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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a type of thinking. A method. If you can't find your keys in the morning, you don't blindly assume someone stole them, you apply basic skepticism. You use it everyday. Like science. Science is a method.

People just have this fantastic ability to "turn it off" when they believe in something faith or belief based (e.g. religion). They abandon normal rational methods of logic, etc and instead use their non-reasoning side.

Mick West claiming the UFO videos belonging to the Navy are showing birds and planes. He disagreeing with the US navy there are unknown craft. What make Mick opinion more valid- what is his skepticvism given priority over what other says the eyewitnesses, the documentation- the videos that show unknown flying objects? 

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You reject everything that threatens your personal belief that some event was an inside job

You have so far rejected every investigation and study so far put forward. You reject or attack every expert or body of experts that supports it. You reject all consensus on the issue. You reject or attack almost every explanation if it doesn't point to an inside job.

You literally rejected the weight of consensus of thousands of world historians and experts on the Holocaust because of some playschool level pseudo-history and scattered thoughts you have on the issue

You are either trolling everyone here heavily or you have an extraordinary blind spot to all this

I reject based on evidence. 
Everything does point to an inside job. 
I never believe the official narrative, 19 hijackers acted alone with no help.
That narrative silly and fact you believe it says something about you.
You dismiss everything I have shown and posted about what likely happened. 
For a guy who said he marched against the Iraq war, you seem to think it's impossible that same people would have lied about 9/11. You do remember it was lie after lie they told to get that Iraq war started. 
What make you think they were honest about 9/11?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nothing to do with this thread, what's your take on the Hulsey report?

Study- excellent work.
Data- I have not got the space on my computer to download it. I hoping people start releasing stuff soon. Mick posted a few models on his site and obviously Hulsey did lot of work modelling the building correctly.

Model found in the data.


Another one that actually shows collisions and deformations on top of the roofline. The Penthouse collapsing inside the building.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He hasn't provided a theory for collapse. His report centers around proving a negative, which makes it a difficult report to deal with. I've never seen anything like that before, ever.

Actually he did find the reason the building collapsed you find the explanation in the study. 
He ran multiple simulations and there likely in the data somewhere to be found. Mick only posted two times since the data came out. He hasn't debunked yet the data provided. He has not posted since Thursday. He provided two models he found.

Most of Mick debunk work was prior to the data coming out. I'm sure he searching for some flaw to write about

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Oh, and what was the reason WTC 7 collapsed according to Hulsey?

It a 130 page Study you have to read to understand it all.
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

On page 106. He ran this simulation and the building reacted identical to the collapse on 9/11.

A brief explantation on page 106 what he did next. This what happened according to Hulsey.

King Mob wrote: »

But those models weren't the ones included in the report he published to be submitted to their pretend version of peer review...

So obviously they can't be correct.

Read it learn.
https://www.labfolder.com/blog/importance-of-replicable-data/

King Mob wrote: »

But again, these models weren't the ones used in the report. These were rejected from the report submitted.
Why would they do this?
Why would they use inferior models in their report if they had a better one available?

I get the feeling this is a question you are going to bend over backwards to avoid answering or acknowledging.

Since we know NIST never released the important data they failed all this. Peer review requires others to replicate your findings. Hulsey study is useless without providing the work he did.

Why is the ability to repeat experiments important?
1. Reliability

Replication lets you see patterns and trends in your results. This is affirmative for your work, making it stronger and better able to support your claims. This helps maintain integrity of data. On the other hand, repeating experiments allows you to identify mistakes, flukes, and falsifications. Mistakes may have been the misreading of a result or incorrectly entering data. These are sometimes inevitable as we are only human. However, replication can identify falsifications which can carry serious implications in the future.

2. Peer review

If someone is to thoroughly peer review your work, then they would carry out the experiments again themselves.. If someone were wanting to replicate an experiment,the first scientist should do everything possible to allow replicability.

3. Publications

If your work is to be published, it is crucial for there to be a section on the methods of your work. Hence this should be replicable in order to enable others to repeat your methodology. Also, if your methods are reliable, the results are more likely to be reliable. Furthermore, it will indicate whether your data was collected in a generally accepted way, which others are able to repeat.

4. Variable checking

Being able to replicate experiments and the resulting data allows you to check the extraneous variables. These are variables that you are not actually testing, but that may be influencing your results. Through replication, you can see how and if any extraneous variables have affected your experiment and if they need to be made note of. Through replication, you are more likely to be able to identify the undesirable variables and then decrease or control their influence where possible.

5. Avoid retractions

Replicating data yourself, as well as others doing it, is advisable before you publish the work, if that is your intention. This is because if the data has been replicated and confirmed before publication, it is again more likely to have integrity. In turn, the chance of your paper being retracted decreases. Making it easier for others to replicate data then makes it easier for them to support your data and claims, so it is definitely in your interest to make data replicable.