ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 14th September 2017, 06:24 AM   #2361
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Many of his presentation slides - including the conclusions! - are identical to what he presented a year ago, and a good number even identical to what he presented two years ago!

The project was originally announced as 2 years, $200K, 3 men (Hulsey and 2 assistants). Very quietly, one of the three men has left the team, and cost and time went up to 3 years, $300K - without explanation as far as I am aware.

Some of the work, including some of the graphics and calculations, weren't done by Hulsey. For example, slides 44-48 are originally Tony Szamboti's work, he first showed me it in January 2016.
In other words, having no basis for disputing the findings of Dr. Hulsey et al, the best you can do is lamely criticize the absence of all new presentation slides.

Last edited by Criteria; 14th September 2017 at 06:27 AM.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 06:57 AM   #2362
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,394
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In other words, having no basis for disputing the findings of Dr. Hulsey et al, the best you can do is lamely criticize the absence of all new presentation slides.
If NIST released a new study of the collapse of WTC7, after three years of publicly funded work, which re-stated the conclusions of the original study and included much of the same material, what would be your response? I suspect that the absence of any actual new work despite the large expenditure would suddenly become a much bigger issue for you.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:17 AM   #2363
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In other words, having no basis for disputing the findings of Dr. Hulsey et al, the best you can do is lamely criticize the absence of all new presentation slides.
Make up the conclusion before the study is done. Fire did it, no evidence for magical thermite, silent explosives. The lack of evidence for CD, evidence for fire, Hulsey failed before he started. Another failed 9/11 truth "expert" nut with speculation. Can't debunk Hulsey's nonsense, can MM, or JFK. If not fire what was it? Proving NIST was wrong on a probable collapse sequence does not prove fire did not cause WTC 7 collapse. oops, I debunked Hulsey.

Hulsey, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, has stated WTC 7 did not fail in fire before the study is done. How can you make up your conclusion before you start, before you finish? Hulsey is another 9/11 truth nut. (or faking it to gain money). Repeating the same presentation implies the study is fake, nothing new. Making up the conclusion, "fire did not do it", is nonsense any rational person can see.

It has been 16 years, and the 9/11 truth followers could have gone to college, studied fire science, steel, and structural engineering - earned a PhD in structural Engineering. Figured out 9/11 truth is a bogus movement based on ignorance, bias, and nonsense. 19 terrorists did 9/11, not thermite and silent explosives planted by people you can't name due to no evidence.

16 years, clueless, evidence free speculation continue from 9/11 truth supporters who are fooled by "experts" who make up conclusion before they publish their study.

16 years, the 9/11 truth movement, based on lies and fantasy, moves into the perpetual repeat of BS debunked on 9/11.

Miragememories and JFK, do they still believe the dumbed down lies and claims of 9/11 truth. Poor MM, complaining about JREF all the time, due to the lack of evidence in his presentations, paranoia. The JFK guy never posts anything of value. The nonsense of 9/11 is in a special category of stupid, with claims like Flight 93 still airborne after it crashed. Expecting some improved claims, but then gems like this pop up and take 9/11 truth to new levels of guilty and stupid.

Why not post some evidence next time so there is something to discuss besides the overwhelming gullibility of 9/11 truth followers and the fraud of Hulsey. Where is your evidence needed to support the lie of 9/11 truth. Not sure how you can support the lie of CD, there is no evidence. Sad to see a professor fall for 9/11 truth lies, lucky for students the engineers who have been gullible on 9/11 truth claims, amount to less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. A fringe few are gullible, negligent, or ignorant, as they sign up for Gage's petition based on lies. 16 years, where is 9/11 truth hiding the overwhelming evidence for CD?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 14th September 2017 at 08:34 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:41 AM   #2364
Pinch
Critical Thinker
 
Pinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In other words, having no basis for disputing the findings of Dr. Hulsey et al, the best you can do is lamely criticize the absence of all new presentation slides.
I was led to believe that there would be an earth-shattering boom...coming from the general direction of Fairbanks. It was more like the forced gas escaping from some ancient, decrepit, wrinkly old cadaver with leathery skin and a vacant gaze. I'd mention "Truth Movement" or "A&E" but I'd be repeating myself.
__________________
"There's this thing about being so "open minded" your brain falls out". --Unknown
Pinch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:49 AM   #2365
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In other words, having no basis for disputing the findings of Dr. Hulsey et al, the best you can do is lamely criticize the absence of all new presentation slides.
1.) Writing the entire post uniformly in bold face is meaningless and utterly silly. To demonstrate the silliness of such unspecific formatting of a single line, I changed the quote to smallest font and gray.

