|
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. |
12th September 2016, 06:34 AM | #2081 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
One of the comments:
Quote:
|
12th September 2016, 06:56 AM | #2082 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 188
|
|
12th September 2016, 08:41 AM | #2083 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
I said he sounded like a nutcase woo 9/11 truth nut; and he is.
You don't do a paper to show someone wrong, you do a paper to show something. When fire was the only element besides WTC 7, it was fire. Hulsey is another failed nut, he works and teaches. ' Okay, maybe he is out for more money and knows Gage's fringe group is only good for funding, thus he has no morals. Hulsey; Nuts, or no scruples? Anyone tell the university they have a dumber than dirt professor who lies about 911, who has no evidence it was not fire... |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
12th September 2016, 08:52 AM | #2084 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
12th September 2016, 09:04 AM | #2085 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
dicuss, you meant disgusted? If not you forgot to Discuss
|
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
12th September 2016, 09:29 AM | #2086 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,047
|
The fires massively weakened the structure (which had already been pummelled with debris from the twin towers), gravity did the rest.
|
12th September 2016, 10:06 AM | #2087 |
Evil Fokker
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,806
|
So do we have a TTFL on this video? What's the over/under?
|
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- |
|
12th September 2016, 10:43 AM | #2088 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th September 2016, 02:42 PM | #2089 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
Very embarrassing that he's still using the "steel is a very fire resistant material trope.
A real scientist would have distributed copies of a conference paper in advance and invited comments from the audience. Assuming, of course that any of them had enough of a science/engineering background to be able to comment intelligently. |
12th September 2016, 02:56 PM | #2090 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
Gage pitches for contributions at the end to "continue this important project". Surprise, surprise! But if they've concluded that WTC 7 wasn't brought down by fires, what is there left to do but present their paper? It's relatively easy to present a conference paper at an engineering symposium.
|
12th September 2016, 06:59 PM | #2091 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
|
12th September 2016, 08:54 PM | #2092 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 571
|
It seems there are potentially interesting aspects to Hulsey's study, but he loses much of his credibility by jumping from "we could not reproduce NIST's exact fire-induced collapse scenario using various different assumptions" to "fire did not destroy WTC 7". What???? The conclusion doesn't even come close to following from the research to date.
And from the sound of it, it appears the study is now moving on to testing the effects of various blast devices in the substation. (Spoiler alert: they will find that a blast device or combination of devices could bring down the building!) But talk about getting ahead of themselves. Identifying a potential issue with the collapse mode NIST deemed most probable is not the same as disproving the possibility of a fire-induced collapse. After all, Dr. Bailey, Arup, and Weidlinger Associates have all identified alternative potential fire-induced failure modes than NIST's. (And I know Dr. Hulsey and his team had access to Bailey's and Arup's work because I sent those reports to him and his research team myself and got a response from his research team.) Come on, AE911Truth, try being just a little intellectually honest for once and see if that helps lead you to the truth you claim to be seeking. Yeesh. |
12th September 2016, 09:20 PM | #2093 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Nobody seems to have made the obvious comment --- yet.
How come a University Professor is claiming to prove a negative? AND Showing ZERO respect for the "Scientific Method"? It seems to be an endemic problem in academia - the need for publicity at any cost. |
12th September 2016, 09:23 PM | #2094 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
And there is a big difference between:
"We cannot prove it was brought down by fire" AND "We cannot explain HOW it was brought down by fire." AND "It was NOT brought down by fire" |
12th September 2016, 09:24 PM | #2095 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
A semi-serious question:
would the two PhD's resulting from this project and supervised by this professor be reduced in "marketable value"? Would both candidates when applying for future jobs need to be coy about identifying what the topic and who the supervisor was? I would expect "Yes" to both BUT academic ranking can be a funny business. |
12th September 2016, 11:38 PM | #2096 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
Well, it is possible to prove some negatives, if you can disprove the affirmative. In this case, for example, if you could conclusively prove that there wasn't really any fire, or if you could conclusively prove that something else initiated the collapses, then you've proved it wasn't fire. But of course, Hulsey hasn't done anything like that. Like the Harrit study, invalid conclusions will certainly disqualify the study in a legitimate and competent peer review, so I look for it to be published in an obscure "open" journal, if at all.
|
13th September 2016, 01:52 AM | #2097 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
13th September 2016, 02:42 AM | #2098 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
13th September 2016, 03:27 AM | #2099 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
Where was the attempt to relate the observed building movements, damage, fires etc to their root causes?
