IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 12th September 2016, 06:34 AM   #2081
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
One of the comments:
Quote:
According to some sources, there were micro nuclear bombs planted inside these buildings which clearly explained their sudden collapsed. These bombs were already used by Israeli army in the current Syrian conflict. Please refer to Zerohedge for more info.
Hmmm, nukes that were used on 9/11/01 were previously used in the present Syrian conflict...................
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 12th September 2016, 06:56 AM   #2082
BrianH
Thinker
 
BrianH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
One of the comments:


Hmmm, nukes that were used on 9/11/01 were previously used in the present Syrian conflict...................
Ahh yes, the time traveling jewish nuke theory. It's all making sense now.
BrianH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 08:41 AM   #2083
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
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
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 08:52 AM   #2084
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Why not tell us about your conclusions and thoughts regarding the video , you're the one that posted it.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 09:04 AM   #2085
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
dicuss, you meant disgusted? If not you forgot to Discuss

Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
You left out your discuss, or did you mean Hulsey is dumber than dirt and your disgusted?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 12th September 2016 at 09:30 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 09:29 AM   #2086
Airfix
Graduate Poster
 
Airfix's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by Airfix; 12th September 2016 at 09:30 AM.
Airfix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 10:06 AM   #2087
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
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 <-
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 10:43 AM   #2088
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Of course this is another attempt to debunk the NIST and a bunch of others who look at one column, one girder on one floor and find that "fire" was inadequate to trigger a progressive collapse.

There was not discussion of the collapse itself... and the whole thrust is to leave the impression that as fire didn't fail the connection/girder/column on floor 13 col 19 the causes was the unstated assertion without a smidgen of evidence that something such as CD was the culprit. No analysis by this fellow's team of the building movement.

No discussion of progressive runaway system collapse.

Even if his conclusion is correct about how the connection under study performed... it does not rule out fire as cause acting other places at other members etc.

Very unimpressive performance by this guy who seems to have had a belief that NIST was wrong and set out to show it.
Pretty much spot on.

The only think I would add is he seems to be backing away from a full model as was originally proposed. I think they got out of their league with that claim in the first place, I doubt they have the computing power available.
__________________
"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 12th September 2016, 02:42 PM   #2089
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
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.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 02:56 PM   #2090
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
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.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2016, 06:59 PM   #2091
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Even if his conclusion is correct about how the connection under study performed... it does not rule out fire as cause acting other places at other members etc.

Very unimpressive performance by this guy who seems to have had a belief that NIST was wrong and set out to show it.

I agree!! He is desparate to pin the blame on explosives for which there is no evidence.
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 12th September 2016, 08:54 PM   #2092
benthamitemetric
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.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 12th September 2016 at 08:57 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 12th September 2016, 09:20 PM   #2093
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
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.
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 12th September 2016, 09:23 PM   #2094
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
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"
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 12th September 2016, 09:24 PM   #2095
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 12th September 2016 at 09:32 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 12th September 2016, 11:38 PM   #2096
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Nobody seems to have made the obvious comment --- yet.

How come a University Professor is claiming to prove a negative?
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.
WilliamSeger 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, 01:52 AM   #2097
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
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.
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 13th September 2016, 02:42 AM   #2098
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
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.
Vanity published with his students having Cracker Jack PHDs that no one will really respect,
way to go Hulsey destroy your students for political objectives.
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 13th September 2016, 03:27 AM   #2099
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
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!
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 13th September 2016, 03:40 AM   #2100
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
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!
AE are clearly nothing but hucksters, playing a con game.
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 13th September 2016, 05:47 AM   #2101
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
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.
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, 06:06 AM   #2102
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
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.
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 13th September 2016, 06:15 AM   #2103
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
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!
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.
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 13th September 2016, 08:13 AM   #2104
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
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.
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 13th September 2016, 08:17 AM   #2105
heymatto70
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?
heymatto70 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, 08:25 AM   #2106
Airfix
Graduate Poster
 
Airfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,047
Structural damage from debris strikes + sustained thermal damage from fire over seven hours + gravity = collapse.

Simple.


Last edited by Airfix; 13th September 2016 at 08:28 AM.
Airfix 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, 08:28 AM   #2107
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
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.

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.
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
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 13th September 2016, 08:49 AM   #2108
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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.
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.
WilliamSeger 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, 09:40 AM   #2109
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
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.

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.
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.
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 13th September 2016, 10:01 AM   #2110
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
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
's pedestrian bridge linking it to the rest of the WTC complex.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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, 10:42 AM   #2111
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
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:
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   #2112
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
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   #2113
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
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   #2114
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
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   #2115
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
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.
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else…
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   #2116
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 694
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...
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else…
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   #2117
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Anyone other than me noticed the absence in toto of the founder of the fleecing?
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   #2118
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
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.
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   #2119
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
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   #2120
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
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
Reply

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

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 01:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.