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

banie01 wrote: »

Which is particularly relevant when your employer is in a delicate financial position and the satellite campus you ply your trade at is under threat of closure as well as being $100mln in deficit at the Fairbanks campus.

If Truthers spent as much time following the money trail around AE911 and their cohort, they'd have almost as interesting a story to tell as their 9/11 nonsense

Absolutely

There are literally individual doctors and physicians and medical professionals who are anti-vaxxers.

Yet it seems utterly unthinkable to truthers that the truth movement finally found one engineer who would accept several hundred thousand dollars to produce a convoluted study, who's smart enough to know that no one in academia will ever read it, and even if they do, he's got one foot in the grave and doesn't give a toss

banie01 wrote: »

Which is particularly relevant when your employer is in a delicate financial position and the satellite campus you ply your trade at is under threat of closure as well as being $100mln in deficit at the Fairbanks campus.

If Truthers spent as much time following the money trail around AE911 and their cohort, they'd have almost as interesting a story to tell as their 9/11 nonsense

Background
UAF is home to several major research units, including the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station; the Geophysical Institute, which operates the Poker Flat Research Range and several other scientific centers; the Alaska Center for Energy and Power; the International Arctic Research Center; the Institute of Arctic Biology; the Institute of Marine Science; and the Institute of Northern Engineering. Located just 200 miles (320 km) south of the Arctic Circle, the Fairbanks campus' unique location favors Arctic and northern research. UAF's research specialties are renowned worldwide, most notably Arctic biology, Arctic engineering, geophysics, supercomputing and Alaska Native studies. The University of Alaska Museum of the North is also on the Fairbanks campus.

State governor was cutting budgets and think that's the reason they are in trouble there for a while. I believe many of the decisions are now being reviewed to help the university. Is this another conspiracy by Meta bunk the university took money to help them? So they made this decision in 2016 before the problems? From what i know, Hulsey was hired privately to do this, and he received the money. It's another allegation just put out there with no evidence to back it up, be ashamed Skeptics you just smear the university and people working there to make a silly point.

Dr Hulsey teaches young adults structural engineering at this university every day for years. Mick West comes along a computer programmer says Hulsey doesn't know the role or job he does. Mick West believes Hulsey is an imposter. It beyond silliness and laughable how many of you guys believe Mick West..

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Absolutely

There are literally individual doctors and physicians and medical professionals who are anti-vaxxers.

Yet it seems utterly unthinkable to truthers that the truth movement finally found one engineer who would accept several hundred thousand dollars to produce a convoluted study, who's smart enough to know that no one in academia will ever read it, and even if they do, he's got one foot in the grave and doesn't give a toss

That's funny.
Debunking the Hulsey study would be best thing for the engineering community to do right now.
They have put all out there now and their credibility on the line. It's not a fault of Hulsey the engineering community decides to not peer review it.
Why not -If junk then the find flaws and tell us Skeptics will be happy. Why don't Skeptics be proactive about this and contact groups to peer review it?
It still in draft and public comments are coming in. I'm hopeful the engineering community will take look at it.
The reddit engineer moderators said they open a thread to discuss, all hope it not lost. AE911 are often slow to announce things till there ready, i would not be shocked if suddenly announce one day a number engineer groups have contacted them about it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Background

One expert vs hundreds of experts

Yeah I'll go with the one guy, paid by conspiracy theorists, doesn't produce an actual theory, who definitely wasn't doing the study in conjunction with one of the conspiracy theorists, with all the bubble-gum physics and animations, I mean simulations

Half the entire FBI you say? dozens of structural engineers? several hundred experts and investigators? nope I'll go with that one guy, he validates my beliefs therefore he must be correct

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I not seeing the conspiracy here?
Tony is part of AE911 truth.
Plus all I see is a folder named Tony comments on one poster computer. I can make a folder right now and rename it Tony comments
How do we know this Metabunk poster not lying?
He claims to know what it's about, yet can not access the folder to see the folder contents allegedly.
He claims it dated April 2019- so that folder is irrelevent, the study started in 2016.

Lol the rationalisation here is pretty desperate and pathetic.
What was Tony's involment cheerful?
Point to the statements made by hulsey that detail this.
Itherwise you are admiting that the study was not at all open or transparent.

