Have you read the study from front to back?
Yes, several times
No.
If so, what are your credentials?
The authors and the sponsors of the study invited the general public to comment on the report, and so, everyone is sufficiently credentialed.
The true test is not "
does the public commenter have credentials x, y or z?", but "
is the public commenter's critique valid - based on true premises and following correct logic?"
Have you downloaded the publicly available data that they released in their report, all 600+ GB of it?
Yes, I have.
Have you entered the data into your own copies of the engineering programs they used?
No, I haven't, but the download contains a number of visualizations of the data that are quite simply laughable in the extreme - unphysical cartoons, some of them.
Have you performed the same tests?
No - why should I? It was garbage in, so you would expect garbage out no matter what you do to the data.
If you answered "no" to even one question, what on earth makes you think you have any credibility or the right to criticize it?
I answered "yes" to some
Now, let me answer my own questions.
I have not read the study from front to back. I am not an engineer. I have no engineering credentials. I have not downloaded the data. I don't own copies of the software they used, so I certainly could not have performed any of the tests and simulations Hulsey did. So, I have to answer "no" to every one of my questions.
This begs the question, what makes me so certain that I'm right and the reality deniers are wrong? Simple. The WTC7 study was public and peer-reviewed.
Yes, and part of the "peer review", the Public Comments, can be downloaded from the AE911T web resources:
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments-Updated.pdf
Please go to page 13 of the Public Comments, and read through page 25. These 13 pages contain a full, thorough, devastating smack-down of the entire Hulsey study - they completely destroy the report. Here is the summary:
Public Comments page 14 said:
According to the Abstract, page i, and repeated verbatim in Section 1.2, page 13,
„The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.“
We find that the study fails to fulfill any of its three key objectives.
In short:
(1) Hulsey et al failed to model most of the fires / heating, and all of the fire histories, and thus cannot possibly have accounted for all structural responses
(2) Hulsey et al could not have, and did not, account for all possible or plausible collapse initiating events. Instead, they looked at only three that have been proposed by three previous studies. Because of the incompleteness of Hulsey et al‘s models, Hulsey were not in a position to fully appraise these three hypotheses.
(3) Hulsey et al do not actually propose any „types of failures“ (as in „failure mode“). Their animations only mimic the observed collapse of 9/11/2001 in a very limited number of features, but fail to replicate many other features. Hulsey et al do not explain why these few features are even significant. The few features they do mimic arise not as a result (output) of any theory, any comprehensive and falsifiable hypothesis as to the material cause of the collapse. Rather, they are explicitly input to the animations: All columns are simply, without explanation, conjured away at opportune times. This is non-explanatory.
and then further, on page 25:
Public Comments page 14 said:
Hulsey et al, page 1f:
„
Fire Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC 7[...]“
This is based, in essence on two approaches:
1. Proving NIST, Arup and Weidlinger wrong
2. Not finding an initial damage pattern that results in a simulation collapse that closely resembles the observed real collapse
Both approaches are invalid:
1. One can‘t prove a global negative („All possible combinations of fire initiation and building conditions could not have resulted in this collapse“) by disproving only a small subset of the possible scenarios – even assuming Hulsey had done enough to disprove the other studies. Which they have not
2. Not finding a solution does not imply that there exists none – unless one can rigorously prove ti have searched the entire solution space. Which Hulsey et al have not.
As a consequence, the study failed to prove its principal finding.
So there is Hulsey, in complete shambles.
Hulsey never responded to this destruction of his report.
So what? It's foolish nonsense data, incapable of shedding light on the reality of WTC7. And this is by design.
Their models match what was observed.
No. Please read the Total Destruction of the Hulsey report I linked for you - from the AE911T resources no less.
They have no reason to lie. None.
It suffices that they are wrong and spreading illogical nonsense.
It's absurd to think that Hulsey conned AE911T out of $400K to create a fraudulent report.
Why?
Any argument along those lines is foolish and with no basis whatsoever in reality.
Hulsey got $316K - and Hulsey produced an easily refuted nonsense report that, by design, cannot prove what it claims it set out to prove.
This could be crass incompetence - or scientific fraud.
It's foolish to comment if you haven't watched the documentary, but that doesn't seem to prevent people from still commenting.
The correct, respected, time-honored way to disseminate and discuss scientific studies is through academic conferences, refereed journal papers and the like.
The Hulsey study, contrary to the promises made when Gage and Hulsey solicited MONEY, has to this date not spawned a single academic publication - no journal paper, no conference paper, no book, no serious citation. It is a full, total failure, entirely ignored by science.
A "documentary" ordered and payed for by the same outfit that also ordered and payed for the original hoax report in no way serves to bolster its credibility - quite the contrary: A "documentary" by failed film maked Dylan Avery makes the endeavor stink even fishier than it already stinks. True science needs no Propaganda.
That speaks volumes to what is really going on in this forum.
And that Hulsey chose to let a discredited conspiracy theorist and failed fiulm maker popularize his destroyed study, rather than presenting it to actual peers via conferences and scientific journals, speaks volumes about how convinced Hulsey is if the credibility and plausibility of his work: It simply has none of those.
