|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th September 2016, 07:37 PM | #2201 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Thanks LSSBB - and a partial apology/explanation for DGM.
DGM I wasn't ignoring your comment which is correct at the level of debate you are addressing. Your point is moot at the more fundamental level of false argument I have been identifying. In the metaphoric language of your (DGM's) sig: 1) It is "not necessarily true" because, at this stage, all the trees in the forest may not have been identified. There could well be more "trees" in that wrong forest. AKA in - plain English - there could be more "results" not yet known but they will be in Hulsey's wrong setting. BUT 2) Pgimeno, Oystein and I in varying "styles" are saying "Hulsey is in the wrong forest" there is "no point discusing his description of one or more specific trees" which are in the wrong forest. |
18th September 2016, 11:58 AM | #2202 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
The other day, I had started to scan the video, by looking at short snippets and jumping ahead in steps of 1 minute. I was looking for something (forgot what), and stopped shortly before the 19 minutes mark when I was distracted by a bit of real life.
So today, I am starting to watch at just before 19:00 - and the "whoa" moments come flying fast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IVCSpalbA&t=19m 1.) 19:01 min: Slide reads: "NIST, 2004 - Outside the selected area, commcetion failure were not modeled (used as Fix or Pin). Connections were not modeled in the exterior moment frame"He is somehow bemoaning the fact that the Chapter 11 model (ANSYS, 16 floors) only has the east floors in much detail, and considers the west part as rigid. Why does he quote from the 2004 draft??? The final (2008) version of NCSTAR 1-9 provides reasons for that engineering choice (page 475): "Outside the selected area, structural damage–such as buckling of the steel frame and crushing and cracking of the concrete slab–was modeled over the entire floor, but connection failures were not modeled. The extent of the area with detailed connection models was based on the results of single floor fire simulations, where connection damage west of Columns 73 through 76 were not found to contribute to an initial failure event on the east side of the structure. The area where break elements were modeled was selected to reduce the model size without biasing the results for simulating the initial failure event.He doesn't really explain why he brings up that issue. We'll return to it in a minute! 2.) 19:16: Slide reads (bolding by Hulsey): NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525 [this is an error; actually page 527; Oy], 2008This very sentence, specifically the numbers "11 in." and "5.5 in.", have been identified as a mere typo by NIST in the Errata, January 2009. The actual model used the correct numbers (12 and 6.25, respectively) It can be no coincidence that Hulsey quotes this of all passages, but not the correction. It has to be a deliberate misrepresentation?! 3.) 19:45: He now jumps to the dynamic collapse model (Chapter 12, 47-story LS-DYNA) without saying so. He shows next to each other a video of the collapsing building and a Chapter 12 animation by NIST of the same. The caption reads: "There is no connection modeled in outside frame, and it will enhance the rigidity of outside frame. Which makes the comparison similar."This is not a quote from NIST, it's bad English, and it's FALSE: Of course the full 47-story LS-DYNA model included all connections, including outside frames (Chapter 12.2.3 has details). 4.) At 20:05, he runs the collapse video and the NIST animation alongside one another and points out, (fairly - if he uses the correct animation, which I haven't checked), that they don't look very much the same. Then, after 20:23, he provides an explanation: The slide shows a snippet from a floor of the 16-floor ANSYS model (Chapter 11) next to an image of the full 47-story LS-DYNA model (Chapter 12), and a caption: "Outside the selected area [east of col. 76 in ANSYS] connection failures were not modeled; separated progressive collapse into two part"Oh my goodness! They are conflating the properties and boundary conditions of two separate models! The Hulsey team failed at reading and understanding the NIST-report!! Hulsey speaks (20:30): "The left [east in the ANSYS model] side is where the springs are [i.e. non-pinned connections], the right side is where the springs are not, and if that building began to fail, the left side went down faster than the right side ... which means that their model was not accurate."Moron. It means Hulsey doesn't understand what NIST did. With this, there is no need to watch any further. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
18th September 2016, 01:10 PM | #2203 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Hulsey is explicit on how they are seeking peer-review - at 10:37 min:
"Once the results are tested, the information will be evaluated by our peers, and we intend to put together a peer-evaluation committee prior to completion of this work, and once that has been reviewed and scrutinized, then we intend to put it out and publish it in the literature."I notice he doesn't say he wants to go to a peer-reviewed engineering journal of any prestige. He merely talks about peers he apparently plans to pick himself. Who will those peers be? Any critics? Anyone from NIST perhaps, or ARUP? Or from any of the many major university engineering departments that have not gone bonkers? I doubt it. I am sure he'll ask Korol and Cole (both Coles perhaps, including the non-engineer David Cole), Szamboti and perhaps Coste. And Jones and Harrit for good measure |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
18th September 2016, 01:16 PM | #2204 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
18th September 2016, 02:18 PM | #2205 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Oh ok, Hulsey somewhat dispells a couple of my concerns regarding peer review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlwjteSZiUk At 3:40 explains that their "peers" shall be independent from AE911T, and that they then want to submit to a peer-reviewed journal. At 4:53: "We're in the process of writing our third quarterly report which will have in it the first quarterly report summary and the second quarterly report summary. That will then go for review by AE911Truth. We will then, once that's completed, they'll go on our website and also will probably go on AE911Truth's website, so people can read it and it will be available"Aha! Quarterly reports? Where are they? Why are they only writing a third quarterly report yet, the study ought to be in its sixth quarter, if I count correctly! |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
19th September 2016, 05:44 PM | #2206 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
|
19th September 2016, 06:04 PM | #2207 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
We've now heard a series of people go on about the NIST bit about the girder at 79 floor 13. How many more of these will be done?
