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

Cheerful Spring · 22-04-2019 12:15pm

The Nal wrote: »

Hes using conspiracy theory sites as a base for his presentation.

Hes a fraud who has produced nothing out for gullible sheeps money. He appears to be good at it.

Only person claiming this nonsense is one poster on Metabunk. I even looked at his evidence and its weak.

The words and paragraphs on the conspiracy sites he linked to don't match the info on Hulsey Slides.

You find background details about the building on the conspiracy site and Hulsey slide, but that not the same as coping and pasting work from another website. Details about the building came be found on Wikipedia and non conspiracy sites. Just another example of rubbish posting on Metabunk.

Dohnjoe · 22-04-2019 12:18pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You posted info belonging to Metabunk and you felt they were right.

They claimed NIST had proposed several connection failures and they also claimed Column 79 failure was not where NIST said the collapse started in their gobal collapse models.

The bolded part is not correct. The claims in the Metabunk post is that according to the NIST col 79 was the probable inititiation, but not the definitive

The details of that are actually brought up in the one page thread on the matter I linked

You have to provide evidence and the thread where this is discussed on their website, i asked for it and you still have not provided.

No I don't have to provide. The point is discussed, and if you want further details on how they came to these conclusions you'll need to read the thread Nal linked

Again, why are you not addressing any of the other highlighted issues with Hulsey's report?

Cheerful Spring · 22-04-2019 12:30pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The bolded part is not correct. The claims in the Metabunk post is that according to the NIST col 79 was the probable inititiation, but not the definitive

The details of that are actually brought up in the one page thread on the matter I linked

No I don't have to provide. The point is discussed, and if you want further details on how they came to these conclusions you'll need to read the thread Nal linked

Again, why are you not addressing any of the other highlighted issues with Hulsey's report?

This is not true Dohnjoe.

I post this again. They are not my words they belong to NIST.

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

If NIST thought it was not the definitive one, they would not have said- column 79 was where the collapse of building seven started.

If Metabunk is claiming column 79 is not the where the collapse started they need to be specfic and discuss where else they believe it begun. What floor what connection the column?

I asked you for the thread where they discuss this alternative initiation event.

Dohnjoe · 22-04-2019 12:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is not true Dohnjoe.

I post this again. They are not my words they belong to NIST.

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

Yup, it was under "probable initiation event".

You are just copy-pasting one argument from the thread which are addressed in the thread

e.g.

"What you quote is just NIST's description of the "probable initiation event". NIST identifies several failed connections from the ANSYS simulation, and these were the ones used for the global collapse LS_DYNA simulation."

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

Why are you not addressing any of the other points they raised?

Cheerful Spring · 22-04-2019 1:42pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, it was under "probable initiation event".

You are just copy-pasting one argument from the thread which are addressed in the thread

e.g.

"What you quote is just NIST's description of the "probable initiation event". NIST identifies several failed connections from the ANSYS simulation, and these were the ones used for the global collapse LS_DYNA simulation."

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

Why are you not addressing any of the other points they raised?

NIST said column 79 was the initiation event, it started there and only explanation given by NIST that caused the collapse of building seven.

If several other failures happened before this and column 79 was not the initation event then in my opinion NIST would have mentioned it.

Metabunk is deliberately trying to discredit Hulsey study either that or they don't understand the study they are supporting.

Failures that occur next after the failure of column 79 are weaknesses in the connections and elements resulting from initiation event a trigger. They are irrelevent discussion points by Metabunk and they don't get that.

They are also misrepresenting Hulsey research in this thread. Hulsey was specific- NIST did not model the local area failures around column 79 correctly. They left off and did not model the connection failures with shear studs, the web plate, and stiffners and fasteners attached. Connection failures at other columns on other floors throughout the buiiding were modelled by NIST. Why does this matter to Metabunk? Are these connection failures a cause or an after event?

