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…1112141617…61

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Hang on, this is a fúcking scam. They're looking to milk 50k from people?! WTF?

    Surely any news outlet would fly them in and put them up if they found cause for conspiracy?

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/544-building-7-study-to-be-released-september-3-i-need-your-help-to-spread-it-far-and-wide

    Scam where AE911 truth group spend 300,000 dollars to do a study? Nice one guys you solved it.

    AE911 truth staff do this off their own backs, they have know large corporation or institution stepping into help them. They survive because of donations. Nobody will do work for nothing every week.

    Study out 3th of September. Remember Skeptics kept claiming no study existed or never come out another failed prediction.


  • Options
    #393
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Weird we have to ask these questions, since the whole process was supposed to be totally transparent.
    And weird we don't know why exactly is being released for the same reason.

    We know it's not going into getting it published in a real journal or having it peer reviewed. They've already given up on that promise.

    Trust me this will be most comprehensive study ever done. There be no doubt what happened.

    It be published once it out, i willing to make a bet now. I have heard some of the things what in it and i already know NIST work is going to be destroyed.

    Finite models matches the actual true collapse scentifically, NIST is in big trouble for lying.

    There not a single engineer who will dispute what they found.


  • Options
    #394
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Trust me this will be most comprehensive study ever done. There be no doubt what happened.

    It be published once it out, i willing to make a bet now. I have heard some of the things what in it and i already know NIST work is going to be destroyed.

    Finite models matches the actual true collapse scentifically, NIST is in big trouble for lying.

    There not a single engineer who will dispute what they found.
    How do you know all of this without reading the report?
    What things have you heard and where did you hear them?
    It sounds like you are once again telling fibs to try and sound big and important.

    You have also once again side stepped points you cannot answer.
    Why have they gone back on all of their promises?

    How much are you donating to this final call for funding?
    How much have you donated previously?


  • Options
    #395
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Trust me this will be most comprehensive study ever done. There be no doubt what happened.

    You are already utterly convinced, on an almost religious level. The whole point of the study is to create doubt about what happened. It's by one 75+ year old man who lost most of study on a 2015 hdd crash, and lost one of his PhD assistants.

    I guarantee one thing, if the study itself is highly flawed (I haven't seen the final report), you will absolutely stand by it. And if it comes to the point that even your extreme rationalisations and imaginings can no longer support it, you will claim Hulsey was "compromised", and Gage will start collecting donations for a bigger better study


  • Options
    #396
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,630 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    . It's by one 75+ year old man who lost most of study on a 2015 hdd crash, and lost one of his PhD assistants.

    That an engineer, a doyen of systems and structural redundancy managed to lose "most" of a study solely because of a HDD crash raises huge red flags already IMO!

    I was not aware of that particular issue.
    It presents before I even look at the report a bias regarding competency in my own mind.

    Looking forward to seeing the report, and learning is anything new has emerged.

    The cash call, and CS's unquestioning loyalty to AE911's volunteers is laughable.
    It was already predicted that more cash would be requested before publication...
    I will admit a little surprise however that they have actually named a publication date...

    Here's hoping it will be put to bed soon enough!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    banie01 wrote: »
    That an engineer, a doyen of systems and structural redundancy managed to lose "most" of a study solely because of a HDD crash raises huge red flags already IMO!

    I was not aware of that particular issue.
    It presents before I even look at the report a bias regarding competency in my own mind.

    Looking forward to seeing the report, and learning is anything new has emerged.

    The cash call, and CS's unquestioning loyalty to AE911's volunteers is laughable.
    It was already predicted that more cash would be requested before publication...
    I will admit a little surprise however that they have actually named a publication date...

    Here's hoping it will be put to bed soon enough!

    Yeah but it's like awaiting a groundbreaking historical paper that claims it will prove the battle of Kursk didn't happen. Everyone has to smile and agree that they will wait for the report to come out, but deep down everyone knows it will be horse****


  • Options
    #398
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Scam where AE911 truth group spend 300,000 dollars to do a study? Nice one guys you solved it.

    AE911 truth staff do this off their own backs, they have know large corporation or institution stepping into help them. They survive because of donations. Nobody will do work for nothing every week.

    Study out 3th of September. Remember Skeptics kept claiming no study existed or never come out another failed prediction.

