
no_recall posted:Star Citizen must continue until Elite releases space-legs. I actually raised this with a backer, how they would feel if space legs was released in ED. They said it wouldn't make any difference. That FD will implement it badly anyway. That ED isn't capable of doing space legs. That ED has the player as part of the ship therefore it won't be the same experience. Some of them can't even accept the idea that ED might get space legs or if it does, it won't be any good anyway. Another tried to say it won't make any difference, that space legs are not a defining difference between the games, despite years of SC backers pointing to space legs as being the defining difference. So yeah, while i'm not particular bothered about space legs in ED, i'd rather FD did atmospheric worlds first, space legs later, if it is the 2020 update, then i'm looking forward to seeing the reactions on the SC sub. More important, in ED, will we be able to fall through the floors of our ships! Without that, the fidelity just won't be the same!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Agony Aunt posted:I actually raised this with a backer, how they would feel if space legs was released in ED. They said it wouldn't make any difference. That FD will implement it badly anyway. That ED isn't capable of doing space legs. That ED has the player as part of the ship therefore it won't be the same experience. Flying into Gas Giants would be phenomenal. I believe ED's version of spacelegs would be microgravity based instead of gravity goo based w/mag boots which you can toggle.The real issue with implementing such a system would be, higher mass objects i.e. neutron stars, black holes, should have crazy (or maybe artistically simulated?) effects on your ship and when you're not seated, this also dependant on your orbit around said object. Also what would be personally interesting is how gravity in supercruise will be illustrated, since space-time is being bent around the ship. Personally I want ED to explore life, like space whales or giant jelly fish or something.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Agony Aunt posted:I actually raised this with a backer, how they would feel if space legs was released in ED. They said it wouldn't make any difference. That FD will implement it badly anyway. That ED isn't capable of doing space legs. That ED has the player as part of the ship therefore it won't be the same experience. They got that practice in when Elite beat them to the planetary landings. They will always downplay Elite because if you compare them relative to the return on investment, it highlights how wasteful CIG has been with money and development resources. Star Citizen will always have a 'je ne sais quoi' quality that Elite will never match, and you better believe it was worth throwing hundreds of millions at it. That feeling is priceless.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
no_recall posted:I read this 5 times. I still don't get it. I think Jorun thinks the other guy is wondering about the fuss the journalists make about SC not about the fuss shitizens make about journalists.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
 I have this as a keyboard macro too. I set it to my spacebar.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:It boils down to this; Chris is a game storyteller, not a game developer. What made WC special was that it pushed the envelope in terms of narrative experience. The game play was bad, but it wasn't so bad that it took away from the story. He's never given a poo poo about how his game plays, only that it can be used to tell a story. But even back then it was a d grade narrative. People just liked the flashy "graphics" for the time. I Know it's a personal opinion but I just never found the story that interesting and this is in a time where games were only just starting to get comprehensive narratives, wing commander didn't even raise my interest with movie like story lines because the story was generic as gently caress. And yes the gameplay was also generic as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:'je ne sais quoi' Its funny, i can't hear that phrase without thinking of Del Boy Trotter.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
no_recall posted:I read this 5 times. I still don't get it. MedicineHut posted:I think Jorun thinks the other guy is wondering about the fuss the journalists make about SC not about the fuss shitizens make about journalists. No it was being pointed out to Jorunn that he liked a Forbes article that was painting SC in a good light and then hating a Forbes article painting SC in a bad light, both articles were written by the same author but some time apart. Jorunn failed to see that backers only agree with articles that stay in their echo chamber and then hate on opposing articles.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
no_recall posted:Flying into Gas Giants would be phenomenal. I believe ED's version of spacelegs would be microgravity based instead of gravity goo based w/mag boots which you can toggle.The real issue with implementing such a system would be, higher mass objects i.e. neutron stars, black holes, should have crazy (or maybe artistically simulated?) effects on your ship and when you're not seated, this also dependant on your orbit around said object. I wish FD would get a move on with gas giants. Braben has dropped like half a dozen hints over the years with that boyish grin of his plastered on his face every time he mentions it. I'm pretty sure they are sitting on a skunkworks project for it that still has to be integrated into the main game. And yeah, life is a major hurdle and i think they are really wanting to take their time with that because its got to use procgen (galaxy is just too big to do handcrafted or even a combination of procgen and handcrafted). And that means doing it in such a way as you don't end up with penis monsters everywhere. I think they are using other projects like planet zoo to work out things and expand their expereince with animations for a variety of creature types. I don't expect lots of life in the galaxy for many years yet though. I think they will continue with the odds bits of handcrafted flora/fauna just to keep adding little bits, but the life explosion as it were is a long way off.... and of course, before that, we need atmospheric worlds, which isn't looking likely for 2020 if that is going to be space legs. Atmospheric worlds plus space legs by 2020 is probably too much to hope for.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Galactic_Kark/status/1125860819013644289 gently caress 100 star systems, let's go gold with less than 1 star system.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BoredGamerUK/status/1125842991376142336
