• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful. [W: #120]

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If Bob had not committed a well-deserved suicide-by-mod he would no doubt be introducing this, but he can't so here it is. The latest fund-raising effort by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth but this time it isn't just going to fund the next fundraising effort.

Press release from the AE911T web site:

Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a study, using Finite Element Modeling, of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. Dr. Hulsey is the chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and brings decades of experience in failure analysis and modeling of structures.

In May, Dr. Hulsey and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process of virtually reconstructing WTC 7 — using the software programs SAP 2000 and Abaqus — and evaluating the range of possible causes of WTC 7’s collapse. By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79.

Based on his analysis, Dr. Hulsey will evaluate the probability of each hypothetical scenario being the cause of the collapse — and rule out scenarios that could not have resulted in collapse. Once the study is completed, Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.

Transparency and Public Participation

Unlike NIST, which has refused to release all of its modeling data based on the untenable excuse that doing so “might jeopardize public safety,” UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.

Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org, where members of the architecture and engineering communities, as well as the general public, can follow and scrutinize the research as it is being conducted.

Today, we’re giving you a sneak peek by inviting you to be the first to watch the official WTC 7 Evaluation Introduction Video. This video will be featured at the top of the forthcoming website WTC7Evaluation.org to introduce visitors to Dr. Hulsey and the goals of the UAF study.

By making the study open and transparent throughout the entire process, we expect it to attract widespread attention from the engineering community and the broader public, while also enabling interested observers to provide input and feedback. To that end, we enthusiastically invite you to register to become a participant in the study. Dr. Hulsey and the review committee vetting his research greatly welcome your help.

This Is a Turning Point

We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

WTC 7 Evaluation

Personally, I think it is great that after 9 years AE911T is finally spending some of the millions of dollars it has raised to do some actual research. This would seem to answer one of my frequent criticisms of the organization. Interesting though that in spite of the claims we have seen for years now that AE911T has "thousands of experts" they had to farm this one out to a non-petition signer in far-off Alaska.

There are some things in the above statement and elsewhere on the web site that raise an eyebrow, but I'll leave the floor open for others to comment for now. Maybe the Truth Squad can do better on this topic than they did on the Flight 175 Was Not a Commercial Aircraft thread.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

As 911 Truthers can not be objective or unbiased and take the money to scientists who can be, i have zero sum confidence in any results of their studies.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Much of what I would say is covered in the link the OP provided.

- Will the study truly be "peer reviewed" by independent sources.
- If the findings show NIST was wrong, does not "prove" CD.

It will be interesting when the report is released, or will we have to pay for it like the last information brochure? :mrgreen:
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

As 911 Truthers can not be objective or unbiased and take the money to scientists who can be, i have zero sum confidence in any results of their studies.

Well that's good to know. I will sleep much better tonight knowing your feelings.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

As 911 Truthers can not be objective or unbiased and take the money to scientists who can be, i have zero sum confidence in any results of their studies.

It is IMHO impossible to determine, with the information available, precisely what sequence of events initiated the collapse of 7 WTC with absolute certainty. NIST proposed a probable collapse sequence hypothesis based on their examination of the available data that is plausible. Is what NIST concluded exactly what happened? Dunno. Is it the only plausible hypothesis? Not likely. But then the NIST hypothesis makes no claim to be either of those things.

The Hulsey FEA will no doubt find that fire could indeed bring the building down (which AE911T absolutely doesn't want) and will likely come up with alternative explanations for the collapse initiation sequence to what NIST proposed that are also plausible.

AE911T will no doubt play down the fire could do it bit (which they have always claimed is impossible) and divert attention instead to playing up the alternative plausible initiation sequence to make a false global claim that NIST was wrong.

And we all know what that means (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

NIST is the government
The government is the official story
The official story is wrong
Because NIST was wrong, they must have lied.
That means inside job.

And we will be right back to square one.

In the end I predict this is going to be a big, expensive, time wasting effort to prove NIST wrong over a detail, not an effort to find out what actually happened.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Mark

Understand what the preponderance of the evidence means.

The NIST report alone did not make it an inside job. The NIST report alone is but one straw in a very large pile of hay. ALL the evidence, NIST report, 911 Commission Report, huge efforts at suppression of facts and truth, airplanes missing where they should have been and of the wrong type when there were airplanes, a gazillion witness statements, molten iron persisting for 3 months, incestuous political relations within NIST and other agencies and groups. All those things come together to show the "inside job" quality.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Mark

Understand what the preponderance of the evidence means.

The NIST report alone did not make it an inside job. The NIST report alone is but one straw in a very large pile of hay. ALL the evidence, NIST report, 911 Commission Report, huge efforts at suppression of facts and truth, airplanes missing where they should have been and of the wrong type when there were airplanes, a gazillion witness statements, molten iron persisting for 3 months, incestuous political relations within NIST and other agencies and groups. All those things come together to show the "inside job" quality.

None of which - whether it passes the two question test or not - has anything to do with my last post or the OP.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

None of which - whether it passes the two question test or not - has anything to do with my last post or the OP.

Apologies, I kept thinking you were able to see the big picture, the forest for the trees.

Would you rather I not post on your threads? PM always works.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Apologies, I kept thinking you were able to see the big picture, the forest for the trees.

Would you rather I not post on your threads? PM always works.

I will ignore the ad hom.

For the purposes of this thread I am interested in the Hulsey study - which you will note is the subject of the OP - not a derail into the big picture as you put it.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Hulsey states that:

his study is being funded by 2355 architects and engineers (signers of the AE petition)
7wtc was supported on a sub station
he had no information about the structure of the first 7 stories
its amazing how straight it's dropping

His velocities are nonsense 200km/hr at the end of its drop (who measured this)
He repeats all the AE talking points

He states that he is starting de novo yet repeats AE and NIST points.

This looks like it will be a take down of the girder walk off on floor 13.

This professor sounds like a buffoon I am sorry to say. Clearly doesn't think critically.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Hulsey states that:

his study is being funded by 2355 architects and engineers (signers of the AE petition)
7wtc was supported on a sub station
he had no information about the structure of the first 7 stories
its amazing how straight it's dropping

His velocities are nonsense 200km/hr at the end of its drop (who measured this)
He repeats all the AE talking points

He states that he is starting de novo yet repeats AE and NIST points.

This looks like it will be a take down of the girder walk off on floor 13.

This professor sounds like a buffoon I am sorry to say. Clearly doesn't think critically.

Makes one wonder about the vetting process AE911T used to pick their researchers.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Not nearly as "sophisticated" as NIST and the 911 Commission used to vet their hand-picked researchers, but much more honest and open.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Not nearly as "sophisticated" as NIST and the 911 Commission used to vet their hand-picked researchers, but much more honest and open.

Blah, blah, blah,... all rhetoric and no substance as usual.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Blah, blah, blah,... all rhetoric and no substance as usual.

Too much substance, is what you meant to say. ;) Too close to the truth, eh Mark?
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Too much substance, is what you meant to say. ;) Too close to the truth, eh Mark?

No truth at all. There is nothing there, as is usual with your posts. You made broad ambiguous claims backed up with nothing more than your own credulity. There is no substance to discuss to anything you have posted in this thread so far, just like there wasn't in the Flight 175 Was Not a Commercial Plane thread. Unsubstantiated vague generalities are not wisdom or truth and the sad part is, you don't even know it. But as they say, by definition we can not see our own blind spots. I of course have no blind spots, I know because I can't see them.

So we have an OP to discuss - the Hulsey study. I have contributed my own encouragement but also (some) of my concerns as well as a prediction for what is likely to come of all of it. Do you have any comment on the Hulsey study or not?

I suspect not so I will start with another of my concerns,... well, more an observation really.

If this study is to be so open and transparent why was it going on for 6 months before they even made an announcement?
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

No truth at all. There is nothing there, as is usual with your posts. You made broad ambiguous claims backed up with nothing more than your own credulity. There is no substance to discuss to anything you have posted in this thread so far, just like there wasn't in the Flight 175 Was Not a Commercial Plane thread. Unsubstantiated vague generalities are not wisdom or truth and the sad part is, you don't even know it. But as they say, by definition we can not see our own blind spots. I of course have no blind spots, I know because I can't see them.

So we have an OP to discuss - the Hulsey study. I have contributed my own encouragement but also (some) of my concerns as well as a prediction for what is likely to come of all of it. Do you have any comment on the Hulsey study or not?

I suspect not so I will start with another of my concerns,... well, more an observation really.

If this study is to be so open and transparent why was it going on for 6 months before they even made an announcement?

The Hulsey study is just one more in a very large pile of analyses that show the official story to be a fraudulent bunch of nonsense.

Hulsey does not have a contract with some government agency to protect. He is another private citizen applying scientific principles to analyze what happened on 11 September. He seeks the truth, nothing more.

Compared to the sophistry that is NIST, it is the difference between black and white.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

The Hulsey study is just one more in a very large pile of analyses that show the official story to be a fraudulent bunch of nonsense.

The Hulsey study hasn't published any results yet. Jumping the gun a bit are we?

Hulsey does not have a contract with some government agency to protect. He is another private citizen applying scientific principles to analyze what happened on 11 September. He seeks the truth, nothing more.

Did you not notice where Dr. Hulsey works? He is a government employee. I thought AE911T wanted someone truly independent!

This study is being funded by a group with a definite axe to grind and known ulterior motives. Dr. Hulsey's independence and adherence to strict scientific principals is yet to be seen. Again you jump the gun by a mile.

Compared to the sophistry that is NIST, it is the difference between black and white.

So says the guy who is supporting an organization that claims free-fall speed (itself an inaccurate term) can only happen in a controlled demolition :doh

You know, you make the vague, generalized claims and yet there is no fundamental disagreement in the professional engineering community as a whole with NIST's findings, which are supported by all of the major national and many international engineering firms and trade organizations. I could rattle off the long list of names of those organizations if you like.

So either all of those professionals are wrong or you are. :confused:

Considering your very poor performance on just the few points above - where you make assertions and jump to conclusions without evidence or even thinking - I am afraid I will have to go with the former.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

I sent an email to the prof with some resources such as the study by Guy Nordenson

Guy Nordenson and Associates Structural Engineers LLP

And even offered my own "work" for them consider...

Didn't even receive an acknowledgement that they received the email.

I have more faith in Nordenson than this prof.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Continuing from above, the OP does give some hope but also some cause for concern. Others will not have picked up on them or may have different concerns to mine. I'll run through a few of mine to see where we stand.

When it comes to Dr. Hulsey I don't know anything about the man really. I don't know if AE911T picked him out because he's already on their team with the consequent potential for bias and a obvious indication of limited critical thinking skills, if he was picked at random, or he was just the only guy they could find who could be bothered. Part of the transparency AE911T touts might be finding out how this particular research group was selected. Also, why wait for 6 months to announce their transparent and open study? That seems the opposite of open and transparent. It almost seems like they only went public when it because necessary to hit up the faithful for donations to pay for the work - or am I being cynical?

And hey, if you are serious about letting the public view your website AE911T - why is a password needed to gain access?

For years AE911T has been claiming that because NIST did not release all of the inputs for its 7 WTC models there is no way to test if the NIST probable collapse scenario hypothesis is correct. Yet here we have AE911T commissioning collapse models which they have claimed for years couldn't be done :confused: So, were they wrong about what they have been claiming up til now or are their new models going to be inherently flawed due to missing inputs?

According to the AE911T web site Dr. Hulsey's team will be evaluating the range of possible causes for 7 WTC's collapse. What is that range of possible causes? What does that actually mean? NIST based its hypothesis off what is known - actual observations of the conditions of the building. That leaves a lot of unknowns naturally since conditions inside the building can often only be speculated on, but at least it has reality as a starting point. So what are Hulsey's inputs going to be? I suppose we will find out.

With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79.

Eventually? Why eventually? And again, why are we not starting with the best information we have about the known conditions in the building? Is this going to be an exercise primarily in hypotheticals that have no factual relation to the real event?

This go's to the fundamental problem I have with this study as described in the release in the OP - What is the objective? What is this study trying to achieve? That is not at all clear from the information contained in the release (possibly deliberate).

Are they trying to prove/disprove CD? To what point? There was no CD and we know CD can bring down a building.
Are they trying to prove/disprove fire? Again, to what point? We know fire can destroy a building.
Are they trying to prove the precise collapse initiation sequence? I doubt very much that can even be achieved with any level of certainty. The best anyone can do is what NIST did - propose a scenario that is plausible, not provable.

Or do AE911T have their fingers crossed they will come up with something they can claim as NIST was wrong ? What a pointless waste of time and effort that would be (see post #5). This bit from the AE911T release reinforces my concern on this point;

We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.

The study won't be finished before 2017 yet AE911T already seem to know the outcome. Hmmmmmm,.... :confused:

Then this:

...working in two separate programs (SAP 2000 and Abaqus), Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7. (emphasis added)

Ummmm,... that's not how it works.

At best all they can really do is crosscheck the results of the 2 models against each other to ensure the models agree with each other. Comparison of the two methods absolutely does not and can not "ensure they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7". If the programs are suitable for the purpose one would expect that they should give similar results using the same inputs - but using two programs with the same inputs does not by any means guarantee the inputs are correct!

Hopefully this is AE911T's booboo and not Dr. Hulsey's because if the good doctor is the source well, any credibility he may have had is out the window.

OK, that's enough for now.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

It certainly is nice to have their technical and scientific input, but one need not be an architect or engineer to understand just what Peter Jennings and Dan Rather observed: "Gee, that looks like one of those controlled demolitions you see on TV"

One need not be a civil engineer to understand that the only examples of modern steel buildings collapsing from fire in recorded history all happened in the same place on the same day.

Some humans possess common sense, some do not. :peace
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Not nearly as "sophisticated" as NIST and the 911 Commission used to vet their hand-picked researchers, but much more honest and open.

Provide the evidence that AE911T is much more" honest and open" in the vetting process.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Not nearly as "sophisticated" as NIST and the 911 Commission used to vet their hand-picked researchers, but much more honest and open.

Provide the evidence that AE911T is much more" honest and open" in the vetting process.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

Provide the evidence that AE911T is much more" honest and open" in the vetting process.

If you don't know it by now Mike, you'll never know it. There is nothing I could say or do to explain that to you. As Mark Twain noted, it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. :peace
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

It certainly is nice to have their technical and scientific input, but one need not be an architect or engineer to understand just what Peter Jennings and Dan Rather observed: "Gee, that looks like one of those controlled demolitions you see on TV"

One need not be a civil engineer to understand that the only examples of modern steel buildings collapsing from fire in recorded history all happened in the same place on the same day.

Some humans possess common sense, some do not. :peace

One need not be a civil engineer to understand that none of the above tells us anything useful. They are arguments from ignorance - logical fallacies of a high order.

It looked just like a CD therefore it must have been a CD (because some news reader said so). How about, the buildings looked like what buildings look like when buildings fall down (CD or otherwise)?

And of course the classic logical fallacy of never before in history - usually with the irrelevant qualifier high-rise thrown in (stated or implied) for good measure. You have to use the irrelevant qualifier of course because there are countless examples of steel buildings being destroyed by fire. Steel frame construction is in fact highly vulnerable to fire. This is why the new WTC towers have reinforced concrete instead of steel cores and why great efforts are expended in protecting structural steel from being exposed to excessive heat.

Common sense does not fall for such silliness.

Getting back to the OP - the Hulsey models will of course determine that fire absolutely could have brought down 7 WTC, because it can (and did). This will naturally butcher many of the clients sacred Cows but no matter. I have already predicted such conclusions will be swept under the rug as a different spin gets put on things more suitable to the clients agenda.
 
Re: 9/11 Truth Group after 9 years finally appears to do something useful.

If you don't know it by now Mike, you'll never know it. There is nothing I could say or do to explain that to you. As Mark Twain noted, it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. :peace

Henry's standard evasive dodge, employed with great frequency.
 
Back
Top Bottom