2.) You are a Perfect Truther.
By "Truther" I mean what is, in my opinion, the best, most practical definition for a "9/11 Truther": A person who spreads FALSE claims about 9/11.
"Perfect Truther" is a new coinage, which I introduce now; it means a person who can be trusted with 100% reliability to always say things that are nothing but wrong whenever the utterance touches anything 9/11-related. You see, there are many truthers who sometimes say something in a 9/11 discussion that is correct. They are wrong on the whole picture, but get some things right, or at least understand and fairly represent what sane people say.

Now you: You responded to a post in which I made three separate claims of fact. By not addressing any of them, I assume that you accept all three are fact-based and true; but since you are a Perfect Truther, it is impossible for you to acknowledge I even said what I said, therefore your reply is about everything I didn't say - which is a planet full of bookshelves of things, for I didn't say practically everything that can be said. Right?

You then go on to deduct from the things I didn't say that something I didn't even mention isn't true, and that this is what I meant: That because I did not dispute the findings of Hulsey's presentation in that one particular post, I cannot dispute any of the findings. This is, of course, bollocks.

As I had said prior to the post you responded to, there is a very active debate over at Metabunk. You could have asked for link. That's where I, and several others, actively dispute Hulsey's findings, as well as several other things he presented last week. I am not doing this here, because Tony and gerrycan are active there, not here. Here, I only get the likes of you as opponent, which is no fun, as I know already that you will not write anything that is correct in your next post, or the next, or any post ever, because you are a Perfect Truther. It's no fun debating someone who is always wrong, as it is boring to debate someone who is always right, as it is boring to format posts uniformly in bold to stress everything, because this actually stresses nothing.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 05:15 PM   #2366
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In other words, having no basis for disputing the findings of Dr. Hulsey et al, the best you can do is lamely criticize the absence of all new presentation slides.

16 years and counting, which brings up the question of how many truther investigation completion deadline walls have been knocked down for lack of evidence. Chances are, there will be no CD evidence forthcoming tomorrow or at anytime in the future because no such evidence exist. Video, audio, and seismic data evidence all point out why there is no CD evidence, not to mention common sense.

If no explosions were seen, heard or detected by seismographs, that would explain why no demolition evidence was ever found at ground zero.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 14th September 2017 at 05:19 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2017, 05:01 PM   #2367
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Quote:
A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Anyone know where I can download this.............................

__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2017, 08:54 PM   #2368
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,621
Quote:
A draft report of the study will be released in October or November or December 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community
In anticipation...
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2017, 05:16 AM   #2369
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
I don't think any engineering break thrus are coming from Hulsey. This is another example of essentially technobabble which is used for marketing by AE911T... and other 911 truth parrots. He can't prove a negative and he has no theory to test and inadequate data and "skill" to model the actual collapse... let alone the will to do that. US should sanction him for what he has done... but academic freedom allows a wide range of crazy views to be presented.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2017, 02:22 PM   #2370
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Just another waste of just over $300,000 by AE 9/11.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2017, 04:22 PM   #2371
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,829
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In other words, having no basis for disputing the findings of Dr. Hulsey et al, the best you can do is lamely criticize the absence of all new presentation slides.
I could dispute him he has done very sloppy work, with too few data points to prove his conjecture.
But what is the use in arguing with someone who would never admit he is not correct?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 12:52 PM   #2372
Trojan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 487
I still can't believe he can publish in the University of Alaska's name ... perhaps that is holding up the 'draft' publication.
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 01:45 PM   #2373
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by Trojan View Post
I still can't believe he can publish in the University of Alaska's name ... perhaps that is holding up the 'draft' publication.
He would be publishing under his own name (with his own financing). The fact he works at UAF is actually secondary and really not important in the academic publishing world.

