• 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.

Merged Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

pgimeno said:
Maybe they plan to fast-track it by submitting it to a journal with a peer-reviewing reputation such as this one: https://www.benthamopen.com/TOCIEJ/

Or to a non-peer-reviewed section of a peer-reviewed journal (like it happened with the discussions of Bazant's work in the JEM), or to a non-peer-reviewed journal with a serious look (like it happened with the Europhysics News article). They have already attempted to pass those as peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...
They promised "major" p-r engineering journals. Hulsey's colleagues at UAF would know the difference.
 
For ten weeks, no one posted in this thread.

Of course we missed nothing at all. There is no news, no draft from the Hulsey team yet. As March is drawing close, "early 2018" will soon be a frame of time in the past.
 
beachnut said:
It is hard to get grad students to do research to support delusional CD claims for WTC 7.
Click to expand...
So true.

I've sort of followed the history from the original statements of objectives which COULD have been professionally valid through the downgrading as Hulsey was pulled into line with the Szamboti goals he is now stuck with.

I never wrote up the history of that evolution. (Or was it "devolution"?? Or "evilution"?? :) )

But surely no ethical professional, academic or grad student could go along with the current combination of "prove a negative" and "false dichotomy" - the latter has been trademark T Szamboti for several years.

PS EDIT: Ooops - that should be "implied false dichotomy" which is the T Sz "trademark". Even Tony wouildn't make it explicit.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
But surely no ethical professional, academic or grad student could go along with the current combination of "prove a negative" and "false dichotomy" - the latter has been trademark T Szamboti for several years.

PS EDIT: Ooops - that should be "implied false dichotomy" which is the T Sz "trademark". Even Tony wouildn't make it explicit.
Click to expand...


Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
 
Hulsey proves he believes in nonsense.

Notconvinced said:
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
Click to expand...
Good, you can fund the report with your fellow conspiracy theorists. Innacurate? If you stick with that you will be less inaccurate... what is innacurate? Hulsey proves it is innacurate. That sums up Hulsey's work.

Hulsey has proved he is a failed conspiracy theorist.

Hulsey can't figure out fire cause the collapse of WTC 7.

We? Who is we? 9/11 was a terrorists attack, and there were many reports and investigations. Hulsey fools a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists with lies.

Notconvinced said:
Particularly when they're threatened and ridiculed by provocateurs.
Click to expand...

Oh, got proof for this claim? No, you make up lies like Hulsey? I agree they will be ridiculed by rational engineering students, but most likely (being an x grad student myself) the students working for Hulsey figured out Hulsey's thesis was bogus and based on delusional 9/11 truth claims. Most grad students are capable of being rational, unlike Hulsey's lie of fire can't do it. Big failure a grade school kid can figure out. Wonder if the Grad Students defected to another professor when they figured out Hulsey's ideas on 9/11 are delusional claptrap.


Oh, science? What does Hulsey say?
Hulsey said. “And because of that, it collapsed. So I’ve been asked by ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, who’s a group of professionals that have put together their own money to get another opinion.”
Click to expand...
Oh, Hulsey will give an opinion. Cool, everyone has one. Opinion, rich.

Poor Hulsey, what does almost perfectly straight down mean?
”People have put straight lines on the video to see if it goes straight down, and it’s almost perfectly straight down,” Hulsey said. “Yet the building is not symmetric. One might say, ‘Well. Why did that happen?’ And you can begin to see why people have all these ideas about why that building came straight down like that. And, as a matter of fact, the Twin Towers came down pretty straight too.” says Hulsey
Click to expand...
This makes no sense in respect to the 9/11 truth need for a new investigation.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/
Hulsey study failed. Now what? It has been 16 years, all 9/11 truthers could have earned PhDs in engineering by now, but instead use google and fake claims from people like Hulsey to demand a new investigation because they are gullible.

Hulsey has stated...
The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building.
Click to expand...
But fire did bring down the building, and Hulsey is wrong. When will Hulsey team with a newspaper and break the biggest story, earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate, for the inside job conspiracy he has no evidence for? lol

Where does Hulsey and Richard Gage get the silent explosives in their fantasy CD? is there a silent explosive store in their delusional minds?

