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

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 03:10PM

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

The Nal · 24-10-2019 03:17PM

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

24-10-2019 03:21PM

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

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 03:26PM

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-10-2019 03:36PM

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.

24-10-2019 03:47PM

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 · 24-10-2019 03:54PM

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 · 24-10-2019 03:57PM

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.

weisses · 24-10-2019 03:58PM

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

24-10-2019 04:06PM

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.

24-10-2019 04:08PM

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.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 04:11PM

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

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 04:12PM

King Mob wrote: »

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.

It's amazing that you actually had to clarify that.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-10-2019 04:19PM

King Mob wrote: »

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.

NIST study fraudulent.
WTC7 blueprints show structural elements on gider A2001 that NIST said were not there in drawings they had.
Since the blueprints are real, NIST must have lied.
The blueprints were got by freedom of information request in 2013.
The drawings are presented side by side with the NIST modelling in Hulsey study and shear studs, web plate and stiffeners are missing in their 2008 modelling.
Yes NIST fooled everyone. Unfortunately, since AE911 are pushing the controlled demolition theory caused the collapse, its harmed their stance on the issue. Many in the engineering field are afraid to touch this smoking gun the building was taken down by explosives.
You find the construction for the eastside if you type this in Google.
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center

24-10-2019 04:23PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST study fraudulent.

Yes, I know you believe that, but that wasn't the question.

The NIST report was peer reviewed.
Was the peer review process also fraudulent?

The NIST report was used as reference in dozens of studies that were in turn peer reviewed.
Were these dozens of peer reviews also fraudulent?

And again, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that Hulsey's study is avoiding peer review despite promises.
Why are you ignoring that when you rambled on and on about it being peer reviewed previously?

Overheal · 24-10-2019 04:30PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST study fraudulent.
WTC7 blueprints show structural elements on gider A2001 that NIST said were not there in drawings they had.
Since the blueprints are real, NIST must have lied.
The blueprints were got by freedom of information request in 2013.
The drawings are presented side by side with the NIST modelling in Hulsey study and shear studs, web plate and stiffeners are missing in their 2008 modelling.
Yes NIST fooled everyone. Unfortunately, since AE911 are pushing the controlled demolition theory caused the collapse, its harmed their stance on the issue. Many in the engineering field are afraid to touch this smoking gun the building was taken down by explosives.
You find the construction for the eastside if you type this in Google.
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center

Doesn't at all meet the description of a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence for that claim. Now, if you had found an unused supernanothermite bomb strapped to a steel column or something - that would be a 'smoking gun' for the controlled demolition theory.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-10-2019 04:43PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I know you believe that, but that wasn't the question.

The NIST report was peer reviewed.
Was the peer review process also fraudulent?

The NIST report was used as reference in dozens of studies that were in turn peer reviewed.
Were these dozens of peer reviews also fraudulent?

And again, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that Hulsey's study is avoiding peer review despite promises.
Why are you ignoring that when you rambled on and on about it being peer reviewed previously?

ASCE peer reviewed a WTC7 paper belonging to NIST yes.
Did ASCE see the data before publishing this on their library, i have seen no evidence that happened.
So in my opinion NIST work was never truly scientifically scrutinized.
They published the paper on ASCE site in 2012.
The blueprints came out in 2013, so ACSE likely not involved in a cover-up.
They trusted NIST opinions and published their work.
Hulsey Study not avoiding peer review- because the data is freely available to be reviewed by their peers.
ASCE wrote a report about the Hulsey study and they found problems with Hulsey modelling and calculations, is that not a good thing for Skeptics like you? Why are you not Happy about this?
NIST we got nothing but words on paper., no data nothing. Joke since the building collapsed, and there was no reason to keep the work secret.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 04:52PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Many in the engineering field are afraid to touch this smoking gun the building was taken down by explosives.

You a spokesman for the engineering field now?

So after all these investigations determined fire caused the collapse, the entire engineering field in the world is terrified the building came down due to explosives..

Do they go pale when 911 is mentioned?

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-10-2019 04:53PM

Overheal wrote: »

Doesn't at all meet the description of a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence for that claim. Now, if you had found an unused supernanothermite bomb strapped to a steel column or something - that would be a 'smoking gun' for the controlled demolition theory.

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone.

24-10-2019 04:53PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

ASCE peer reviewed a WTC7 paper belonging to NIST yes.

Ok. So that one is a fraud.
Have you contacted ASCE about this?
I though you claimed that the ASCE were on your side perviously?

What about the other papers reference the NIST report. They all passed peer review.
Do you believe that all of those are fraudulent?

Hulsey Study not avoiding peer review- because the data is freely available to be reviewed by their peers.

That is not what peer review is or means cheerful.

Real peer review is a very specific process involving publishing in journals AFTER the paper has been checked over by unbiased experts.

That is what Hulsey is avoiding. That is what he claimed his study would get. He lied. You believed him.
He is an expert. He knows doing that is dishonest and shady. But he's doing it anyway.
So by your logic, he is as much of a fraudulent expert as Dr Judy Wood.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 04:58PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone.

Would you be very surprised if you found that all the steel wasn't shipped away..

Let's say they kept some, in a warehouse, for the purposes of investigation - how would you spin that?

Overheal · 24-10-2019 05:05PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone.

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-10-2019 05:16PM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So that one is a fraud.
Have you contacted ASCE about this?
I though you claimed that the ASCE were on your side perviously?

What about the other papers reference the NIST report. They all passed peer review.
Do you believe that all of those are fraudulent?

That is not what peer review is or means cheerful.

Real peer review is a very specific process involving publishing in journals AFTER the paper has been checked over by unbiased experts.

That is what Hulsey is avoiding. That is what he claimed his study would get. He lied. You believed him.
He is an expert. He knows doing that is dishonest and shady. But he's doing it anyway.
So by your logic, he is as much of a fraudulent expert as Dr Judy Wood.

ASCE management agreed with NIST.
ASCE members are members of the truth movement.
When they get published? And what other papers about?
The progressive collapse scenario that NIST came up with could not have happened, end of story. Even two mainstream engineering studies in court did not side with NIST. There only single agreement is that fire played a role in the collapse.

The AE911 movement believes controlled demolitions explains why the building collapsed. They are backed up by history and fire records. NIST had to invent a new fire collapse theory never seen in history before, and the theory is a joke.
I now the real world as it is, the mainstream engineering groups would never accept and publish this report based on words alone. The Hulsey conclusion, even though he stays away from it, but most people can see it controlled demolition. Now with the data they are have no real excuse not to look at it, but I Am realistic they may just ignore it unfortunately for political reasons, bias or funding reasons.

Hulsey said he wanted his work published in respectable journals for peer review- since the report only in the draft stage and not the final report it not a big issue for me yet AE911 truth silent about what happening. They are taking public comments now and that will be completed in Nov.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 05:19PM

Overheal wrote: »

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

"Show me proof they kept the steel"

"Okay, how do we know that steel is from WTC?"

"If they only checked a few pieces of course they aren't going to find evidence of explosives, they need to check them all!"

See how we all get lured back into the "prove it to me" fallacy, whereby someone (Cheerful) can invent a neverending flow of demands to satisfy something they will never accept

Overheal · 24-10-2019 05:20PM

Well that's why I'm jumping ahead and trying to imagine how many dozens of acres of warehouse you'd need to house all that steel, concrete, human remains, etc. so people could spend the next 50 years cotton swabbing all over it hoping to find evidence of supernanothermite

24-10-2019 05:22PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

ASCE management agreed with NIST.
ASCE members are members of the truth movement.
blah blah waffle.

Cool. So why is the peer review fraudulent then?
Have you not called the ASCE to point out this massive smoking gun?

What about the dozens of other studies. Are they all fraudulent or not? Is the peer review of them fraudulent or not?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey said he wanted his work published in respectable journals for perr review-

I'm sure he does. Or at least he knows that sounds good.
However he's avoided doing that.
He had bypassed peer review because he wouldn't pass it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

since the report only in the draft stage and not the final report it not a big issue for me yet AE911 truth silent about what happening. They are taking public comments now and that will be completed in Nov.

Again, this is not how peer review works. It's avoiding and bypassing peer review.
You have also been claiming that this pretend paper is perfect and 100% before it's even completed its silly pretend version of peer review.

banie01 · 24-10-2019 05:23PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey Study not avoiding peer review- because the data is freely available to be reviewed by their peers.

That's not how peer review works CS.
Its been explained to you multiple times already.
Peer review takes place before publication and is a vitally important part of academic validation.

Self publishing on the back of a cash call for post cards is AE911"s get out of jail free card for the next few weeks.
They will claim they sent thousands of post cards and received no negative response.
They won't have received any response because all they did was spam!

They deliberately avoided peer review and will try and portray that avoidance as it's being "accepted"

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2019 05:29PM

So I was looking around google and by chance found this, from an Irish engineering site

https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/cpd/training/Seminars%20temp/New%20Developments%20and%20Challenges%20in%20Fire%20Safety/Barbara-Lane.pdf

A training seminar on fire damage using 911 as a demonstration

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-10-2019 05:36PM

Overheal wrote: »

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7.
I have seen only one picture of workers in the area and this was just after the building collapsed.
There nothing showing what happened there after the collapse.
We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.
You thinking of twin towers- there plenty of photographs of this clean up on different days.
Demolition experts said you find very little evidence cutting charges were used after the explosion went off- The charge blows up in the explosion. If the building wired, you may find det core pieces- but even in 2001 demolition charges can set off wirelessly. It is not used by commercial demolition crews because it expensive to use. For a military-style operation cost is irrevent if pulling off inside job. They're likely going to be doings things to mask this was demolition job.

24-10-2019 05:39PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7.
I have seen only one picture of workers in the area and this was just after the building collapsed.
There nothing showing what happened there after the collapse.
We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.
You thinking of twin towers- there plenty of photographs of this clean up on different days.
Demolition experts said you find very little evidence cutting charges were used after the explosion went off- The charge blows up in the explosion. If the building wired, you may find det core pieces- but even in 2001 demolition charges can set off wirelessly. It is not used by commercial demolition crews because it expensive to use. For a military-style operation cost is irrevent if pulling off inside job. They're likely going to be doings things to mask this was demolition job.

So why did they hide the steel?
.

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

Comments