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

Oystein said:
An idea that is pretty much having itself, but I see a problem: Which of the several due dates would you wish to count from? The end of the original 2-year runtime (April 30 2017)? Of the 3-year project that you currently see at the UAF site (April 30 2018)? The "end of 2018" talk that we heard last September?

Most recently, Hulsey told me 54 days ago that he "hope[d] to complete the rough draft in 30 days".
Click to expand...


Did you ever get the PowerPoint from his latest presentation?
 
Hulsey and his staff haven't done any real research since November of 2015. At that time they had a hard drive crash, lost a bunch of modeling data, and never started back up. The only thing Hulsey does, is update his PowerPoint presentation once a year. Which is based on pure conjecture, not any hard research.
 
Leroy Hulsey no longer is the Department Chair of UAF's Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering; he is now listed merely as "Faculty" / "Professor":

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people.aspx

Now, as he was born in 1941 and would thus be 77 or 78 years old by now, age may be an excellent reason for him to step back or for UAF to select a fresher Chair. But still one wonders...

The new Chair, Robert Perkins, has been a professor at the UAF-CEE for 20 years.
 
DGM said:
Just a guess (or maybe a prediction)........Hulseys "results" will never see the light of day. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he has reinvestigated his errors and instead of admitting to them, he ignores them and they might die with time. It is hard for some, who make such drastic errors to admit mistakes, especially when there has been so much time/effort in stating/defending those mistakes.
 
bknight said:
Perhaps he has reinvestigated his errors and instead of admitting to them, he ignores them and they might die with time. It is hard for some, who make such drastic errors to admit mistakes, especially when there has been so much time/effort in stating/defending those mistakes.
Click to expand...

More likely he realized that he can't topple the basic premises of the "official account" that fire can lead to a steel frame (high rise) building to collapse. And this was the charge he was given by AE911T and the truth movement.

If this was serious research with integrity and they got a different conclusion than what was imagined... it is valid and should be reported.

Years ago my ex roommate who was a PhD and professor at U Pitt department of Medicine.... the ENT department took a grant to investigate the efficacy of amoxycillin for treating pediatric Otitis Media. The former drug used was penicillin. He ran the trials for NIH... the principal investigator Dr. Michael Bluestone was getting a lot of $$ from Pharma. The data showed that amoxycillin was no better than a placebo - a valid scientific result.

Bluestone wrote a paper claiming the drug worked and submitted it to NEJM and JAMA, He requested that my friend sign the paper as the person who conducted the trials. He refused. He took the data to a mathematician at CMU who happened to have worked on a paper that won a Nobel Prize to review the data. The mathematician agreed... drug was no better than a placebo. They wrote that result up and send in to NEJM and JAMA.

Both NEJM and JAMA freaked out and it became a huge bruhaha... contradictory results from the same data set! It took many years and legal BS but in the end my friend was vindicated. Principal investigator should have been run out of town, lost his license and kicked out of the university. And it turns out that penicillin was no better than a placebo! More exploitation by Pharma!

https://www.talkingaboutthescience.com/earache/
 
JSanderO said:
More likely he realized that he can't topple the basic premises of the "official account" that fire can lead to a steel frame (high rise) building to collapse. And this was the charge he was given by AE911T and the truth movement.

If this was serious research with integrity and they got a different conclusion than what was imagined... it is valid and should be reported.

Years ago my ex roommate who was a PhD and professor at U Pitt department of Medicine.... the ENT department took a grant to investigate the efficacy of amoxycillin for treating pediatric Otitis Media. The former drug used was penicillin. He ran the trials for NIH... the principal investigator Dr. Michael Bluestone was getting a lot of $$ from Pharma. The data showed that amoxycillin was no better than a placebo - a valid scientific result.

Bluestone wrote a paper claiming the drug worked and submitted it to NEJM and JAMA, He requested that my friend sign the paper as the person who conducted the trials. He refused. He took the data to a mathematician at CMU who happened to have worked on a paper that won a Nobel Prize to review the data. The mathematician agreed... drug was no better than a placebo. They wrote that result up and send in to NEJM and JAMA.

Both NEJM and JAMA freaked out and it became a huge bruhaha... contradictory results from the same data set! It took many years and legal BS but in the end my friend was vindicated. Principal investigator should have been run out of town, lost his license and kicked out of the university. And it turns out that penicillin was no better than a placebo! More exploitation by Pharma!

https://www.talkingaboutthescience.com/earache/
Click to expand...

Reminds me of an old saying "Figures never lie, but liars always figure"
 
DGM said:
Just a guess (or maybe a prediction)........Hulseys "results" will never see the light of day. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. And I realise that a lot of people want to see his "results".