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
. idiot post
Sillybones fucked around with this message at 07:13 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/trueman832/status/1125777240980172800 There's some delicious irony in this tweet.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
Amazing Zimmo posted:No it was being pointed out to Jorunn that he liked a Forbes article that was painting SC in a good light and then hating a Forbes article painting SC in a bad light, both articles were written by the same author but some time apart. Jorunn failed to see that backers only agree with articles that stay in their echo chamber and then hate on opposing articles. When Stuart GT tries to get a reaction by being more direct about the dig by asking why if there's no new information there's such a huge fuss, Jorunn still thinks he's in a good-faith conversation about the journalist so he's like "yeah, why WOULD the journalist make such a huge fuss over nothing new 🤔🤔🤔 (conspiracy theory already formulating)" because he's incapable of seeing his own inconsistency without assimilating the fact that if there's nothing new in there maybe the information he already knows is enough to decide that Star Citizen is bad and oh god this is my entire life I have to question now, I better buy another spaceship.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
Amazing Zimmo posted:No it was being pointed out to Jorunn that he liked a Forbes article that was painting SC in a good light and then hating a Forbes article painting SC in a bad light, both articles were written by the same author but some time apart. Jorunn failed to see that backers only agree with articles that stay in their echo chamber and then hate on opposing articles. Was referring to Jorunn last sentence there.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
Sillybones posted:. idiot post 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Ulio posted:How much cash does CIG still have left? It's polygon
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Ulio posted:How much cash does CIG still have left? Not enough! Buy a ship!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Yeah - Jorunn interpreted the original "what happened in those months?" question not as a sarcastic dig at his inconsistency but as a good-faith question of how the journalist changed. He doesn't understand it either! Because there's no new information in the article (Jorunn already knew Sandi was the masked strangler) so why does the journalist all of sudden no longer think Star Citizen is good?!? MedicineHut posted:Was referring to Jorunn last sentence there. Sorry friends, I interpreted it the wrong way. I'm probably getting too drunk for thread.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
hurston strangler
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
olisar throttler
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
Agony Aunt posted:penis monsters everywhere 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:56
|
|
Welcome to the
|
Lack of Gravitas posted:olisar throttler erotic ArcCorp auto-asphyxiation e; no that doesn't work, how about ArcCorp choker second life and VRChat, ask clifford some time. Amazing Zimmo fucked around with this message at 08:07 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
In the last 500 years..... erotic hot bears, no homo sapien
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
Amazing Zimmo posted:But even back then it was a d grade narrative. People just liked the flashy "graphics" for the time. I Know it's a personal opinion but I just never found the story that interesting and this is in a time where games were only just starting to get comprehensive narratives, wing commander didn't even raise my interest with movie like story lines because the story was generic as gently caress. And yes the gameplay was also generic as gently caress. Video game storylines even today are D-grade, Wing Commander/Privateer 2 for all it's faults did have better FMV than most games for the time. Just less than a year after WC4 however the whole FMV craze was over.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
So the consensus now seems to be 5-10 at release (what is release anyway), or maybe one or two, but definitely not 100 because hand wavy development is hard reasons? Boy, these chumps don't half make Chris' whale-milking operation easy - he'll soon be well on his way to a second house in the Palisades.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Jonny Shiloh posted:So the consensus now seems to be 5-10 at release (what is release anyway), or maybe one or two, but definitely not 100 because hand wavy development is hard reasons? But, but, once the pipelines are finished they will pump out new systems really really quick!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
Amazing Zimmo posted:https://twitter.com/Galactic_Kark/status/1125860819013644289 So, we're all voting 2030 right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 09:50
|
|
|