Bottom line, It's a privately funded study by one of their many professors that no one is going to care about(or likely hear about). Last I heard, there is no plan to publish in any recognized publication.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 4th December 2017 at 01:56 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2017, 01:14 PM   #2374
Trojan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 487
UAF is featured prominently in all his slides. I recall Gage using AIA on his presentations in some manner until the AIA objected.
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 10:37 PM   #2375
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
NIST model

It seems the treasoners here speculate that the truthers' project will go nowhere because it may not be published in a prevalent academic journal, but what of the findings themselves? Hulsey has shown that NIST's workgroup omitted key design features which impacted the study's outcome. Is there historical precedence for an American Government Agency fabricating data in an official scientific report? What implications might this have on the Dept of Commerce?
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 10:44 PM   #2376
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 511
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It seems the treasoners here speculate that the truthers' project will go nowhere because it may not be published in a prevalent academic journal, but what of the findings themselves? Hulsey has shown that NIST's workgroup omitted key design features which impacted the study's outcome. Is there historical precedence for an American Government Agency fabricating data in an official scientific report? What implications might this have on the Dept of Commerce?
Newsflash: Hulsey didn't even test the scenario modeled by NIST, likely because he wasn't competent enough to recreate it. Since Hulsey failed to hold constant the most important variables in NIST's model (the temperature history over time calculated by FDS), Hulsey cannot conclude anything about whether adding additional elements would have altered the outcome in NIST's model. Further, Hulsey only modeled fire damage in two corners of two floors, while NIST modeled fire damage across all 16 of the lower floors. Again, Hulsey failed to properly control for what NIST actually tested.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 11:23 PM   #2377
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Since Hulsey failed to hold constant the most important variables in NIST's model (the temperature history over time calculated by FDS), Hulsey cannot conclude anything about whether adding additional elements would have altered the outcome in NIST's model.
That's a good point, the other thing the NIST model failed to include was the true thermal conductivity of steel. Why would Hulsey spend energy recreating flawed inputs? The purpose of the study was to determine if fire could have brought down the building under the probable conditions it existed in. Refuting NIST's findings and exposing the NIST workgroup's flawed inputs was a collateral outcome.
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 01:52 AM   #2378
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,996
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
That's a good point, the other thing the NIST model failed to include was the true thermal conductivity of steel.
I am surprised that NIST would make an error that is not only absolutely basic, but is also so easily discoverable.
Citation please.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 02:35 AM   #2379
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,394
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It seems the treasoners rationalists here speculate
FTFY. Since many of us are not US citizens, even if it were treasonable to assess evidence without a preconceived conclusion (which seems to be the belief of many in the increasingly inaccurately titled "truth movement"), one cannot commit treason against a foreign country.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
that the truthers' project will go nowhere because it may not be published in a prevalent academic journal, but what of the findings themselves?
Since the findings were, as we all know, announced by Hulsey before he commenced his investigation, it's unsurprising that he was able to arrange his conclusions to be those he had already chosen. Funny how the truth movement quite openly perpetrates the same level of fraud that it groundlessly accuses NIST of.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 05:56 AM   #2380
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 526
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
...



Since the findings were, as we all know, announced by Hulsey before he commenced his investigation, it's unsurprising that he was able to arrange his conclusions to be those he had already chosen. Funny how the truth movement quite openly perpetrates the same level of fraud that it groundlessly accuses NIST of.

Dave
That is what I've read, so any investigation is already biased, not a scientific sturdy what so ever, just another investigation to "prove that steel buildings can not collapse with just fire", although this idea has been shown to be invalid with recent steel buildings that have collapsed with just fire at the core. At least they didn't cry Pull It (or whatever the true phrase was.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 06:50 AM   #2381
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
... Refuting NIST's findings and exposing the NIST workgroup's flawed inputs was a collateral outcome.
This is FALSE. The group that hired and payed Hulsey, AE911Truth, had announced from the very beginning that they gave him the money with the express objective of finding NIST wrong and declaring CD. I'll follow up with citations later when I get to my computer at home.

There is an obvious logical disconnect: even if NIST's detailed scenario were wrong (and it has always been clear from their own public statements that there is a significant probability that particular scenario is not what broke the camel's back), that does not allow for a sweeping conclusion that "it's impossible fire caused the collapse", for Hulsey's study was not nearly comprehensive enough to consider other plausible scenarios. His model is woefully incomlete and simple.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 07:54 AM   #2382
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,107
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The purpose of the study was to determine if fire could have brought down the building under the probable conditions it existed in.
Under probable conditions? Did Hulsey use the "probable conditions" in his report?
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Further, Hulsey only modeled fire damage in two corners of two floors, while NIST modeled fire damage across all 16 of the lower floors. Again, Hulsey failed to properly control for what NIST actually tested.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 12:13 PM   #2383
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
This is FALSE. The group that hired and payed Hulsey, AE911Truth, had announced from the very beginning that they gave him the money with the express objective of finding NIST wrong and declaring CD. I'll follow up with citations later when I get to my computer at home. ...
Here is the promised citation:
In early 2015, AE911Truth put a page on their website that included their Goals for the upcoming year 2015. Here is a snapshot of that page, archived on 2015/01/19:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150119...mbership-2015/
Quote:
"BE A PART OF OUR AMBITIOUS 2015 AGENDA

1. New Research Initiatives - Read More >>
  • 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.
"
So you see, disproving NIST was not a collateral result, it was the very FIRST objective of the project.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 12:56 PM   #2384
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
That's a good point, the other thing the NIST model failed to include was the true thermal conductivity of steel. Why would Hulsey spend energy recreating flawed inputs? The purpose of the study was to determine if fire could have brought down the building under the probable conditions it existed in. Refuting NIST's findings and exposing the NIST workgroup's flawed inputs was a collateral outcome.
9/11 truth faith based believers research on fellow 9/11 truth liars is as bad as their research on 9/11 reality based evidence. 9/11 truth believers in 9/11 truth lies don't do research they blindly support lies without checking. 9/11 truth followers don't care for the truth, and don't spend any time to figure out 9/11 based on evidence. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes, 9/11 truth can't figure out 9/11 after 16 years.

Nope, you can't get the simple stuff right, the goal was to show NIST was wrong, and they can't do it. Why are 9/11 truth follower gullible.

16 years of failure
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 09:09 PM   #2385
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
That's a good point, the other thing the NIST model failed to include was the true thermal conductivity of steel. Why would Hulsey spend energy recreating flawed inputs? The purpose of the study was to determine if fire could have brought down the building under the probable conditions it existed in. Refuting NIST's findings and exposing the NIST workgroup's flawed inputs was a collateral outcome.
Do you believe Hulsey's analysis mimics the what really happened? There are so many inputs (fire load, fire spread, fire duration, damage done by fires on lower and upper levels, etc). that his models does not address.

Bottom line, NIST and Hulsey's modeling made assumptions about the unknown factors. imo, NIST came a lot closer than Hulsey.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 06:30 AM   #2386
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
Last night I checked out wtc.nist.gov to see if their draft reports and the comments they received are still up - yes they are. For the first time ever, I thumbed through the comments on the WTC7 draft - man what a dumbfest! A large majority of submissions came from truthers, and a large majority of those were incompetent and it showed massively! About a dozen submitted und pseudonym or using only first name or initials, many repeating without understanding Twoof mantras, some admitting openly they didn't read or understand the draft!

Anyway, we are made to expect that Hulsey will soon release his draft report for public comment. Since AE promised transparency, of course we must expect that all comments, even hostile or inept ones, will be published in full.

Do any of you plan to submit criticism? Perhaps we can pool, share, distribute?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 10:17 AM   #2387
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,391
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Do any of you plan to submit criticism? Perhaps we can pool, share, distribute?
I suspect there is a better than fair chance I will be submitting criticism.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 04:04 PM   #2388
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

Do any of you plan to submit criticism? Perhaps we can pool, share, distribute?
I will not waste the time to read it. I am not an engineer.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 04:38 PM   #2389
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I will not waste the time to read it. I am not an engineer.
I agree with you. I'll likely read it to see if they make a valid argument to support their claim that fire could not have brought down this structure. I personally don't think this is possible considering the scope of the study.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 04:39 PM   #2390
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...Anyway, we are made to expect that Hulsey will soon release his draft report for public comment...
BUT his reasons for "public comment" are diametrically opposite to NIST's reasons. In the game NIST was in - presenting the findings of statutory investigation - calling for "public comment" removes the limitations of academic and professional publishing. It gives in effect a more rigorous exposure and test than "peer review" within a "closed shop".

AE911 and Hulsey and ghost tactician T Sz will prefer "public comment" because it gets the work "out there" before their gullible market and without even the level of rigour testing from peer review.

So responding to it will mostly serve to prolong the level and type of discussion that we see in these forums. I realise that many disagree with me but responding will do more to prolong the Gage agenda - dragging out pseudo debate - for little if any benefit. It is a long time since we saw any genuine truthers undergo a road to Damascus conversion.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Do any of you plan to submit criticism? Perhaps we can pool, share, distribute?
No....and

...I admire your optimism. There have been a few helpful collaborations e.g. Chris Mohr's initiatives.

BUT even trying to get expressed explicit agreement on basic technical facts tends to resemble herding cats.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 05:35 PM   #2391
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
JSO, DGM, oz,

I understand your pessimism: Yes, true, there is close to 0% chance any comment we might submit would change any truther's mind on anything, let alone move Hulsey's hand in changing the report. I fully respect your decision not to feed the trolls.

My objective is none of that.
Most of my objectives these days are about documentation of the current state of the Truth Movement, and this is no different.

I want to get an overview of what comments Hulsey may be getting, and see whether and how such comments are acknowledged and published. I guess there is a fair chance that they break all promises again, and simply ignore all comments, leaving them unpublished as if none had ever been submitted. That would, once again, reveal the TM as deeply, structurally dishonest.
In order to document this, I want at least some token comments, and follow up what happens with them.
Again, NIST faithfully reproduced and publised all comments, even the stupid and silly one, even the anonymous ones. AE and Hulsey will have no excuse not to do the same.

That puts them in the same bind NIST was in: Either get cought in a dishonest cover-up, or acknowledge and publish criticism of their work on their own resources.


So I am wondering if those of us who plan on submitting something could share, pool, split the work. We at least should be able to compile, perhaps publish, a body of criticism submitted to Hulsey.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 05:50 PM   #2392
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
They updates the schedule - http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ now reads:
"A draft report of the study is scheduled for release in early 2018 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. The final report will then be published in May or June 2018."
(Previously, the draft report was announced for "October or November" 2017, and final report for "early 2018")
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 06:07 PM   #2393
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
..... I fully respect your decision not to feed the trolls.
Thanks. Likewise I comprehend and respect you choices re documentation>>

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...
Most of my objectives these days are about documentation of the current state of the Truth Movement, and this is no different.
Understood.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...I want to get an overview of what comments Hulsey may be getting, and see whether and how such comments are acknowledged and published. I guess there is a fair chance that they break all promises again, and simply ignore all comments, leaving them unpublished as if none had ever been submitted. That would, once again, reveal the TM as deeply, structurally dishonest.
In order to document this, I want at least some token comments, and follow up what happens with them.
Again, NIST faithfully reproduced and publised all comments, even the stupid and silly one, even the anonymous ones. AE and Hulsey will have no excuse not to do the same.
Also agreed/understood.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...That puts them in the same bind NIST was in: Either get cought in a dishonest cover-up, or acknowledge and publish criticism of their work on their own resources.


So I am wondering if those of us who plan on submitting something could share, pool, split the work. We at least should be able to compile, perhaps publish, a body of criticism submitted to Hulsey.
Sure. You know my two points - the two overall goals are wrong/invalid/false whatever...
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 06:19 PM   #2394
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I agree with you. I'll likely read it to see if they make a valid argument to support their claim that fire could not have brought down this structure. I personally don't think this is possible considering the scope of the study.
The goal is not achievable - It relies on "proving a negative" which is generally false logic and the Hulsey Study cannot satisfy the one valid process for "proving a negative".

