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 15th September 2016, 02:14 PM   #81
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I'm just interested in a purely objective point of view, since clearly all the rest of us are hopelessly jaded and biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Criteria
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.
No biases to be detected in Criteria though. Shame on you debunkers......
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, 02:33 PM   #82
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Is there a place where the totally open accounting of money is shown? How much has been raised to date for 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 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, 02:44 PM   #83
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,653
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is there a place where the totally open accounting of money is shown? How much has been raised to date for this study?
What was the money used for? Is this a side "job" for Hulsey? Does he pay the grad students for their time? Rent for a office? Computers? tel-Comm?

or is he a full time professor with salary? and using unpaid grad students working on a PhD thesis or similar?

Would the accounting of the cost of the research be part of the transparency?
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, 03:51 PM   #84
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
What was the money used for? Is this a side "job" for Hulsey? Does he pay the grad students for their time? Rent for a office? Computers? tel-Comm?

or is he a full time professor with salary? and using unpaid grad students working on a PhD thesis or similar?

Would the accounting of the cost of the research be part of the transparency?
Hulsey is a full time professor. I doubt his assistants are paid.

Likely any money is paying lab time directly to UAF.

I contacted the university and they will be getting back to me with the proper contact person to answer grant information for this project.
__________________
"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 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 16th September 2016, 10:56 AM   #85
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
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.
Nice pasta.
MicahJava 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 16th September 2016, 11:04 AM   #86
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Nice pasta.
It goes well with crow, but I suspect you already know that.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 September 2016, 02:01 PM   #87
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
https://www.alaska.edu/files/counsel...ts-2010-02.pdf

If anyone wants to make a filing re Dr. Hulsey's communications with AE911Truth, I will reimburse you for any costs associated with the production of documents. (I would make the filing myself, but I'd rather not potentially open myself up to a bunch of real life harassment from AE911Truth diehards.) If Hulsey communicated with AE911Truth about the outcome and progress (including about a predetermined conclusion) of his study, the public has a right to know. Here's to hoping he used email.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 16th September 2016 at 02:02 PM.
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 16th September 2016, 02:12 PM   #88
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
https://www.alaska.edu/files/counsel...ts-2010-02.pdf

If anyone wants to make a filing re Dr. Hulsey's communications with AE911Truth, I will reimburse you for any costs associated with the production of documents. (I would make the filing myself, but I'd rather not potentially open myself up to a bunch of real life harassment from AE911Truth diehards.) If Hulsey communicated with AE911Truth about the outcome and progress (including about a predetermined conclusion) of his study, the public has a right to know. Here's to hoping he used email.
I don't really see the point. They are 1.5 years into a two year study. I've inquired as to grant and financial aspects.

What are you hoping to find?
__________________
"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 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 16th September 2016, 02:14 PM   #89
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't really see the point. They are 1.5 years into a two year study. I've inquired as to grant and financial aspects.

What are you hoping to find?
The actual terms of the grant and whether or not AE911Truth played any role in guiding the conclusions to date.
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 16th September 2016, 02:16 PM   #90
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
The actual terms of the grant and whether or not AE911Truth played any role in guiding the conclusions to date.
It's a private grant. AE 9/11 can set any terms they want.
__________________
"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 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 16th September 2016, 02:18 PM   #91
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It's a private grant. AE 9/11 can set any terms they want.
Not disputing that. But I still want to know what the actual terms are. It's a public university and the public has a right to know under the law.
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 16th September 2016, 02:25 PM   #92
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Not disputing that. But I still want to know what the actual terms are. It's a public university and the public has a right to know under the law.
I seriously doubt you could find what you're looking for. The grant is paying for lab time. If you want to launch a probe into Huseys use of time have at it. This concerns a small subset and is likely considered a private study (paid for by the client).

UAF has no part unless it's published and they endorse the findings.
__________________
"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 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 16th September 2016, 02:32 PM   #93
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I seriously doubt you could find what you're looking for. The grant is paying for lab time. If you want to launch a probe into Huseys use of time have at it. This concerns a small subset and is likely considered a private study (paid for by the client).

UAF has no part unless it's published and they endorse the findings.
Dear University of Alaska Department of Engineering,

Pursuant to [cite statute], I hereby request that you provide to me copies of (1) all correspondence between your department and any individual employed by [AE911Truth], including, but not limited to, Richard Gage, and (2) copies of all documentation pertaining to the grant from AE911Truth funding the [cite specific name of the research project] (including the terms thereof, the approval thereof, and records of any departmental deliberations concerned therewith, but excluding actual research reports, models, and similar materials produced in the course of the work associated with the grant).

Thank You,
Benthamitemetric

That's my 5 min version and I would certainly tune it, but it really wouldn't be hard at all to get what I am looking for. Not sure why you imagine it would be. Look at the law. Work done at a public university in Alaska is a public record. There is no exception in the Alaska FOIA law for work done pursuant to a private grant.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 16th September 2016 at 02:43 PM.
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 16th September 2016, 02:46 PM   #94
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Dear University of Alaska Department of Engineering,

Pursuant to [cite statute], I hereby request that you provide to me copies of (1) all correspondence between your department and any individual employed by [AE911Truth], including, but not limited to, Richard Gage, and (2) copies of all documentation pertaining to the grant from AE911Truth funding the [cite specific name of the research project] (including the terms thereof, the approval thereof, and records of any departmental deliberations concerned therewith, but excluding actual research reports, models, and similar materials produced in the course of the work associated with the grant).

Thank You,
Benthamitemetric

That's my 5 min version and I would certainly tune it, but it really wouldn't be hard at all to get what I am looking for. Not sure why you imagine it would be. Look at the law. Work done at a public university in Alaska is a public record. There is no exception in the Alaska FOIA law for work done pursuant to a private grant.
I question why you would bother. This work will never be endorsed by the university and little to no public funds were spent.
__________________
"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 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 16th September 2016, 02:57 PM   #95
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I question why you would bother. This work will never be endorsed by the university and little to no public funds were spent.
To me it's actually a very rare opportunity to see inside how AE911Truth operates, plus it sheds light on the credibility of a study that is already making an extraordinary claim, which, if taken seriously, would have massive implications for the public, and thus understanding all aspects of such study would be massively in the public interest. Given that AE911Truth chose a public university to conduct the study, it is very low hanging fruit to pick. So why not besides possible harassment from conspiracy nuts? Like I said, I'd rather not get involved directly (but I will if no one else does), but I'd be more than willing to help someone else (drafting/funding) who is also curious about these public records. Many on this board are already publicly known to conspiracy theorists, so I figured someone might want to do this at no cost/risk.

ETA: also, we actually don't know how much public funds, if any, were spent by Dr. Hulsey in connection with this project. That's another reason to request such information.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 16th September 2016 at 03:03 PM.
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 16th September 2016, 03:06 PM   #96
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
To me it's actually a very rare opportunity to see inside how AE911Truth operates, plus it sheds light on the credibility of a study that is already making an extraordinary claim, which, if taken seriously, would have massive implications for the public, and thus understanding all aspects of such study would be massively in the public interest. Given that AE911Truth chose a public university to conduct the study, it is very low hanging fruit to pick. So why not besides possible harassment from conspiracy nuts? Like I said, I'd rather not get involved directly (but I will if no one else does), but I'd be more than willing to help someone else (drafting/funding) who is also curious about these public records. Many on this board are already publicly known to conspiracy theorists, so I figured someone might want to do this at no cost/risk.

ETA: also, we actually don't know how much public funds, if any, were spent by Dr. Hulsey in connection with this project. That's another reason to request such information.
The university is not conducting the study. Husey is doing this as an independent project.

I see no reason to think there would be "massive implications for the public". Do you really think anyone outside of a couple obscure forums actually knows about this, or cares?

Do you really think this will ever get published?
__________________
"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 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 16th September 2016, 03:07 PM   #97
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
If Hulsey communicated with AE911Truth about the outcome and progress (including about a predetermined conclusion) of his study, the public has a right to know. Here's to hoping he used email.
It's already implicit and close to explicit in his progress reports. Why not an approach on the basis of professional misconduct?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I seriously doubt you could find what you're looking for. The grant is paying for lab time. If you want to launch a probe into Huseys use of time have at it. This concerns a small subset and is likely considered a private study (paid for by the client).

UAF has no part unless it's published and they endorse the findings.
Doesn't "chasing the financial details" make the same error of pursuing a derail side track that we are already seeing in forum discussions.

Forum "debate" is already taking the predictable track of debating technical details "Give me the data so I can check the model and calculations" sort of stuff. Missing the fatal or mendacious flaws in his framing of the project.

So I would be predicting yet another "Missing Jolt, "Axial impact v tilt"; "Girder walk-off" style lots of lengthy and detailed discussion. Missing the point that we are in the wrong "forest" as per your sig DGM. His project CANNOT legitimately achieve what he is claiming in his published statements. So why bother checking those aspects of his modelling which are irrelevant?

The minor amusement to me is that his false framing tactics follows the "New Strategy" that T Szamboti switched to about a year ago. So TWO AE911 related supporters following the same type of false argument.

But I doubt that any of them are bright enough to have made that switch deliberately.

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th September 2016 at 03:11 PM.
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 September 2016, 03:12 PM   #98
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The university is not conducting the study. Husey is doing this as an independent project.

I see no reason to think there would be "massive implications for the public". Do you really think anyone outside of a couple obscure forums actually knows about this, or cares?

Do you really think this will ever get published?
I think they could get some form of this published, yes. And AE911Truth will certainly use it for fundraising going forward, published or not.

And, again, it is not a private study. It is a privately-funded study conducted at a public university, using the university's facilities, grad students, licensed software, etc.

If you don't care about this topic so much, why are you posting about it? I find this exchange rather odd. No one will force you to read the documents produced by such a request, so don't worry if you're not interested.

I'd rather just know the truth as to how this study came about and was conducted. And, instead of speculating in circles on the internet all day, I'd rather make use of the law designed for the exact purpose of learning such truths.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 16th September 2016 at 03:14 PM.
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 16th September 2016, 03:16 PM   #99
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post

And, again, it is not a private study. It is a privately-funded study conducted at a public university, using the university's facilities, grad students, licensed software, etc.
Your beef might actually be with UAF. They are the ones profiting 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 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 16th September 2016, 03:20 PM   #100
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Your beef might actually be with UAF. They are the ones profiting from this "study".
It might be. All the more reason to actually understand the nature of the grant process at issue here. And, lucky for us, there is a ready legal mechanism that lets us do so.
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 16th September 2016, 03:26 PM   #101
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
It might be. All the more reason to actually understand the nature of the grant process at issue here. And, lucky for us, there is a ready legal mechanism that lets us do so.
Fact is, I think the reason the "study" has been cut back is because of lack of funds.

Hulsey expected more money for more lab time but funding has fallen short.

I'm collecting funding data now but, most will not be complete until filing next tax year. As things like this goes, this could be over a year from now.
__________________
"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 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 16th September 2016, 04:18 PM   #102
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
For those of us who prefer the written word on grounds of fidelity of reproduction, is there any kind of written document we can study?

Dave
I have transcribed an important bit from between the 1:00 and 2:00 marks wheh Dr. Hulsey is speaking;

“We are making this study open, and transparent. Whether you are a physicist, engineer, architect, fire expert, or specialist in another field or just an ordinary citizen we want your participation.”

“We are making all of our data available on-line. Every aspect of our process regarding the model will be shared and we will be giving regular updates from the lab as we continue our work.”

“Join us in getting to the bottom of why World Trade Center 7 collapsed on September 11th, 2001”.
(emphasis added)

All of that IIRC was simply copped from their original project introduction video of last year.
__________________
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 16th September 2016, 06:15 PM   #103
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,653
Cue 9/11 anniversary... let's report that fires couldn't do it and NIST was lyin' bout that. This smells fishy to me... and has so from the time it was announced.

Didn't expect much and wasn't disappointed.
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 17th September 2016, 12:51 AM   #104
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,764
I'm watching the video.... about half way through. Plan to finish tomorrow.
So far this boils down to a disagreement with the NIST about whether their estimated collapse initiation point was one - accurate, and two - if the structural response could cause the collapse to initiate at that location. The NIST based their initial estimation of the initiation point based on videos of the exterior of the building at the time of collapse and then modeled that until they got a reasonable replication of what could be gathered from footage. Did he do the same? I suppose I'll find out when I watch the rest

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Isn't it interesting that some here haven't even watched the 16 minute video...
I have to wonder if you even visited the URL of the video let alone watched it? It's almost 35 minutes long. I'll give benefit of the doubt that this might have been a typo, but use due diligence if you're going to utilize ad hominems against your critics. Errors like this aren't helping.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 17th September 2016 at 12:53 AM.
Grizzly Bear 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 17th September 2016, 04:42 AM   #105
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
...
If you don't care about this topic so much, why are you posting about it? I find this exchange rather odd. No one will force you to read the documents produced by such a request, so don't worry if you're not interested.

I'd rather just know the truth as to how this study came about and was conducted. And, instead of speculating in circles on the internet all day, I'd rather make use of the law designed for the exact purpose of learning such truths.
I would be very much interested in this information - it might indeed, as you wrote elsewhere, reveal bits of how AE conducts business. Such as a who-is-who at Gage's inner circle, who is calling the shots. Also of course on what kinds of personal terms Hulsey is with any of the truthers.
I doubt that they would put in writing, even into the legal papers ruling the grant, that AE wants a certain conclusion. That they would have done on the "voice track" long before any paperwork got underway. But who knows what we might discover?
If and when the study comes out, I bet truthers will argue that UAF and Hulsey are "independent"; perhaps we'll know better then, and can prove it.

However, I don't feel that I am the person to write to the University. For starters, I am outside of North America - not sure if I am part of the "public" that FOIA has in mind.
__________________
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 17th September 2016, 07:41 AM   #106
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
"Is there a place where the totally open accounting of money is shown?

How much has been raised to date for this study?"
Unless you can show what relevance your interest in Dr. Hulsey's accounts has with respect to his finding that fire absolutely was not the reason for WTC7's collapse, I see nothing but a de-railing as well as another lame backdoor attempt to subvert the integrity of his work.

Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
The actual terms of the grant and whether or not AE911Truth played any role in guiding the conclusions to date."
Another backdoor attempt to smear Dr. Hulsey's integrity. Dr. Hulsey and his doctorate associates were guided by their findings and most certainly not the money.

If you have an issue about the fire conclusions, I suggest you focus on where you believe the study was flawed.

As is all to common in this forum, when dealing with a non-member, the man is attacked but not his argument.
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
"To me it's actually a very rare opportunity to see inside how AE911Truth operates, plus it sheds light on the credibility of a study that is already making an extraordinary claim, which, if taken seriously, would have massive implications for the public, and thus understanding all aspects of such study would be massively in the public interest."
So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
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 17th September 2016, 07:49 AM   #107
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Unless you can show what relevance your interest in Dr. Hulsey's accounts has with respect to his finding that fire absolutely was not the reason for WTC7's collapse, I see nothing but a de-railing as well as another lame backdoor attempt to subvert the integrity of his work.


I'm just looking for what they claimed they would provide, an open and transparent study. Do you think this study has met that promise?

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
How can we verify or find flaws in a study that has shown none of it's data.
__________________
"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; 17th September 2016 at 07:54 AM.
DGM 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 17th September 2016, 07:56 AM   #108
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Unless you can show what relevance your interest in Dr. Hulsey's accounts has with respect to his finding that fire absolutely was not the reason for WTC7's collapse, I see nothing but a de-railing as well as another lame backdoor attempt to subvert the integrity of his work.
It isn't "Dr. Hulsey's accounts". Its not his money. Its the projects money. Dr. Hulsey promised the study would be "open and transparent." Shouldn't that also include how it was funded and how those funds were spent? What is unreasonable about that?

Quote:
Another backdoor attempt to smear Dr. Hulsey's integrity. Dr. Hulsey and his doctorate associates were guided by their findings and most certainly not the money.
At this point your assertion is purely speculative. To date promises that the entire study would be open and transparent with all data made available on-line and public participation welcome have not been even remotely met. Even with this most recent finding no real data was presented so we don't actually know how they got from A to Z.

Quote:
If you have an issue about the fire conclusions, I suggest you focus on where you believe the study was flawed. So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
How? They aren't sharing the data like they said they would do.
__________________
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 17th September 2016, 07:58 AM   #109
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Unless you can show what relevance your interest in Dr. Hulsey's accounts has with respect to his finding that fire absolutely was not the reason for WTC7's collapse, I see nothing but a de-railing as well as another lame backdoor attempt to subvert the integrity of his work.



Another backdoor attempt to smear Dr. Hulsey's integrity. Dr. Hulsey and his doctorate associates were guided by their findings and most certainly not the money.

If you have an issue about the fire conclusions, I suggest you focus on where you believe the study was flawed.

As is all to common in this forum, when dealing with a non-member, the man is attacked but not his argument.
So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
I can he hasn't looked into fuel transport or dirrect oxidation effects that is clear, from the video.
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 17th September 2016, 08:00 AM   #110
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
Rule of So: What you write is wrong.

There is a major flaw right at the root of his methodology:
He tries to recreate certain assumptions made by another team (NIST) that came to some set of rather specific conclusions ("heat made beams expand in floor 13 and push girder X off its seat, which cause..."). He tries to show that this specific scenario has a low probability of occurring. So far so acceptable.
Then comes the huge, flawed, silly, stupid, biased, moronic leap:
"Because NIST is wrong, fire cannot possibly be the cause of collapse".

Nonsense.

There is a universe of alternative paths by which fire could have been the cause, and we may never be able to prove one way or another which of the discovered and undiscovered paths actually did it, for lack of data.
Hulsey has not, and cannot, show that NO fire-induced collapse is possible or did happen.

What he needs to do, in order to replace the incumbent hypothesis ("fires made floor assemblies around columns 79-81 fail, leaving thos col's unsupported...") with a new hypothesis, is to actually spell out such an alternative hypothesis ("x pounds of high exexplosives placed on col's/girders/... Y to Z went off and at times t1 to tn and triggered") and demonstrate its viability and plausibility and compatibility with observed reality (e.g. the total lack of audible explosions with high brisance; the absence of any and all steel members showong signs of having been subjected to high explosives; a reconciliation with the exsistance of uncontrolled, fully involved fires in the very areas where many of the heat-sensitive explosive charges and their detonators would have been placed, etc etc etc).


tl;dr: "Showing NIST wrong" =/= "Fires didn't do it"
Scientific method demands instead: Spell out explosive CD hypothesis and prove it.
But neither Hulsey nor AE nor any Truther ever dares going there. There simply exists no hypothesis alternative to the "fires dunnit" one.
__________________
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 17th September 2016, 08:03 AM   #111
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,588
What Oystein just said.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
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 17th September 2016, 08:48 AM   #112
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,813
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Unless you can show what relevance your interest in Dr. Hulsey's accounts has with respect to his finding that fire absolutely was not the reason for WTC7's collapse, I see nothing but a de-railing as well as another lame backdoor attempt to subvert the integrity of his work.

The fact he is working with AE911Truth, a discredited organization, pretty much spells it out as to where he is coming from.


Quote:
Dr J Leroy Hulsey, chair of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, has partnered with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to begin a rigorous academic study into what really caused it to collapse.

Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for A&E 9/11 Truth added:

We hope to gain significant traction in the engineering community by providing an authoritative refutation of NIST’s report, by showing that there is no way that fires could have brought down building 7.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/univers...ding-7/5532408

A partner with a discredited organization. So much in the integrity of Dr. Hulsey.


Quote:
Another backdoor attempt to smear Dr. Hulsey's integrity.

He smeared himself when he became a partner with a discredited organization well-known for its deception and lies!
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 17th September 2016, 09:03 AM   #113
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,720
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Rule of So: What you write is wrong.

There is a major flaw right at the root of his methodology:
He tries to recreate certain assumptions made by another team (NIST) that came to some set of rather specific conclusions ("heat made beams expand in floor 13 and push girder X off its seat, which cause..."). He tries to show that this specific scenario has a low probability of occurring. So far so acceptable.
Then comes the huge, flawed, silly, stupid, biased, moronic leap:
"Because NIST is wrong, fire cannot possibly be the cause of collapse".

Nonsense.

There is a universe of alternative paths by which fire could have been the cause, and we may never be able to prove one way or another which of the discovered and undiscovered paths actually did it, for lack of data.
Hulsey has not, and cannot, show that NO fire-induced collapse is possible or did happen.

What he needs to do, in order to replace the incumbent hypothesis ("fires made floor assemblies around columns 79-81 fail, leaving thos col's unsupported...") with a new hypothesis, is to actually spell out such an alternative hypothesis ("x pounds of high exexplosives placed on col's/girders/... Y to Z went off and at times t1 to tn and triggered") and demonstrate its viability and plausibility and compatibility with observed reality (e.g. the total lack of audible explosions with high brisance; the absence of any and all steel members showong signs of having been subjected to high explosives; a reconciliation with the exsistance of uncontrolled, fully involved fires in the very areas where many of the heat-sensitive explosive charges and their detonators would have been placed, etc etc etc).


tl;dr: "Showing NIST wrong" =/= "Fires didn't do it"
Scientific method demands instead: Spell out explosive CD hypothesis and prove it.
But neither Hulsey nor AE nor any Truther ever dares going there. There simply exists no hypothesis alternative to the "fires dunnit" one.
I am so *********** sick and tired of all these "X couldn't have happened, so Y", without so much as a load diagram and free body of what was claimed vs what they say happened.
If you can't define the loads and properties, you can't support any argument you want to make
And when asked, they run and hide-- or start a new argument about something else.
__________________
"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 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 17th September 2016, 10:00 AM   #114
WilliamSeger
Graduate Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,936
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
... his finding that fire absolutely was not the reason for WTC7's collapse...

So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
Too funny.
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 17th September 2016, 10:05 AM   #115
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,040
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
What Oystein just said.
What he and Oystein just said.

"I spot a flaw in the conventional explanation, therefore [insert any old evidence-free carp that enters my head here]"

It's depressing that people can even think in this manner.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 17th September 2016, 10:06 AM   #116
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,040
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Too funny.
Naughty
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 17th September 2016, 10:14 AM   #117
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Unless you can show what relevance your interest in Dr. Hulsey's accounts..................
You may find this hard to believe but, I'm curious as to why Hulsey seems to have abbreviated his study (as he says in the video).

My feeling is there is simply not enough money to pay for the resources need to complete a full model as was promised.

Simply put. Visions of grandeur with little actual support.

I also find it curious that you don't even acknowledge these things. Like with the Basile study, you just support it on faith.
__________________
"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; 17th September 2016 at 10:25 AM.
DGM 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 17th September 2016, 10:22 AM   #118
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
It goes well with crow, but I suspect you already know that.
What?
MicahJava 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 17th September 2016, 10:44 AM   #119
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,813
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?

How can anyone evaluate his so-called 'transparent study' when it is so transparent no one can see it?
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 17th September 2016, 11:05 AM   #120
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
How can anyone evaluate his so-called 'transparent study' when it is so transparent no one can see it?
Just... the way you worded that. Lol.
MicahJava 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
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 03:35 PM.
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.