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 A school will study nonsense when they get 300,000 dollars. Academic integrity is for sale, it costs 300,000 dollars. UAF, unlike BYU, supports crazy CD claims with fake study. BYU fired Jones, UAF takes the money to "prove" woo.
 
Last edited:
Notconvinced said:
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
Click to expand...

It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released. The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?

Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover. It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released. The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?

Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover. It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
Click to expand...

99.9 percent of all engineers know it was fire, only Hulsey and Richard Gage fail to understand the truth. No wonder the Grad Students bailed out.

The best 9/11 truth conspiracy theorists can do is find less than 0.1 percent of all engineers to sign a petition of woo. 16 plus years of woo based on ignorance of science, paranoia, and anti-science opinions.

Who did the CD in your fantasy version of 9/11? Any evidence yet? No

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
has anyone told The Institute of Northern Engineering which provides research and engineering solutions for the world’s cold regions and beyond they are into woo, big dumbed down woo. Paranoid conspiracy theorists woo, from UAF - anyone warned the headmaster that Hulsey has gone nuts?

No? Why? Because Richard Gage has funded the school with $316,153 - money overcomes woo, and it appears UAF will do anything for money. Can you blame them for taking money, even if it was $316,153 to study Bigfoot.

Please study steel and fire to help fight the woo from 9/11 truth liars like Gage and Hulsey.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey supports conspiracy theorists.
 
Last edited:
Notconvinced said:
ozeco41 said:
But surely no ethical professional, academic or grad student could go along with the current combination of "prove a negative" and "false dichotomy" - the latter has been trademark T Szamboti for several years.

PS EDIT: Ooops - that should be "implied false dichotomy" which is the T Sz "trademark". Even Tony wouildn't make it explicit.
Click to expand...

Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
Click to expand...

If you lack the honesty or courage to respond to what I said why quote my post?

Sure I could address your silly goalpost shifting claims BUT my post raises more serious issues than your childish response.

By all means let me know if you get serious and want to discuss what I said.
 
beachnut said:
...and it appears UAF will do anything for money. Can you blame them for taking money, even if it was $316,153 to study Bigfoot.
Click to expand...
Spot on - Universities are traditionally open to supporting any research. It does NOT imply agreement with nonsense.

beachnut said:
Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey supports conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...
That is a truism that needs no additional proof.

Why he "sold out" is probably a far more complex matter.
 
MicahJava said:
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released.
Click to expand...

Impressive; in your mind, the report was proven inaccurate before it was even released. But there's definitely no agenda there, oh no.

MicahJava said:
The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?
Click to expand...

And I thought truthers' genius for self-parody couldn't achieve anything more ridiculous than they came up with in the first decade of failure.

MicahJava said:
Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover.
Click to expand...

Truthers, how does it feel knowing that all the information that you think proves this is freely available to all those average people, that you've been desperately begging them to believe you for over a decade and a half, and yet these inevitable demands for information never seem to materialise? It's almost as if you're totally irrelevant and nobody cares. Oh, wait...

MicahJava said:
It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
Click to expand...

Only for people who imagine their own textbook that says "Scientific fraud is anything I don't want to believe."

Dave
 
We've been waiting for the UAF report to be peer reviewed and published in a legitimate journal. It would make a lot of waves in the engineering community. Instead we have more hot air from sycophants. New approach to cults... junk science scamming the naive.
 
JSanderO said:
We've been waiting for the UAF report to be peer reviewed and published in a legitimate journal. ...
Click to expand...

When AE911T solicted MONEY donations, they did so on the pretext that Hulsey would submit his study to a reputable peer-reviewed engineering journal.

How gullible the Twoofers were who fell for that transparent lie and threw away their money to feed con men!

Of course, AE911truth has long since announced that peer-review by a reputable journal is not, in fact going to happen at all.

AE911Lies - defrauding the gullible since 2006.
 