    Do you need to be reminded about the salary these idiots take off the top of the donations? Or do you just really think that postcards cost $2.50 in bulk


  • Options
    #399
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    Do you need to be reminded about the salary these idiots take off the top of the donations?

    The staff do it full time.
    Richard Cage is the head guy. Any business the person at the top gets paid.
    You not living in reality, thinking this can all be done for free.
    Richard spends lot of time out there promoting his message, that costs money.
    They used 300, 000 dollars to hire someone to do a study for them.
    This is not a scam.
    Just like Skeptics were claiming no study existed and was just Hulsey doing powerpoints. Wrong.


  • Options
    #400
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The staff do it full time.
    Richard Cage is the head guy. Any business the person at the top gets paid.
    You not living in reality, thinking this can all be done for free.
    Richard spends lot of time out there promoting his message, that costs money.
    They used 300, 000 dollars to hire someone to do a study for them.
    This is not a scam.
    Just like Skeptics were claiming no study existed and was just Hulsey doing powerpoints. Wrong.

    Bingo.


  • Options
    #401
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Bingo.

    Why do skeptics always believe it dodgy when someone is paid a salary? James Randi got a salary from his website, Was he scamming his posters? It only a scam when they promote theories you don't believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Why do skeptics always believe it dodgy when someone is paid a salary? James Randi got a salary from his website, Was he scamming his posters? It only a scam when they promote theories you don't believe.

    Literally half the conspiracies you peddle involve who is paid by whom


  • Options
    #403
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yeah but it's like awaiting a groundbreaking historical paper that claims it will prove the battle of Kursk didn't happen. Everyone has to smile and agree that they will wait for the report to come out, but deep down everyone knows it will be horse****

    Today tuesday 20th.

    So just two weeks away this study. I think i just wait till then to post.

    I ask nobody reply to this message and leave it till then? We can then can discuss Hulsey Report when its out. I expect there be alot of online activity that day on Skeptic forums, so lets wait!


  • Options
    #404
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Why do skeptics always believe it dodgy when someone is paid a salary?

    Gage gets a salary for promoting something that is patently false. Like those people who do the false cancer cures. He's either not a very smart guy who believes the content, or he's a smart guy with no principles.


  • Options
    #405
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Looks like it is a draft not a final report. The "public comments" - we don't know how public they will be. No peer reviews it seems. It doesn't look like it's getting published in any reputable journal.

    I can't wait, but it's the sketchiness of the whole thing. Again I don't want to speculate too much, but it's hard not to expect just a "tidied" up version of what he's already bought to the table and he'll let the hawks tear it pieces and walk away from the whole thing (knowing it will satisfy the target audience)


  • Options
    #406
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Gage is a grifter.


  • Options
    #407
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,630 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Looks like it is a draft not a final report. The "public comments" - we don't know how public they will be. No peer reviews it seems. It doesn't look like it's getting published in any reputable journal.

    I can't wait, but it's the sketchiness of the whole thing. Again I don't want to speculate too much, but it's hard not to expect just a "tidied" up version of what he's already bought to the table and he'll let the hawks tear it pieces and walk away from the whole thing (knowing it will satisfy the target audience)

    Basically they will be releasing the abstract? Rather than even a draft!
    As for its publication, surely even the most ardent Hulsey supporter would agree that if his work has merit, that it would be submitted to and published by a respected Engineering or Science Journal?
    Rather than a mail-shot?

    This smacks of bait to get the marks to buy into the story and "donate" that little bit more :pac:


  • Options
    #408
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Can someone explain to me why they need $50,000 urgently to "promote" what is supposed to be a scientific study?

    There must be some reason

    Supporter $5/month
    Our Gift to You
    The Commemorative DVD Collection

    Activist $10/month
    Our Gift to You
    ReThink911: A Year of Grassroots Action and Not-So-Guerrilla Advertising (plus the gift above!)

    Advocate $15/month
    Our Gift to You
    Beyond Misinformation Book (plus the gifts above!)

    Patron $25/month
    Our Gift to You
    Our Research DVD Collection (plus the gifts above!)

    Benefactor $50/month
    Our Gift to You
    All the gifts above plus...
    An invitation to our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle, a conference call held once every three months for our dedicated donors to meet with Richard Gage and our senior staff, to share ideas, and to hear what’s going on with the organization. Give $50 or more per month or $1,000 or more annually to be a part of our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle.

