• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

Oystein said:
An idea that is pretty much having itself, but I see a problem: Which of the several due dates would you wish to count from? The end of the original 2-year runtime (April 30 2017)? Of the 3-year project that you currently see at the UAF site (April 30 2018)? The "end of 2018" talk that we heard last September?

Most recently, Hulsey told me 54 days ago that he "hope[d] to complete the rough draft in 30 days".
Click to expand...


Did you ever get the PowerPoint from his latest presentation?
 
Hulsey and his staff haven't done any real research since November of 2015. At that time they had a hard drive crash, lost a bunch of modeling data, and never started back up. The only thing Hulsey does, is update his PowerPoint presentation once a year. Which is based on pure conjecture, not any hard research.
 
Leroy Hulsey no longer is the Department Chair of UAF's Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering; he is now listed merely as "Faculty" / "Professor":

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people.aspx

Now, as he was born in 1941 and would thus be 77 or 78 years old by now, age may be an excellent reason for him to step back or for UAF to select a fresher Chair. But still one wonders...

The new Chair, Robert Perkins, has been a professor at the UAF-CEE for 20 years.
 
DGM said:
Just a guess (or maybe a prediction)........Hulseys "results" will never see the light of day. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he has reinvestigated his errors and instead of admitting to them, he ignores them and they might die with time. It is hard for some, who make such drastic errors to admit mistakes, especially when there has been so much time/effort in stating/defending those mistakes.
 
bknight said:
Perhaps he has reinvestigated his errors and instead of admitting to them, he ignores them and they might die with time. It is hard for some, who make such drastic errors to admit mistakes, especially when there has been so much time/effort in stating/defending those mistakes.
Click to expand...

More likely he realized that he can't topple the basic premises of the "official account" that fire can lead to a steel frame (high rise) building to collapse. And this was the charge he was given by AE911T and the truth movement.

If this was serious research with integrity and they got a different conclusion than what was imagined... it is valid and should be reported.

Years ago my ex roommate who was a PhD and professor at U Pitt department of Medicine.... the ENT department took a grant to investigate the efficacy of amoxycillin for treating pediatric Otitis Media. The former drug used was penicillin. He ran the trials for NIH... the principal investigator Dr. Michael Bluestone was getting a lot of $$ from Pharma. The data showed that amoxycillin was no better than a placebo - a valid scientific result.

Bluestone wrote a paper claiming the drug worked and submitted it to NEJM and JAMA, He requested that my friend sign the paper as the person who conducted the trials. He refused. He took the data to a mathematician at CMU who happened to have worked on a paper that won a Nobel Prize to review the data. The mathematician agreed... drug was no better than a placebo. They wrote that result up and send in to NEJM and JAMA.

Both NEJM and JAMA freaked out and it became a huge bruhaha... contradictory results from the same data set! It took many years and legal BS but in the end my friend was vindicated. Principal investigator should have been run out of town, lost his license and kicked out of the university. And it turns out that penicillin was no better than a placebo! More exploitation by Pharma!

https://www.talkingaboutthescience.com/earache/
 
JSanderO said:
More likely he realized that he can't topple the basic premises of the "official account" that fire can lead to a steel frame (high rise) building to collapse. And this was the charge he was given by AE911T and the truth movement.

If this was serious research with integrity and they got a different conclusion than what was imagined... it is valid and should be reported.

Years ago my ex roommate who was a PhD and professor at U Pitt department of Medicine.... the ENT department took a grant to investigate the efficacy of amoxycillin for treating pediatric Otitis Media. The former drug used was penicillin. He ran the trials for NIH... the principal investigator Dr. Michael Bluestone was getting a lot of $$ from Pharma. The data showed that amoxycillin was no better than a placebo - a valid scientific result.

Bluestone wrote a paper claiming the drug worked and submitted it to NEJM and JAMA, He requested that my friend sign the paper as the person who conducted the trials. He refused. He took the data to a mathematician at CMU who happened to have worked on a paper that won a Nobel Prize to review the data. The mathematician agreed... drug was no better than a placebo. They wrote that result up and send in to NEJM and JAMA.

Both NEJM and JAMA freaked out and it became a huge bruhaha... contradictory results from the same data set! It took many years and legal BS but in the end my friend was vindicated. Principal investigator should have been run out of town, lost his license and kicked out of the university. And it turns out that penicillin was no better than a placebo! More exploitation by Pharma!

https://www.talkingaboutthescience.com/earache/
Click to expand...

Reminds me of an old saying "Figures never lie, but liars always figure"
 
DGM said:
Just a guess (or maybe a prediction)........Hulseys "results" will never see the light of day. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. And I realise that a lot of people want to see his "results".

I'm more than satisfied that his starting point premises are wrong. Irrespective of his "results".

His main claim is that he can and has proved "fire could not cause collapse of WTC7". That is a global negative assertion. Equivalent to "There is no scenario in which fire could cause collapse." That assertion cannot possible be proved in the WTC7 setting. So he is wrong before we see his results UNLESS he abandons that false claim and distances himself from it.

Admittedly many debunkers have shown that his method is wrong in the engineering details.

So he is wrong at two levels.
 
AE 9/11 has announced the study will be published in a few weeks - September 3rd

so what happened to the public comment period?
 
Trojan said:
AE 9/11 has announced the study will be published in a few weeks - September 3rd

so what happened to the public comment period?
Click to expand...
I guess they call the engineering conference "public". They don't want criticism to surface because they know the paper doesn't really stand a critical review, especially if the conclusion (which was decided before the study started, let's not forget that) is that fire couldn't be the cause. They can't prove that, no matter how many studies they disprove, no matter the validity of their disproof.

I know, I know, "that's why we need a new investigation". And so the ball keeps rolling. It's been 13 years now and they're no closer to one. They just want more money. The funds, they say, will be spent in a public awareness campaign. That's to say, to get more money, not to advance towards an investigation. This paper is just another missed chance at the "new investigation" they claim to want. The founders really, really don't want one, just the dough to keep coming.

The scam should be more and more obvious to anyone. Hopefully some will wake up from this drug-induced dream.
 
Last edited:
Trojan said:
AE 9/11 has announced the study will be published in a few weeks - September 3rd

so what happened to the public comment period?
Click to expand...

Their newsletter does not mention it, but this news article on their website, dated August 19, does:

Science, Truth, and Justice 18 Years Later: September 2019 Schedule of Events
AE911Truth said:
The draft report will be published that same week at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 — as well as at AE911Truth.org — and will be open for public comment for a six-week period ending October 15, 2019.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom