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?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Explain why i should not reject the NIST study?

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

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

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?

Of course you believe in UFOs

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I can not address posts, i have not seen. I was banned anyway when the study came out. So i have clue where you want me to look in this thread. It end of october now, thats two months ago.

Pathetic excuse making to be honest.
You always tell people to go back and find something you said when you are too lazy to repeat yourself.
I'm just doing the same to you now.
My posts are easy to find. Go back and address them . Stop trying to distract and deflect by rambling about aliens and Mick West.

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?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Of course you believe in UFOs

In time you will too;)

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I reject based on evidence.

Nah, you don't

You have difficulty even understanding what constitutes evidence (or consensus)
You demonstrate in these threads, repeatedly, that you will reject anything which supports the widely established version of events
You'll random accept something written on a conspiracy blog by an unknown guy from the internet. A military jet hitting the Pentagon.
You have no principles, no method, no reasoning, no logical standards when it comes to this subject.
You constantly contradict yourself
You imagine and make up all your rationalisations. No one else in the world has the same theory as you. It's absolutely unique to you.

I could post a dozen psychology articles about 911 conspiracy beliefs here (and have posted them in the past)

By literally engaging with you we are actually further cementing your nonsensical extreme beliefs. You'll never be convinced of course. But it does stand as an example of the ridiculous lengths that 911 conspiracy theorists have to go in order to push their faulty beliefs.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

In time you will too;)

Oh I'd love to, I'm a bit of a space nerd. But I don't mix wishful thinking with logic.

Overheal

OwlsZat wrote: »

Can you please stop posting when you've got nothing to say. Your spam is reducing the quality of the thread.

Don’t backseat mod any questions PM me thank you

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

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?

What does this have to do with the Hulsey study? You keep going waaaaayyyy off subject, it's as if you don't wish to talk about it anymore?

The Nal

Only 50 dollars from the AE911 Truth store!

lol. They really are taking people for a ride.

banie01

The incessant avoidance and topic changing exhibited yet again by CS are a far, far cry from the good faith effort that should be a minimum standard.

The whole look over here schtick is tiresome.
I'd agree with DJ, that these threads really are a fascinating psychological sandbox, on all sides.
But the propensity of one to refute evidence by the debate equivalent of sticking their fingers in their own ears whilst cheerleading and championing unfounded, unsupported nonsense...

Is actually both hilarious, and a little frightening in the insight it provides in to how easily some will adhere to sometimes outlandish notions.
Religious zealotry without the scientific nous to actually deconstruct a thesis.

banie01 wrote: »

The incessant avoidance and topic changing exhibited yet again by CS are a far, far cry from the good faith effort that should be a minimum standard.

The whole look over here schtick is tiresome.
I'd agree with DJ, that these threads really are a fascinating psychological sandbox, on all sides.
But the propensity of one to refute evidence by the debate equivalent of sticking their fingers in their own ears whilst cheerleading and championing unfounded, unsupported nonsense...

Is actually both hilarious, and a little frightening in the insight it provides in to how easily some will adhere to sometimes outlandish notions.
Religious zealotry without the scientific nous to actually deconstruct a thesis.

Lets just force him to stay on topic, if he tries a "Look over there" post just ignore it and ask our questions again, be even better if mods could just delete his off topic posts in this thread?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lets just force him to stay on topic, if he tries a "Look over there" post just ignore it and ask our questions again, be even better if mods could just delete his off topic posts in this thread?

Yeah, I'll take my share of the blame for allowing it to veer off

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah, I'll take my share of the blame for allowing it to veer off

Me too, he does have a way of luring people off topic.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nah, you don't
You have difficulty even understanding what constitutes evidence (or consensus)

You demonstrate in these threads, repeatedly, that you will reject anything which supports the widely established version of events

You'll random accept something written on a conspiracy blog by an unknown guy from the internet. A military jet hitting the Pentagon.

You have no principles, no method, no reasoning, no logical standards when it comes to this subject.

You constantly contradict yourself

You imagine and make up all your rationalisations. No one else in the world has the same theory as you. It's absolutely unique to you.

I could post a dozen psychology articles about 911 conspiracy beliefs here (and have posted them in the past)

By literally engaging with you we are actually further cementing your nonsensical extreme beliefs. You'll never be convinced of course. But it does stand as an example of the ridiculous lengths that 911 conspiracy theorists have to go in order to push their faulty beliefs.

I have provided the evidence and you don't look at it or maybe you don't understand its significance?

Example 1) You have never provided a debunk of the video with NIST Shyam Sunder saying freefall was not possible in fire progressive collapse!
It's a statement he made on video. Plus the global model collapse model NIST released does show structural components underneath still when building seven began to collapse- so even their computer simulation models don't show a freefall scenario taking place inside the building.

Example 2) NIST side view Northside collapse models are also ( deforming and warping building corner walls and the roofline full collapse) A feature unseen on actual videos of the collapse.

Example 3) Do you think its irrelevant NIST removed construction fittings from a girder that NIST claimed thermally expanded and started a global progressive collapse? For most people this is evidence their progressive collapse was impossible. Skeptics have just ignored this as if doesn't change the outcome of their study.
All this constitutes evidence. Three examples and there more. NIST fire collapse scenario is wrong.

When you accept this to be true, then we discuss what the other engineering studies have concluded occurred inside the building. They claim different collapse occurred on floor 9 and 10- which involved a different a collapse scenario.
What you fail to understand here the NIST probable collapse scenario occurred only on floor 12 and 13- they're nowhere else to look for a trigger point. Everything happened on this floor- so we can see what likely happened and did not happen due to fire.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I have provided

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

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I have provided the evidence and you don't look at it or maybe you don't understand its significance?

Example 1) You have never provided a debunk of the video with NIST Shyam Sunder saying freefall was not possible in fire progressive collapse!
It's a statement he made on video. Plus the global model collapse NIST released does show structural components underneath still when building seven began to collapse- so even their computer simulation models don't show a freefall scenario taking place inside the building.

Example 2) NIST side view Northside collapse models are also ( deforming and warping building corner walls and the roofline full collapse) A feature unseen on actual videos of the collapse.

Example 3) Do you think its irrelevant NIST removed construction fittings from a girder that NIST claimed thermally expanded and started a global progressive collapse? For most people this is evidence their progressive collapse was impossible. Skeptics have just ignored this as if doesn't change the outcome of their study.
All this constitutes evidence. Three examples and there more. NIST fire collapse scenario is wrong.

When you accept this to be true, then we discuss what the other engineering studies have concluded occurred inside the building. They claim different collapse occurred on floor 9 and 10- which involved a different a collapse scenario.
What you fail to understand here the NIST probable collapse scenario occurred only on floor 12 and 13- they're nowhere else to look for a trigger point. Everything happened on this floor- so we can see what likely happened and did not happen due to fire.

Let's stick to Hulsey

If you want someone to explain and "prove" an 800 page report to you then I suggest some of the other threads in the main "explain 911 to one person on boards" forum

banie01

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Me too, he does have a way of luring people off topic.

Ditto, I am just as guilty of been drawn off tangent.
The constant screaming to repeat NIST findings whilst CS presents no refutation catches us all on occasion.

The whole point of this thread as starte IIRC was to discuss the Hulsey report.
Let's see how that fares on the rock of scientific and academic review.
Unfortunately as of yet, it has not been submitted for any such review and was published without it.
Directly and with no journal submissions or support that I can find.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Let's stick to Hulsey

If you want someone to explain and "prove" an 800 page report to you then I suggest some of the other threads in the main "explain 911 to one person on boards" forum

You not read the Hulsey report?
Hulsey also investigated the other mainstream enignerring findings.
He had to show why his scenario for collapse was more valid than NIST.
Drawings and FEA models of the actual building are shown in Hulsey report, that disprove the NIST theory.

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.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

He had to show why his scenario for collapse was more valid than NIST.

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.

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

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Actually he did find the reason the building collapsed you find the explanation in the study.

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

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.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

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.

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.

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/

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

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

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.
The article you posted doesn't address my question and doesn't support your position.

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.