Now that he seems to have concluded that fire cannot lead to the collapse of a building because he could not confirm the NIST col 79 stuff... does this mean that something other than fire led to the collapse? And what did he find out? Or wasn't that what he was supposed to do... study the collapse? Let's imagine... What would a new investigation do? |
19th September 2016, 06:07 PM | #2208 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
19th September 2016, 06:52 PM | #2209 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
|
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
19th September 2016, 09:44 PM | #2210 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
20th September 2016, 01:20 AM | #2211 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
It's the classic bait-and-switch. If we criticize the conclusion, Criteria appeals to authority. If we address the authority by criticizing the methodology, Criteria accuses us of focusing on minutiae and says we've failed to address the conclusion. Rinse and repeat.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
20th September 2016, 01:29 AM | #2212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
From experience we know that you will "conclude" whatever suits your goal.
HOWEVER one fatal flaw in Hulsey's project is easy to identify. He is playing the "false dichotomy" trick which is also T Szamboti's current strategy. It goes this way - the Szamboti version: "I claim there was CD, I have proved that [some expert] is wrong THEREFORE I am right." And in recent months we have seen T Szamboti work through several experts - Nordenson, ARUP will serve as examples. The Hulsey version is even sillier. Now this is where both Szamboti and Hulsey seem to know how to play - jerk the chains of - "debunkers". Just about every opponent seeks to prove that Szamboti or Hulsey are wrong in details. Why bother? Why waste the effort? The fatal error lies in the false dichotomy "If I prove you wrong it means that I am right." His claim is dead BEFORE we even look at whether or not he has falsified some other party. Even if true the fact that some other person's hypothesis is wrong does NOT make Hulsey right. In Hulsey's case - and depending which version of his moving goalpost claims we address (I'm picking one - but they are all false.) He claims that he will show what did NOT happen. And the implication Hulsey relies on is that something else did happen. BUT he wont say CD. Is there any other possibility than additional MHI? At least Szamboti is honest - he says "CD". Hulsey plays "pea and thimble" tricks. He says he will be scientific and not speculate CD. Utter bleeding nonsense. 1) He is in blatant and unprofessional opposition to the Scientific Method; PLUS 2) If it wasn't fire - what was it if not some form of additional MHI? AND 3) No matter how many other explanations he claims he has proved wrong HIS claim is NOT MADE OUT until he proves it RIGHT by an affirmative hypothesis. Other members here can no doubt find errors in this technical details and his procedural dishonesties. I'll stay with my normal practice and identify the fatal errors of framing logic and false starting point assumptions. There is no point arguing about the leaves on a tree if it is the wrong tree in the wrong forest. |
20th September 2016, 01:36 AM | #2213 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 163
|
Maybe you need some special glasses to be able to see the minutia properly. They're probably quite expensive, and available exclusively from your usual 'truther' outlet.