Why would the examination of one node based on assumed energy inputs in isolation from the rest of the structure with much of it engorged in flames for a 7 hr period and having suffered structural damage from steel panels from 1wtc falling on it show conclusively that fire was not the cause of the collapse? This character really revealed his confirmation bias and his real objective was a NIST hit job... Is this the sort of investigation AE wants to see? Seems so! |
13th September 2016, 03:40 AM | #2100 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
13th September 2016, 05:47 AM | #2101 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
Hold the phone,...
I thought at the beginning of this thing Hulsey said he was going to ignore any and all previous work and start fresh. So why is there any comparison to NIST? Why is NIST mentioned at all? Or am I missing something |
__________________
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. |
|
13th September 2016, 06:06 AM | #2102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
I really had little issue with much of what he said in his discussion of heat effects on steel. He later goes off the rails, especially in his conclusion that fire did not bring the structure down (more further down)
I also have little issue with his examining a single aspect of one of the several papers on the demise of the structure. Call it a peer review of that single isolated aspect. Perhaps now he will move on to the ARUP or Nordenson papers and the mode by which they describe fire bringing down the structure. His declaration that fire did not bring down the WTC 7 is rather premature given that he has examined one aspect of collapse and in that, only one of several proposed mechanisms by which that one aspect occurred. |
13th September 2016, 06:15 AM | #2103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Exactly. At best he has shown that in a pristine WTC 7 with only one compartment on fire, it would be unlikely that the girder would be moved far enough on it's seat on col79, due solely to beam and girder expansion, to fail. How much did the structure twist with the loss of the SW corner? Firefighters reported one elevator car out of it's shaft. That indicates core damage or at least movement. How much did fires on other floors, or the same fire earlier in other locations on the floors in question, twist or otherwise deform the structure? What of the other reports that call into the equation the action on the knife edge connections?, the movement of col 79 itself?
Hulsey has a bit more work to do before claiming, on the basis of examining the NIST scenario (which apparently is not to be considered 'previous" work on the issue), before declaring that fire did not cause WTC 7's demise. |
13th September 2016, 08:13 AM | #2104 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
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. There is no wiggle room. Your admired spokesperson, Mr. SanderO, has often admitted to having very limited understanding of engineering but that does not stop him from dismissing those that do. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of 9/11 conspiracies, if fire did not bring down WTC7, than the NIST recommendations for building safety are based on a false premise and are therefore meaningless. It is far from the public interest to let WTC7's collapse remain a mystery. |
13th September 2016, 08:17 AM | #2105 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 182
|
So the fires that were raging in WTC7 unchecked for hours upon end did....nothing? Were just for show?
|
13th September 2016, 08:25 AM | #2106 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,047
|
Structural damage from debris strikes + sustained thermal damage from fire over seven hours + gravity = collapse.
Simple. |
13th September 2016, 08:28 AM | #2107 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
Let's see your fault tree or probability analysis that led to your determination of zero chance - including the probabilities you attach to each factor and your logic for each branch, and your estimates for the current states of each structural element of each building involved.
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
13th September 2016, 08:49 AM | #2108 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
I'm not a structural engineer, but as a software engineer I'm somewhat familiar with the principles of logic, which Hulsey apparently is not. But then, neither is the target audience. It's not a cheap shot, but rather a demonstrable fact, to say that one characteristic of a "truther" is, ummm, underdeveloped reasoning skills.
|
13th September 2016, 09:40 AM | #2109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
Huckster fails because he limited the fluid dynamic of the fire to a simple on floor fire, not the more complex real event, that will show up when the paper is published on rolls of Charmin Toilet tissue. That's the only way this political motivated bull crap will be of use to any engineer.
|
13th September 2016, 10:01 AM | #2110 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,571
|
Dr Hulsey's extensive experience qualifies him to opine as an expert on the collapse of WTC-7
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
13th September 2016, 10:42 AM | #2111 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
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:
|
__________________
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. |
|
13th September 2016, 11:18 AM | #2112 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
Common sense, the laws of physics, Mr. Reality and the experts do not agree with you.
Quote:
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:
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 |
13th September 2016, 12:23 PM | #2113 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
Let's take a closer look at Professor Hulsey and who will be supporting him.
Quote:
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 |
13th September 2016, 12:38 PM | #2114 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
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. |
|
13th September 2016, 07:08 PM | #2115 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
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. |
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
13th September 2016, 07:13 PM | #2116 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
|
|
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else… |
|
13th September 2016, 10:11 PM | #2117 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Anyone other than me noticed the absence in toto of the founder of the fleecing?
|
14th September 2016, 05:15 AM | #2118 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
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. |
|
14th September 2016, 06:22 AM | #2119 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
14th September 2016, 06:59 AM | #2120 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|