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 21st September 2016, 07:43 AM   #161
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,761
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
There really is no minutia. Need a certain level of results for that, I think.

Then again, it's interesting you blow right by the point of why the whole exercise is pointless as far as proving anything regarding controlled demolition.

Stick to that script!
It's the "proven wrong" aspect thats being exploited. Criteria has made no specific claim references to "CD". Only that wtc 7 must be reinvestigated because the NIST is incorrect in its conclusions. The inference people make is that hulseys conclusions mean that it is a pro "CD" analysis but avoiding direct mention of that gives such individuals as Szamboti et al "wiggle room" to snipe at counter arguments for being too presumptuous even if the interpretation of the claims accurately goes in the general direction of the claims leading to "CD"

It goes back to the whole notion to them that direct mention of "CD" is the kiss of death to having any argument with those people they view as fence sitters
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 21st September 2016 at 07:46 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 21st September 2016, 08:29 AM   #162
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,133
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
It's the "proven wrong" aspect thats being exploited. Criteria has made no specific claim references to "CD". Only that wtc 7 must be reinvestigated because the NIST is incorrect in its conclusions. The inference people make is that hulseys conclusions mean that it is a pro "CD" analysis but avoiding direct mention of that gives such individuals as Szamboti et al "wiggle room" to snipe at counter arguments for being too presumptuous even if the interpretation of the claims accurately goes in the general direction of the claims leading to "CD"

It goes back to the whole notion to them that direct mention of "CD" is the kiss of death to having any argument with those people they view as fence sitters
Even with CD absent, there have been other collapse mechanisms proposed, however nothing to eliminate the basic finding of fire and damage led to collapse.
__________________
"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 21st September 2016, 12:47 PM   #163
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,761
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Even with CD absent, there have been other collapse mechanisms proposed, however nothing to eliminate the basic finding of fire and damage led to collapse.
Of course... but the objective is to argue for CD without being explicit about it. The foundational argument is incorrect... but its the only argument that will be posted
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 03:36 PM   #164
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
ZERO chance that the fires caused the collapse of WTC7!

<snip>
WTC7 was on fire on simultaneous multiple floors for 5-6 hours. To assign ZERO (0%) probability for the building to have failed due to fire and before his modeling is complete and publicly available as he promised, is evidence Hulsey is a mistaken incompetent nutter;


and that impatient Gage need some more cash stat.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.
BasqueArch 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 21st September 2016, 06:26 PM   #165
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,650
Whatever he is, he appears like a Danny Jewenko, used and going along with it by AE to get some media attention. he fact that they paraded this out on the 15 anniversary is very telling... and expected.
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 21st September 2016, 08:18 PM   #166
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,460
To step back and see the forest for the trees: NIST was not tasked with proving that fires caused the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST was was tasked with investigating how fires caused its collapse, possibly in conjunction with impact damage.

The reason that NIST did not investigate whether it was brought down by "controlled demolition" is that there isn't one shred of evidence for it. Investigating the possibility of invisible, silent demolition charges was far beyond its scope.
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 21st September 2016, 09:00 PM   #167
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
If nothing else, the non-engineer/non-technical lurkers can see that if they run away from their own details, they obviously can't be all that rigorous in their approach...
The truely astounding thing for me at the moment is the hypocrisy concerning the release of data.
He refuses to notice that a video presentation is not in keeping with the promise of complete openness and transparency.

In other astounding hypocrisy:
AE911T has long complained that NIST will not release their data set for their FEAs and yet Criteria complains that debunkers are chasing minutia for asking even for a written report.
AE911T complained that NIST took years to complete a final report on WTC7 (ignoring the validity of the reasons for that) yet here we are, a decade and a half since the event and only now has AE911T bothered to even promise a report to rival a NIST report.
AE911T says that NIST report on the cause of the collapse of WTC7, which somehow leads to their contention (unbacked by any study or report at all) of controlled demolition. This is compounded by the cognitive dissonance that is the fact of several other reports on the cause of thst building's demise which all conclude it was the result of the damage wrought by seven hours of unchecked fires and the unique design of a building constructed over an older building.