If you do buy the special glasses, and still can't see the minutia properly, then clearly you don't reach the minimum IQ requirements to use them. If you can find "thermitic compounds" in paint chips, and understand that this can only mean that thermite was used to create those paint chips (there is no other explanation possible -- ignore those lying chemists, everyone knows they work for the lizard people), then you're getting near the required IQ mark. Try huffing some glue for a few months, and you might manage to get there. |
20th September 2016, 02:26 AM | #2214 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
The exercise is also pointless as far as proving "it wasn't fire" which is (or was given the moving goalposts) Hulsey's goal. AFAIK the ONLY way to "prove a negative" is to prove the converse. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And Hulsey has specifically taken CD out of "speculation". The only way to "prove Controlled Demolition" is to prove controlled demolition. No matter how many examples Hulsey claims he has proved "fire only" hypotheses wrong it will NOT prove any alternate hypothesis or claim correct. |
20th September 2016, 03:05 AM | #2215 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
And this is why Hulsey's claim of 100% certainty that WTC7 was a CD is complete nonsense. He has addressed a single specific collapse initiation scenario; his conclusion is a classic case of denying the antecedent.
P1: If NIST's conclusion is correct, then WTC7 collapsed due to fire. Hulsey's P2: NIST's conclusion is incorrect. Hulsey's fallacious C: WTC7 did not collapse due to fire. To give an analogy, suppose a tree is found lying on its side in the forest. A conspiracy theorist happens to see it and asks a forest ranger for the details of how it fell. The forest ranger replies that, as far as he believes, it was cut down with a 1kg felling axe. The conspiracy theorist then argues that the tree was actually blown up with dynamite. He points to the axe marks on the tree and explains that they are 20% too large to have been made by a 1kg felling axe, that therefore the official explanation provided by the forest ranger is incorrect, and claims that he is 100% certain that the tree was blown up. That's nonsense even if the tree is in the right forest. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
20th September 2016, 06:14 AM | #2216 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
20th September 2016, 06:21 AM | #2217 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
Which is why, despite Oz and oy bellyakin about us getting trapped talking about a tree when the forest is wrong, I keep harping on a free body.
If they have proved NIST wrong on an inconsequential detail, they ought to be able to show it, right? They can't even make that case. |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
20th September 2016, 06:30 AM | #2218 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
When Criteria returns, I really would like a response.
TSZ may also comment on this. After all AE911T did, and has, complained long and loud about the WTC 7 final report having taken several years to come out, and about NIST not making their full data set available. Yet Hulsey's report displays an even worse case of making the report available. At least NIST published interim reports and a final report. All we have so far is a verbal presentation. Imagine the hue and cry and gnashing of teeth if all that was released for a NIST interim or final report was a speech by Shyam Sunder. |
20th September 2016, 06:34 AM | #2219 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
20th September 2016, 06:47 AM | #2220 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
20th September 2016, 06:57 AM | #2221 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
20th September 2016, 07:17 AM | #2222 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
20th September 2016, 05:04 PM | #2223 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
How do we know what you are?
Self-proclaimed credibility from a nameless source means nothing more than hot air. Bias is a meaningless point. Who doesn't have bias? Paranoia? I do not recall that as a subject covered in engineering. Do you have professional qualifications as a psychologist as well? Gullibility? Who is more gullible? The person waving the flag or the person concerned that the flag is being waved for the right reasons? Since when did the engineering school I went to matter? Are you arguing that Dr. Hulsey lacks credibility because he is not associated with a school that meets your standards? Since when do "most" engineers have a forensic knowledge of "fire" and "steel"? You do know there are a lot of different types of engineering do you not? Dr. Hulsey would appear to be especially qualified to make the determination that he reached. Did you learn your understanding of engineering in grade school? Insult me all you want but I feel much more trusting of someone with Dr. Hulsey's proven credentials making a no-fire determination than some anonymous flag waver smearing everyone that disagrees with them. |
20th September 2016, 05:37 PM | #2224 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
no evidence for damage from thermite or explosives, big fail
Gee, most engineers understand fire and steel, we were taught how to do research, we did research papers, etc... Hulsey spews BS opinons about steel which fool you into thinking he is qualified.
Clemson 74, AFIT 82, engineering and masters in engineering. My point is, all we need to debunk 9/11 truth is a grade school education; we taught cause and effect to first graders; did 9/11 truth faith based followers in woo miss that day? Are you going to say I am not an engineer? You will not win, you believe 9/11 truth, you don't believe engineers who say 9/11 truth is wrong. At least you have less than 0.1 percent of all engineers who signed the idiotic Gage petition, and that is worth, BS. Dr. Hulsey is not a qualified structural engineer, and he spews BS about steel, and fire. He appears to be another failed 9/11 truth pusher of some idiotic CD conspiracy theory, and he is trying to fool people to think he is using science. Did he fool you? 9/11 truth followers blindly believe in the fantasy of CD, a dumbed down claim made by old men who got fired, or have some thinking disorder, or just plain old BS artist spreading their biased fantasy to people who refuse to think for themselves. 19 terrorists did 9/11, no explosives, no thermite was used. If I wave a flag it is the flag of reason, knowledge, physics, math, science; all the flags you burnt long ago, as your and 9/11 truth retreat to the dark ages in knowledge and make up lies about 9/11. What flag are you accusing me of waving? Why do you wave the flag of woo, the false flag of CD? Got some evidence? No. Where is the damage to WTC steel due to thermite? Explosives? Yes, you are gullible, I don't care if you believe I am an engineer... My mom and dad made sure I was prepared to be an engineering by making sure I took the higher math, and physics, and chemistry, etc. in high school. Being an engineer made me more valuable to the USAF if I failed to complete pilot training... a good card to have in reserve, since I owed the USAF for 3 years of college. I love flying and got my wings, and then the air force sent me to Grad school years later to get my masters in engineering. I don't lie, 9/11 truth lies. I can prove I am engineer, Hulsey has proved he is a conspiracy theorist; maybe he has some issues with reality. Call him up, have him come here and explain why fire, the effects of fire can't do it? Unfortunately I am not nameless, you are, I am not; I made the mistake of presenting my credentials to insane nuts in 9/11 truth, and thus, they know my name, stalk my kids on line (know their names etc.). Thus if you can't figure out who I am, then it follows that a lack of research abilities has you fooled by liars in 9/11 truth, falling for the dumbest claims like CD. I am a pilot, I have the PhD of flying so to speak, an ATP... Was it you who looked me up on that education net? Someone is stalking me lately, checking my background. Could be the guys I owe a ton of beer. Your claims reflect great insult on you, not me. It takes willful ignorance to believe 9/11 truth claims. Not an insult, a fact. 19 terrorists did it, Hulsey failed to study 9/11 to see there is no damage to steel due to explosives or thermite. Big failure for an old man who spreads BS. Gage lied about CD, will Hulsey wave his hand and support Gage's lie, or wake up and expose Gage as a liar? What engineering school did you go to... Clemson and AFIT, where did you go? My fellow engineering student at AFIT put a chip in a dog's brain... the chip was fabricated at AFIT too... Why has Hulsey turned to woo and joined 9/11 truth? What makes less than 0.1 percent of all engineers sign a bogus petition? Ignorance or complacency, or feeling sorry for Gage and his group of failed paranoid conspiracy theorists. |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
20th September 2016, 05:38 PM | #2225 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
20th September 2016, 09:10 PM | #2226 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Of course that is ONE reason why he is wrong. There are many of them INCLUDING the (also) fatal error of foundation structure of logic.
Sure. Just because I deliberately focussed the fatal error of foundation logic doesn't imply that I don't comprehend errors in those specific detailed examples. True - not that I ever said otherwise. My point still stands SINCE the foundation logic is fatally flawed THEN whether or not his one or more examples are true or false is moot - doesn't change the fatal error. |
20th September 2016, 09:39 PM | #2227 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Interesting point but why the innuendo?
