Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…910121415…61

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Constantly fed misinformation. No transparency whatsoever.

    If it's not out in Sept 11 this year you'll still make more excuses for it, just like you did when it didn't come out in the first half of this year, and again when it didn't come out at the end of the last year (and it's been due for much longer than that)

    If it's actually released but skeptics immediately find glaring issues with it, I guarantee you'll treat it like gospel

    It's a fairly obscure report by a 78 year old man in Alaska, it's quite possible that no one will peer review and that potentially few scientific or engineering organisations will even look at it. But even if they do, and they produce anything that criticises the report, it will be rejected by the truther community (and by yourself obviously)

    If Hulsey dies in the interim, it will be treated as a conspiracy

    There's some real predictions

    I only report about what i hear and can't do more to satisfy you debunkers.

    The report will be received welcomely by mainstream engineering groups or it won't. I know one thing the report can be peer reviewed by professionals unlike the NIST study. They refused to release their computing modelling data and most of the engineering groups have taken it upon themselves, accepted it based only on credentials and their reputation previous. This was a sad day when engineering groups solely accepted a report based on nothing but who wrote it. NIST was never held to account for their lies and omissions, and outright fabrications in this report.

    Doesn't matter, this was a study paid for by the truthers, what does matter is- will it be shown the engineering work credible and can the work be replicated by others outside the truther online groups? Mainstream engineering groups like ASCE can run trial and error programs themselves when they are provided with the finite modelling imput computing data for world trade centre seven.


  • Options
    #333
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    And it's paid for by a conspiracy group, huge conflict of interest right there

    It's attempting to prove a negative (makes zero sense)

    It's the equivalent of Alex Jones finding one willing private investigator in the US who claims he/she will prove that A Lanza didn't do it (not who did it, who didn't do it, bizarre) and is funded by Jones, and doesn't produce the report for years

    Like i said nobody else was going to spend almost a third of million dollars on new study. Truthers stepped up and provided their own cash for a new study and I can see already this study way more honest and transparent. Hulsey said all his work will be released fully, know excuses and kept back data.

    His attempting to show you what actually happened and what made more sense. He will have to prove the sequences of failures in concise and clear way and most important replicate these failures using a computer generated graphical program simulation. There lot more to a study then you think, you can't just release one or two pages of information or 10 and expect to be taken seriously.


  • Options
    #334
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I only report about what i hear and can't do more to satisfy you debunkers.
    Well you could explain why the delays happened and where the money came from and went.
    It is totally open and transparent after all... right?
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I know one thing the report can be peer reviewed by professionals unlike the NIST study.
    For real studies, peer review is done before publication.
    Just releasing a paper and saying "you can look it over if you want" is not peer review.
    This study is not going to be peer reviewed despite initial claims.


  • Options
    #335
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I only report about what i hear and can't do more to satisfy you debunkers.

    You clearly have no logical filter and regularly demonstrate you will swallow anything from conspiracy sites, which is why we get everything from military jets flying into the Pentagon and Joe Biden being involved in 911

    A neverending stream of falsehoods and personal creations
    I know one thing the report can be peer reviewed by professionals unlike the NIST study.

    It was peer reviewed. And it was conducted by dozens of experts, multiple structural engineers from the ACSE, who had full access to all the evidence and information.

    In complete contrast Hulsey is one expert, paid by a conspiracy group, and not to determine the cause but to prove a negative (which is a bizarre study in itself)

    There's no comparison between the two reports at all
    They refused to release their computing modelling data

    a) they didn't have to
    b) it was for reference
    c) they knew that internet loons would use the software to produce whatever result they wanted
    This was a sad day when engineering groups solely accepted a report based on nothing but who wrote it. NIST was never held to account for their lies and omissions, and outright fabrications in this report.

    Another casual lie

    It's a report that has been accepted by the world's engineering community, no recognised group has found significant fault with it. Structural engineers who did a follow up review of it won an engineering prize. Most of it's findings have been incorporated into building codes and regulations. Anyone can go to r/askengineers or go to structural engineering forums and receive this info

    This has all been mentioned before, but every time you post your falsehoods and disinfo, we'll just post the facts
    Doesn't matter, this was a study paid for by the truthers,

    Exactly, conspiracy types and scammers making money off them finally found one expert in the world who would actually conduct a study, not only that but they were hailing it as a success from the moment it started, despite not knowing the result, nor the result 4 years later.

    Like I said, it's identical to Alex Jones finding a private investigator who claims that his study will show that Sandy Hook was not carried out by Adam Lanza

    It's that level of nonsense we are dealing with here :)


  • Options
    #336
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Releasing it on 9/11, how pathetically cynical. Surely if its honest and transparent work it should be released as soon as its ready? We're talking about 3000 peoples lives here. But oh no, hold off on it to maximise publicity and earn more money.

    Fraud.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Decided to check in on this, delayed again: this time until Sept 2019. No status reports, no transparency.

    http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

    The man is in his late seventies, looks like he's just done AE911 for his portion of $300,000

    Can you not just wait for the outcome and base a valid opinion then ??

    You seem to be very agenda driven ... Going after the guy on the internet who got it wrong in regards to a release date .... Nice point scoring exercise though


  • Options
    #338
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    The Nal wrote: »
    Releasing it on 9/11, how pathetically cynical. Surely if its honest and transparent work it should be released as soon as its ready? We're talking about 3000 peoples lives here. But oh no, hold off on it to maximise publicity and earn more money.

    Fraud.

    Chuckles .... fraud because its released on the wrong date :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #339
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    not only that but they were hailing it as a success from the moment it started, despite not knowing the result, nor the result 4 years later.
    They knew the result from the beginning cause that result was the stated goal from the start.
    A studied that predetermines it's outcome beforehand is not scientific.
    But watch how Cheerful claims it's a special better type of scientific.


  • Options
    #340
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Chuckles .... fraud because its released on the wrong date :rolleyes:
    Why not release it now?
    What benefit does releasing it on an anniversary have if not to produce more press?


  • Options
    #341
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why not release it now?
    What benefit does releasing it on an anniversary have if not to produce more press?

    I dont give two ****s when it is released ....

    Claiming its fraud because of a release date is laughable ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I dont give two ****s when it is released ....

    Claiming its fraud because of a release date is laughable ...
    But that's not the reason he gave though.
    It's not the reason we are pointing to.

    You also avoided my question. Can you not answer it?


  • Options
    #343
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    You seem to be very agenda driven

    Yeah, by the truth and objective method

    As a study, Hulsey's is flawed from the outset
    • It's trying to prove a negative (which is unscientific, and quite possibly a first for this type of study)
    • It opened with it's author claiming that it would reach a specific result (which they quickly deleted)
    • It's sponsored by a group which has a clear agenda (conflict of interest)
    • This group directly makes money by keeping the conspiracy alive (another conflict of interest)
    • It stated it would be transparent (that hasn't been the case)
    • Preliminary releases have contained errors, some significant
    • It's one expert, not a wide body of related experts

    Am I waiting the result? absolutely

    But in science and academia studies can range from low quality to high quality. From all the info we have so far, this is low quality from the get-go


  • Options
    #344
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not the reason he gave though.
    It's not the reason we are pointing to.

    You also avoided my question. Can you not answer it?

    About the press ?

    The more press the better .... It creates more attention and enhances the chances of someone pointing out the flaws in the study. (you guys should be happy)

    If I were a fraud I would have picked a date for release that attracts less attention.


  • Options
    #345
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yeah, by the truth and objective method

    As a study, Hulsey's is flawed from the outset
    • It's trying to prove a negative (which is unscientific, and quite possibly a first for this type of study)
    • It opened with it's author claiming that it would reach a specific result (which they quickly deleted)
    • It's sponsored by a group which has a clear agenda (conflict of interest)
    • This group directly makes money by keeping the conspiracy alive (another conflict of interest)
    • It stated it would be transparent (that hasn't been the case)
    • Preliminary releases have contained errors, some significant
    • It's one expert, not a wide body of related experts

    Am I waiting the result? absolutely

    But in science and academia studies can range from low quality to high quality. From all the info we have so far, this is low quality from the get-go

    All this can be addressed when the study is released, I will be reserving comments for then... and believe it or not review it critically.


  • Options
    #346
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    About the press ?

    The more press the better .... It creates more attention and enhances the chances of someone pointing out the flaws in the study. (you guys should be happy)
    But why would they need to do that?
    They are proving 9/11 was a hoax. That would grab headlines any time.

    You agree that the release date is publicity motivated.
    weisses wrote: »
    If I were a fraud I would have picked a date for release that attracts less attention.
    But the point of the fraud is to generate attention and income from a select group who promote the conspiracy.
    Attention is the point of the fraud...

    You again avoided my other point.
    Could you address my whole post please, not just part of it.


  • Options
    #347
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You agree that the release date is publicity motivated.

    Yes ... again I see nothing wrong with it ... Claiming its fraud because of that date is wrong though ... something you seem to have no issue with
    King Mob wrote: »
    But the point of the fraud is to generate attention and income from a select group who promote the conspiracy.
    Attention is the point of the fraud..

    I think that is a conspiracy developed in your own mind
    King Mob wrote: »
    You again avoided my other point.
    Could you address my whole post please, not just part of it.

    As to why they are not releasing it now ?

    I dunno .. probably they think September 11 is the better date for it

    Like I said I don't care when they release it


  • Options
    #348
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes ... again I see nothing wrong with it ... Claiming its fraud because of that date is wrong though ... something you seem to have no issue with
    But again, that's a dishonest misrepresentation on your part for a point you cannot address properly or honestly. As per usual.
    That's not the reason we are declaring it a fraud. It was for all the reasons dohnjoe listed and you dismissed without a moments thought because as per usual, you can't address them.
    weisses wrote: »
    I think that is a conspiracy developed in your own mind
    Which part do you disagree with?
    That there are people who profit from perpetuating the conspiracy theory?
    That those people commissioned the report with a preconceived conclusion?
    That those same people have gone back on pretty much every promise they made re transparency and scientific rigour?
    That those people are engaged in actions to maximise attention, thus profit?
    weisses wrote: »
    As to why they are not releasing it now ?

    I dunno .. probably they think September 11 is the better date for it

    Like I said I don't care when they release it
    I was referring to your dishonest misrepresentation which you repeat and which is addressed above.


  • Options
    #349
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    All this can be addressed when the study is released, I will be reserving comments for then... and believe it or not review it critically.

    Based on the fact that you firmly believe the buildings were blown up without a shred of credible evidence, I'll take your "objectivity" and critical analysis of any related report with a very heavy pinch of salt

    Why is it that conspiracy theorists never debate with each other? if one guy believes Larry Silverstein only blew up one building, and another guy believes that it was the CIA and Jews and they blew up all the buildings..

    Well those are two completely different sequences of events. Why do we never see them debating with each other?

    Is it a case of, any conspiracy but the truth?


  • Options
    #350
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why is it that conspiracy theorists never debate with each other? if one guy believes Larry Silverstein only blew up one building, and another guy believes that it was the CIA and Jews and they blew up all the buildings..

    Well those are two completely different sequences of events. Why do we never see them debating with each other?

    Is it a case of, any conspiracy but the truth?
    If they did that they'd have to point out the logical failings and lack of evidence in each others theories and that would make them very uncomfortable.

    C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg

    It's also why they don't like talking about Dr. Judy Woods' theory.
    They can't explain why the idea of space lasers should be rejected out of hand without drawing attention to their own theories.


  • Options
    #351
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You clearly have no logical filter and regularly demonstrate you will swallow anything from conspiracy sites, which is why we get everything from military jets flying into the Pentagon and Joe Biden being involved in 911

    A neverending stream of falsehoods and personal creations



    It was peer reviewed. And it was conducted by dozens of experts, multiple structural engineers from the ACSE, who had full access to all the evidence and information.

    In complete contrast Hulsey is one expert, paid by a conspiracy group, and not to determine the cause but to prove a negative (which is a bizarre study in itself)

    There's no comparison between the two reports at all



    a) they didn't have to
    b) it was for reference
    c) they knew that internet loons would use the software to produce whatever result they wanted



    Another casual lie

    It's a report that has been accepted by the world's engineering community, no recognised group has found significant fault with it. Structural engineers who did a follow up review of it won an engineering prize. Most of it's findings have been incorporated into building codes and regulations. Anyone can go to r/askengineers or go to structural engineering forums and receive this info

    This has all been mentioned before, but every time you post your falsehoods and disinfo, we'll just post the facts



    Exactly, conspiracy types and scammers making money off them finally found one expert in the world who would actually conduct a study, not only that but they were hailing it as a success from the moment it started, despite not knowing the result, nor the result 4 years later.

    Like I said, it's identical to Alex Jones finding a private investigator who claims that his study will show that Sandy Hook was not carried out by Adam Lanza

    It's that level of nonsense we are dealing with here :)

    Clearly you talking of your ass. NIST empirical data was never released to anyone, this is widely known.

    Even your skeptical friends are aware of this and you aren't.
    https://www.metabunk.org/nists-rationale-for-not-releasing-simulation-data.t2513/

    To prove any scientific theory, independent researchers must be able to replicate your findings. NIST model data is not available and never will be. Since it can't be replicated, the NIST study, is faith based, and the engineering groups accepted it- is a clear violation of the scientific method, a new study had to be done.

    So if you going to attack someone- least try familiarize yourself with the issue and stop lying and claiming the NIST report is perfect and there nothing wrong with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Clearly you talking of your ass. NIST empirical data was never released to anyone, this is widely known.

    Even your skeptical friends are aware of this and you aren't.
    https://www.metabunk.org/nists-rationale-for-not-releasing-simulation-data.t2513/

    To prove any scientific theory, independent researchers must be able to replicate your findings. NIST model data is not available and never will be. Since it can't be replicated, the NIST study, is faith based, and the engineering groups accepted it- is a clear violation of the scientific method, a new study had to be done.

    So if you going to attack someone- least try familiarize yourself with the issue and stop lying and claiming the NIST report is perfect and there nothing wrong with it.
    But again, the NIST report was peer reviewed.
    It's not faith based. You guys have to invent whole wings to the conspiracy to explain that. All based on faith that your theory is right.


  • Options
    #353
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, that's a dishonest misrepresentation on your part for a point you cannot address properly or honestly. As per usual.
    That's not the reason we are declaring it a fraud. It was for all the reasons dohnjoe listed and you dismissed without a moments thought because as per usual, you can't address them.

    NO its not

    I responded to this
    The Nal wrote: »
    Releasing it on 9/11, how pathetically cynical. Surely if its honest and transparent work it should be released as soon as its ready? We're talking about 3000 peoples lives here. But oh no, hold off on it to maximise publicity and earn more money.

    Fraud.

    Do you understand now ?

    I dont think it was a post made by Donjoe


  • Options
    #354
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    I love conspiracy loons desperately hanging on to any grain of hope. 2019 now. Not a jot of evidence.


  • Options
    #355
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Based on the fact that you firmly believe the buildings were blown up without a shred of credible evidence, I'll take your "objectivity" and critical analysis of any related report with a very heavy pinch of salt

    Why is it that conspiracy theorists never debate with each other? if one guy believes Larry Silverstein only blew up one building, and another guy believes that it was the CIA and Jews and they blew up all the buildings..

    Well those are two completely different sequences of events. Why do we never see them debating with each other?

    Is it a case of, any conspiracy but the truth?

    What I believe has nothing to do with the outcome of the Hulsey study ... If he made a balls of it so be it.

    The fact you guys write it off before a single piece is released is pathetic ... On one hand you walk the high road while at the same time enjoining bashing other people


  • Options
    #356
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Clearly you talking of your ass.

    Not at all

    Do you think that multiple conspiracies theories can be correct?

    What I mean is, if someone believes that all three buildings were deliberately blown up in demolitions, and someone else believes that only one of the buildings was blown up (the other two falling due to plane strikes + fire)

    Can both of those chain of events be correct?

    Or does that matter?


  • Options
    #357
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which part do you disagree with?
    That there are people who profit from perpetuating the conspiracy theory?
    That those people commissioned the report with a preconceived conclusion?
    That those same people have gone back on pretty much every promise they made re transparency and scientific rigour?
    That those people are engaged in actions to maximise attention, thus profit?

    Again ... a theory that came up in your own mind ... you are a valuable addition to the forum


  • Options
    #358
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,438 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    weisses wrote: »
    Again ... a theory that came up in your own mind ... you are a valuable addition to the forum

    Could you explain why any 4 of the points/questions he made that you just quoted are wrong?


  • Options
    #359
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Not at all

    Do you think that multiple conspiracies theories can be correct?

    What I mean is, if someone believes that all three buildings were deliberately blown up in demolitions, and someone else believes that only one of the buildings was blown up (the other two falling due to plane strikes + fire)

    Can both of those chain of events be correct?

    Or does that matter?

    You don't understand science thats the issue here. All scientific theories have to be replicated by others to be proven true. NIST study is faith based pseudoscience.

    Skeptics also ignore NIST was tasked with finding out why for the first time in history a steel beamed high rising building collapsed.On 9/11 it happened three times and never before was this ever witnessed. So very important NIST release all its data to show what happened and why and holding back info only adds suspicion they are hiding something. Plenty of examples NIST lying about the construction of world trade center seven and still not giving them a pass on freefall- they clearly lied about that.


  • Options
    #360
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    NO its not

    I responded to this

    Do you understand now ?

    I dont think it was a post made by Donjoe
    Yes, and you claiming that the Nal is claiming they are a fraud based solely on the release date is a dishonest misrepresentation.

    The actual reasons you are ignoring because you can't address them.
    weisses wrote: »
    Again ... a theory that came up in your own mind ... you are a valuable addition to the forum
    Ok.
    What parts do you disagree with exactly?
    Is it none?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    What I believe has nothing to do with the outcome of the Hulsey study ... If he made a balls of it so be it.

    The fact you guys write it off before a single piece is released is pathetic ... On one hand you walk the high road while at the same time enjoining bashing other people

    I agree in principle, a proper study shouldn't be written off before it is final, released and actively peer reviewed by recognised scientific/expert bodies. Keyword: "proper"

    The context is pretty important

    If a delayed study by one man was coming out that claimed e.g. it was impossible man had been to the moon, then it being labeled a sham/scam from the outset and during is perfectly understandable

    Reardless of what the report contains, it will be lauded by the fringe that paid for it. And if by some miracle they don't agree with it, then "the establishment got to him". I guarantee it. This debate is far, far beyond any reason/logic now.


Advertisement