:
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 22nd September 2016, 06:08 AM   #168
Gorgonian
Thinker
 
Gorgonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 201
I get asked this by a particularly annoying troll on a different message board a lot. What is the reason that NIST doesn't release their data set for their FEAs? I've tried searching for this, but it's difficult. As long as you brought it up, I thought I'd throw the question in.
Gorgonian 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 22nd September 2016, 06:53 AM   #169
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by Gorgonian View Post
I get asked this by a particularly annoying troll on a different message board a lot. What is the reason that NIST doesn't release their data set for their FEAs? I've tried searching for this, but it's difficult. As long as you brought it up, I thought I'd throw the question in.
IIRC, they were worried about possible national security issues.

No matter what the reason, or whether or not NIST is justified in it, there ARE several other studies now that DID produce FEAs for WTC 7 without that NIST data. Quite obviously having such input data is not required in order to produce a report, and of the non-NIST reports done, each one has concluded that the building's demise was due to fire damage.

In addition we have the hypocrisy of the very group most vocal about NIST not releasing that data has in turn sanctioned a report which is, so far, at least equally as tight with information as was NIST.
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 22nd September 2016, 07:04 AM   #170
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,937
Originally Posted by Gorgonian View Post
I get asked this by a particularly annoying troll on a different message board a lot. What is the reason that NIST doesn't release their data set for their FEAs? I've tried searching for this, but it's difficult. As long as you brought it up, I thought I'd throw the question in.
They stated concerns of national security.

Fact is, it's a red herring. The input data is useless without the software and hardware to run it on. Besides this, all the information and data used in their models is in their reports. All you need is a competent engineering group to duplicate their work (and a huge amount of computing power).

I actually think this is why we have not seen a complete model and why Hulsey seems to have scaled back his study. I don't believe he has the resources to do what he promised. I think he thought AE 9/11 would come through with large amounts of money to secure the lab time needed to do this. This is why I asked about how much has been raised.

ETA: Personally, I think the NIST should have burned the data onto several hundred DVDs (for one copy) and told them to have fun. They'd still be scratching their heads trying to figure out what to do with it.
__________________
"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; 22nd September 2016 at 07:21 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 22nd September 2016, 08:33 AM   #171
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,650
Well lets imagine.... NIST decided ... for whatever reason... to model the region around col 79 flr 3... and so they added heat inputs to their assumed steel columns, seat, beams, slabs, reinforcing, studs whatever... and did an FEA of sorts... Doesn't sound terribly complex to me... But I don't do these sorts of things.

They didn't seem to do much with any other node as far as I can tell and supposedly once 79 on 13 lost the girder it somehow buckled (loss of capacity from loss of bracing??) and somehow that became their global collapse kick off.

Sounds a bit fishy but maybe. But it would dumb to assume that was the SOLE PLACE WHERE THE UNCHECKED FIRES WERE MESSING UP THE FRAME. A safer assumption would be that multiple places of the frame over several floors and over the course of several hrs were getting toasted by fire... and becoming non performing nodes.
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 22nd September 2016, 09:42 AM   #172
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Gorgonian View Post
I get asked this by a particularly annoying troll on a different message board a lot. What is the reason that NIST doesn't release their data set for their FEAs? I've tried searching for this, but it's difficult. As long as you brought it up, I thought I'd throw the question in.
NIST didn't even get to make the determination on withholding the data. The inspector general for the department of transportation made that determination. The FOIA process is a strict statutory process and when departmental legal counsel responds, it is responding in that strict statutory framework. Does the government always get it right? No, of course not. The government's default position is to underdisclose. But that's why the FOIA process makes all such departmental determinations directly appealable to federal court. In the case of the NIST FOIA, however, no one ever appealed the decision, so it remains an open question whether the government had a sound reason for claiming the models themselves were exempt from statutory disclosure to the general public. (I'm guessing their theory was that, owing to NIST's conclusion that WTC7 would. have collapse entirely without fires of column 79 were removed between floors 11 and 13, that their model could be used to pinpoint other buildings with similar catastrophic vulnerabilities, but that's just my guess.)

Note, however, that an FOIA denial does not mean that NIST is not allowed to discuss and share its research. Again, FOIA requests fall into a very strict statutory regime. If you read the affidavits of the Aegis Insurance experts, they state plainly that they coordinated with NIST when building their models. Did those experts see the whole NIST model? Unclear. But real researchers would do what they did and coordinate directly with NIST on their research.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 22nd September 2016 at 09:43 AM.
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 22nd September 2016, 11:27 AM   #173
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,753
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Do you really have such little interest in Dr. Hulsey's investiigation that you feel it necessary to constantly obsess on the minutiae?
Minutiae?
Do you consider broken promises "minutiae"?
I primarily "obsess" about getting informed at all. Hulsey gives us near to no information. Don't blame me for taking the little bit he says serious. You seem to be the one who is satisfied with nothing at all
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 11:36 AM   #174
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,753
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Interesting point but why the innuendo?

I have said that:
1) Hulsey claims to be showing one or multiple explanations wrong (his story has changed over time)
2) No matter how many other explantions he shows wrong will not make his claim right; AND
3) The only valid way to "prove the negative" is to prove the "opposite" hypothesis is true. AKA to prove it "wasn't fire" he has to "prove" what it actually was.
...
Hulsey is quite outspoken not to have a positive claim.
He is 100% sure he has proven a negative, but refuses absolutely to even speculate on a positive claim.
This proves that he is a true Truther.
__________________
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 22nd September 2016, 11:47 AM   #175
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,753
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Whatever he is, he appears like a Danny Jewenko, used and going along with it by AE to get some media attention. he fact that they paraded this out on the 15 anniversary is very telling... and expected.
No, that's unfair to Jowenko. Jowenko never had a contract with truther nuts, never got money from truthers, never went to a truther nuts meeting to speak truthy things.
He was contacted by TV journalists for an interview, to provide some expert opinion, which he was nice enough to do. He explained well why WTC1+2 could not possibly have been CDed - several reasons given. He was unprepared for WTC7 which he had never heard of, and provided with only very limited information. Yes, without sound, some of the videos look like CD. That is the extent of Jowenko's involvement.

Hulsey, on the other hand, is a whore for da Twoof, cashing in $200,000 for wasting his reputation on a lying cause.

He must know how stupidly wrong he is to be 100% certain about a negative claim just because partial analysis seems to indicate one particular mechanism is unlikely. This seems to indicate to me that he is willfully dishonest - he seeks to please his source of money to be eligible for the entire dough.
__________________
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 22nd September 2016, 11:51 AM   #176
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,753
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
...
I actually think this is why we have not seen a complete model and why Hulsey seems to have scaled back his study. I don't believe he has the resources to do what he promised. I think he thought AE 9/11 would come through with large amounts of money to secure the lab time needed to do this. This is why I asked about how much has been raised. ...
What is your source for the highlighted? I didn't hear that in the video linked to in the OP, nor the other video refered to by the first.
__________________
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 22nd September 2016, 12:24 PM   #177
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
IIRC, they were worried about possible national security issues.

No matter what the reason, or whether or not NIST is justified in it, there ARE several other studies now that DID produce FEAs for WTC 7 without that NIST data. Quite obviously having such input data is not required in order to produce a report, and of the non-NIST reports done, each one ETA: ,aside from the unpublished Hulsey study,has concluded that the building's demise was due to fire damage.

In addition we have the hypocrisy of the very group most vocal about NIST not releasing that data has in turn sanctioned a report which is, so far, at least equally as tight with information as was NIST.
Fixed that for me.
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 22nd September 2016, 12:46 PM   #178
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,937
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What is your source for the highlighted? I didn't hear that in the video linked to in the OP, nor the other video refered to by the first.
It's more of an assumption made from comments he made. He comments on not drawing conclusions based on his own model but based on examining the NISTs. He talks about simplifications he makes to his own analysis to make the computing easier in working with the NISTs.

Originally it was said he would complete his model and then examine the NIST theory. Yes he has done modeling but I've see no evidence it is on the scale he original promises.
__________________
"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 22nd September 2016, 01:18 PM   #179
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,198
I've just stumbled upon this post by jaydeehess while I was searching for something else:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
My prediction:
Hulsey is going to do nothing more than model the col 79/girder 44 and adjacent beams. That's it!

He will show movement less than total walk off of the girder and declare it 'impossible' , thus he will declare the entire NIST hypothysis impossible and declare ipso facto, that explosives would therefore be required.

The same asre about logic (do I get my Aussie pin now?) that AE911T uses.
I think you've earned that pin!

ETA: This is what I was looking for. Gerrycan replies:
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I understand he is modelling the whole building.
Do you agree with the decision to release all the data to do with the study so that people can check it for themselves?
That's probably where I got the idea that it was going to be a full scale model.

Note also that even gerrycan gives outstanding importance to the release of all the data.

Also, in a post full of sarcasm, he highlights this:
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Also, it's a mistake to release the input data. This will allow people to check the model and can only lead to trouble. Much better to stick with the NIST convention and keep the inputs to yourself.
Seems that that's indeed what Hulsey has done.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 22nd September 2016 at 01:25 PM.
pgimeno 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 22nd September 2016, 01:25 PM   #180
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,753
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It's more of an assumption made from comments he made. He comments on not drawing conclusions based on his own model but based on examining the NISTs. He talks about simplifications he makes to his own analysis to make the computing easier in working with the NISTs.

Originally it was said he would complete his model and then examine the NIST theory. Yes he has done modeling but I've see no evidence it is on the scale he original promises.
Ah. Assumption.

There of course have to be simplifications - it's both unreasonable and impossible to run stable dynamic simulations with a full and fully detailed model down to every hook and nail. This pretty much ought to go without even saying*.

I haven't seen his modelling yet, so I can't assess whether it is, or will be, in keeping with his promises.
I don't remember anyway that these promises were detailed. They said they would "fully" model the building, and didn't he say they did floors 3 to 47 fully? So floors 1+2 are missing, but perhaps they really are not that relevant; perhaps they lacked data to model them.



*Although Hulsey is hypocrite enough to roast NIST on their engineering judgement on where and what to simplify; Hulsey fails to give a proper engineering reason to criticize NIST's choices)
__________________
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 22nd September 2016, 01:47 PM   #181
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,937
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ah. Assumption.

There of course have to be simplifications - it's both unreasonable and impossible to run stable dynamic simulations with a full and fully detailed model down to every hook and nail. This pretty much ought to go without even saying*.
I will gladly concede the point. I do believe they have constructed a full model but, I seriously doubt they have the resources to do anything meaningful on that full scale.

I suppose time will tell...........
__________________
"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 22nd September 2016, 01:57 PM   #182
WilliamSeger
Graduate Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,632
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ah. Assumption.

There of course have to be simplifications - it's both unreasonable and impossible to run stable dynamic simulations with a full and fully detailed model down to every hook and nail. This pretty much ought to go without even saying*.
Which is also why an FEA cannot be said to "prove" anything about what was happening inside the building. Even if you did model down to every hook and nail, a model just ain't the real thing. For example, the real culprit in the collapse might have been faulty materials or construction. The fact that Hulsey claims his FEA has (or will) "prove" anything is just more evidence of an agenda-driven study.
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 22nd September 2016, 02:01 PM   #183
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,753
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I will gladly concede the point. I do believe they have constructed a full model but, I seriously doubt they have the resources to do anything meaningful on that full scale.

I suppose time will tell...........
Oh! If he'll ever get around to publishing such a full model, I will likely be quite unable to decide how meaningful that model, or what they do with it, are. We are eight years past the release of the NIST report, computer power and software smartness have increased considerably since, so I can't say that the UAF engineering department doesn't have the resources.

However, they'll have to publish something, anything, first - and explain what their game plan is.
You and I know that, in keeping with Truther tradition, they'll be wrong on multiple levels. They'll be wrong on the top-most level of what their objectives and premises are - that's all we need to point out then.

Garbage in - garbage out, no matter how expansive their resources are to grind garbage.
__________________
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 22nd September 2016, 06:38 PM   #184
Gorgonian
Thinker
 
Gorgonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
NIST didn't even get to make the determination on withholding the data. The inspector general for the department of transportation made that determination. The FOIA process is a strict statutory process and when departmental legal counsel responds, it is responding in that strict statutory framework. Does the government always get it right? No, of course not. The government's default position is to underdisclose. But that's why the FOIA process makes all such departmental determinations directly appealable to federal court. In the case of the NIST FOIA, however, no one ever appealed the decision, so it remains an open question whether the government had a sound reason for claiming the models themselves were exempt from statutory disclosure to the general public. (I'm guessing their theory was that, owing to NIST's conclusion that WTC7 would. have collapse entirely without fires of column 79 were removed between floors 11 and 13, that their model could be used to pinpoint other buildings with similar catastrophic vulnerabilities, but that's just my guess.)

Note, however, that an FOIA denial does not mean that NIST is not allowed to discuss and share its research. Again, FOIA requests fall into a very strict statutory regime. If you read the affidavits of the Aegis Insurance experts, they state plainly that they coordinated with NIST when building their models. Did those experts see the whole NIST model? Unclear. But real researchers would do what they did and coordinate directly with NIST on their research.
Thank you and the others who posted a response to my question. I really do appreciate your willingness to share what you know.
Gorgonian 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 September 2016, 07:29 AM   #185
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I've just stumbled upon this post by jaydeehess while I was searching for something else:
!!!!! I astound myself. I had forgotten I made that post.

Quote:
ETA: This is what I was looking for. Gerrycan replies:

That's probably where I got the idea that it was going to be a full scale model.

Note also that even gerrycan gives outstanding importance to the release of all the data.
,, and yet here we are with nothing more than a video presentation, no more up to date published info than from November of last year, no data, and so far only a modelling of the specific location of girder and column having been modeled.

AE911T, and surrogates on this forum, Tony Szamboti and Criteria, must be so disappointed that this project has fallen so very short of the promises made.
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 25th September 2016, 12:09 PM   #186
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Criteria, now that you are out of the mountains, and I hope you have a nice time, perhaps you will address the lack of a published report from Hulsey and the seeming ignoring of the promises made about continual updates.
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 25th September 2016, 08:25 PM   #187
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Criteria
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?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Neither you or TSz gave even mentioned the fact that this study simply cannot be examined in any detail.
Hulsey has basically given a speech about his study but has not actually made his study available to, it seems, anyone at all.

Hard to "pin point flaws" when one is disallowed from viewing the research and findings. The only info available is from dang near a year ago now! The issue was brought up in post #3.

Care to comment on that yet, keeping in mind the openness and transparency promised in the beginning?........
.
Seems Criteria was confused about the question I was asking. Seems he thought I was merely backing up Oystein asking about what Criteria regarded as "minutia".

So here it is again, parsed to avoid any such confusion.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 25th September 2016 at 08:26 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 01:45 PM   #188
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
”If you have an issue about the fire conclusions, I suggest you focus on where you believe the study was flawed.”
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.”
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?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Seems Criteria was confused about the question I was asking.

Seems he thought I was merely backing up Oystein asking about what Criteria regarded as "minutia".

So here it is again, parsed to avoid any such confusion.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
”…Neither you or TSz gave even mentioned the fact that this study simply cannot be examined in any detail.
Hulsey has basically given a speech about his study but has not actually made his study available to, it seems, anyone at all.

Hard to "pin point flaws" when one is disallowed from viewing the research and findings. The only info available is from dang near a year ago now! The issue was brought up in post #3.

Care to comment on that yet, keeping in mind the openness and transparency promised in the beginning?”
”…Neither you or TSz gave even mentioned the fact that this study simply cannot be examined in any detail.”

What study?

Dr. Hulsey was not presenting ‘the study’.

He made a relatively short, ‘streamed video presentation’, outlining and summarizing both the investigative approach and findings which lead to his team’s 100% conclusive determination that fire was not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.

Based on what Dr. Hulsey said in his ‘speech/presentation’, these current findings represent only part of his team’s planned investigation.

Now that they have ruled out fire, Dr. Hulsey and his team are investigating what actually did lead to the sudden collapse of WTC7.

While Dr. Hulsey and his associates continue their investigation, the rest of us will have to cool our heels, because unless they get funding to spend extra time and money to prepare and write an interim report…
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 26th September 2016, 01:54 PM   #189
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,937
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

Dr. Hulsey was not presenting ‘the study’.

He made a relatively short, ‘streamed video presentation’, outlining and summarizing both the investigative approach and findings which lead to his team’s 100% conclusive determination that fire was not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.

Based on what Dr. Hulsey said in his ‘speech/presentation’, these current findings represent only part of his team’s planned investigation.

Now that they have ruled out fire, Dr. Hulsey and his team are investigating what actually did lead to the sudden collapse of WTC7.

While Dr. Hulsey and his associates continue their investigation, the rest of us will have to cool our heels, because unless they get funding to spend extra time and money to prepare and write an interim report…
So why did you ask this question?

”So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?


What research can be examined?

I can answer your question, no we should not conclude this based on insufficient evidence. OK?
__________________
"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 26th September 2016, 04:10 PM   #190
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Now that they have ruled out fire, Dr. Hulsey and his team are investigating what actually did lead to the sudden collapse of WTC7.

While Dr. Hulsey and his associates continue their investigation, the rest of us will have to cool our heels, because unless they get funding to spend extra time and money to prepare and write an interim report…

It is accurate to say at this point that Dr. Hulsey has found no other evidence since previous investigations have determined that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, and he will find NO evidence that thermite and explosives were responsible when he releases his report.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 26th September 2016 at 04:20 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 04:32 PM   #191
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

”…Neither you or TSz gave even mentioned the fact that this study simply cannot be examined in any detail.”

What study?

Dr. Hulsey was not presenting ‘the study’.

He made a relatively short, ‘streamed video presentation’, outlining and summarizing both the investigative approach and findings which lead to his team’s 100% conclusive determination that [b]fire was not a factor in the collapse of WTC7. (I know of a site where lots of these can be found. You can watch the reports on that site on your "tube", which is an archaic reference to a video presentation machine. I recently watched one that tells me about annidea called "time cube")

Based on what Dr. Hulsey said in his ‘speech/presentation’, these current findings represent only part of his team’s planned investigation.

Now that they have ruled out fire, Dr. Hulsey and his team are investigating what actually did lead to the sudden collapse of WTC7.

While Dr. Hulsey and his associates continue their investigation, the rest of us will have to cool our heels, because unless they get funding to spend extra time and money to prepare and write an interim report…
findings!?? How were these findings found? Perhaps a published account of the exact method and data set used might be in order.
So its not a study, not an engineering report, it's a video presentation which somehow professionally concludes that there was no mechansim by which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC7. It does this by supposedly (because we cannot examine the work) by examining the "most probable" initiating failure described in the NIST report.
Have I got that correct Criteria?

Then there is the other issue, that of the promise of continual updates on Hulsey's work. There isn't much to support this by any measure that makes sense.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 26th September 2016 at 04:41 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 04:57 PM   #192
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Quote:

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.
Almost Dr.Seuss, "One lie, two lie, red lie blue lie." or perhaps "Horton Hears a Lie", or "Cat in Alaska Lies About That".

Last edited by jaydeehess; 26th September 2016 at 05:09 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:00 PM   #193
boggis the cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
He made a relatively short, ‘streamed video presentation’, outlining and summarizing both the investigative approach and findings which lead to his team’s 100% conclusive determination that fire was not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.
Is Hulsey trolling the 'truthers'?

"We're 100% certain that it wasn't the fire. NIST and Arup are total fools. Give me more money and we'll figure out what it was. Possibly."
Quote:
Based on what Dr. Hulsey said in his ‘speech/presentation’, these current findings represent only part of his team’s planned investigation.

Now that they have ruled out fire, Dr. Hulsey and his team are investigating what actually did lead to the sudden collapse of WTC7.

While Dr. Hulsey and his associates continue their investigation, the rest of us will have to cool our heels, because unless they get funding to spend extra time and money to prepare and write an interim report…
Oh, there it is... More money.

I hereby submit my alternative hypothesis on what really, really, brought down the WTC towers and WTC 7.

Squirrels.

Rabid, vicious, demented squirrels. They obviously deployed from Central Park, using the drainage and / or sewer systems to reach the WTC, then used a special top-secret (but there are probably extensive files held in Area 51) nano-explosive concocted from peanuts, donut crumbs, and squirrel piss.

Beady-eyed furry little bar-stools!

All that I require to conclusively prove my theory, and thus overturn all forms of evil and injustice in the world, is a large quantity of money. Small non-sequential bills, preferably. The illuminati will find me, otherwise. You don't want to support the illuminati, do you!?

{Rattles tin.}
boggis the cat 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 26th September 2016, 07:47 PM   #194
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,133
Originally Posted by boggis the cat View Post
Is Hulsey trolling the 'truthers'?

"We're 100% certain that it wasn't the fire. NIST and Arup are total fools. Give me more money and we'll figure out what it was. Possibly."

Oh, there it is... More money.

I hereby submit my alternative hypothesis on what really, really, brought down the WTC towers and WTC 7.

Squirrels.

Rabid, vicious, demented squirrels. They obviously deployed from Central Park, using the drainage and / or sewer systems to reach the WTC, then used a special top-secret (but there are probably extensive files held in Area 51) nano-explosive concocted from peanuts, donut crumbs, and squirrel piss.

Beady-eyed furry little bar-stools!

All that I require to conclusively prove my theory, and thus overturn all forms of evil and injustice in the world, is a large quantity of money. Small non-sequential bills, preferably. The illuminati will find me, otherwise. You don't want to support the illuminati, do you!?

{Rattles tin.}
That's not trolling. That's scamming. Or, as we call it in Illinois, fundraising.
__________________
"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 26th September 2016, 09:20 PM   #195
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
My prediction for the new fund raising campaign:

We can get to the truth if only you are willing to donate just a little more. You have been supporting us, you good men and women of conscience, for 12 years now and we are getting close. However, studies of the sort that can demonstrate, professionally and conclusively, that fire could not bring down WTC7 as described in the official story and which get to what really happened, cost money.
We cannot stop now. Please send your donations to AE911T so we can continue this fight with Prof. Hulsey's professional study.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 26th September 2016 at 09:21 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 11:13 PM   #196
boggis the cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
That's not trolling. That's scamming. Or, as we call it in Illinois, fundraising.
You may be thinking of 'money laundering'.

(I've been following the debacle that you poor USians have in place of elections. Have you considered asking for UN intervention? They have managed to improve some of the election outcomes in other benighted parts of the world...)
boggis the cat 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 28th September 2016, 07:52 AM   #197
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
”Based on what Dr. Hulsey said in his ‘speech/presentation’, these current findings represent only part of his team’s planned investigation.

Now that they have ruled out fire, Dr. Hulsey and his team are investigating what actually did lead to the sudden collapse of WTC7.”
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
findings!??

How were these findings found?
This repeated question is nothing more than an unreasonable and anonymous demand for unfettered data; the raw, unedited work of Dr. Hulsey and his team.

It sews mistrust with no justification, and no acknowledgement of the professional and academic qualifications of Dr. Hulsey and his team. In particular, as a forensic structural engineer and professor, Dr. Hulsey has excellent credentials for an investigation such as this. I am sure he does not want to be remembered for a paper about a highly controversial subject that failed the rigours of peer review.

Do you honestly believe that companies do not fund research projects in partnership with universities?

Are we to reject as untrustworthy, any research performed by accredited scientists working in association with companies and/or organizations that have a vested interest in their 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 28th September 2016, 07:59 AM   #198
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
This repeated question is nothing more than an unreasonable and anonymous demand for unfettered data; the raw, unedited work of Dr. Hulsey and his team.

It sews mistrust with no justification, and no acknowledgement of the professional and academic qualifications of Dr. Hulsey and his team. In particular, as a forensic structural engineer and professor, Dr. Hulsey has excellent credentials for an investigation such as this. I am sure he does not want to be remembered for a paper about a highly controversial subject that failed the rigours of peer review.

Do you honestly believe that companies do not fund research projects in partnership with universities?

Are we to reject as untrustworthy, any research performed by accredited scientists working in association with companies and/or organizations that have a vested interest in their findings?
As an expert on bridges who has not published anything in almost twenty years and who has never published anything about tall buildings, Hulsey actually has dubious credentials to conduct this study. And his graduate student assistants have no qualifications other than being accepted as grad students by Hulsey. But he's the best the truthers could come up with (they still cannot find a single actual tall building expert who supports their theories) and so we are trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not our fault he is now publicly proclaiming a conclusion that clearly doesn't follow from the research he has conducted to date (as he himself describes that research) and that he hasn't lived up to his own promises for transparency and access to his study.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 28th September 2016 at 08:02 AM.
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 28th September 2016, 08:27 AM   #199
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,253
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
This repeated question is nothing more than an unreasonable and anonymous demand for unfettered data; the raw, unedited work of Dr. Hulsey and his team.

It sews mistrust with no justification, and no acknowledgement of the professional and academic qualifications of Dr. Hulsey and his team. In particular, as a forensic structural engineer and professor, Dr. Hulsey has excellent credentials for an investigation such as this. I am sure he does not want to be remembered for a paper about a highly controversial subject that failed the rigours of peer review.
In that case, until Dr. Hulsey has published actual results in an actual journal, his remarks on this video should clearly be given no weight whatsoever. And one might question the wisdom of AE911T for announcing at the start of the project that this would be done; perhaps the insult to Dr. Hulsey's professionalism and credibility might be seen to originate with them.

I'm a little curious, by the way, as to the origin of Dr. Hulsey's claim to be a "forensic structural engineer." Having viewed his CV page at the University of Alaska College of Engineering and Mines, I see a reasonable list of publications and teaching qualifications, but none of this appears to be related to forensic investigations in any way. This is curious, because if Hulsey presents himself as a "forensic structural engineer," an unusual specialty, one might expect him to present his credentials as an expert in this field in the form, for example, of references to court cases to which his expertise has been a significant contribution; one could reasonably expect such information to be in the public domain. Yet the only documents I've been able to find on a Google search that link Dr. Hulsey to forensic studies relate solely to the WTC7 study he is currently engaged in. As you clearly have verified his credentials before placing so much faith in them, can you point me to the information you have found on earlier forensic investigations in which Dr. Hulsey has taken part so I can assess those credentials for myself?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2016, 08:34 AM   #200
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
This repeated question is nothing more than an unreasonable and anonymous demand for unfettered data; the raw, unedited work of Dr. Hulsey and his team.

It sews mistrust with no justification, and no acknowledgement of the professional and academic qualifications of Dr. Hulsey and his team. In particular, as a forensic structural engineer and professor, Dr. Hulsey has excellent credentials for an investigation such as this. I am sure he does not want to be remembered for a paper about a highly controversial subject that failed the rigours of peer review.

Do you honestly believe that companies do not fund research projects in partnership with universities?

Are we to reject as untrustworthy, any research performed by accredited scientists working in association with companies and/or organizations that have a vested interest in their findings?

How long has it been since Dr. Hulsey and others embarked upon their WTC investigations? After all of these years, why hasn't a single final report published evidence that thermite, nano-thermite or explosives were responsible?

Answer: No such evidence exist


If used, there would be no need to waste time looking for the evidence because such evidence would have been plentiful and evident back in 2001 and yet, it has been 15 years since 9/11 and Truthers are still looking for that evidence and can't find 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
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 06:29 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.