Also could you show the reseatch you did to verify hulsey's qualifications? When did you call his University yo check his wasnt a fraud/pretend scientist like you are falsely accusing Dr Judy Wood?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dr Hulsey teaches young adults structural engineering at this university every day for years. Mick West comes along a computer programmer says Hulsey doesn't know the role or job he does. Mick West believes Hulsey is an imposter. It beyond silliness and laughable how many of you guys believe Mick West..

Lol.
And you are leveling false, slanderous accusations at Dr Judy Wood.
And your qualifications are...?

Mick West at the very least seems to understand basic physics.

OwlsZat

A Geology journal posted a paper showing the presence of thermite in the rubble dust. The debris explodes out the side of the WTTs as they spontaneously collapse. It was 100% a demolition.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

One expert vs hundreds of experts

Yeah I'll go with the one guy, paid by conspiracy theorists, doesn't produce an actual theory, who definitely wasn't doing the study in conjunction with one of the conspiracy theorists, with all the bubble-gum physics and animations, I mean simulations

Half the entire FBI you say? dozens of structural engineers? several hundred experts and investigators? nope I'll go with that one guy, he validates my beliefs therefore he must be correct

There know hundreds of experts agree with NIST- list their names.
There engineering leadership at NIST and ASCE saying fire thermally expanded a girder at column 79.
Three separate mainstream private engineering firms dispute those findings. Two of them claim the collapse started on floor 9 and 10- three floors down from where NIST said the collapse started.
All four studies have never produced data for their claims.
Hulsey is the only study that provided tangible data to be checked and cross-referenced for accuracy.
Why would i not trust the study- with data that everyone online can access and look at it?

The FBI investigators of 9/11 refute the official 9/11 story. Don't use them to back up your claims only Al Qeada did it.

OwlsZat wrote: »

A Geology journal posted a paper showing the presence of termite in the rubble dust. The debris explodes out the side of the WTTs as they spontaneously collapse. It was 100% a demolition.

They slowly ate the building over years and it collapsed, the perfect plan

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There know hundreds of experts agree with NIST- list their names.

Agree with the NIST? there isn't a single recognised engineering organisation in the world that has come out against the NIST, in fact, several of the major US ones implicitly back it

The hilarious part is that the AIA, American Institute of Architects, of which Gage himself is a member have officially distanced themselves from him and his views. Every year he tries to get them to vote on having another investigation and it falls flat. Apparently he's not allowed to use their premises any more for his truther meetings.

I was actually referring to the 200 or so technical experts who worked on the NIST investigation

One expert vs two hundred experts

King Mob wrote: »

Lol the rationalisation here is pretty desperate and pathetic.
What was Tony's involment cheerful?
Point to the statements made by hulsey that detail this.
Itherwise you are admiting that the study was not at all open or transparent.

Also could you show the reseatch you did to verify hulsey's qualifications? When did you call his University yo check his wasnt a fraud/pretend scientist like you are falsely accusing Dr Judy Wood?

You tell me? You guys are making the accusation. I don't know Tony.
You have a debunker on Skeptic site claiming he found a folder named Tony comments and that's it claims he can't access it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You tell me? You guys are making the accusation. I don't know Tony.
You have a debunker on Skeptic site claiming he found a folder named Tony comments and that's it claims he can't access it.

I can't tell you because the study wasn't open or transparent.

When did you call Fairbanks to verify Hulseys qualifications and position?
What did they say?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Agree with the NIST? there isn't a single recognised engineering organisation in the world that has come out against the NIST, in fact, several of the major US ones implicitly back it

The hilarious part is that the AIA, American Institute of Architects, of which Gage himself is a member have officially distanced themselves from him and his views. Every year he tries to get them to vote on having another investigation and it falls flat. Apparently he's not allowed to use their premises any more for his truther meetings.

I was actually referring to the 200 or so technical experts who worked on the NIST investigation

One expert vs two hundred experts

Not true, three separate mainstream engineering studies refuted the NIST findings in court. Even dismissed the girder thermal expansion theory. Their theory is floors collapsed due to fire and rest just buckled afterwards. Two of the studies claim it all happened on Floor 9 and 10. NIST theory for them was complete bull****. Fire is the only thing all these groups accept caused the collapse. Fact they have all different opinions, it's obvious they are clueless to what caused this free-fall collapse to occur and just guessing fire caused it as its simplest explanation for them and does require a lot of thought.

Says who the Skeptic sites. Provide info where Richard Gage was removed from this association for his views? Top management distancing themselves it not strange, since they care more about making money, then they do about 9/11. If the US government told the AIA to distance themselves from Richard Gage. Who will they pick to side with lonely Richard Gage or the US government?

King Mob wrote: »

I can't tell you because the study wasn't open or transparent.

When did you call Fairbanks to verify Hulseys qualifications and position?
What did they say?

I don't need to because i have seen the video of his office at the campus and saw students commenting online they know him. Plus, he has published peer review papers and his listed as a professor on the UAF university website.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't need to because i have seen his office at the campus and sawstudents commenting online they know him. Plus, he has published peer review papers, and his listed as professor on the UAF university website.

All fake. Also when did you go to Alaska to see his office?

You've been show Dr Judy Woods qualifcations.
Withdraw your slanderous accusations.

Also glad to see you now agree that Hulseys study was noy open or transparent.

King Mob wrote: »

Also glad to see you now agree that Hulseys study was noy open or transparent.

Data is here for everyone in the world to download.
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Data is here for everyone in the world to download.
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Cool. What was Tony's involvement then?

Also you seem to have forgotten to withdraw your slander against Dr Judy Wood.
Please withdraw your false accustions.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I watched the Judy Wood video. She not a real scientist. You can tell.

lol

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Data is here for everyone in the world to download.
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

That’s entirely too late. They promised a transparent investigation one where the public would be able to follow them through every stage of their research as it happened. That didn’t happen. From the get go they oversold their own credibility and frankly the “research” itself is weak.

Overheal wrote: »

That’s entirely too late. They promised a transparent investigation one where the public would be able to follow them through every stage of their research as it happened. That didn’t happen. From the get go they oversold their own credibility and frankly the “research” itself is weak.

The UAF study only came out in September. They released the data belonging to the UAF study in October same year.
It not too late only several weeks have gone by.
Ok What exactly have they not done to satisfy you?

They promised they will release the entire work done over the 4 years and they have delivered on this promise. Over 600 gigs worth of work can be downloaded.

Mick West, can send his objections to the AE911 truth site webpage. Will he just complain on his site when he has a place now to contact Ae911truth and provide a credible rebuttal? You can not demand to know everything during this process. It only the draft report and they are consulting now with external engineers the issues they may find with it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You can not demand to know everything during this process.

Why not? They promised that they would provide everything during the process. They didn't.
The also have not provided everything, because for example, you cannot explain Tony's involvement.
They are covering it up.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It only the draft report and they are consulting now with external engineers the issues they may find with it.

Which engineers? Where and when?
In what capacity are they "consulting"?
How are they selecting these engineers to consult and how are they insuring that they are unbiased and that any dissenting opinions against the stated end goal of the study are not being suppressed?

Again, if you can't answer this, why are they withholding this information?

King Mob wrote: »

Why not? They promised that they would provide everything during the process. They didn't.
The also have not provided everything, because for example, you cannot explain Tony's involvement.
They are covering it up.

Which engineers? Where and when?
In what capacity are they "consulting"?
How are they selecting these engineers to consult and how are they insuring that they are unbiased and that any dissenting opinions against the stated end goal of the study are not being suppressed?

Again, if you can't answer this, why are they withholding this information?

Wrong, they provided the full data 600 gigs.
A debunker on a site claims he found a folder named Tony comments.
I can right now make a folder and name it tony comments and pretend i found in the study.
Cover up? Explain your conspiracy?
You guys think they're something odd about AE911 truth contacting Hulsey?
It is open for public comment; they have a link where you can send objections to them.
How they bias when an engineering firm can come out right now and debunk the UAF study as they full access to the data. Nothing was held back. They have no control over what other mainstream engineering groups can say now, the data out for everyone to access.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Wrong, they provided the full data 600 gigs.
A debunker on a site claims he found a folder named Tony comments.
I can right now make a folder and name it tony comments and pretend i found in the study.
Cover up? Explain your conspiracy?

Claim: Tony S was involved with Hulsey in producing the study. Which is why there's a folder called "Tony's comments" in one of the screenshots, which is why figures/calculations Tony S has expressed before have appeared in Hulsey's study, there is suspicion among people who have followed Tony's (garbage) writings over the years that he ghost wrote this stuff

Was he 100% definitely involved? maybe, maybe not. I see nothing definitive yet.

Considering all the wishy-washy stuff you post here Cheerful it's bizarre how you suddenly have "standards" when it comes to certain information, but not other information. Skeptic on, skeptic off.

You guys think they're something odd about AE911 truth contacting Hulsey?

Yes, any involvement should be disclosed. It would be a breach and a direct conflict of interest

To you these people may be like deities, but to the rest of us they are cranks milking this conspiracy stuff for all it's worth. I would love nothing more than a proper engineering group to peer review this report.. but since that is unlikely, all we can do is have patience while a handful of people, out of their own time, take a look

Doesn't matter if there are a thousand glaring faults to it, the people it's aimed at will treat it like a sacred scroll of truth regardless, and the rest of the world will ignore it

And Hulsey has a nice little fund for himself. Some people see the bigger picture in all this - and as a paranoid person yourself, I'm surprised you don't see it, or perhaps you don't want to

The Nal wrote: »

lol

Have you watched it??
She is totally unprepared to explain her theory in scientific way that makes sense. She would not even answer basic questions about her ideas. She is not a scientist I bet money on right now.

The Nal

Does Hulsey mention Larry Silverstein instructing "them" to "pull" the building down?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

She is not a scientist I bet money on right now.

lol.

I've no idea who she is and don't particularly care but shes clearly qualified.

Did she fake her qualifications then?

How do you feel about banging on about Hulsey for so long and the study being a complete flop? Even among the conspiracy community.

Its a load of crap.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

She is not a scientist I bet money on right now.

Can I take you up on that bet?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34585364_Determination_of_thermal_strains_in_the_neighborhood_of_a_bimaterial_interface

You can call the department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute to confirm

Just because someone passed a bunch of complex exams specialising in specific subjects doesn't mean that aren't a moron in another sense. A friend of mine has a PhD and they believe in ghosts (and astrology)

This is why this thing called "consensus" is important. An expert confirming with another expert, confirming with another expert, and so on. It would be too much of a coincidence if they all happened to be the exact same type of nut (like Dr Judy Wood)

You'll notice all her mental material is just produced by her.

The Nal wrote: »

lol.

Did she fake her qualifications then?

I would not be surprised if she never attended the universities. She has no work published outside 9/11. If she got degrees, the methodology and concepts she know right away and she would have a better grasp of her work. She like someone on YouTube discussing the subject for the first time. A real scientist was questioning her and he knew she was full of **** by the answers she gave. The questions are basic explain how all the dustification
works and she could not do it.

Not true. The Conspiracy world happy with the report.
Hulsey credientals are real, has dozens of peer reviewed published papers and is a teacher of structural engineering at a real university in Alaska, it considered one of best universties in the country for scentific research. You formed an opinion it's a flop based on Mick West opinion. Who is Mick West? A debunker who lies about the study and makes videos that are absolutely false. If I was Hulsey I sue him for lying about the study.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I would not be surprised if she never attended the universities.

Evidence please.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Wrong, they provided the full data 600 gigs.
A debunker on a site claims he found a folder named Tony comments.
I can right now make a folder and name it tony comments and pretend i found in the study.
Cover up? Explain your conspiracy?

Ok. Prove that Tony didn't make any comments.
Should be easy to do.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You guys think they're something odd about AE911 truth contacting Hulsey?
It is open for public comment; they have a link where you can send objections to them.

Yes.
In real scientific studies, the sponsor of the study seeing and giving notes on the study in progress is very shady.
That happening in secret and then being covered up is extra shady.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How they bias when an engineering firm can come out right now and debunk the UAF study as they full access to the data. Nothing was held back. They have no control over what other mainstream engineering groups can say now, the data out for everyone to access.

You tell me. Answer the questions please.

Which engineers? Where and when?
In what capacity are they "consulting"?
How are they selecting these engineers to consult and how are they insuring that they are unbiased and that any dissenting opinions against the stated end goal of the study are not being suppressed?

Again, if you can't answer this, why are they withholding this information?