Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

mikekerry

theses findings are out now ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

banie01

600 odd GBs of Data!!!

Haven't downloaded any and at that size it would take a while

I heard about the release over on r/conspiracy. My 1st visit after seeing news about the release on Reddits front page, also it will be my last! Sheer distilled lunacy on so many of the topics.
Those folks make CS appear a paragon of rationality!
Will be interesting to see both how the data stacks up against the report Hulsey presented?

And how that relates to wider funding issues at the University of Alaska and Fairbanks in particular?
Chasing the AE911 dollars to insulate from funding issues?

mikekerry

Is that not the hulsey data that was released?

Cheerful Spring2

mikekerry wrote: »

theses findings are out now ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Skeptics claimed we never see the report.
Skeptics claimed we never see UAF data.
False opinions.
Skeptics, of course, accept Fire collapse scenarios for WTC7 having never seen the data. NIST refused to release for verification and checking. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Skeptics, of course, accept Fire collapse scenarios for WTC7 having never seen the data. NIST refused to release for verification and checking. 

There is only one theory, and it's backed by four different investigations/studies. No other credible theories exist.

Maybe AE911 will find another engineer or professor in the world (out of millions of experts) who will accept $300k to produce some "prove a negative" convoluted study that won't be examined by any other experts or peer review for being too obscure

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. (Update: Please be advised the data has not been posted yet due to technical issues encountered while uploading several hundred gigabytes of data. It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.)

Mick videos are terrible. There no problems even a quick look i can see again he does not understand the Hulsey report again. They are the same column removal graphs if he read the description correctly. NIST progressive collapse is horizontal progression of column failures and for some reason Mick not aware of this! They got removed to initiate progressive collapse.



.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is only one theory, and it's backed by four different investigations/studies. No other credible theories exist.

Maybe AE911 will find another engineer or professor in the world (out of millions of experts) who will accept $300k to produce some "prove a negative" convoluted study that won't be examined by any other experts or peer review for being too obscure

There only one study that had the balls to release its data to be checked. Rest are just theories based on nothing.  All these studies disagree with each other and that's telling they can't even agree on the floor that collapsed first because of fire. Two of the studies claimed it started on floors 9 and 10, three floors below where NIST said it started. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There only one study that had the balls to release its data to be checked.

They did release data

All these studies disagree with each other and that's telling they can't even agree on the floor that collapsed first because of fire.

They all come to the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire

You can't comprehend how or why studies can differ, how or why historians can differ - and because of that you feel you can insert a loony conspiracy theory

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They did release data



They all come to the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire

You can't comprehend how or why studies can differ, how or why historians can differ - and because of that you feel you can insert a loony conspiracy theory

They haven't;They released a study that it. They released no data for their models.

Two of the studies disagree with the NIST hypothesis. Fire is the cause is nice till someone checks and see if the fires can cause a collapse on floors 9 and 10. They debunked NIST theory so you left with more questions.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Two of the studies disagree with the NIST hypothesis.

Nope. All of the investigations point to fire as the cause of collapse.

None point to explosives. You passionately believe it was explosives, but you can't support that, so you relentlessly attack the facts, try to discredit the investigations, it's the only way you can bring your nonsensical unsupported theory "to life"

That's how all this works. It's why not a single 911 truther can support their claims - they all rely on this same bizarre denial tactic.

You continue to go round in circles doing this, we'll just continue calling you out on it

Cheerful Spring2

ABC news confirming secret CIA office at WTC7

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cia-lost-office-in-wtc

The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that immediately after the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers. It was not known whether the efforts were successful.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the existence of the office, which was first reported in Sunday's editions of The New York Times.

The New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which the Times did not identify. The station was a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the CIA after returning from overseas.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

ABC news confirming secret CIA office at WTC7

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cia-lost-office-in-wtc

The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that immediately after the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers. It was not known whether the efforts were successful.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the existence of the office, which was first reported in Sunday's editions of The New York Times.

The New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which the Times did not identify. The station was a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the CIA after returning from overseas.

No reason to doubt that.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope. All of the investigations point to fire as the cause of collapse.