They also mispresenting the displacement errors by NIST. NIST orginally claimed the seat was 5.5 inches it was 6 inches, it was the truthers again who highlighted this and NIST changed their study again. Skeptics don't understand a girder can only move slighly a few inches with the concrete flooring and steel beams in the way stopping movement.

Overheal · 22-04-2019 1:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to provide evidence and the thread where this is discussed on their website, i asked for it and you still have not provided.

You're really tempting fate if you want to start trying to enforce a standard of evidence on others that you don't apply to yourself.

Do not mention Column 79 again. This is a thread about Hulsey's MIA report.

Overheal · 22-04-2019 2:30pm

Cheerful Spring is on a 3-day timeout.

The Nal · 26-04-2019 9:55am

How is this fraud still receiving funding? How many years does it take to produce a report paid for by conspiracy theorists?

Dohnjoe · 26-04-2019 10:01am

The Nal wrote: »

How is this fraud still receiving funding? How many years does it take to produce a report paid for by conspiracy theorists?

If someone paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct a bizarre study you knew you could fake or spin out for years with no real damage to your credibility, would you take it? would certainly tempt some experts

Hulsey is pushing 80 years old, he'll probably pop his clogs before anything is produced, perhaps that's what he's counting on, it's not like anyone apart from a tiny cliche is waiting for this obscure report

The Nal · 26-04-2019 1:59pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If someone paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct a bizarre study you knew you could fake or spin out for years with no real damage to your credibility, would you take it? would certainly tempt some experts

Hulsey is pushing 80 years old, he'll probably pop his clogs before anything is produced, perhaps that's what he's counting on, it's not like anyone apart from a tiny cliche is waiting for this obscure report

Can't blame him I suppose. Ride that gravy train!

banie01 · 27-04-2019 3:59pm

The Nal wrote: »

How is this fraud still receiving funding? How many years does it take to produce a report paid for by conspiracy theorists?

As I said very early on in this thread....

banie01 wrote: »

I don't find it odd really.
I am by nature a cynical bollox though.

My thinking on it currently runs like this.
Set up a new study, promising to debunk NIST and expose the real reason for the collapse of WTC7.
Become lauded and funded by the truther brigade as their scientific Messiah!
The rock of truth that will shatter the "conspirators" lies.

Carry out said study in the hope of proving the negative that has already been claimed.
3 yrs of research are starting to show that NIST are in the main correct....

Postpone publication and peer review...
Blame a funding crunch, ask for more donations and continue to study the problem...
Rinse and repeat above as needed.

Delay publishing until overtaken by death to avoid needing to defend oneself against either academia or the truthers depending upon actual report conclusion.

King Mob · 23-05-2019 4:53am

So it's been a week since this important presentation.
I assume that the conspiracy has been cracked and then American government is collapsing as we speak?

banie01 · 28-05-2019 10:37am

King Mob wrote: »

So it's been a week since this important presentation.
I assume that the conspiracy has been cracked and then American government is collapsing as we speak?

He presented?
I'm shocked at the resounding silence

mikekerry · 28-05-2019 10:52am

any link to it?

Dohnjoe · 13-07-2019 9:37pm

Decided to check in on this, delayed again: this time until Sept 2019. No status reports, no transparency.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

The man is in his late seventies, looks like he's just done AE911 for his portion of $300,000

Cheerful Spring2 · 18-07-2019 3:15pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Decided to check in on this, delayed again: this time until Sept 2019. No status reports, no transparency.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

The man is in his late seventies, looks like he's just done AE911 for his portion of $300,000

Delayed is a strong word. It was scheduled for release in Summer 2019, no date was given.

Dohnjoe · 18-07-2019 5:06pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Delayed is a strong word. It was scheduled for release in Summer 2019, no date was given.

