1. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I will need to read that in context - but - as it stands he may have just committed professional suicide. There is no doubt he has firmly planted himself "truther side".

    and sure -- I'm accustomed to reading "spin" and "lies by innuendo" - there is a bit of wriggle room in that his "that's going to do that" is responding to a possible strawman in the poorly defined "just break at the same time". It could be a weasel way out but both "just break" and "same time" are open to him wriggling out by redefining either or both those terms.

    I'd better read the full thing. :)
     
  2. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    In September, Hulsey said that he would have a report by the end of the year 2018. We are slightly past that date.
    Not clear if this would be before or after the AE911T review panel "peer" reviews it.

    I just now wrote him an email asking when the report will be done, whether, when and where a draft for public comment will be published, and a bit about the review committee.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Of course I received no response from Hulsey.
    In an AE Webinar, Richard Gage in early February mentioned that Hulsey's draft report is expected for mid-March - it's almost the end of March now.

    I researched what the UAF team has been doing lately:
    Here is J Leroy Hulsey's publication record:
    https://scholar.google.de/citations?hl=de&user=TzPOx8kAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

    So far he has 2 papers published in 2019, had 5 papers in 2018, four in 2017 - all about bridges and soil, often with a focus on cold climate conditions. Nothing on WTC.

    All of these papers since 2017 feature F(eng) Xiao, the more senior of his project assistants, as co-author - or rather, 9 of 11 papers have Xiao named first among the authors.

    Feng Xiao has been an assistant professor at the Nanjing University of Science and Technology in China since December 2017, according to this entry:
    https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7244-9235

    Here is his profile on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Feng_Xiao22
    That profile has an entry for the WTC7-project, made in July 2016: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Computer-Simulation-for-Cause-of-Failure-at-World-Trade-Center -
    That's it! His other two projects have produced several papers and other entries.

    I don't believe Xiao is still working with Hulsey on the project - the NUST won't let him spend time without budget.


    I can't find any information on the junior partner, Zhili Quan - nothing on Google Scholar, no co-authorships with Hulsey or Xian, nothing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I thought he went back to China last year. Although I'm not sure where I heard that.

    Someone told me that the report was complete and in "peer review", with a planned release for public comments in March, and Publication in May.

    Of course, now March is nearly over.
     
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    his linked in page says hes working for Design Alaska
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/zhili-quan-902854b5

    The other boy left Alaska last year and went to another college or university, but here in America, to work. if i recall correctly.

    sorry this paper is taking alot longer than i thought it was.. that was 2 years ago
    upload_2019-3-28_22-22-15.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2019
  6. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Over at ISF, a bit of intel on what Hulsey has been up to most recently. Starting here and going on until at least post #2583 (which I posted a minute ago):

    Hulsey was scheduled to make a presentation at the monthly meeting of the ASCE's Fairbanks chapter on March 20th (2 weeks ago) about his WTC study, but he had to cancel this due to unspecified injuries, from which he has recovered, and his presentation has been rescheduled to May 15th ("Dr. Hulsey will present on 9-11 WTC findings.").
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Just an idle reminder:

    According to http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
    According to the UAF Institute of Northern Engineering,
    (Red font by me)

    It's May 1, 2019 today (May 2 in Europe already, actually)

    This "two-year study" is now in its fifth year :p
     
    • Like Like x 5
  8. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    This presentation is still on (a week fromn today), according to the ASCE Fairbanks events calendar:
     
  9. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I wouldn't expect anything dramatic coming out of the presentation. 'ASCE Fairbanks' is his home town 'club' of like professionals and it is odds on that he is one of their favoured senior members. So they will probably treat him gently.

    Also those of us who are active in debate and suitably qualified are familiar with the topic and all the flaws in argument. His local associates almost certainly not informed in any depth.

    And in any such group the preponderance of members is towards details focussed 'left brain' types. Such persons are unlikely to identify the fatal flaw of his base logic. The 'cannot prove a negative' in his claim 'Fires could NOT cause collapse of WTC7'. There has been very little recognition of that in online debate among those with significant interest and depth of familiarity.

    It will be a bit different if he is NOT a favoured son. The other possibility being that he has one established rival who always disagrees with him. The rival wont 'win' in the local setting.

    As an example of the sort of 'social dynamics' the long standing rivalry between G Szuladzinski and Z Bazant. Bazant has status and few even know of Szuladzinski.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Would it be worth @Mick West going, or would that be a waste of time?
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Certainly something I don't have the time for. And probably a waste of time, as I would not have access to the report or the data, and so have a hard time asking good questions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    It's always seemed to me that to support the AE911T position... you have to either affirmatively prove that a CD took place or affirmatively prove that fire cannot lead to the collapse of a steel building... such as 7wtc which had no active fire fighting, serious mechanical damage and a structure with multiple load transfer structures in the lower floors. Both of these proofs would be virtually impossible to do. My hunch is that the Hulsey's focus was the proof that fire could not cause the collapse we saw. That in itself seems a very steep hill to climb... especially considering that there is no detailed building complete set of data from before the Plane hit 1wtc until 7wtc collapsed. His "proof" therefore can only assumed and incomplete data.

    [Mod: edited for politeness]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2019
  13. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    But... It is an honor to be nominated, I guess.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    The second one CANNOT be proved Sander. To prove a negative - in this scenario - he has to falsify ALL the alternate mechanisms. And all of them cannot even be defined. Plus Hulsey et al have only analysed a limited number of scenarios - I don't know how many but it is not all. So the mechanism that could lead to a fire collapse could be one of those not analysed. Therefore the claim is false at the very foundation of his logic.

    Then there have been many posts - much discussion - identifying errors in his analysis of the cases he has analysed.
    So he is wrong at two levels:
    1) The claim cannot be "proved" - all he can show is that he has NOT identified a fire caused collapse mechanism; AND
    2) (Tho I have not studied it myself) It looks like he hasn't even proved that because his engineering analysis is flawed for the cases he has analysed.

    So he is doubly wrong... :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Yes. But not a winning scenario other than as a neutral reporter. Or "curious visitor". Given that Hulsey's work is dubious at two levels raising EITHER of them would probably raise defences from Hulseys colleagues. If they even recognised the "false foundation logic issue" - most of them would be mainstream left brain engineers who simply would not see it.,
     
  16. anything happend? its a week past that specific date and I cant find anything about it.
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A couple of weeks ago I interviewed Stian Arnesen for my podcast. Stian has been in communication with AE911 about the Alaska report, and we talked about it:


    Source: https://youtu.be/kyWi7miH5LE

    I've not heard any update. But it's interesting that they "had to change a bit of the rhetoric and the report due to the language being used in it." That could refer to it being written by a Chinese graduate student, but I suspect it refers to Hulsey being one step away from conspiracy speculation. Years ago when starting out he was doing things like noting the occupants of Building 7 as if it were suspicious or speculating about how banks keep their files in fireproof cabinets, so there wasn't a lot of flammable material. So perhaps some of that found its way in and had to be excised to make it more academic.

    I'm sure it will come out eventually.
     
  18. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

  19. Redwood

    Redwood Active Member