 gently caress you Forbes, you have mismanagement and incompetence at a galactic scale! MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 10:17 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 10:13
|
|
|
Agony Aunt posted:So, we're all voting 2030 right? no brigading
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
+Asghaad "except that exactlly IS a start of development, you dont get to work on project and then just say it actually wasnt and delete year from the development time ... they started the project in 2011"- no, this was preliminary work that would usually take place while you were working on the preceding game. GTA 5 did the exact same thing while making GTA 4, which means you either add an arbitrary year to Star Citizen and an equivalent FIVE years to GTA 5, or you accept that choosing an engine is not actually part of developing the game you'll be using it for.That's what that was, by the way: Chris Roberts was simply choosing the engine he was going to use. I'm aware of nothing that was used from that concept, because it was literally purely to see if the engine could handle what he wanted to do with it." GTA 5 was started AFTER they finished GTA 4"- yes, immediately after, which means it started in April of 2008."because port is separate product ... unless game is developed for multiple systems AT THE SAME TIME "- which fits GTA 5 perfectly, because they built the entire game while considering that it was going to be on PC. Done."3.) nope"- why the gently caress are you numbering things? I didn't, which means your numbers have no reference point. You're not quoting the part that you're saying "nope" to, so you have no textual reference point either.No wonder you're struggling to steer clear of logical fallacies and hypocrisy..."the fact is that GTA 5 is a CONSOLE game that was later PORTED to function on PC... PC was NOT its target audience and the time it took to get it ported reflects that ... game was developed, finished and published on given system and AFTER the RELEASE of the game completely separate, small and underfunded team worked on PORTING - ie NOT developing anything - the FINISHED game for PC"- bullshit, according to Rockstar:"We were always going to bring GTA 5 to PC. We planned from day 1 for a PC build and we made technical decisions based off the fact that we would be doing a PC version of the game." - it's unclear, but this comes from either Phil Hooker, Adam Fowler, or Klass Shilstra. Then there's the fact that they were leaking DX11 bug lists well before it was released on Ps3, proving that you are wrong about the PC version being a port that only began after the console versions were released. These pre-date the PS3 release by a year.Kevin Hoare, President of Rockstar Toronto, said" early development [of the PC version] was done in parallel with the console versions". So, in short, the PC version was started alongside the PS3 and X360 versions, so it WAS in development in 2008. He also pointed out that " In fact, some of the early preparations we made for PC, like 64 bit & DX11 support, paid off very handsomely when the PS4 and Xbox One architectures were announced".But, I'm sure a fuckwitted little pussy like you knows more about the development of GTA 5 than the people who worked on it, right...?Owned, bitch."fine, let it be 118 milion, ill take your 137 mil for GTA5 over 260 mil i wrote any day xD didnt hel your cause much"- it didn't have to. I'm not the one making up fictitious data to help support my collapsing assertions. I'm happy to have accurate information, whereas you are only happy if information supports your bullshit.What that has done is highlight me as honest, and highlight you as inherently dishonest." if GTA5 could be RELEASED in 4 years from the development start "- so where was the PC release in 2012? Oh, and why are you now trying to chop off a few extra months? Feeling insecure about Squadron 42 being slated for release in the next six months...?GTA 5 took over six years to develop and release on PC. That's your benchmark, whether you like it or not. Rockstar developers and producers are quoted here as stating that the development of the PC version coincided with the PS3 version, which means it began in 2008. You have no valid response to that, so don't even bother replying with anything other than outright, unconditional acceptance. Rockstar themselves have told you that you are wrong - end of argument."SC so far have released only separate bits of pre-alpha proof of concept"- if that's how you classify the current build then I am perfectly entitled to classify GTA 3 as a "pre-alpha proof of concept"[sic] for GTA 5."to test an alpha stage of the game you have to actuall have a whole package of BASIC features in sayd game "- says who? Only you, by the looks of things:"An alpha test is a preliminary software field test carried out by a team of users in order to find bugs that were not found previously through other tests. The main purpose of alpha testing is to refine the software product by finding (and fixing) the bugs that were not discovered through previous tests. "- found here:https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5935/alpha-testIn fact, since testing by potential users is usually referred to as beta-testing, the current system is a lot more like a conventional beta than an alpha.It's in alpha, and has been for several years. That is not open for debate just because you want to redefine "alpha" in order to discriminatorily exclude Star Citizen. That's all you're doing: trying to change the meaning of "alpha" so that you can force Star Citizen out of the actual definition. You're pulling another bait-and-switch."if you didnt notice i didnt include any story elements or any part of sq.42 as requirement for the alpha because that woudl be closer to beta material"- progression is a BASIC feature, which means your own rules are internally inconsistent. They are