I'm more than satisfied that his starting point premises are wrong. Irrespective of his "results".

His main claim is that he can and has proved "fire could not cause collapse of WTC7". That is a global negative assertion. Equivalent to "There is no scenario in which fire could cause collapse." That assertion cannot possible be proved in the WTC7 setting. So he is wrong before we see his results UNLESS he abandons that false claim and distances himself from it.

Admittedly many debunkers have shown that his method is wrong in the engineering details.

So he is wrong at two levels.
 
AE 9/11 has announced the study will be published in a few weeks - September 3rd

so what happened to the public comment period?
 
Trojan said:
AE 9/11 has announced the study will be published in a few weeks - September 3rd

so what happened to the public comment period?
Click to expand...
I guess they call the engineering conference "public". They don't want criticism to surface because they know the paper doesn't really stand a critical review, especially if the conclusion (which was decided before the study started, let's not forget that) is that fire couldn't be the cause. They can't prove that, no matter how many studies they disprove, no matter the validity of their disproof.

I know, I know, "that's why we need a new investigation". And so the ball keeps rolling. It's been 13 years now and they're no closer to one. They just want more money. The funds, they say, will be spent in a public awareness campaign. That's to say, to get more money, not to advance towards an investigation. This paper is just another missed chance at the "new investigation" they claim to want. The founders really, really don't want one, just the dough to keep coming.

The scam should be more and more obvious to anyone. Hopefully some will wake up from this drug-induced dream.
 
Last edited:
Trojan said:
AE 9/11 has announced the study will be published in a few weeks - September 3rd

so what happened to the public comment period?
Click to expand...

Their newsletter does not mention it, but this news article on their website, dated August 19, does:

Science, Truth, and Justice 18 Years Later: September 2019 Schedule of Events
AE911Truth said:
The draft report will be published that same week at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 — as well as at AE911Truth.org — and will be open for public comment for a six-week period ending October 15, 2019.
Click to expand...
 
...be open for public comment for a six-week period ending October 15, 2019.

Okay...will AE 9/11 Truth be open and transparent? Will the public see all the incoming comments? Or will they disappear down a black hole, never to see the light of day.

This should be interesting!
 
pgimeno said:
..... They don't want criticism to surface ...especially if the conclusion (which was decided before the study started, let's not forget that) is that fire couldn't be the cause. They can't prove that, no matter how many studies they disprove, no matter the validity of their disproof.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY.

That is the fatal error of logic at the base foundation of the project. Even if he gets his analysis correct for EVERY alternate scenario he identifies he cannot prove that all possible scenarios are falsified. He is in effect claiming "There is NO fire driven collapse mechanism which would cause collapse." That is a global claim which he cannot support. I doubt it is even possible to identify all the possible scenarios.
 
As Ozzie writes... it appears to be a fool's errand to try to prove that fire does not have serious effects on the structural ability of steel. One might make an argument that the magnitude of heat would be a determining factor as well as the cross sectional area of the steel subject to fire. A waste basket fire will not cause a steel beam or column in a high rise to fail. However when the amount of heat and the cross section of steel are in a certain range... steel will fail to perform as designed. It is for this reason that various fire protection strategies are employed in steel buildings. And these have been field tested before put into practice. Hulsey is trying to show that all these trials were bogus.

Good luck with that.
 
Well, I sure hope there will be a public comment period as promised. Otherwise, people will have no chance to point out mistakes or raise objections during those few crucial days before the report is disregarded and forgotten about.
 
Trojan said:
Peer reviewed by whom? What is the point of public comment if this is finalized? sigh
Click to expand...

AE911Truth has said from the beginning, and still says on http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ :

wtc7evaluation.org said:
WTC 7 Evaluation has a review committee of technical experts whose purpose is to vet the research as it is being conducted by Dr. Hulsey. They welcome input and feedback from other technical experts as well as from members of the general public.
Click to expand...

This "review committee" is of course a group of dyed-in-the-wool Truthers, hand-picked by Richard Gage to ensure strict adherence to the Party line. In other words: Actual, literal peers. People chosen for the property of agreeing with you.

(The latter line in the quote was of course a dirty, nasty LIE. There was never any intention to allow any critical voices. I signed up with them, as did several other sane people I know - we never heard from this "committee".)
 
And Hulsey has taken this further

"I expect there to be at least four papers come of out this study—and I'm talking about in respected journals around the country. I'm not overly optimistic that they will be published in this country. I'm probably going to submit them in Europe or some place like that where people are more receptive to reviewing them scientifically, and maybe there won't be as much politics involved in what may or may not have happened here.