I have said that: 1) Hulsey claims to be showing one or multiple explanations wrong (his story has changed over time) 2) No matter how many other explantions he shows wrong will not make his claim right; AND 3) The only valid way to "prove the negative" is to prove the "opposite" hypothesis is true. AKA to prove it "wasn't fire" he has to "prove" what it actually was. AND the combination of those three means his foundation logic is wrong. You are "harping" (your word) on one aspect - and it is valid AFAICS - I've been identifying the many detailed critiques without necessarily assessing them. Yours is one of them. But even if by some miracle he persuades you that he understands and agrees your claim .. so what? The overall structure IMO remains false. Are you claiming that I am wrong on that assessment of false overall logic? If so please show me the error. Do you disagree with my assertion that - whether Hulsey is right or wrong on any specific example e.g. NIST - his overall structure of argument is fatally flawed? Agreed AND understood respectively. Those are not aspects that I have disputed or would dispute. |
20th September 2016, 10:23 PM | #2228 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
|
21st September 2016, 06:06 AM | #2229 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
21st September 2016, 06:35 AM | #2230 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
Hence the phrase "inconsequential detail"
I live in a world of System. They live in a world of unrelated, individual entities. In keeping with the current analogy, they can't see the forest because of all the trees blocking their view. I don't disagree with you on the general view of their idiocy. I am merely dropping down (or attempting to drop down) to their level of comprehension and demonstrate that they don't even have a clue of that level of analysis. If nothing else, the non-engineer/non-technical lurkers can see that if they run away from their own details, they obviously can't be all that rigorous in their approach... |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
21st September 2016, 07:43 AM | #2231 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
It's the "proven wrong" aspect thats being exploited. Criteria has made no specific claim references to "CD". Only that wtc 7 must be reinvestigated because the NIST is incorrect in its conclusions. The inference people make is that hulseys conclusions mean that it is a pro "CD" analysis but avoiding direct mention of that gives such individuals as Szamboti et al "wiggle room" to snipe at counter arguments for being too presumptuous even if the interpretation of the claims accurately goes in the general direction of the claims leading to "CD"
It goes back to the whole notion to them that direct mention of "CD" is the kiss of death to having any argument with those people they view as fence sitters |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
21st September 2016, 08:29 AM | #2232 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
21st September 2016, 12:47 PM | #2233 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
21st September 2016, 03:36 PM | #2234 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
WTC7 was on fire on simultaneous multiple floors for 5-6 hours. To assign ZERO (0%) probability for the building to have failed due to fire and before his modeling is complete and publicly available as he promised, is evidence Hulsey is a mistaken incompetent nutter;
and that impatient Gage need some more cash stat. |
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum |
|
21st September 2016, 06:26 PM | #2235 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
Whatever he is, he appears like a Danny Jewenko, used and going along with it by AE to get some media attention. he fact that they paraded this out on the 15 anniversary is very telling... and expected.
|
21st September 2016, 08:18 PM | #2236 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
To step back and see the forest for the trees: NIST was not tasked with proving that fires caused the collapse of WTC 7.
NIST was was tasked with investigating how fires caused its collapse, possibly in conjunction with impact damage. The reason that NIST did not investigate whether it was brought down by "controlled demolition" is that there isn't one shred of evidence for it. Investigating the possibility of invisible, silent demolition charges was far beyond its scope. |
21st September 2016, 09:00 PM | #2237 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
The truely astounding thing for me at the moment is the hypocrisy concerning the release of data.
He refuses to notice that a video presentation is not in keeping with the promise of complete openness and transparency. In other astounding hypocrisy: AE911T has long complained that NIST will not release their data set for their FEAs and yet Criteria complains that debunkers are chasing minutia for asking even for a written report. AE911T complained that NIST took years to complete a final report on WTC7 (ignoring the validity of the reasons for that) yet here we are, a decade and a half since the event and only now has AE911T bothered to even promise a report to rival a NIST report. AE911T says that NIST report on the cause of the collapse of WTC7, which somehow leads to their contention (unbacked by any study or report at all) of controlled demolition. This is compounded by the cognitive dissonance that is the fact of several other reports on the cause of thst building's demise which all conclude it was the result of the damage wrought by seven hours of unchecked fires and the unique design of a building constructed over an older building. : |
22nd September 2016, 06:08 AM | #2238 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 205
|
I get asked this by a particularly annoying troll on a different message board a lot. What is the reason that NIST doesn't release their data set for their FEAs? I've tried searching for this, but it's difficult. As long as you brought it up, I thought I'd throw the question in.
|
22nd September 2016, 06:53 AM | #2239 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
IIRC, they were worried about possible national security issues.
No matter what the reason, or whether or not NIST is justified in it, there ARE several other studies now that DID produce FEAs for WTC 7 without that NIST data. Quite obviously having such input data is not required in order to produce a report, and of the non-NIST reports done, each one has concluded that the building's demise was due to fire damage. In addition we have the hypocrisy of the very group most vocal about NIST not releasing that data has in turn sanctioned a report which is, so far, at least equally as tight with information as was NIST. |
22nd September 2016, 07:04 AM | #2240 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
They stated concerns of national security.
Fact is, it's a red herring. The input data is useless without the software and hardware to run it on. Besides this, all the information and data used in their models is in their reports. All you need is a competent engineering group to duplicate their work (and a huge amount of computing power). I actually think this is why we have not seen a complete model and why Hulsey seems to have scaled back his study. I don't believe he has the resources to do what he promised. I think he thought AE 9/11 would come through with large amounts of money to secure the lab time needed to do this. This is why I asked about how much has been raised. ETA: Personally, I think the NIST should have burned the data onto several hundred DVDs (for one copy) and told them to have fun. They'd still be scratching their heads trying to figure out what to do with it. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|