self-contradictory. What a loving retard!"once they merge them and actually include the persistent universe with flight, combat and shooter modules TOGETHER "- the original game was NEVER slated to feature a Persistent Universe, so that one can be omitted entirely. However, the current build does feature flight, combat and shooter modules all rolled into one seamless experience - just as they were supposed to. There was never going to be any distinction between these playstyles, so your tacit demand that Star Marine be included are rejected as fallacious.By your own standards, the current build is an alpha build, you loving moron.You can't win even when you're trying to stack the deck against it. All you've done it drop your cards onto the floor..." there is NO justification for insults in debate, never was, never will ... grow up kid, only irrational juveniles have to resort to raging and insults ..."- you insulted me three times within that one sentence, in which you stated that there was "No justification for insults in debate"[sic]. loving hypocrite.Incidentally, this is not, nor has it ever been, a debate. This is a case of an ignorant, lying little poo poo (you) repeatedly trying to fudge the numbers in order to attack something that he simply doesn't like. This is a case of a pathetic little oval office (you again) hiding behind anonymity to rabidly scream about something that he clearly has no real experience of, consisting entirely of made-up "facts" and fictional "evidence".I'm stating facts, while you soothe yourself with fairy tales."except RSI themselves promissed to release SQ42 THIS YEAR ( well first episode that is...) so theyr alloted time is less than six months "- GTA was slated to release in 2012, so by your logic it never came out at all.It's pencilled in for release this year. That's called a "projected" release date. By your own standards, they have at least as long to finish as Rockstar did, which gives them six years and three months, which began no earlier than October 2012. Their allotted finish date can be no later than April 2019, if we give them the same amount of time. Not that you're willing to give them the same amount of time, for some reason..."by that time the engine they use will be DATED and archaic "- the original CryEngine 3, maybe, but not the so-called StarEngine. Name me another engine that can support persistence and 64-bit precision over a comparable map size. Name me five games that'll release in that time that have a scope that'll come close to matching that of this game. I can think of maybe two, and neither of them can match the CURRENT mechanics and features, like seamless multi-crew gameplay and EVA. As it stands, no extant engine has been used to do anything comparable to what we can do right now in the ALPHA. "Archaic", my arse.You know gently caress all. The fact that so much of your assertion is based on demonstrable falsehoods is all I need to reject your bullshit outright. If you don't address those in-house Rockstar statements then I'm just going to paste this comment all over your profile pages, because they instantly refute everything you have claimed. Refusal to address them will be proof that you are doing nothing more than manipulating the data until it says what you always wanted it to say but that it never did. On the off-chance that you can't see my responses, here's another copy of the one from a few days ago: +Shawn Drumm ". You don't look outside the box." - no, I simply refuse to acknowledge those who are so cowardly that they hide their reports away from critical review. I refuse to allow people to sneak their error-laden propaganda through the system in order to avoid having people tear it to loving shreds. " Concrete is BRITTLE! " - well done. All it took was for me to continually pressure you into acknowledging irrefutable data, peppering you with corroborating links, and you were finally able to throw out a concession that was so laden with sarcasm that you can delude yourself and your fellow lying cunts that you didn't mean it. gently caress off, bitch. You can rephrase that right now. You can provide a sincere, detailed analysis of the physical properties of concrete and tell all of us whether ot not it is a brittle material. I'm not accepting that poo poo from a lying little prick like you, especially when you insist on acting as if you're under duress or trying to take the high ground. At this point, the high ground is so far above you that you'll need a Saturn V to get near it. It's beyond pathetic that it's taking this much effort and cajoling just to get a clueless fuckwit like you to admit a trivial mistake without leaving yourself some wriggle room to soothe your misguided ego. "False collapse times??? WATCH THE loving VIDEO AND COUNT!!!" - fine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 - next! "How loving hard can that be??" - my thoughts exactly, sunshine-bear. Why was it impossible to get you to actually time these collapses rather than continually insisting that they collapsed far quicker than this? Want an even better source? Then look no further than the raw seismic data. " Active thermite material " - HA! What a loving retard! " thats not good enough either, right?" - no, it isn't. Would you like to know why? Of course you wouldn't, because it would destroy your predetermined biases, but you're going to shut the gently caress up and listen anyway: Thermite has an ignition point of...well, this is a little tricky, as there is some confusion around as to the exact ignition point. Worse still, some seem to be confusing the ignition temperature with the flame temperature, which is almost as wrong as your beliefs. That said, the LOWEST estimate of the ignition point of thermite is 600°C. Now, take a look at that pseudo-paper in that pseudo-peer-reviewed-journal again (which, by the way, you sourced incorrectly) and you'll see the temperature at which their samples ignited was well below the ignition point of thermite: "[samples ignited] at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite" -see? Your own source explicitly states that it is physically impossible for the samples to have been thermite. You'll excuse me while I drop this mic... "or this one" - the one from Springer contains this: "extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals " - which explicitly rules out thermite. Thermite is INORGANIC, being composed entirely of iron, aluminium and oxygen. ORGANIC compounds are those that contain carbon (with the exception of CO2). The abstract alone rules out thermitic materials entirely. Done. Next! "this from the Open Civil Engineering Journal" - firstly, you've already linked to that one, you loving cretin. Secondly, there is nothing therein that has either A) been peer-reviewed, or B) any relevance to this topic. Bentham does not use appropriately-qualified individuals to vet their reports. Jones and Harrit infamously got their fraudulent poo poo published - temporarily - by getting a sympathetic individual with an ulterior motive and no relevant qualifications or experience to wave their bullshit through. Would you like to try again? Or will you try another change of subject to avoid being shown to be wrong in front of all these strangers that you think are your friends because you happen to share a religious delusion? So, the rabbit-hole... A quick search for Hulsey's name and some specific keywords results in a 9/11-friendly report published in an open-access "journal". For those who don't know, open-access journals seldom have the same kind of review standards as subscription-based journals, because they make money by charging people to publish there. As a result, any paper they turn away represents a lost "sale", giving them a serious conflict of interest. Anyway, this report is titled "Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11" and is hosted by MDPI. The first red flag is that the author is affiliated with an organisation who have a clear motive to re-investigate the events, as well as multiple instances of outright deception on their site. Thus, this is hardly close to an impartial analysis. This is interesting because there are multiple ACTUAL peer-reviewed journals that are actively seeking research into bias in the peer-review system, including several examples of meta-analyses of this topic. Multiple legitimate journals would have readily hosted this report, had it met their standards for scientific accuracy, that is... This report also provides a link to Hulsey's website. Scroll to the foot of the homepage to see the direct affiliation with AE911T, an organization that still advocates the Harrit fraud, despite it being shown that it involved the fraudulent circumvention of the peer-review process in order to get propaganda into a journal. Not very wise... Here's a link to this veiled declaration of affiliation: http://archive.is/uMYwn#selection-667.21-669.14 Why is this affiliation relevant? Well, because AE911T appear to have already decided the outcome of his "research": _*"We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public. Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed."*_ - you can find a source for this here: http://archive.is/R6ys9#selection-1209.1-1211.274 Be sure to note the date of that post. It's from November 2015, which means that AE911T knew, almost TWO YEARS AGO, that the results would favour their worldview. Sounds suspicious to me, given that Hulsey still isn't prepared to release his raw data after he was supposedly accepted for peer-review. Oh, as a side-note, check out the difference between acceptance date and publication date for the first source above. They are a week apart, rather than the seven weeks Hulsey is claiming between his currently-supposedly-accepted report and its publication date. Another side-note: I'm prepared to bet that Hulsey's report will - assuming it's published at all - be published in the "Journal" of 9/11 studies, which is a pseudo-journal started up by, you guessed it, AE911T when they found that no real journals would accept their antiscientific propaganda. Anyway, onwards: this is what Hulsey's slick-looking, detail-light site says about his research: "WTC 7 Evaluation is a two-year study by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded through the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth." - note how AE911T is presented as a non-profit organisation, despite bringing in about $500k per year. Why the need to crowdfund the research with that kind of bankroll...? AE911T are very clear about the reason for their confident proclamations of the results so prematurely: "Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition more readily replicates the observed destruction." - note the language used: they're not going to see whether the NIST data is viable - they have already decided that it won't be. They also aren't going to look into the viability of explosives, because - once again - they have already decided that they will be proven viable. They are declaring the results before they have even started their research. Now, with facts like these in mind, feel free to re-watch those Hulsey videos. Pay particular attention to when he says things like "only high rise steel building to collapse from fire", because this is something that AE911T have turned into something of a slogan. It's a tell-tale sign of his conflicted interest, and all but guarantees that he set out to do nothing more than fabricate some "evidence" for AE911T to festoon their online store with.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
Tinfoil Papercut posted:WTF - my eyes!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
Christ
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
I never knew Uncle Derek was a Truther
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 11:41
|
|