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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST collapse scenario could not have happened.

What happened then?

Anyone in AE911 stepped forward yet to explain or detail it?

I mean their leader has suggested that explosives were planted in the building as it was being built (lol), and they suggested that another building which fell was an inside job (after one month, via PDF file, with no access to the site or physical evidence), but apart from that insanity

weisses wrote: »

That conclusion deserves its own thread

I should clarify. I was being facetious to highlight the silliness of Cheerfuls desperate claims about Dr. Judy Woods qualifications.
He is falsely and without basis and evidence accusing her of being a fake expert.
I provided an equally silly idea.

I do not actually believe that Hulsey is an actor.
I hope that makes it clear.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

WTC7 Blueprints only came out in late 2013.
NIST study completed in 2008- no work since then by them.
ASCE peer review was done before the blueprints came out.
AE911 truth work is entirely based on false conclusions NIST came to.
NIST progressive collapse occurred they claim when fire expanded the girder to the east and slid off its seat. In their local model, girder A2001 was unsupported and was only held together by bolts to the beam one end to the next section. In original construction blueprints, girder A2001 was shear studded to the floor 32 times to stop it from collapsing. It had stiffeners and web plate and bolt connections to secure it to the beam at column 79 and prevent the girder slidding off.
NIST collapse scenario could not have happened.

But again, the NIST report was peer reviewed and used as a source for dozens of other peer reviewed papers.

Are those peer reviews all fraudulent?
If not, why did they not see the problems you do, given your poor grasp of math and physics?
Are all of the experts who conducted those peer reviews and wrote those papers all somehow stupid?

And again, Hulsey's report is not peer reviewed. It isn't going to be peer reviewed.
It dishonestly dodged peer review because it wouldn't pass it. Because it's a joke.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I mean, how do we know that Hulsey's even a real person?
He was probably just a crisis actor hired by AE9/11

That conclusion deserves its own thread

King Mob wrote: »

Because the NIST study was peer reviewed and used as a reference by dozens more peer reviewed papers.
All of which would have pick up on the same problems you harp on about.
But they didn't because the issues you have with the report don't exist.

Meanwhile, Hulsey's study has dishonestly avoided peer review and is not going to be peer reviewed, despite the promises made at the start of the study.

WTC7 Blueprints only came out in late 2013.
NIST study completed in 2008- no work since then by them.
ASCE peer review was done before the blueprints came out.
AE911 truth work is entirely based on false conclusions NIST came to.
NIST progressive collapse occurred they claim when fire expanded the girder to the east and slid off its seat. In their local model, girder A2001 was unsupported and was only held together by bolts to the beam one end to the next section. In original construction blueprints, girder A2001 was shear studded to the floor 32 times to stop it from collapsing. It had stiffeners and web plate and bolt connections to secure it to the beam at column 79 and prevent the girder slidding off.
NIST collapse scenario could not have happened.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Skeptics compiled a side-by-side comparison of the same figures and calculations?. What parts of the study are the figures and calculations similar- you vague in your reply and have not shown me anything. This may not be that big of issue if the figures and calculations are based on already known things discovered. Hulsey may have just arrived at the same figures and calculations as Tony did years ago. I don't find this anyway suspicious till i see something concrete from you guys.

Here's an interesting one for you, if it definitively turns out Tony S and Hulsey have been working together on the study..

Would you mind?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST has not provided data, and yet they don't apply the same level of doubt there.

Because the NIST study was peer reviewed and used as a reference by dozens more peer reviewed papers.
All of which would have pick up on the same problems you harp on about.
But they didn't because the issues you have with the report don't exist.

Meanwhile, Hulsey's study has dishonestly avoided peer review and is not going to be peer reviewed, despite the promises made at the start of the study.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

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

Skeptics compiled a side-by-side comparison of the same figures and calculations?. What parts of the study are the figures and calculations similar- you vague in your reply and have not shown me anything. This may not be that big of issue if the figures and calculations are based on already known things discovered. Hulsey may have just arrived at the same figures and calculations as Tony did years ago. I don't find this anyway suspicious till i see something concrete from you guys.

NIST has not provided data, and yet they don't apply the same level of doubt there. The truthers are called dishonest and cranks when they have backed up their claims by releasing the genuine blueprints for WTC7 online where everyone can see it. Hulsey based his study off the original blueprints of the building. NIST did not. Anyone with a brain knows you have to model the building as it was, not the way you think it should be. In your world Dohnjoe modelling a building with missing structural elements is fine. NIST has never made a statement since 2013 why the blueprints don't match their conclusions in this study. The blueprints prove to me the NIST analysis is deeply flawed.

King Mob wrote: »

I mean, how do we know that Hulsey's even a real person?
He was probably just a crisis actor hired by AE9/11

Or he's one of the few engineers the US government forgot to pay off after 911

The Nal wrote: »

Hulsey is a fraud. Hes not a scientist. Hes a hired gun.

I mean, how do we know that Hulsey's even a real person?
He was probably just a crisis actor hired by AE9/11

Hulsey is a fraud. Hes not a scientist. Hes a hired gun.

I just think it's amazing that a conspiracy theory group paid this guy money to produce a report.. which end up supporting the conspiracy theorists (even right down to their denial techniques, proof of negative, their trademark, rather than a full supported theory). Quite a risk they took there considering all other information, studies and investigations pointed in an entirely different direction, conducted not by one, but by hundreds of experts

Quite a coincidence..

Even more incredible is how the findings matched their (hastily removed) opener for the study in 2015

"Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition controlled more readily replicates the observed destruction."

Almost as if the outcome were predetermined

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

All lies and slander.

But since you've no issue with it...
Hulsey isn't a scientist. He faked his degree and never published anything.

Also again, the hypocrisy and complete lack of self awareness in this post is hilarious.

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?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Evidence please.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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: »

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?

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.

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

lol

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.

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: »

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: »

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.