AS: Yeah, to me, from what I've experienced, it's not even a question of science, it's a question of politics—and psychology, too. Because a lot of what holds people back from doing a fair analysis is preconceived notions that they won't let go of. But I do want to see this out around the world. I know the difficulties we face her in the United States in getting information about this building out. What kind of challenges do you expect to find when the paper is published? What do you anticipate are the criticisms or problems that people are going to try to find with the work?

LH: You know, I don't even know. I don't know that there could be too many challenges if it's published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, because those are supposed to be scientists that review it and agree that the science is correct.

If people start criticizing that work, then I guess an approach is to say, “Okay, show me where there are problems. Show me why yours is better. Show me what you can do to prove that something is different than what we said it is.”

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/480...finish-line-an-interview-with-dr-leroy-hulsey
 
September 2001 - Terrorist Attack at World Trade Center
August 2002 - NIST starts building safety investigations
October 2005 - Report on WTC 1 and 2
November 2008 - Report on WTC 7
August 2019 - Hulsey "nearing the finish line" on completion of report that criticizes 11-year-old report.

I saw this in the interview. Apparently, if papers are in a file drawer in a towering inferno, they can't burn.

Hulsey said:
Now, the next question to is ask yourself, “Okay, so were these fires. Really? Where did the combustibles come from?” We're talking about fires on floors much of which were conditions of business or secure information. Don't you think that that stuff would've been locked up in files and cases, and not out on the desk? And even if was out on the desks, are there enough combustibles to keep that fire raging for that many hours? I just don't think so.
Click to expand...

Alas, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, a Ph.D. in structural engineering, appears to be unfamiliar with the work of ... Galileo.

Hulsey said:
This building is not symmetrical. Because it's not symmetrical, if something happens some place within the building, it's not going to come straight down. It's going to come down at an angle or rotate or any number of things, because the centroid of that building is not in the middle. It's just not. And so if there are things that are going on that cause it to come straight down, then there's got to be influences to make that happen.
Click to expand...
 
News update.

I’ve got such important news that I wanted to make sure you didn’t miss the message I sent earlier this week. In less than two weeks, the breakthrough Building 7 Study by Dr. Leroy Hulsey will be released, proving definitively that fire did not cause the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11.

I urgently need your help to raise $50,000 by August 31st to spread the word about this study far and wide. Fortunately, a determined donor has stepped forward with a generous challenge gift of $5,000. That means this donor is challenging the community — including you — to equal his donation by August 31st so that this report can be shared as widely as possible.

Will you donate now to make sure this report is spread far and wide?

When you give today, your gift will be used immediately to launch a multi-channel public awareness campaign about this groundbreaking study. For example, for just $25 you can ensure that ten engineers receive our large-format postcard about the report (plus you’ll receive one, too!), helping us reach 20,000 engineers across the country.

Not only that, but your gift will be used to organize presentations in Fairbanks, Berkeley, and New York, hold a major news conference in Washington D.C. with the Franklin Square fire commissioners, produce a powerful short video for social media, commission a new YouGov survey, and more.

Will you give generously today to make sure we do not miss this incredible opportunity to bring this game-changing study about Building 7’s destruction to the public’s attention?
Click to expand...

So they say in 2 weeks, but on the website from Institute of Northern Engineering it still says September 30th

In previous mail it says "Building 7 Study to be released Sept. 3"
 
Last edited:
$5,000 plus $5,000 is going to leave them a little short of $50,000.

Small point but their tax records address shows a UPS store in Lafayette, CA, but you send your donation checks to a UPS store in Berkeley, CA.

Their revenue was down about a quarter of a million dollars from 2016 to 2017. But salaries went up from $229K to $262K. They really, really deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. Half their money went to salaries. Hulsey's study was noted in the detailed list of expenses, along with a bunch of other truthy evangelical work.

Has anyone seen their 2018 tax documentation?

4ziWLWE.jpg
 
carlitos said:
...
Has anyone seen their 2018 tax documentation?
...
Click to expand...

I have not yet bothered to check because they have always, every single year without exception, first applied for extended due date, then waited till the due date actually arrived, to file their tax return. This due date is in November (I don't recall which day - 1st or 15th). Expect to get a copy of the Form 990 then a bit after that - Decemberish.
 
The key to this report is the fire load (size, intensity and duration) that is assumed for the structural computer model. If that is not clearly and completely addressed in the report, then Hulsey doesn’t know what he is doing, and the whole report is crap.

I look forward to his presentation on September 3, but expect anything new or relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom