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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 23rd December 2019, 09:03 PM   #3241
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,209
Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
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 23rd December 2019, 10:01 PM   #3242
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,523
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
Well that disposes of the claims about "open for public comment". I'll leave it for Oystein to put in context - he is far more familiar with the details than I am.
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 24th December 2019, 01:50 AM   #3243
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: 30,129
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
Since they seem to think the appropriate science is forensic structural engineering, neither does Hulsey, or indeed anyone else, because it's a science he made up for himself.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 24th December 2019, 04:55 AM   #3244
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,043
Hulsey will have no impact of the explanation as to what happened on 9/11 to anyone but 911 truthers.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2019, 12:16 PM   #3245
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,209
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Since they seem to think the appropriate science is forensic structural engineering, neither does Hulsey, or indeed anyone else, because it's a science he made up for himself.

Dave
Actually I would call it Nonscience or Nonsense both terms apply here.
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 24th December 2019, 01:56 PM   #3246
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,751
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
Ok. You seem to say that you submitted your comments on the September 03 Draft Report by Hulsey to publiccomment@ae911truth.org on or before November 15th, AND that they already responded to you saying they rejected your comments because you lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
Do I construe that correctly?

I'll be blunt: I do not believe that story.
Could you please forward to my email account, which you know, the comments you had mailed to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and then also their reply? Thanks.

Background: I sent comments to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and did not receive any response, nor would I expect any response, nor would I believe that they would dare to reject any comments.
__________________
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 24th December 2019, 02:04 PM   #3247
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,751
In early September I had sent the link to Hulsey's draft report to a friend who is a structural engineer (his job, if I understand correctly, is to certify structural designs submitted by other engineering firms; those are often large and non-standard structures like power plants, valley bridges, stuff like that). I askked him if he could look at the report and give me his thoughts.

Today I had breakfast with him, my first chance to inquire about his thoughts. He said the report looks inflated - lots of stuff that looks like engineering, but really pretty thin on substance. As for using FEA to study the dynamics of total collapse, his assessment is that this is almost unfeasible. Chaos theory reigns. His main argument was that such a FE analysis can and should be viewed as a branching process - say, a beam gets overloaded and is forced to buckle - then often it could buckle to the left or the right (or perhaps a third or fourth direction) - and this may make a difference later on. Such branches must occur countless times in a structure like this, making the outcome highly undetermined.

What he didn't catch on to was Hulsey's failings...
__________________
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 25th December 2019, 05:40 AM   #3248
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,209
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ok. You seem to say that you submitted your comments on the September 03 Draft Report by Hulsey to publiccomment@ae911truth.org on or before November 15th, AND that they already responded to you saying they rejected your comments because you lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
Do I construe that correctly?

I'll be blunt: I do not believe that story.
Could you please forward to my email account, which you know, the comments you had mailed to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and then also their reply? Thanks.

Background: I sent comments to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and did not receive any response, nor would I expect any response, nor would I believe that they would dare to reject any comments.
Yes.
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 25th December 2019, 05:47 AM   #3249
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,209
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
In early September I had sent the link to Hulsey's draft report to a friend who is a structural engineer (his job, if I understand correctly, is to certify structural designs submitted by other engineering firms; those are often large and non-standard structures like power plants, valley bridges, stuff like that). I askked him if he could look at the report and give me his thoughts.

Today I had breakfast with him, my first chance to inquire about his thoughts. He said the report looks inflated - lots of stuff that looks like engineering, but really pretty thin on substance. As for using FEA to study the dynamics of total collapse, his assessment is that this is almost unfeasible. Chaos theory reigns. His main argument was that such a FE analysis can and should be viewed as a branching process - say, a beam gets overloaded and is forced to buckle - then often it could buckle to the left or the right (or perhaps a third or fourth direction) - and this may make a difference later on. Such branches must occur countless times in a structure like this, making the outcome highly undetermined.

What he didn't catch on to was Hulsey's failings...
Actually I was told by a Twoofer Friend, yes you can have those In Fairbanks that my comments were not being seriously considered.
He is a fellow chainsaw artist, there, he asked personally.
I don't expect any reply from Hulsey's team.
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 25th December 2019, 05:55 AM   #3250
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,209
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
In early September I had sent the link to Hulsey's draft report to a friend who is a structural engineer (his job, if I understand correctly, is to certify structural designs submitted by other engineering firms; those are often large and non-standard structures like power plants, valley bridges, stuff like that). I askked him if he could look at the report and give me his thoughts.

Today I had breakfast with him, my first chance to inquire about his thoughts. He said the report looks inflated - lots of stuff that looks like engineering, but really pretty thin on substance. As for using FEA to study the dynamics of total collapse, his assessment is that this is almost unfeasible. Chaos theory reigns. His main argument was that such a FE analysis can and should be viewed as a branching process - say, a beam gets overloaded and is forced to buckle - then often it could buckle to the left or the right (or perhaps a third or fourth direction) - and this may make a difference later on. Such branches must occur countless times in a structure like this, making the outcome highly undetermined.

What he didn't catch on to was Hulsey's failings...
Those Rules also apply to the fire specific Conditions in an oxidation event can not be measured to any degree of accuracy. Air flows turbulace in wind flows can have pronounced effects, what Hulsey's doing can not be considered science.
He can't establish a causally Chain, series of Logical event sequences for the Buildings collapse from a cart before horse science approach.
Hulsey is trying to Claim he has God's eye he can't do that not and say he is following a Scientific approach.
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 27th December 2019, 07:21 AM   #3251
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Those Rules also apply to the fire specific Conditions in an oxidation event can not be measured to any degree of accuracy. Air flows turbulace in wind flows can have pronounced effects, what Hulsey's doing can not be considered science.
He can't establish a causally Chain, series of Logical event sequences for the Buildings collapse from a cart before horse science approach.
Hulsey is trying to Claim he has God's eye he can't do that not and say he is following a Scientific approach.
You can say in three words what you wrote in five. It will shorten your thoughts and make them much clearer.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 08:00 AM   #3252
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,699
Quote:
Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska
I can't be bothered to read 60 pages. I get that WTC7 could have been brought down by fires, but how could it have been the University of Alaska? That's far away and wasn't even hit by aircraft?

I'll get my coat.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."
--Stacyhs
Safe-Keeper 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 09:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.