None point to explosives. You passionately believe it was explosives, but you can't support that, so you relentlessly attack the facts, try to discredit the investigations, it's the only way you can bring your nonsensical unsupported theory "to life"

That's how all this works. It's why not a single 911 truther can support their claims - they all rely on this same bizarre denial tactic.

You continue to go round in circles doing this, we'll just continue calling you out on it

You support fire collapse why? The fire studies are flawed. I would accept fire as a likely cause if the study was done right,  i can't here as NIST removed construction elements to get a girder to collapse and start a progressive collapse. I don't support cheaters and liars. Ae911 truth are only people out there telling the truth about the construction of WTC7. iF Fire somehow brought the building down then a genuine study needs to be done to show it. Everything needs to be released for verification.

Truther are supporting their claims, they just released the data.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You support fire collapse why?

Because it's overwhelmingly supported by the evidence/multiple investigations and there's no other faintly plausible theory whatsoever. It's not a mystery in the slightest.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because it's overwhelmingly supported by the evidence/multiple investigations and there's no other faintly plausible theory whatsoever. It's not a mystery in the slightest.

I do not support evidence thats flawed.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I do not support evidence thats flawed.

You support a theory with no proper evidence whatsoever. This incredible theory that involves the President of the US, and silent explosives, Jews and Saudi's working together, Joe Biden..

It's entirely made-up in your head. Of course you don't believe any of the investigations into 911, of course you believe all evidence that contradicts your personal theory is flawed

It has to be. Otherwise you'd be wrong, your dogmatic views would be incorrect, your hobby would vanish.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't support cheaters and liars. Ae911 truth are only people out there telling the truth about the construction of WTC7


...

Truther are supporting their claims, they just released the data.

They released the data 2 weeks late.
Why?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You support a theory with no proper evidence whatsoever. This incredible theory that involves the President of the US, and silent explosives, Jews and Saudi's working together, Joe Biden..

It's entirely made-up in your head. Of course you don't believe any of the investigations into 911, of course you believe all evidence that contradicts your personal theory is flawed

It has to be. Otherwise you'd be wrong, your dogmatic views would be incorrect, your hobby would vanish.

I view this event seriously as it caused multiple wars in the Middle East and hundreds of thousands of people have died. I see a crime when the White House told the FBI to stop investigating the Saudi Government links to 9/11. I see a cover up when NIST lied about the world trade seven building construction and removed construction parts from girders and beams to have fail in a fire. NIST even admitted during their investigation that they were having trouble figuring out what caused the building to fail. They then found a cause, however, in 2013 after the truthers found the construction drawings that cause was shown to be deeply flawed. NIST had removed shears studs, web flange plate, girder stiffeners to allow it to fail in a fire and released a global model with all those elements removed. Fire could not have caused a collapse.

Most people believe their models are manipulated its reason i believe they refused to let out their data to be checked.  Skeptics should spend more of the time demanding NIST release their data and stop complaining about Hulsey study after they have released all their data for the engineering community and skeptics to review and check.

mikekerry

King Mob wrote: »

They released the data 2 weeks late.
Why?

Ah come on. Ye are giving out all along saying the report won't come out and the data won't be released. At least its out now. So what if its 2 weeks late.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I view this event seriously

No you don't

You view it the same way you view the Holocaust. A historical event you can subjectively play denial games with, compromised entirely of whatever you can imagine or rationalise or make up in your head. You are backed by a fringe of people who do exactly the same thing, all of whom either come up with contradictory explanations or no explanations at all

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No you don't

You view it the same way you view the Holocaust. A historical event you can subjectively play denial games with, compromised entirely of whatever you can imagine or rationalise or make up in your head. You are backed by a fringe of people who do exactly the same thing, all of whom either come up with contradictory explanations or no explanations at all

Wrong. I view the Holocaust differently. The camps existed and people died there i know about that.  Sites were in Poland and the Czech Republic. The numbers who were gassed it disputed even among Holocaust researchers. The official story has a lot more evidence and there not enough evidence to believe the denier narratives. 
Holocust deniers claim these camps were recreation centres to just house prisoners and nazis never killed Jews. Holocust deniers biggest problem is they don't explain where millions went after WW2, if they survived. This is where the denier story falls apart for me. 

I firmly believe the numbers died in camps is wrong. The numbers don't account for immigration during 1933 to 1945. They don't account for stories where Jews may have died due to illness, during war events, and basic lack of food and health care during a time when Europe was torn apart by war. Nazis were bombing cities in mainland Europe, none of the civilians were Jewish? Poland had one of the largest Jewish populations and Nazis bombed the **** out of the country in 1939 and very likely Jews died there.

With 9/11 the official story is not believeable. The only part i believe is young Muslim men were involved in hijacking planes.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Wrong. I view the Holocaust differently.

No you don't, you use the same faulty logic and deluded thinking for both. I've posted multiple psychology articles on individuals who have an over inflated view of their own intelligence and conflate expert opinions with their own.

Like 911, you've decided that the consensus of experts and investigations are wrong, and you arbitrarily (and randomly) pick isolated experts or cranks you believe are right only because they follow your views, not because of the facts

You'll insert Joe Biden into your whacky theory simply because someone on the internet *who also thinks it was a conspiracy* has named him. You don't care who the source is, as long as they agree it's some sort of conspiracy, then bingo they are a credible source.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I do not support evidence thats flawed.

Then why support so many flawed theories?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No you don't, you use the same faulty logic and deluded thinking for both. I've posted multiple psychology articles on individuals who have an over inflated view of their own intelligence and conflate expert opinions with their own.

Like 911, you've decided that the consensus of experts and investigations are wrong, and you arbitrarily (and randomly) pick isolated experts or cranks you believe are right only because they follow your views, not because of the facts

You'll insert Joe Biden into your whacky theory simply because someone on the internet *who also thinks it was a conspiracy* has named him. You don't care who the source is, as long as they agree it's some sort of conspiracy, then bingo they are a credible source.

I use commonsense that if a building is constructed in a certain way then the fire will have to dismantle those elements to cause a failure. And obvious NIST scenario wasn't working in a fire scenario when they decided to remove the construction elements from the girder to start a failure at column 79 on Floor 13. They left a girder unsupported in their model. They have never shown a model where the fire broke the shear studs, web plate, and stiffeners to allow a collapse. Even NIST calculations for thermal expansion are false, they had to correct it two times after the truthers showed them they got it wrong there too. After six years, they also missed the building had undergone a free fall condition. NIST even says this was not possible in a progressive collapse scenario their own words. They then claimed in their final report it was possible and yet never explained what changed their mind in three months?

Of Course you never watched the video i provided. Biden is on video admitting the Pakistan ISI lead General gave ATTA money to carry out this act. It not made up conspiracy, Biden admitting it on video that this occurred.

King Mob

mikekerry wrote: »

Ah come on. Ye are giving out all along saying the report won't come out and the data won't be released. At least its out now. So what if its 2 weeks late.

The data was 2 weeks late. The report itself was 2 years late.
Why was it late on both counts.?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

The data was 2 weeks late. The report itself was 2 years late.
Why was it late on both counts.?

At this stage, I don't care that the data and study was late. My worry is that no experts or academia will formally address it and it will sit there are some sort of shrine to these nonsense conspiracies that feed off it

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

At this stage, I don't care that the data and study was late.

I'm just bringing it up cause it needs to be pointed out that the study that was supposed to be completely open and transparent with complete freedom of information has offered no information as to why these delays existed in the first place.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I use commonsense

I just want to confirm this particular point?
You actually believe that you have applied common sense in your approach to any of the CT's you subscribe to, or indeed your solo runs?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I use commonsense

Wow almost missed this. What's common about a personal theory completely unique to you that contradicts historical fact?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

At this stage, I don't care that the data and study was late. My worry is that no experts or academia will formally address it and it will sit there are some sort of shrine to these nonsense conspiracies that feed off it

It out now they have shown more transparency than NIST has ever shown. They're not cowards they've released their data for everyone just like they said they would. Skeptics then complain there two weeks late, when we all know NIST has not released a damn thing since 2008 to verify their findings. It is laughable You critics are funny.