Merged: Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Jaytje46

I missed that part

That's their intention. The whole "update" and "campaign" is to milk more money out of a dead cow.

There will never be a peer reviewed paper, just like Mark Basile will never produce coherent results..........

[JSanderO]

Originally Posted by DGM

That's their intention. The whole "update" and "campaign" is to milk more money out of a dead cow.

There will never be a peer reviewed paper, just like Mark Basile will never produce coherent results..........

I think you're are correct... they make pronouncements which seem serious and professional... but they are just marketing hype to lasso in more dollar. People don't want for the review or follow up studies before sending the dough. The money is meant to "start" the process conceptually... but they rake off lots for themselves.

Sadly these "groups" are money making scams in the end.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by DGM

...There will never be a peer reviewed paper, just like Mark Basile will never produce coherent results..........

Probably true but there are some fundamental differences between the Basile undertaking and the Hulsey project

Basile's was a simple technical job to perform an analysis.

Hulsey's project involves two claims both based on a false or at least dubious foundation of logic:
"Fire could not cause collapse..." which stands on a fatal error of "cannot prove a negative"...certainly not by the path the project is taking; AND

"Prove NIST was wrong" which seems to be following the 10 years old and consistent Szamboti strategy. Chasing a detail when the premise is wrong.

It is probably heading towards the more recent Szamboti trademark error of false dichotomy..."If I (that is T Sz) prove someone wrong it means I am right".

The NIST findings present a plausible solution. Falsifying a plausible solution does not prove a different solution.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JSanderO

I think you're are correct... they make pronouncements which seem serious and professional... but they are just marketing hype to lasso in more dollar. People don't want for the review or follow up studies before sending the dough. The money is meant to "start" the process conceptually... but they rake off lots for themselves.

Sadly these "groups" are money making scams in the end.

You didn't subscribe for an annual $1000 donation?

[DGM]

Important update.................

There's nothing and there will never be anything.













Made you look..........

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by DGM

Important update.................

There's nothing and there will never be anything.













Made you look..........

oops

[Mark F]

Originally Posted by DGM

Important update.................

There's nothing and there will never be anything.













Made you look..........

Damn, I looked.

[Whip]

Originally Posted by Mark F

Damn, I looked.

thanks. now I don't have to.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Mark F

Damn, I looked.

Sorry......couldn't resist.

Fact is. There will never be a paper published with the University of Alaska endorsement like they are trying to sell. The university connection was all just a play to gain credibility. The "study" died.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Mark F

Damn, I looked.

So did I

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by DGM

...Fact is. There will never be a paper published with the University of Alaska endorsement like they are trying to sell. The university connection was all just a play to gain credibility. The "study" died.

It would suit Gage's purpose either way. Ongoing debate about why the study is wrong<>not wrong OR ongoing debate about why no paper...


...with occasional comments from me about the fatal flaw in the foundation logic. The project could never prove "fire couldn't cause collapse" >> no matter how many times Hulsey tries to "spin" the claim by obscure rewording the claim in "professional academic gobbledegook".

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

...with occasional comments from me about the fatal flaw in the foundation logic. The project could never prove "fire couldn't cause collapse" >> no matter how many times Hulsey tries to "spin" the claim by obscure rewording the claim in "professional academic gobbledegook".

..........exactly why there will never be a paper with university support (or a legitimate peer review).

This was sold as a University of Alaska study. Money was collected on a lie. I'm not surprised and no one should be considering this organisations track record(AE911).

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by DGM

..........exactly why there will never be a paper with university support (or a legitimate peer review).

This was sold as a University of Alaska study. Money was collected on a lie. I'm not surprised and no one should be considering this organisations track record(AE911).

Well, yes, but what do you imagine such "university support" would look like? Hulsey is the Departent Chair of the Department of Civil & Environmental within the UAF's College of Engineering and Mines. He is the top guy of the directly relevant Department, you can't get any more direct "support" from "the university" than that.

[Criteria]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Well, yes, but what do you imagine such "university support" would look like? Hulsey is the Departent Chair of the Department of Civil & Environmental within the UAF's College of Engineering and Mines. He is the top guy of the directly relevant Department, you can't get any more direct "support" from "the university" than that.

TRUE!

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Criteria

TRUE!

If that capitalized "TRUE" pertains to my entire post, including the first two words, I am happy and glad that you so whole-heartedly agree with DGM's assertion that any "University of Alaska support" is naught but a selling point, a PR gimmick. This is like saying a study by Richard Gage is "supported by AE911T", or that a claim made by Donald Trump is "supported by the US government". Such a claim is as trivially true as it is deceptive.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Criteria

TRUE!

True, Hulsey is a conspiracy nut and his grad students figure out he was nuts, or Hulsey will do anything for money when he supported the idiot liar Richard Gage.

Got any evidence for any 9/11 truth related claims, or has 9/11 truth failed all these years? No, or as you like, "NO!"

9/11 truth, a movement based on the ignorance of the followers. True.

[Oystein]

Hulsey has done an interview with AE911T's propaganda minister, Andy Steele, on their PR channel "9/11 Free Fall radio":
http://911freefall.com/9-11-free-fal...-study-update/

Interview begins after 26 minutes and goes through the end of the hour.

I have written some ad-hoc comments upon first listening to Hulsey's first words about project progress in a year, here at Metabunk:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/225253/

I may do a partial or full transcript there at a later time.


Highlights:

• No more talk that they plan on publishing a Draft Report followed by a six week period for anyone to comment
• He now believes he may finish a report by the end of the year. I guess that means some time in 2019 or 2020.
• Hopes to get several papers out it. 4 are in the works by his remaining PPhD student - but 3 of those are not WTC7 related
• Since September last year, they have worked on the global collapse, and been trying make it look exactly like the real thing. This means they have not corrected all the mistakes in the September 2017 presentation
• And indeed, Hulsey repeats several of the main mistakes, particularly pertaining to his not understandig the NIST modelling
• He won't say it's CD but ... he essentially says it's CD

[ozeco41]

^^^^ Thanks Oystein.

And let me add my hobby horse:

He is still blatantly claiming to 'prove the negative of "fire couldn't cause collapse"' - which his project cannot achieve.

To prove "couldn't" he must falsify all the alternates. On another forum or two I've explained it this way:

Quote:

Hulsey's logic error can be demonstrated even to an unsophisticated audience by using W Edwards Demmings favourite bag of mixed red balls and white balls. Say 95 white and 5 red in the bag. Pull out blind a sample of 5 balls - all white - you CANNOT assert "there are no red balls". Pull a sample of 20 balls - the odds getting longer BUT again all are white. You still cannot assert "there are no red balls". And unless there is something far more sophisticated being concealed by Hulsey - that is exactly the false basis of his claim. If we assume that there is only one "red ball" - one scenario where fire would cause collapse - to prove the global negative Hulsey has to test all the scenarios or possibly all of the subsets of scenarios if he can show that variance within the subset is not critical....but even THAT is "prove a negative"

[DGM]

Quote:

Hulsey is not optimistic that they'll be able to publish in a US-based journal, says he'll probably submit them in Europe "or some place like that, where people are more receptive to reviewing them scientifically, and maybe there won't be as much politics involved".

Forget a paper that the study originally claimed it was going to produce. He's already making excuses why it won't happen.

I'd like to see the papers the PhD student is working on (the real ones).

[pgimeno]

If I had to bet, I'd bet this is a good candidate for publishing their paper:

https://www.benthamopen.com/TOCIEJ/

[ComsatAngel2017]

Hello chaps, and chapesses! First time back here in nearly a year, and before that I was last present when the JREF was still a going concern, so probably before this Hulsey fellow began his - er - 'study'. I don't intend to trawl through 64 pages as I do have a life, but allow me to summarise the timeline here, as I've understood it. May 2015: the two-year study begins. At some point this then becomes a three-year study. May 2018: After three years, still no results. Announcements are made that this science stuff is difficult, that more time (and $$$) is needed, and that because this science stuff is difficult, there's going to be an announcement "later in the year". Lots of castles-in-Spain bloviating about what AE9/11 will to do to The Man if when the report is published. We are now into the 9th month of 2018, without an announcement, nor a date when it might be made.

I may have been gone a while, but it looks like Business As Usual amongst the truthers

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ComsatAngel2017

...allow me to summarise the timeline here, as I've understood it. May 2015: the two-year study begins. At some point this then becomes a three-year study.

Yes. At that time, budget also grows from a bit over $200K to a bit over $300K.

Originally Posted by ComsatAngel2017

May 2018: After three years, still no results. Announcements are made that this science stuff is difficult, that more time (and $$$) is needed,

No. At least Hulsey is not asking for more money, or more to the point: The project budget as the UAF sees it remains at $316K.

Originally Posted by ComsatAngel2017

and that because this science stuff is difficult, there's going to be an announcement "later in the year". Lots of castles-in-Spain bloviating about what AE9/11 will to do to The Man if when the report is published.

M'kay

Originally Posted by ComsatAngel2017

We are now into the 9th month of 2018, without an announcement, nor a date when it might be made.

Well, they (Andrew Steele, Gage's propaganda minister) did an interview with Hulsey earlier this month, where Hulsey said he expects to have something finished by the end of this year.

Originally Posted by ComsatAngel2017

I may have been gone a while, but it looks like Business As Usual amongst the truthers

Yeah, fair enough.

[FFTR]

Originally Posted by Criteria

Your dependence on bluster reveals the failure of your belief.

Through accepted scientific methodology Dr. Hulsey and his associates have established that the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred.

No. At best Dr. Hulsey can state under the simulation he ran fire did not cause the collapse. His study is not running all possible situation. His study makes assumptions as did NIST in areas where data is not known for sure. Example: exact fire behavior on each of the involved floors).

It is now mid November. Wonder how much longer Dr. Hulsey needs.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by FFTR

It is now mid November. Wonder how much longer Dr. Hulsey needs.

Does anyone actually still believe he will produce a journal quality paper?

It's like believing Mark Basile is still working on his "study".................

[JSanderO]

This is nothing but smoke and mirrors... junk engineering to be part of their never ending stream of marketing fantasies. The only thing this endeavor proves is that Truthers are gullible, Hulsey is a con and that no one can prove what a negative.... something we already knew.

[Oystein]

A delegation of AE911T fools is going to the ASCE's "Top Forensic Engineering Conference". An excellent opportunity to present Hulsey's forensic WTC7 study to true experts, one might think.

But: They do not present anything at all there.

They rent a hotel room offsite the conference.

What a joke!

[JSanderO]

truth movement has backed itself into a corner. They can't abandon their core belief... meme... so they just repeat the same falsehoods to their true believers and add some marketing gambits... like showing up at an engineering conference to give them creds.

I can't imagine them holding a presser saying they have finally realized they were barking up the wrong tree and are wrong and are disbanding their marketing campaign for a new investigation... which sounds benign... but is really code word for getting the world to accept their CD conspiracy theories.

As long as there are suckers who send money... AE will go on. When the money stops so with the truth movement.