No truther has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to why WTC 7 is more important than the 5 other WTC buildings plus others that were collateral damage (and nothing more) from the WTC 1 and 2 collapses.
 
Notconvinced said:
Either the NIST report on WTC7 is accurate or it is not. Hulsey has proved it innacurate, therefore if we want a true outcome, we need a new report or investigation.
Click to expand...

I thought the Hulsey report was supposed to be that new report / investigation :confused:

Are you saying the Hulsey Report is just designed to get even more donations so AE911T can spend more time and resources requesting yet another new investigation :jaw-dropp

Where does it end?

On a side note, I am curious if there is anything, anything at all about the as yet not actually released Hulsey report that you find questionable, dubious, not up to snuff, incomplete, etc,...?

Anything at all?
 
MicahJava said:
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.

The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature.
Click to expand...

Based on what criteria? You have no background in engineering, so you have to take the word of people who do, just like me, and at the end of the day the majority of those qualified agree the building failed from an unprosecuted fire. Where these same experts disagree is spread across failing beams, and physics I'm not educated enough to understand.

Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?
Click to expand...

Chills? Call your RN.

Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations
Click to expand...

How would you feel about an average person filling in the cavities in your mouth? How about fixing your transmission in your car? Maybe performing abdominal surgery on you or someone you love?

Sorry dude, average people don't always get a say in what happens, and rightly so.

until there's no possible new information to uncover.
Click to expand...

For a guy who throws the word "Science" around so often you should know that this statement is impossible.

Show me a historic event where we know everything. You can't, nobody can. Does this mean we have to withhold judgement? No. Does this mean that experts can't take the existing data and make an evaluation about what happened?No.

The question is simple: Was there enough physical evidence to reach an informed conclusion about the WTC complex disaster of 9/11/2001? The answer is yes. The entire event was filmed as it happened, and occurred in Manhattan in front of hundreds of thousands of people which included the majority of the FDNY (these would be the inner ring of qualified experts).


It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
Click to expand...

Again, if you were in anyway qualified to assess the work of the NIST you could make this claim, but you aren't and you can't.

Why not turn your CT paranoia to people who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars since 9-11 claiming conspiracy, but in those 17 years have spent more money on steak dinners, and nice hotel rooms than actually investigating anything?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It was proven inaccurate as soon as preliminary information by NIST was being released. The NIST WTC 7 report is more a dystopian horror novel than scientific literature. Am I the only one who gets chills knowing the final report omitted the phrase "consistent with physical principals" was edited out of the final version?

Debunkers, how does it feel knowing that if as many average people knew about the distortions of NIST's WTC investigation as much as you do, they would demand new investigations until there's no possible new information to uncover. It sure is a strange turn of happenstance that a government investigation into this completely innocent structural failure turned into such a textbook case of scientific fraud that would get anybody else fired if it wasn't about a sensitive topic.
Click to expand...

Average people - such as yourself - probably can't grasp most of the engineering gobblygook in the NIST report. It is curious that the professional engineering community and its various organizations who do understand what is in the report overwhelmingly support its conclusions.

NIST presented a probable collapse scenario that is plausible. We can quibble over unknowable details of what beam did what and when until we are all blue in the face, but the proximate cause in the NIST report is the same as it was before the NIST report and the same as it is in the other engineering reports done by private entities for various civil suits.

The proximate cause of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is not now and has never been a mystery. Anything NIST said does not change that and no new investigation is going to move the needle on that one bit.

You might want to stop flogging this dead horse. It is guaranteed to fail. Just my humble opinion, valued at precisely $0.02.
 
The Big Dog said:
Surely you have a link ready for this remarkable claim?
Click to expand...

Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
 
Last edited:
Mark F said:
Average people - such as yourself - probably can't grasp most of the engineering gobblygook in the NIST report. It is curious that the professional engineering community and its various organizations who do understand what is in the report overwhelmingly support its conclusions.

NIST presented a probable collapse scenario that is plausible. We can quibble over unknowable details of what beam did what and when until we are all blue in the face, but the proximate cause in the NIST report is the same as it was before the NIST report and the same as it is in the other engineering reports done by private entities for various civil suits.