Didn't you claim it was definitely coming out earlier this year? I'm sure you wrote that

It was supposed to be finished in 2017, then it was due 2018, now we are over halfway through 2019. Delayed is an understatement.
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/385-news-media-events-wtc-7-final-report-due-in-august

Cheerful Spring2 · 18-07-2019 5:17pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Didn't you claim it was definitely coming out earlier this year? I'm sure you wrote that

It was supposed to be finished in 2017, then it was due 2018, now we are over halfway through 2019. Delayed is an understatement.
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/385-news-media-events-wtc-7-final-report-due-in-august

I said it was scheduled to come out in Summer 2019. It was finished in March i heard, but no release till Summer was latest i heard.

I thought he record the talk he gave at the ASCE in May, but that never happened unfortunately.

Dohnjoe · 18-07-2019 7:36pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I said it was scheduled to come out in Summer 2019. It was finished in March i heard, but no release till Summer was latest i heard.

Yeah, you wrote back in March that it was completed. That it was going to be released in a matter of weeks for peer review.

So were you mistaken or were you misled?

Cheerful Spring2 · 19-07-2019 2:32pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah, you wrote back in March that it was completed. That it was going to be released in a matter of weeks for peer review.

So were you mistaken or were you misled?

When i left last time i said i heard it was coming out in the Summer time. I heard no date.

Yes, i heard the report was completed in March. If it not out this year criticise away.

I said they want the study to be peer-reviewed and i have no updates on their progress with this endevour.

The Nal · 19-07-2019 4:10pm

This fraud will continue to milk it for as long as people are willing to pay him to do so.

Dohnjoe · 03-08-2019 2:00pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When i left last time i said i heard it was coming out in the Summer time. I heard no date.

You said it was complete in February this year

Dr Hulsey is a professor at Fairbank University in Alaska. He has just completed a three-year study

and that it would be released in a matter of weeks

Dr Hulsey study cost the truthers 300,000 dollars and is due to be released in a couple of weeks

911, Hulsey's study - why do you feel so emotionally attached to these arbitrary events that you feel the need to distort info and be dishonest

Cheerful Spring2 · 03-08-2019 3:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You said it was complete in February this year

and that it would be released in a matter of weeks

911, Hulsey's study - why do you feel so emotionally attached to these arbitrary events that you feel the need to distort info and be dishonest

I heard it might be out at the end of 2018 after Hulsey did an interview with Free Fall radio. Then i heard news it was completed in March and might be hearing some news in a few weeks. I heard then the report underwent an editorial process to catch mistakes and errors. Dr Hulsey had a car accident in April and he had to recover from this and there was a delay. Then i heard the report will be released in the summer time.

Now Richard Gage has confirmed the report will be released Sep 11th 2019. We now have real specific date. The report was completed in March, but was not yet ready to be released.

King Mob · 03-08-2019 3:20pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I heard it might be out at the end of 2018 after Hulsey did an interview with Free Fall radio. Then i heard news it was completed in March and might be hearing some news in a few weeks. I heard then the report underwent an editorial process to catch mistakes and errors. Dr Hulsey had a car accident in April and he had to recover from this and there was a delay. Then i heard the report will be released in the summer time.

Now Richard Gage has confirmed the report will be released Sep 11th 2019. We now have real specific date. The report was completed in March, but was not yet ready to be released.

And if it isn't released then?

You've already been wrong about this. No reason to believe you will be right this time.
Come September you will be desperately coming up with excuses and saying that it will be "Soon".

Cheerful Spring2 · 03-08-2019 3:26pm

When its released on Sep 11th as its first time i got a specfic date, the Skeptics will move past that to the next thing. Some of the Skeptics claim Hulsey will never release a report, we see in 5 weeks how accurate this estimate was.

King Mob · 03-08-2019 4:02pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When its released on Sep 11th as its first time i got a specfic date, the Skeptics will move past that to the next thing. Some of the Skeptics claim Hulsey will never release a report, we see in 5 weeks how accurate this estimate was.

Ok, but what happens if he doesn't supply it?
Will you continue to support him and his organisation?

Dohnjoe · 03-08-2019 5:40pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When its released on Sep 11th as its first time i got a specfic date, the Skeptics will move past that to the next thing. Some of the Skeptics claim Hulsey will never release a report, we see in 5 weeks how accurate this estimate was.

Constantly fed misinformation. No transparency whatsoever.

If it's not out in Sept 11 this year you'll still make more excuses for it, just like you did when it didn't come out in the first half of this year, and again when it didn't come out at the end of the last year (and it's been due for much longer than that)

If it's actually released but skeptics immediately find glaring issues with it, I guarantee you'll treat it like gospel

It's a fairly obscure report by a 78 year old man in Alaska, it's quite possible that no one will peer review and that potentially few scientific or engineering organisations will even look at it. But even if they do, and they produce anything that criticises the report, it will be rejected by the truther community (and by yourself obviously)

If Hulsey dies in the interim, it will be treated as a conspiracy

There's some real predictions

King Mob · 03-08-2019 5:51pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Constantly fed misinformation. No transparency whatsoever.

I remember this being billed as "totally transparent and open".
Yet, there doesn't seem to be any information about why these delays are happening.
Or about this "editorial process to catch mistakes and error".

Weird...

Dohnjoe · 03-08-2019 5:58pm

King Mob wrote: »

I remember this being billed as "totally transparent and open".
Yet, there doesn't seem to be any information about why these delays are happening.
Or about this "editorial process to catch mistakes and error".

Weird...

And it's paid for by a conspiracy group, huge conflict of interest right there

It's attempting to prove a negative (makes zero sense)

It's the equivalent of Alex Jones finding one willing private investigator in the US who claims he/she will prove that A Lanza didn't do it (not who did it, who didn't do it, bizarre) and is funded by Jones, and doesn't produce the report for years

King Mob · 03-08-2019 6:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And it's paid for by a conspiracy group, huge conflict of interest right there

Well I assume that since it's open and completely transparent, it had a good break down of where that money came from and where all of it went and why.
Right...?

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 1:08am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Constantly fed misinformation. No transparency whatsoever.

If it's not out in Sept 11 this year you'll still make more excuses for it, just like you did when it didn't come out in the first half of this year, and again when it didn't come out at the end of the last year (and it's been due for much longer than that)

If it's actually released but skeptics immediately find glaring issues with it, I guarantee you'll treat it like gospel

It's a fairly obscure report by a 78 year old man in Alaska, it's quite possible that no one will peer review and that potentially few scientific or engineering organisations will even look at it. But even if they do, and they produce anything that criticises the report, it will be rejected by the truther community (and by yourself obviously)

If Hulsey dies in the interim, it will be treated as a conspiracy

There's some real predictions

I only report about what i hear and can't do more to satisfy you debunkers.

The report will be received welcomely by mainstream engineering groups or it won't. I know one thing the report can be peer reviewed by professionals unlike the NIST study. They refused to release their computing modelling data and most of the engineering groups have taken it upon themselves, accepted it based only on credentials and their reputation previous. This was a sad day when engineering groups solely accepted a report based on nothing but who wrote it. NIST was never held to account for their lies and omissions, and outright fabrications in this report.

Doesn't matter, this was a study paid for by the truthers, what does matter is- will it be shown the engineering work credible and can the work be replicated by others outside the truther online groups? Mainstream engineering groups like ASCE can run trial and error programs themselves when they are provided with the finite modelling imput computing data for world trade centre seven.

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 1:40am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And it's paid for by a conspiracy group, huge conflict of interest right there

It's attempting to prove a negative (makes zero sense)

It's the equivalent of Alex Jones finding one willing private investigator in the US who claims he/she will prove that A Lanza didn't do it (not who did it, who didn't do it, bizarre) and is funded by Jones, and doesn't produce the report for years

Like i said nobody else was going to spend almost a third of million dollars on new study. Truthers stepped up and provided their own cash for a new study and I can see already this study way more honest and transparent. Hulsey said all his work will be released fully, know excuses and kept back data.

His attempting to show you what actually happened and what made more sense. He will have to prove the sequences of failures in concise and clear way and most important replicate these failures using a computer generated graphical program simulation. There lot more to a study then you think, you can't just release one or two pages of information or 10 and expect to be taken seriously.

King Mob · 04-08-2019 1:47am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I only report about what i hear and can't do more to satisfy you debunkers.

Well you could explain why the delays happened and where the money came from and went.
It is totally open and transparent after all... right?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I know one thing the report can be peer reviewed by professionals unlike the NIST study.

For real studies, peer review is done before publication.
Just releasing a paper and saying "you can look it over if you want" is not peer review.
This study is not going to be peer reviewed despite initial claims.

Dohnjoe · 04-08-2019 11:58am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I only report about what i hear and can't do more to satisfy you debunkers.

You clearly have no logical filter and regularly demonstrate you will swallow anything from conspiracy sites, which is why we get everything from military jets flying into the Pentagon and Joe Biden being involved in 911

A neverending stream of falsehoods and personal creations

I know one thing the report can be peer reviewed by professionals unlike the NIST study.

It was peer reviewed. And it was conducted by dozens of experts, multiple structural engineers from the ACSE, who had full access to all the evidence and information.

In complete contrast Hulsey is one expert, paid by a conspiracy group, and not to determine the cause but to prove a negative (which is a bizarre study in itself)

There's no comparison between the two reports at all

They refused to release their computing modelling data

a) they didn't have to
b) it was for reference
c) they knew that internet loons would use the software to produce whatever result they wanted

This was a sad day when engineering groups solely accepted a report based on nothing but who wrote it. NIST was never held to account for their lies and omissions, and outright fabrications in this report.

Another casual lie

It's a report that has been accepted by the world's engineering community, no recognised group has found significant fault with it. Structural engineers who did a follow up review of it won an engineering prize. Most of it's findings have been incorporated into building codes and regulations. Anyone can go to r/askengineers or go to structural engineering forums and receive this info

This has all been mentioned before, but every time you post your falsehoods and disinfo, we'll just post the facts

Doesn't matter, this was a study paid for by the truthers,

Exactly, conspiracy types and scammers making money off them finally found one expert in the world who would actually conduct a study, not only that but they were hailing it as a success from the moment it started, despite not knowing the result, nor the result 4 years later.

Like I said, it's identical to Alex Jones finding a private investigator who claims that his study will show that Sandy Hook was not carried out by Adam Lanza

It's that level of nonsense we are dealing with here

The Nal · 04-08-2019 12:03pm

Releasing it on 9/11, how pathetically cynical. Surely if its honest and transparent work it should be released as soon as its ready? We're talking about 3000 peoples lives here. But oh no, hold off on it to maximise publicity and earn more money.

Fraud.

weisses · 04-08-2019 12:05pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Decided to check in on this, delayed again: this time until Sept 2019. No status reports, no transparency.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

The man is in his late seventies, looks like he's just done AE911 for his portion of $300,000

Can you not just wait for the outcome and base a valid opinion then ??

You seem to be very agenda driven ... Going after the guy on the internet who got it wrong in regards to a release date .... Nice point scoring exercise though

weisses · 04-08-2019 12:05pm

The Nal wrote: »

Releasing it on 9/11, how pathetically cynical. Surely if its honest and transparent work it should be released as soon as its ready? We're talking about 3000 peoples lives here. But oh no, hold off on it to maximise publicity and earn more money.

Fraud.

Chuckles .... fraud because its released on the wrong date :rolleyes:

King Mob · 04-08-2019 12:07pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

not only that but they were hailing it as a success from the moment it started, despite not knowing the result, nor the result 4 years later.

They knew the result from the beginning cause that result was the stated goal from the start.
A studied that predetermines it's outcome beforehand is not scientific.
But watch how Cheerful claims it's a special better type of scientific.

King Mob · 04-08-2019 12:09pm

weisses wrote: »

Chuckles .... fraud because its released on the wrong date :rolleyes:

Why not release it now?
What benefit does releasing it on an anniversary have if not to produce more press?

weisses · 04-08-2019 12:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Why not release it now?
What benefit does releasing it on an anniversary have if not to produce more press?

I dont give two ****s when it is released ....

Claiming its fraud because of a release date is laughable ...

King Mob · 04-08-2019 12:12pm

weisses wrote: »

I dont give two ****s when it is released ....

Claiming its fraud because of a release date is laughable ...

But that's not the reason he gave though.
It's not the reason we are pointing to.

You also avoided my question. Can you not answer it?

Dohnjoe · 04-08-2019 12:19pm

weisses wrote: »

You seem to be very agenda driven

Yeah, by the truth and objective method

As a study, Hulsey's is flawed from the outset

It's trying to prove a negative (which is unscientific, and quite possibly a first for this type of study)
It opened with it's author claiming that it would reach a specific result (which they quickly deleted)
It's sponsored by a group which has a clear agenda (conflict of interest)
This group directly makes money by keeping the conspiracy alive (another conflict of interest)
It stated it would be transparent (that hasn't been the case)
Preliminary releases have contained errors, some significant
It's one expert, not a wide body of related experts

Am I waiting the result? absolutely

But in science and academia studies can range from low quality to high quality. From all the info we have so far, this is low quality from the get-go

weisses · 04-08-2019 12:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not the reason he gave though.
It's not the reason we are pointing to.

You also avoided my question. Can you not answer it?

About the press ?

The more press the better .... It creates more attention and enhances the chances of someone pointing out the flaws in the study. (you guys should be happy)

If I were a fraud I would have picked a date for release that attracts less attention.

weisses · 04-08-2019 12:23pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah, by the truth and objective method

As a study, Hulsey's is flawed from the outset
It's trying to prove a negative (which is unscientific, and quite possibly a first for this type of study)

It opened with it's author claiming that it would reach a specific result (which they quickly deleted)

It's sponsored by a group which has a clear agenda (conflict of interest)

This group directly makes money by keeping the conspiracy alive (another conflict of interest)

It stated it would be transparent (that hasn't been the case)

Preliminary releases have contained errors, some significant

It's one expert, not a wide body of related experts

Am I waiting the result? absolutely

But in science and academia studies can range from low quality to high quality. From all the info we have so far, this is low quality from the get-go

All this can be addressed when the study is released, I will be reserving comments for then... and believe it or not review it critically.

King Mob · 04-08-2019 12:24pm

weisses wrote: »

About the press ?

The more press the better .... It creates more attention and enhances the chances of someone pointing out the flaws in the study. (you guys should be happy)

But why would they need to do that?
They are proving 9/11 was a hoax. That would grab headlines any time.

You agree that the release date is publicity motivated.

weisses wrote: »

If I were a fraud I would have picked a date for release that attracts less attention.

But the point of the fraud is to generate attention and income from a select group who promote the conspiracy.
Attention is the point of the fraud...

You again avoided my other point.
Could you address my whole post please, not just part of it.

weisses · 04-08-2019 12:31pm

King Mob wrote: »

You agree that the release date is publicity motivated.

Yes ... again I see nothing wrong with it ... Claiming its fraud because of that date is wrong though ... something you seem to have no issue with

King Mob wrote: »

But the point of the fraud is to generate attention and income from a select group who promote the conspiracy.
Attention is the point of the fraud..

I think that is a conspiracy developed in your own mind

King Mob wrote: »

You again avoided my other point.
Could you address my whole post please, not just part of it.

As to why they are not releasing it now ?

I dunno .. probably they think September 11 is the better date for it

Like I said I don't care when they release it

King Mob · 04-08-2019 12:45pm

weisses wrote: »

Yes ... again I see nothing wrong with it ... Claiming its fraud because of that date is wrong though ... something you seem to have no issue with

But again, that's a dishonest misrepresentation on your part for a point you cannot address properly or honestly. As per usual.
That's not the reason we are declaring it a fraud. It was for all the reasons dohnjoe listed and you dismissed without a moments thought because as per usual, you can't address them.

weisses wrote: »

I think that is a conspiracy developed in your own mind

Which part do you disagree with?
That there are people who profit from perpetuating the conspiracy theory?
That those people commissioned the report with a preconceived conclusion?
That those same people have gone back on pretty much every promise they made re transparency and scientific rigour?
That those people are engaged in actions to maximise attention, thus profit?

weisses wrote: »

As to why they are not releasing it now ?

I dunno .. probably they think September 11 is the better date for it

Like I said I don't care when they release it

I was referring to your dishonest misrepresentation which you repeat and which is addressed above.

Dohnjoe · 04-08-2019 12:49pm

weisses wrote: »

All this can be addressed when the study is released, I will be reserving comments for then... and believe it or not review it critically.

Based on the fact that you firmly believe the buildings were blown up without a shred of credible evidence, I'll take your "objectivity" and critical analysis of any related report with a very heavy pinch of salt

Why is it that conspiracy theorists never debate with each other? if one guy believes Larry Silverstein only blew up one building, and another guy believes that it was the CIA and Jews and they blew up all the buildings..

Well those are two completely different sequences of events. Why do we never see them debating with each other?

Is it a case of, any conspiracy but the truth?

King Mob · 04-08-2019 1:01pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why is it that conspiracy theorists never debate with each other? if one guy believes Larry Silverstein only blew up one building, and another guy believes that it was the CIA and Jews and they blew up all the buildings..

Well those are two completely different sequences of events. Why do we never see them debating with each other?

Is it a case of, any conspiracy but the truth?

If they did that they'd have to point out the logical failings and lack of evidence in each others theories and that would make them very uncomfortable.

It's also why they don't like talking about Dr. Judy Woods' theory.
They can't explain why the idea of space lasers should be rejected out of hand without drawing attention to their own theories.

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 3:41pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You clearly have no logical filter and regularly demonstrate you will swallow anything from conspiracy sites, which is why we get everything from military jets flying into the Pentagon and Joe Biden being involved in 911

A neverending stream of falsehoods and personal creations

It was peer reviewed. And it was conducted by dozens of experts, multiple structural engineers from the ACSE, who had full access to all the evidence and information.

In complete contrast Hulsey is one expert, paid by a conspiracy group, and not to determine the cause but to prove a negative (which is a bizarre study in itself)

There's no comparison between the two reports at all

a) they didn't have to
b) it was for reference
c) they knew that internet loons would use the software to produce whatever result they wanted

Another casual lie

It's a report that has been accepted by the world's engineering community, no recognised group has found significant fault with it. Structural engineers who did a follow up review of it won an engineering prize. Most of it's findings have been incorporated into building codes and regulations. Anyone can go to r/askengineers or go to structural engineering forums and receive this info

This has all been mentioned before, but every time you post your falsehoods and disinfo, we'll just post the facts

Exactly, conspiracy types and scammers making money off them finally found one expert in the world who would actually conduct a study, not only that but they were hailing it as a success from the moment it started, despite not knowing the result, nor the result 4 years later.

Like I said, it's identical to Alex Jones finding a private investigator who claims that his study will show that Sandy Hook was not carried out by Adam Lanza

It's that level of nonsense we are dealing with here

Clearly you talking of your ass. NIST empirical data was never released to anyone, this is widely known.

Even your skeptical friends are aware of this and you aren't.
https://www.metabunk.org/nists-rationale-for-not-releasing-simulation-data.t2513/

To prove any scientific theory, independent researchers must be able to replicate your findings. NIST model data is not available and never will be. Since it can't be replicated, the NIST study, is faith based, and the engineering groups accepted it- is a clear violation of the scientific method, a new study had to be done.

So if you going to attack someone- least try familiarize yourself with the issue and stop lying and claiming the NIST report is perfect and there nothing wrong with it.

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

Comments