I think we can take his statement on face value, that it was simply more complicated than they had anticipated. I think also one of the students has left UAF, which might have slowed them down. I'm sure they have some interesting results. Of course we can't forget that the study was paid for by AE911, who had preconceived notions of what it should show. But Hulsey and his students were not members of AE911, and while he certainly seemed sympathetic towards their position, one would hope that his conclusion reflect only the science. I think we'll eventually see something. But the question it raises (and I've asked in some 9/11 groups on Facebook) is: if, as is often claimed, it's "obvious" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why cannot it be simply demonstrated? Why does it take a four year study? Perhaps it's not as obvious as it seemed?