The other goal of "prove NIST wrong" is feasible but leads inevitably to the T Sz standard "implied false dichotomy" of "If I prove you wrong it means I am right" from which T Sz has historically drawn two alternate false conclusions viz:
(a) NIST was wrong THEREFORE CD << which I doubt even Tony would make explicit; OR
(b) NIST was wrong THEREFORE a "new investigation" is needed << Which is also wrong but not as obvious why. I would be surprised if Tony has not played that card.

(And if I'm a few months behind the times missing a detail someone can let me know. I stopped folowing the "progress" and discusion of details when the project goals were modified - by coincidence I'm sure*** - to 100% align with T Sz's claims.)



*** [/Sarcasm] just in case it wasn't obvious.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 06:40 PM   #2395
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
..
Sure. You know my two points - the two overall goals are wrong/invalid/false whatever...
Yep.
If no one else, I will submit that.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 06:48 PM   #2396
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
^^^ Thanks.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 06:48 PM   #2397
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,854
From the OP
Originally Posted by Trojan View Post
From AE 911

... Once the study is completed, Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.
...
The body of the OP, including the latter sentence, was quoted from the November 21, 2015 AE Newsletter, which made this and other promises while soliciting money.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
They updates the schedule - http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ now reads:
"A draft report of the study is scheduled for release in early 2018 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. The final report will then be published in May or June 2018."
(Previously, the draft report was announced for "October or November" 2017, and final report for "early 2018")
Announcing this sort of close schedule seems to preclude the possibility that Hulsey still plans to submit his study "to major peer-reviewed engineering journals", as promised when money was solicited:
  • If the draft is released in "early 2018", an optimisti date might be mid-January
  • A six-week comment period would then end at the end of February
  • It would certainly take Hulsey's team another six weeks to review all comments and work them into the final report - that's mid April - the schedulded publication date
  • A submission to an engineering journal, with subsequent proper peer-review process by its editors, would take another few months, and may push publication towards the end of 2018 or even into 2019
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 08:00 PM   #2398
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
I see the Hulsey study as taken place in a highly prejudiced environment. A review it seems one would want a lot of challenges and skeptics. The best ones and the sharpest ones on 911 are present in this forum and a few others we know. In those you will almost never see a truther with any creds or background come forth with a cogent theory. We've seen Tony and Gerry... but the rest of the truth fans.... who do "research" such as McKee et al would never step into what they are convinced is a hostile environment.

The Tony presentation at NJIT was to a bunch of die hard truthers and several engineering students who were not familiar with anything except the broadest strokes about 9/11. The professors I spoke with afterwards were unconvinced by Tony.

Hulsey is preaching to the choir. His work is most likely academically junk. I would be surprised if an engineering journal with peer review would publish it. It was a marketing "ploy" by Gage to give the appearance of an academic paper that objectively came to the conclusion Gage has been pushing since day 1. Whether Gage knows it or not... there is probably so much fog and uncertainty and assumptions... it not impossible to get the Hulsey study to produce the finding they were after. This whole thing was a set up from the get go.

If you want comments... send it to a series of engineering schools' PhD candidates and ask them to review it. More random than comments from ANYONE with some "skin in the game".

Even if you demolish Hulsey's study... it won't deter AE and their followers from spinning it as proof of their position.

There is little to debate.... There is no one to debate... there is no explicit CD theory to debate. Hulsey's report will change nothing...

Hi Ozzie... we missed ya!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 09:17 PM   #2399
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Hi Ozzie... we missed ya!
G'day << Aussie style greeting - spelled phonetically "g...dye"

I was getting frustrated at the lack of interest in those aspects important to me - so tried to go "cold turkey" withdrawal EXCEPT a friend invited me to join a FaceBook group to debate a truther who wanted an engineer to debate with. I accepted the invite and there were dust clouds as the truther saw my bit of CV and disappeared over the horizon. BUT silly me stayed. There is some technical discussion which is potentially of value BUT......all recycling for novices at a lower grade than the bit of recycling we still see occasionally on one or two forums. (Here and Metabunk IMNSHO)

with that said - as usual you and I on very similar tracks. I may post (separately) a serious comment or two addressing the rest of your post.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2017, 01:46 AM   #2400
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  • A submission to an engineering journal, with subsequent proper peer-review process by its editors, would take another few months, and may push publication towards the end of 2018 or even into 2019
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.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.