The proximate cause of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is not now and has never been a mystery. Anything NIST said does not change that and no new investigation is going to move the needle on that one bit.

You might want to stop flogging this dead horse. It is guaranteed to fail. Just my humble opinion, valued at precisely $0.02.
Click to expand...

Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
 
MicahJava said:
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
Click to expand...

None of us share your fixation on the requirement that these specific words be in the report somewhere, or on the grave import of their absence; I daresay I could find many true statements that lack the words "consistent with physical principles," despite the fact that their contents are, in fact, consistent with physical principles. But, I suppose, you're so desperate for something to show for the time you've wasted on this that you'll clutch at any straw you can find.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
Click to expand...

And yet, for some reason, it's only people who have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to assess evidence who believe this. Meanwhile, the world doesn't care, because there's nothing to care about.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
Click to expand...

If true, so what? Why does this matter?

Right now it's just a short phrase with no context and well,... we do know how much you love to twist the intentions of others by careful quote mining.

MicahJava said:
Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
Click to expand...

I think you (deliberately) missed the point completely. If there was never a NIST report it was still fire. There is no other plausible hypothesis. Go ahead, disregard NIST entirely. I'm totally cool with that.

It was still fire.

However, if you are indeed so convinced of what you say that must mean you have a more plausible hypothesis that better explains the collapse of 7 WTC using all of the available evidence with fewer unproven assumptions than the NIST used. Something that will move the needle.

So by all means why are you holding out? Lets have it?

I won't wait up. Nor do I expect you to dwell too much on why you can't do it. Not in your nature I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
I'll pose this simple question to any one to answer (not signalling anyone out). Why is it so hard to believe that a building, regardless of its materials, that was hit by literal tons of burning debris from high above it and was allowed to burn for hours would collapse?
 
Hell, I spent last Wednesday surveying a building which turned out to be dangerous just because rain ahd been falling on it for 198 years. Don't even start me on what fires can do.....
 
MicahJava said:
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
Click to expand...

"consistent with physical principals"

No results.

Chills
 
heymatto70 said:
I'll pose this simple question to any one to answer (not signalling anyone out). Why is it so hard to believe that a building, regardless of its materials, that was hit by literal tons of burning debris from high above it and was allowed to burn for hours would collapse?
Click to expand...

It needs to be blamed on da Joos.
 
MicahJava said:
Ugh, just excuses for scientific fraud. The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
Click to expand...

Says the non-scientist.

Read some Electric Universe, or time cube.

However, myself, with engineering and science degrees, say it's alright, because it was a thorough analysis using standard engineering tools and methods.

There are two mistakes though.

One was being off by an inch on a drawing. As if it even mattered.

The other was in official commentary acknowledging a certain amount of free fall experienced by the exterior shell of WTC7 as it came down. There is insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion, due to measurement error.
 
MicahJava said:
... The NIST WTC 7 report is one of the most laughable documents posing as hard science ever written.
Click to expand...

Projecting the best traits of 9/11 truth to NIST. Look up projection. Next life become an engineer, it pays better, and gives something to think about when flying jets all over the world.

The best part, you never read NIST, you never will. 9/11 truth has no clue what probable means.

16 years of failure, 9/11 truth, stillborn, 2001
 
MicahJava said:
Get the pdf of the NIST WTC 7 Final Report and compare it with the draft before that, also available on the NIST website. When you have both files open, press "CTR" and "F" and use the pdf search function to find the phrase "consistent with physical principals". It's not in the final report, but it is in the draft before that, before NIST acknowledged freefall.
Click to expand...

Is the phrase "consistent with physical principles" in the final report? Not that it matters very much, but it would amuse me to find that you're getting all excited about a corrected typo :)
 
GlennB said:
Is the phrase "consistent with physical principles" in the final report? Not that it matters very much, but it would amuse me to find that you're getting all excited about a corrected typo :)
Click to expand...
I've opened a thread on the subject to prevent this one from drifting too much off-topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom