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

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why do skeptics always believe it dodgy when someone is paid a salary? James Randi got a salary from his website, Was he scamming his posters? It only a scam when they promote theories you don't believe.

Literally half the conspiracies you peddle involve who is paid by whom

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah but it's like awaiting a groundbreaking historical paper that claims it will prove the battle of Kursk didn't happen. Everyone has to smile and agree that they will wait for the report to come out, but deep down everyone knows it will be horse****

Today tuesday 20th.

So just two weeks away this study. I think i just wait till then to post.

I ask nobody reply to this message and leave it till then? We can then can discuss Hulsey Report when its out. I expect there be alot of online activity that day on Skeptic forums, so lets wait!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why do skeptics always believe it dodgy when someone is paid a salary?

Gage gets a salary for promoting something that is patently false. Like those people who do the false cancer cures. He's either not a very smart guy who believes the content, or he's a smart guy with no principles.

Dohnjoe

Looks like it is a draft not a final report. The "public comments" - we don't know how public they will be. No peer reviews it seems. It doesn't look like it's getting published in any reputable journal.

I can't wait, but it's the sketchiness of the whole thing. Again I don't want to speculate too much, but it's hard not to expect just a "tidied" up version of what he's already bought to the table and he'll let the hawks tear it pieces and walk away from the whole thing (knowing it will satisfy the target audience)

Overheal

Gage is a grifter.

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Looks like it is a draft not a final report. The "public comments" - we don't know how public they will be. No peer reviews it seems. It doesn't look like it's getting published in any reputable journal.

I can't wait, but it's the sketchiness of the whole thing. Again I don't want to speculate too much, but it's hard not to expect just a "tidied" up version of what he's already bought to the table and he'll let the hawks tear it pieces and walk away from the whole thing (knowing it will satisfy the target audience)

Basically they will be releasing the abstract? Rather than even a draft!
As for its publication, surely even the most ardent Hulsey supporter would agree that if his work has merit, that it would be submitted to and published by a respected Engineering or Science Journal?
Rather than a mail-shot?

This smacks of bait to get the marks to buy into the story and "donate" that little bit more :pac:

Dohnjoe

Can someone explain to me why they need $50,000 urgently to "promote" what is supposed to be a scientific study?

There must be some reason

Supporter $5/month
Our Gift to You
The Commemorative DVD Collection

Activist $10/month
Our Gift to You
ReThink911: A Year of Grassroots Action and Not-So-Guerrilla Advertising (plus the gift above!)

Advocate $15/month
Our Gift to You
Beyond Misinformation Book (plus the gifts above!)

Patron $25/month
Our Gift to You
Our Research DVD Collection (plus the gifts above!)

Benefactor $50/month
Our Gift to You
All the gifts above plus...
An invitation to our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle, a conference call held once every three months for our dedicated donors to meet with Richard Gage and our senior staff, to share ideas, and to hear what’s going on with the organization. Give $50 or more per month or $1,000 or more annually to be a part of our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle.

Sponsor $100/month
Our Gift to You
All of the gifts above, including the invitation to our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle, plus…
A twice-a-year personal phone call from AE911Truth Founder and CEO Richard Gage, AIA, to you — because your input can be instrumental in accomplishing our mission. Give $100 or more per month or $2,500 or more annually to receive this biannual call from Richard Gage.

Torch Bearer $250/month
Our Gift to You
All of the gifts above, including the invitation to our Quarterly Collaborators’ Circle and the biannual phone call from Richard Gage, plus…
An invitation to lunch or dinner at the restaurant of your choice whenever a member of AE911Truth's board of directors or senior staff are in your neck of the woods (or let us know if you're in our neck of the woods). Give $250 or more per month or $5,000 or more annually to receive an invitation to lunch or dinner. We can't wait to meet you!

Overheal

Stop spreading misinformation DohnJoe!

It’s $50,000 to urgently promote an abstract

Ipso

Being part of the collaborators circle and getting a call from Richard Gage are great selling points.

The Nal

I'm genuinely shocked at how much of a scam this is.

banie01

The Nal wrote: »

I'm genuinely shocked at how much of a scam this is.

What's even more shocking is how many people get taken in by it and support them!
Believing that they are somehow battling a conspiracy rather than lining someone else's pockets.

storker

King Mob wrote: »

So these are the postcards that will cost $50,000.


I get the feeling that it's going to be $50,000 straight into the bin with the other junkmail.

...after which the claim will be something along the lines of "We sent it to x,000 engineers who never replied, so we know they didn't have a problem with it."

weisses

I see people already getting their knickers in a twist 2 ...weeks before release

I wish the same attitude was displayed when the NIST draft needed to be rewritten over and over when a physics teacher pointed out the flaws

That NIST research team must have been the best of the best ...considering the many millions it cost to produce that report :rolleyes:

weisses

The Nal wrote: »

I'm genuinely shocked at how much of a scam this is.

It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory :eek:

weisses

banie01 wrote: »

What's even more shocking is how many people get taken in by it and support them!
Believing that they are somehow battling a conspiracy rather than lining someone else's pockets.

Not all research can be done at the expanse of the taxpayer .... They all paid for dodgy research

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I see people already getting their knickers in a twist 2 ...weeks before release

No comment about any of the shady stuff we've pointed out or how the study itself is inherently flawed and unscientific?
Or just pretending those points don't exist for the purposes of another drive by post?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Not all research can be done at the expanse of the taxpayer .... They all paid for dodgy research

It's dodgy research in your opinion. A very fringe extreme opinion.

The distinction is important.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

No comment about any of the shady stuff we've pointed out or how the study itself is inherently flawed and unscientific?
Or just pretending those points don't exist for the purposes of another drive by post?

People who don't understand or respect objective historical and scientific investigation, aren't going to care about the veracity of a study that supports an irrational view

Cheerful Spring2

weisses wrote: »

I see people already getting their knickers in a twist 2 ...weeks before release

I wish the same attitude was displayed when the NIST draft needed to be rewritten over and over when a physics teacher pointed out the flaws

That NIST research team must have been the best of the best ...considering the many millions it cost to produce that report :rolleyes:

22 million wasted. They should refund AE911 truth its money when the Hulsey report out.

Never forget this is what their analysis showed in August 2018.

NIST belief
The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds].... Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time....” 3

Chandler question
Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?”

NIST was claiming in August 2008, none of their measurements and calculations showed freefall.

By Nov 2008 it was changed and freefall went from an impossibility to now its possible as long it a fire scenario that did it. Ignoring freefall is associated with controlled demolition.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

22 million wasted. They should refund AE911 truth its money when the Hulsey report out.

What if the Hulsey report is a load of shíte?

Did you buy your little postcards by the way?

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

What if the Hulsey report is a load of shíte?

Did you buy your little postcards by the way?

Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse. You can't scam that. Engineering groups would spot that straight away. They will be given the computating data to replicate it.

The problem was NIST refused to release any computing anyalses they did, and all you got was a technical written report. Nothing the said was ever verified.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

22 million wasted. They should refund AE911 truth its money when the Hulsey report out.

Never forget this is what their analysis showed in August 2018.

NIST belief
The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds].... Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time....” 3

Chandler question
Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?”

NIST was claiming in August 2008, none of their measurements and calculations showed freefall.

By Nov 2008 it was changed and freefall went from an impossibility to now its possible as long it a fire scenario that did it. Ignoring freefall is associated with controlled demolition.

Again, you are using terms you don't understand.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse. You can't scam that. Engineering groups would spot that straight away. They will be given the computating data to replicate it.

The problem was NIST refused to release any computing anyalses they did, and all you got was a technical written report. Nothing the said was ever verified.

Husley's study has not been published yet.
Husley's study is not and will not be peer reviewed, despite claims otherwise.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse.

How can you possibly know this? How can you know prior to release and without any peer review what Hulsey's model shows?

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

How can you possibly know this? How can you know prior to release and without any peer review what Hulsey's model shows?

The power of belief and faith

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey Global collapse models matches the true collapse.

Evidence please

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Evidence please

I provided it already. Hulsey did an radio interview in late 2018 and said his Global collapse Model matches the true collapse. We all see in two weeks.

You can see a short glimpse of their computer collapse model on AE911 truth site.

https://www.ae911truth.org/news

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I provided it already. Hulsey did an radio interview in late 2018 and said his Global collapse Model matches the true collapse. We all see in two weeks.

You a short glimpse of their computer collapse model on AE911 truth site.

https://www.ae911truth.org/news

So a glimpse of a model from a bias website from an unfinished shady paper that is not published and will never go near peer review.

Lol.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I provided it already. Hulsey did an radio interview in late 2018 and said his Global collapse Model matches the true collapse. We all see in two weeks.

You a short glimpse of their computer collapse model on AE911 truth site.

https://www.ae911truth.org/news

"A radio interview".

lol

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

"A radio interview".

lol

Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?

lol!!

I've no idea if he lied.

And either do you.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?

But you don;t understand the basic principles of physics.
Your judgement about whether or not a computer model is accurate is simply irrelevant. You have no way to tell if it's accurate or not as you don't understand anything about it.
You are simply believing the word of a person with a vested interest in selling you something.
You are the perfect pigeon for him.

So how much have you donated?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes Dr Hulsey interview, it good enough for me. Are you now claimig he lied? Provide evidence?

Does it occur to you that he could be wrong?

Is peer review important for this study or you don't care about that?

Which is more likely, one engineer producing a report comes to a faulty conclusion or dozens of engineers co-producing a report come to a faulty conclusion? is one of those just "as likely" as the other?

He will be trying to claim that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how can he show that in every scenario that is impossible? how many scenarios are there?

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

lol!!

I've no idea if he lied.

And either do you.

Sure, what lol about then. A radio interview!

Yes i do know Hulsey said it. He is not a snake. 100 per cent his statement correct.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes i do know Hulsey said it. He is not a snake. 100 per cent his statement correct.

What percentage would you put on his study showing that fire didn't bring down WTC 7?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Sure, what lol about then. A radio interview!

Yes i do know Hulsey said it. He is not a snake. 100 per cent his statement correct.

But how do you know that when it's not possible for you to understand the physics involved?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

100 per cent his statement correct.

Evidence please.

I'm not willing to take your word for it.

Or his.

King Mob wrote: »

But how do you know that when it's not possible for you to understand the physics involved?

Not to mention the fact that the study hasn't been released yet.

Like saying "100 per cent Liveprool are going to win 5 nil at the weekend."

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Does it occur to you that he could be wrong?

Is peer review important for this study or you don't care about that?

Which is more likely, one engineer producing a report comes to a faulty conclusion or dozens of engineers co-producing a report come to a faulty conclusion? is one of those just "as likely" as the other?

He will be trying to claim that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how can he show that in every scenario that is impossible? how many scenarios are there?

The bolded part here is crucial.
Hulsey's circumventing of standard academic publishing procedure and peer review doesn't gain him anything other than acrimony at the very least.

I have issue with how this particular study has been approached.
I will of course read the report, study any new evidence Hulsey may and assess the conclusion and my own view at the end of that.

The crux of all that however is, that without any actual new evidence.
Hulsey is presenting nothing more than a minority report interpretation.

There is always room for dissenting views, but without evidence, without at the very least a cogent, sound and replicable thesis thats all it is...
A dissenting view.
The model taken to fund and then the guerilla fundraising that seems to present postcards as a valid publication effort...
Well it's indicative of a cash grab rather than a scientific publication.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Does it occur to you that he could be wrong?

Is peer review important for this study or you don't care about that?

Which is more likely, one engineer producing a report comes to a faulty conclusion or dozens of engineers co-producing a report come to a faulty conclusion? is one of those just "as likely" as the other?

He will be trying to claim that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how can he show that in every scenario that is impossible? how many scenarios are there?

This is not an accurate assessement. Fire scenarios will be discussed and modelled by Hulsey.
The NIST theory is flawed. Mike West of Metabunk agrees.
Kingmob, yourself, none of you noticed it for years and still don't get it, i think? It's shows a lack of awareness by you guys, or something else is missing? I don't understand how your brain works, but this stuff, logical to me.
Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not an accurate assessement. Fire scenarios will be discussed and modelled by Hulsey.

But you aren't able to understand them as they use difficult engineering and physics concepts.
You aren't able to understand the most basic concept in physics.
Thus your opinion is worthless.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The NIST theory is flawed. Mike West of Metabunk agrees.

Does he agree with the conspiracy theory you believe?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob, yourself, none of you noticed it for years and still don't get it, i think? It's lack of awareness by you guys, or something else is missing? I don't understand how your brain works, but this all stuff that logical to me.
Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.

This is word salad.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Fire scenarios will be discussed and modelled by Hulsey.

How many will there be?

none of you noticed it for years and still don't get it, i think? It's shows a lack of awareness by you guys, or something else is missing? I don't understand how your brain works, but this stuff, logical to me.
Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.

You believe the buildings came down with controlled demolitions, Mick West does not. He believes the complete opposite, that fire brought them down.

How will Hulsey "prove" that fire didn't bring down WTC 7, how does that work?

Dohnjoe

A little off topic, but if I were backed into a corner on a conspiracy theory forum, contradicted by the history books, encyclopedias, skeptics, the engineering community, investigations and the whole lot

and the only people with the same view believed things like the world's largest buildings were rigged with explosives when they were built

I might take pause to question my beliefs and understanding of the world in general

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How many will there be?



You believe the buildings came down with controlled demolitions, Mick West does not agree with that at all, he believes fire brought down the buildings

Unless you inhabit a bizarre universe where you believe both happened..

We find out when its out. Not many, fire scenarios i would think, as everyone does agree, the eastside-Northface is where the collapse started.

Mike will have to provide a paper then? If he agreeing NIST cheated, then he has to accept NIST work can't be trusted. Mike seems to want to ignore it and think its ok to cheat.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We find out when its out. .

You claimed earlier that you had some insider information.
This was a lie I think.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.

What does this mean?

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

What does this mean?

I think he's saying that even though Mick is a lowly software enginner and not an uber expert in everything like cheerful, he can still see the truth.

Or could just be that cheerful's grammar is failing again.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

What does this mean?

Mike West a debunker of 9/11 conspiracies. Now he accepts Ae911 truth have done good work. He is not closed minded and possible to change his mind with new information.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mike West a debunker of 9/11 conspiracies. Now he accepts Ae911 truth have done good work. He is not closed minded and possible to change his mind with new information.

But he doesn't believe the conspiracy theories.

We also do not believe your interpretation of his remarks as you are a proven liar and you often claim things are said when they are not.
Sometimes this is due to your poor level of reading and comprehension ability.

The Nal

Another example of Cheerful debunking his own theory?

lol this is great stuff.

Heres Mick West completely tearing apart the WT7 conspiracy theory. From last year. Mere months ago. Hes doing it so well people are laughing at the absurdity of the theory.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mike will have to provide a paper then? If he agreeing NIST cheated, then he has to accept NIST work can't be trusted. Mike seems to want to ignore it and think its ok to cheat.

Again, going off topic a little here

He isn't. As mentioned before, you demonstrate that you can't comprehend certain things. It's next to impossible possible to logically debate with someone who either has impaired comprehension or switches it off at will

Here is a 800 page report
There are 3 errors in the report, and 5 debated points
The report's conclusion is still valid

I'll try to break it down with an even easier example

Imagine there's a report on the Titanic sinking, there are several errors in the report, some erroneous figures, some parts are disputed by various engineers regarding specifics, but the report concludes that the Titantic sank due to striking an iceberg. 98% of the report is considered conclusive and agreed upon.

To a normal rational person, the report is conclusive

To an irrational person, one mistake = the whole report is a lie, it's authors are liars, they cheated and so on

You demonstrate that you are irrational at every turn in this "debate"