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.
Reply
Old 13th September 2016, 10:42 AM   #41
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,051
I feel it might be constructive to revisit the beginning, the original press release regarding the objectives and intended methodology of the Hulsey Study:

Quote:
Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a study, using Finite Element Modeling, of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. Dr. Hulsey is the chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and brings decades of experience in failure analysis and modeling of structures.

In May, Dr. Hulsey and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process of virtually reconstructing WTC 7 — using the software programs SAP 2000 and Abaqus — and evaluating the range of possible causes of WTC 7’s collapse. By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79.

Based on his analysis, Dr. Hulsey will evaluate the probability of each hypothetical scenario being the cause of the collapse — and rule out scenarios that could not have resulted in collapse. Once the study is completed, Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.

Transparency and Public Participation

Unlike NIST, which has refused to release all of its modeling data based on the untenable excuse that doing so “might jeopardize public safety,” UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.

Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org, where members of the architecture and engineering communities, as well as the general public, can follow and scrutinize the research as it is being conducted.

Today, we’re giving you a sneak peek by inviting you to be the first to watch the official WTC 7 Evaluation Introduction Video. This video will be featured at the top of the forthcoming website WTC7Evaluation.org to introduce visitors to Dr. Hulsey and the goals of the UAF study.

By making the study open and transparent throughout the entire process, we expect it to attract widespread attention from the engineering community and the broader public, while also enabling interested observers to provide input and feedback. To that end, we enthusiastically invite you to register to become a participant in the study. Dr. Hulsey and the review committee vetting his research greatly welcome your help.

This Is a Turning Point

We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed. (Emphasis Added)
I have not watched the entire presentation yet but I am getting the impression that what we ended up with is a whole lot less than what we were told we would be getting.
__________________
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 13th September 2016, 11:18 AM   #42
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
ZERO chance that the fires caused the collapse of WTC7!

Common sense, the laws of physics, Mr. Reality and the experts do not agree with you.


Quote:
All you non-engineers can continue projecting unfounded beliefs, but your arguments opposing Dr. Hulsey's findings will only land you with a fat zero on a test paper.

It is an accepted fact that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, brought down WTC 7 and there is nothing you say nor have you presented evidence to the contrary.


Quote:
It is far from the public interest to let WTC7's collapse remain a mystery.

No mystery at all.


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...tc7resembledac


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.


Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

http://www.architectmagazine.com/des...m-trutherism_o
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 13th September 2016, 12:23 PM   #43
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
ZERO chance that the fires caused the collapse of WTC7!

All you non-engineers can continue projecting unfounded beliefs, but your arguments opposing Dr. Hulsey's findings will only land you with a fat zero on a test paper.

Let's take a closer look at Professor Hulsey and who will be supporting him.

Quote:
University Of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and two Ph.D. research assistants are partnering with the non-profit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an engineering study known as “World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation.” The researchers are using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse.

Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for A&E 9/11 Truth, is in charge of working with the professor and raising money to fund the WTC7 Evaluation.

Raising money again??? Just to let you know that AE911Truth has been discredted and attacked by former workers due to that organization's questionable business practices and questionable handling of its donations
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 13th September 2016, 12:38 PM   #44
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,051
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And for those of us who prefer the written word on grounds of ease of review and citation, is there any kind of written document we can study?

Video is great for those who want their audience to uncritically consume a pre-packaged narrative. Not so much for those who want their audience to examine the evidence and the argument for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
2 days later and still nothing new at http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
__________________
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 13th September 2016, 07:08 PM   #45
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
2 days later and still nothing new at http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
Okay...I downloaded all the research data from this website. The latest information is dated Nov. 24, 2015; almost 10 months ago. And unfortunately I cannot open any of the files (pdf, jpeg, tif, word, etc.), so much for transparency. I was hoping to get some of their SAP input files, so I can check their computer model. No such luck...

Let me know if anyone else has better luck.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 13th September 2016, 07:13 PM   #46
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Raising money again??? Just to let you know that AE911Truth has been discredted and attacked by former workers due to that organization's questionable business practices and questionable handling of its donations
A point I have made earlier, all funding should go to and thru the University of Alaska Foundation, not AE 9/11 Truth. That a big red flag...
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 13th September 2016, 10:11 PM   #47
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,076
Anyone other than me noticed the absence in toto of the founder of the fleecing?
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair 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 2016, 05:15 AM   #48
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,051
I'm curious, did anyone here attempt to register as a participant in the WTC7 Evaluation and if so, what was the result?
__________________
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 14th September 2016, 06:22 AM   #49
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Okay...I downloaded all the research data from this website. The latest information is dated Nov. 24, 2015; almost 10 months ago. And unfortunately I cannot open any of the files (pdf, jpeg, tif, word, etc.), so much for transparency. I was hoping to get some of their SAP input files, so I can check their computer model. No such luck...

Let me know if anyone else has better luck.
noooo, you must be doing something wrong. We were promised openness and transparency in every step. It is bigbadNIST that doesn't make available their data set.

Surely something later than Nov last year will be up and available reeeal soon.
jaydeehess 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 2016, 06:59 AM   #50
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,051
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
noooo, you must be doing something wrong. We were promised openness and transparency in every step. It is bigbadNIST that doesn't make available their data set.

Surely something later than Nov last year will be up and available reeeal soon.
I am mostly interested to see who, if anyone who tried passed their vetting process - whatever that might be and whoever might be doing it.
__________________
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 14th September 2016, 11:41 AM   #51
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,264
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I'm curious, did anyone here attempt to register as a participant in the WTC7 Evaluation and if so, what was the result?
I did. That is, filled out the online form and submitted.
Nothing happened. At all.
__________________
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 2016, 11:46 AM   #52
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,655
So far this has all the earmarks of AE outside research... quid pro quo?
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 14th September 2016, 02:04 PM   #53
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I did. That is, filled out the online form and submitted.
Nothing happened. At all.
I seem to recall you telling us about it at the time.
jaydeehess 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 2016, 06:41 PM   #54
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 620
Well…I took the time to watch all 34+ minutes of Dr. Hulsey’s presentation, and I can only conclude one thing, they do not have a complete working computer model of Building 7. Our University of Alaska professor talks about methodology and approach, but doesn’t produce any data, graphics or information that indications they have built a complete working model. I suspect they only have a model of column 79, and that how Hulsey concluded the fires couldn’t have bought down Building 7.

The project was too big, and they didn’t have time, money or resources to do what they promised.

Big surprise…
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 2016, 08:06 PM   #55
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
"I have not watched the entire presentation yet but I am getting the impression that what we ended up with is a whole lot less than what we were told we would be getting."
If you bothered to watch the ~16 minute presentation you would know that Dr. Hulsey's investigation is still a work-in-progress.

His initial goal was to determine whether or not it was possible for fire to accomplish what the NIST claimed.

At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

His current goal is to find a science-based explanation that does explain the collapse.

He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.
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 2016, 08:17 PM   #56
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you bothered to watch the ~16 minute presentation you would know that Dr. Hulsey's investigation is still a work-in-progress.

His initial goal was to determine whether or not it was possible for fire to accomplish what the NIST claimed.

At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

His current goal is to find a science-based explanation that does explain the collapse.

He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.
Yes and what would that be, explosions, or giant killer butterflies?
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 14th September 2016, 09:15 PM   #57
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

He is wasting time and money because it has already been determineed that fire, in conjunctiion with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7. The fact he ran off to AE911Truth, a discredited organization, sums it up where he is coming from.

Quote:
WTC 7 Evaluation is a two-year study by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded through the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Now, let's take a look here.

Quote:
The Shaky Moral Foundation that AE911Truth is Built Upon

We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything.

http://healthwyze.org/tidbits/590-th...-is-built-upon

There is no further need for another failed investigation to find explosives that never were, but that doesn't matter to AE911Truth because the organization will once again, enrich itself from donations of the gulllible who have been taken for a ride to the cleaners in the past.

It seems they just don't learn from history.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 14th September 2016 at 09:35 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 15th September 2016, 12:21 AM   #58
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you bothered to watch the ~16 minute presentation you would know that Dr. Hulsey's investigation is still a work-in-progress.

His initial goal was to determine whether or not it was possible for fire to accomplish what the NIST claimed.

At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

His current goal is to find a science-based explanation that does explain the collapse.

He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video but feel okay with making negative remarks about the WTC 7 Evaluation project? If I were to bet on it I would have to say that the only goal of a number of individuals on this forum is to denigrate the project and stifle any reaction to its results.

The reactions to the project by these individuals seem extreme and more indicative of an agenda to stifle rather than getting at what actually caused the collapse.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 15th September 2016 at 12:33 AM.
Tony Szamboti 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 September 2016, 12:39 AM   #59
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video but feel okay with making negative remarks about the WTC 7 Evaluation project?

Why waste the time when it has been determined that fire and impact damage was responsible for the destruction of WTC 7? The fact he solicited assistance from a discredited organization won't look good on his resume.
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 15th September 2016, 12:54 AM   #60
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

His current goal is to find a science-based explanation that does explain the collapse.

He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that CD explosives and thermite had nothing to do with the destruction of WTC 7. Remember, fires raged out of control within WTC 7 for almost 7 hours after a huge hole, that spanned several stories, was gouged on the south wall of the building.

Buckling observed by witnesses was another indication that fire was slowly weakening the steel structure of WTC 7, and once again, there was no explosive or thermite evidence found in the rubble of WTC 7 and remember, explosives create a lot of noise and thermite creates extremely bright flashes of light, neither of which was evident as WTC 7 collapsed.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 15th September 2016 at 12:56 AM.
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 15th September 2016, 01:59 AM   #61
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: 1,588
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If I were to bet on it I would have to say that the only goal of a number of individuals on this forum is to denigrate the project and stifle any reaction to its results.
Interesting idea. In an attempt to stifle reaction to the report, people in this forum post their reactions to this report. Then you post your reaction, both to the report and to the other posts.
Not really stifling reaction, then, is it?
__________________
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 15th September 2016, 02:30 AM   #62
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: 23,859
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Interesting idea. In an attempt to stifle reaction to the report, people in this forum post their reactions to this report. Then you post your reaction, both to the report and to the other posts.
Not really stifling reaction, then, is it?
It's a well-used truther canard that the posters on this forum are somehow doing something to prevent the truth about 9/11 being exposed. Quite what we are supposed to be doing has never been made clear, but the inference to be drawn is that, so long as a significant number of posters on this forum reject the truth movement's arguments, they are somehow prevented from being accepted by the population in general. I don't know how to handle all this responsibility!

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 15th September 2016, 04:17 AM   #63
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's a well-used truther canard that the posters on this forum are somehow doing something to prevent the truth about 9/11 being exposed. Quite what we are supposed to be doing has never been made clear, but the inference to be drawn is that, so long as a significant number of posters on this forum reject the truth movement's arguments, they are somehow prevented from being accepted by the population in general. I don't know how to handle all this responsibility!

Dave
Yes the Ninja mind control is working, the truthers only have a couple hundred years left to play stupid.
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 15th September 2016, 06:08 AM   #64
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video but feel okay with making negative remarks about the WTC 7 Evaluation project? If I were to bet on it I would have to say that the only goal of a number of individuals on this forum is to denigrate the project and stifle any reaction to its results.

The reactions to the project by these individuals seem extreme and more indicative of an agenda to stifle rather than getting at what actually caused the collapse.
Hulsey presentation was mostly smoke and mirrors, with very little substance. Like you, he has predetermined the truth and is building a computer model to match.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 September 2016, 06:19 AM   #65
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,655
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video but feel okay with making negative remarks about the WTC 7 Evaluation project? If I were to bet on it I would have to say that the only goal of a number of individuals on this forum is to denigrate the project and stifle any reaction to its results.

The reactions to the project by these individuals seem extreme and more indicative of an agenda to stifle rather than getting at what actually caused the collapse.
Let's see... I would certainly welcome any study which could lay out the sequence of "events" which run of a stable building on fire to one which has totally collapsed. I, for one, am not interested in a complex theoretical (based on assumed inputs) sort of analysis of individual nodes... such as what NIST did and which seems to be the flavor du jour.

I want to see how anyone explains the entire collapse. If you want to use devices to explain it... and match all the observables... show where they were placed, how they were detonated/controlled. How this was engineered? How the devices were placed without notice. How they survived the fires for 7 hrs? Why they were so quiet considering they seem to be "taking out" the most massive columns low down in the structure? and so on.

Ignore NIST... Ignore ARUP, Ignore them all.... lay it out... and then maybe it can be tested, probed, dissected, critiqued.... Destruction of all columns over 8 floors all at once is not an explanation. It is a bad cartoon! And it's no better than dropping cardboard boxes...

++++

Where is the study of the performance of the knife joints, the beam splices? Welds? and so on? Where is the explanation of the vertical kink over multiple stories? Where is the explanation for the massive black smoke pouring from the lower stories?

What we have here is another GerryCan type study/refutation of the col 79 floor 13 NIST thingy... Really.... Who cares what NIST did.

DO YOU OWN STUDY DR HULSEY.
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 September 2016, 06:35 AM   #66
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,047
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video but feel okay with making negative remarks about the WTC 7 Evaluation project? If I were to bet on it I would have to say that the only goal of a number of individuals on this forum is to denigrate the project and stifle any reaction to its results.

The reactions to the project by these individuals seem extreme and more indicative of an agenda to stifle rather than getting at what actually caused the collapse.
Hulsey is claiming to prove that NIST's hypothesis is incorrect, and it remains to be seen if there's really any substance behind that claim. After promising transparency, he's announcing results that can't be verified.

But he is also claiming that this proves WTC 7 was not brought down by fire, which is laughably illogical. I'm not sure there's anything Hulsey could do now to change the perception that he is an agenda-driven fuzzy thinker, and is too afflicted with confirmation bias to be an honest researcher -- much like yourself.
WilliamSeger is online now   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 September 2016, 07:15 AM   #67
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: 1,588
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's a well-used truther canard that the posters on this forum are somehow doing something to prevent the truth about 9/11 being exposed. Quite what we are supposed to be doing has never been made clear, but the inference to be drawn is that, so long as a significant number of posters on this forum reject the truth movement's arguments, they are somehow prevented from being accepted by the population in general. I don't know how to handle all this responsibility!

Dave
Now it's all becoming clear. I always wondered what that "Allow Reaction" button next to each post was for.
__________________
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 15th September 2016, 08:31 AM   #68
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,655
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Hulsey is claiming to prove that NIST's hypothesis is incorrect, and it remains to be seen if there's really any substance behind that claim. After promising transparency, he's announcing results that can't be verified.

But he is also claiming that this proves WTC 7 was not brought down by fire, which is laughably illogical. I'm not sure there's anything Hulsey could do now to change the perception that he is an agenda-driven fuzzy thinker, and is too afflicted with confirmation bias to be an honest researcher -- much like yourself.
He kinds disqualifies himself with this presentation, not to mention how he was funded and carried out his "research". He will not be taken seriously by anyone except the truth guys. It may be a case the university wants to look into.
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 September 2016, 08:33 AM   #69
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,732
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's a well-used truther canard that the posters on this forum are somehow doing something to prevent the truth about 9/11 being exposed. Quite what we are supposed to be doing has never been made clear, but the inference to be drawn is that, so long as a significant number of posters on this forum reject the truth movement's arguments, they are somehow prevented from being accepted by the population in general. I don't know how to handle all this responsibility!

Dave
You mean we prevent the truth from being exposed by forcing the tony's and other "engineers" to abandon avenues of investigation by asking to see something that they have actually done? Like Tony running to this thread after running away from several others because we ask for a 5 minutes effort on his part (if he had actually don't the analysis he claimed)?
__________________
"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
rwguinn is online now   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 September 2016, 08:55 AM   #70
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video but feel okay with making negative remarks about the WTC 7 Evaluation project?

If I were to bet on it I would have to say that the only goal of a number of individuals on this forum is to denigrate the project and stifle any reaction to its results.

The reactions to the project by these individuals seem extreme and more indicative of an agenda to stifle rather than getting at what actually caused the collapse.
Yes Tony. From what I have observed in this sub-forum the majority are too lazy to read or watch any presentation that is at odds with their chosen beliefs.

Dr. Hulsey, PHD., SE, Chairman, Dept. of Civil Engineering University of Alaska brings his knowledge and experience as both a structural engineer and a forensic structural engineer to this research.

Anyone honestly claiming to care about the truth behind the sudden total collapse of WTC7 should be interested in what he and his associates uncovered.
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 15th September 2016, 09:02 AM   #71
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you bothered to watch the ~16 minute presentation you would know that Dr. Hulsey's investigation is still a work-in-progress.
I did.

Quote:
His initial goal was to determine whether or not it was possible for fire to accomplish what the NIST claimed.
Saw that, and ok, so test one aspect of one proposed initiations scenario. Got it!

Quote:
At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.
,,,, and there we have it, a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the work done.

Quote:
His current goal is to find a science-based explanation that does explain the collapse.
Perhaps looking at other fire based scenarios would be the most fruitful. IIRC there are several others already out there from professional engineering organizations.

Quote:
He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.
Will we be seeing his work and data set any time soon, as promised? You do realize that it is seemingly hypocritical of AE911T to blast NIST for that while having the very same thing going on with their own commissioned study?
jaydeehess 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 September 2016, 09:04 AM   #72
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Yes Tony. From what I have observed in this sub-forum the majority are too lazy to read or watch any presentation that is at odds with their chosen beliefs.
We can read Husley's paper that his video presentation is based on? Does it take longer than 16 minutes to get through?
Where?
jaydeehess 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 September 2016, 09:09 AM   #73
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Yes Tony. From what I have observed in this sub-forum the majority are too lazy to read or watch any presentation that is at odds with their chosen beliefs.

Dr. Hulsey, PHD., SE, Chairman, Dept. of Civil Engineering University of Alaska brings his knowledge and experience as both a structural engineer and a forensic structural engineer to this research.

Anyone honestly claiming to care about the truth behind the sudden total collapse of WTC7 should be interested in what he and his associates uncovered.

Uncovered what? Since it has been determined what cause the collapse of WTC 7, his time and effort is a waste of time.
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 15th September 2016, 09:10 AM   #74
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,051
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you bothered to watch the ~16 minute presentation you would know that Dr. Hulsey's investigation is still a work-in-progress.
I do not need to watch -16 minutes of presentation to know that Hulsey is 3/4 of the way through a 2 year project. I can do basic math. Odd though that they should have reached such a far-reaching global conclusion already after studying just one aspect - more on that below.

Quote:
His initial goal was to determine whether or not it was possible for fire to accomplish what the NIST claimed.
Not according to the original AE911T press release which reads as follows:

"With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79."

Seems to me like they did an unannoucned 180 and prioritized AE911T's agenda of NIST was wrong, therefore no fire.

Quote:
At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.
Based on a very narrow focus investigation of just a single scenario? Such a broad global conclusion from such a limited examination seems like a bit of a reach, doncha think?

Quote:
His current goal is to find a science-based explanation that does explain the collapse.
Just now that's the goal? I thought that was the goal all along?

Quote:
He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.
While your comment seems purely speculative, I find it entirely plausible given the motive force behind the effort and their particular agenda.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Mark F; 15th September 2016 at 09:54 AM.
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 September 2016, 09:12 AM   #75
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: 23,859
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
You mean we prevent the truth from being exposed by forcing the tony's and other "engineers" to abandon avenues of investigation by asking to see something that they have actually done? Like Tony running to this thread after running away from several others because we ask for a 5 minutes effort on his part (if he had actually don't the analysis he claimed)?
Yes, but apparently that means we're lazy.

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 15th September 2016, 09:20 AM   #76
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,051
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video but feel okay with making negative remarks about the WTC 7 Evaluation project? If I were to bet on it I would have to say that the only goal of a number of individuals on this forum is to denigrate the project and stifle any reaction to its results.

The reactions to the project by these individuals seem extreme and more indicative of an agenda to stifle rather than getting at what actually caused the collapse.
OK then, what are your thoughts on the WTC 7 Evaluation project so far?

Any concerns?

Do you think the project to date has lived up to the goals and expectations and delivered on the promises outlined in the original press release presented in post #41 of this thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=41
__________________
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 September 2016, 10:28 AM   #77
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,148
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
OK then, what are your thoughts on the WTC 7 Evaluation project so far?

Any concerns?

Do you think the project to date has lived up to the goals and expectations and delivered on the promises outlined in the original press release presented in post #41 of this thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=41
Why would Tony have any concerns? Hulsey has drawn his conclusion on the same principles that Tony draws his.

I think Hulsey is over his head on what he proposed to achieve. I think they ran out of money and this we be the last we hear from this 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 September 2016, 10:48 AM   #78
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,732
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, but apparently that means we're lazy.

Dave
Of course.
__________________
"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
rwguinn is online now   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 September 2016, 01:49 PM   #79
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,051
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why would Tony have any concerns? Hulsey has drawn his conclusion on the same principles that Tony draws his.
I'm just interested in a purely objective point of view, since clearly all the rest of us are hopelessly jaded and biased.
__________________
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 September 2016, 02:10 PM   #80
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.
Is it common and natural for seekers of truth to attempt to subvert the scientific process by strong encouragement to declare a cause that has not been studied?

AE911T would have fit in well with the big tobacco companies in the middle of the last century and how they commissioned "research".

How wonderfully ironic is the oft repeated cry that a new investigation, beyond the self interested influence of government, is required.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 15th September 2016 at 02:12 PM.
jaydeehess 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 05:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.