    Sponsor $100/month
    Our Gift to You
    All of the gifts above, including the invitation to our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle, plus…
    A twice-a-year personal phone call from AE911Truth Founder and CEO Richard Gage, AIA, to you — because your input can be instrumental in accomplishing our mission. Give $100 or more per month or $2,500 or more annually to receive this biannual call from Richard Gage.

    Torch Bearer $250/month
    Our Gift to You
    All of the gifts above, including the invitation to our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle and the biannual phone call from Richard Gage, plus…
    An invitation to lunch or dinner at the restaurant of your choice whenever a member of AE911Truth's board of directors or senior staff are in your neck of the woods (or let us know if you're in our neck of the woods). Give $250 or more per month or $5,000 or more annually to receive an invitation to lunch or dinner. We can't wait to meet you!


  • Options
    #409
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Stop spreading misinformation DohnJoe!

    It’s $50,000 to urgently promote an abstract :D


  • Options
    #410
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Being part of the collaborators circle and getting a call from Richard Gage are great selling points.


  • Options
    #411
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,639 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    I'm genuinely shocked at how much of a scam this is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,630 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The Nal wrote: »
    I'm genuinely shocked at how much of a scam this is.

    What's even more shocking is how many people get taken in by it and support them!
    Believing that they are somehow battling a conspiracy rather than lining someone else's pockets.


  • Options
    #413
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,654 ✭✭✭storker


    King Mob wrote: »
    So these are the postcards that will cost $50,000.

    UAF-Mailer-float-650-RGB-message.jpg
    I get the feeling that it's going to be $50,000 straight into the bin with the other junkmail.

    ...after which the claim will be something along the lines of "We sent it to x,000 engineers who never replied, so we know they didn't have a problem with it."


  • Options
    #414
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    I see people already getting their knickers in a twist 2 ...weeks before release

    I wish the same attitude was displayed when the NIST draft needed to be rewritten over and over when a physics teacher pointed out the flaws

    That NIST research team must have been the best of the best ...considering the many millions it cost to produce that report :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #415
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    The Nal wrote: »
    I'm genuinely shocked at how much of a scam this is.

    It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory :eek:


  • Options
    #416
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    banie01 wrote: »
    What's even more shocking is how many people get taken in by it and support them!
    Believing that they are somehow battling a conspiracy rather than lining someone else's pockets.

    Not all research can be done at the expanse of the taxpayer .... They all paid for dodgy research ;)


  • Options
    #417
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I see people already getting their knickers in a twist 2 ...weeks before release
    No comment about any of the shady stuff we've pointed out or how the study itself is inherently flawed and unscientific?
    Or just pretending those points don't exist for the purposes of another drive by post?


  • Options
    #418
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Not all research can be done at the expanse of the taxpayer .... They all paid for dodgy research ;)

    It's dodgy research in your opinion. A very fringe extreme opinion.

    The distinction is important.


  • Options
    #419
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    No comment about any of the shady stuff we've pointed out or how the study itself is inherently flawed and unscientific?
    Or just pretending those points don't exist for the purposes of another drive by post?

    People who don't understand or respect objective historical and scientific investigation, aren't going to care about the veracity of a study that supports an irrational view


  • Options
    #420
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    weisses wrote: »
    I see people already getting their knickers in a twist 2 ...weeks before release

    I wish the same attitude was displayed when the NIST draft needed to be rewritten over and over when a physics teacher pointed out the flaws

    That NIST research team must have been the best of the best ...considering the many millions it cost to produce that report :rolleyes:

    22 million wasted. They should refund AE911 truth its money when the Hulsey report out.

    Never forget this is what their analysis showed in August 2018.

    NIST belief
    The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds].... Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time....” 3

    Chandler question
    Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?”

    NIST was claiming in August 2008, none of their measurements and calculations showed freefall.

    By Nov 2008 it was changed and freefall went from an impossibility to now its possible as long it a fire scenario that did it. Ignoring freefall is associated with controlled demolition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,639 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    22 million wasted. They should refund AE911 truth its money when the Hulsey report out.

    What if the Hulsey report is a load of shíte?

    Did you buy your little postcards by the way?


Advertisement