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. DasKleineTeilchen

    DasKleineTeilchen Active Member

    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

  20. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Can you let on a bit about who Stian Arnesen is, and how come AE911 communicates with him about the Alaska report?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't really know how his contact with AE911 came about. He contacted me after I was on Joe Rogan. He was trying to get Richard Gage on Rogan with me, and that went as far as a brief Skype video call with me, Stian, and Richard. But I've not heard from Rogan for a while, so that went nowhere.

    [Gage seemed much as he appeared on other videos. He told me he was not that interested in debating debunkers, but indicated he would do it if it meant getting a large audience, like on Rogan]

    Since then Stain has occasionally chatted with me on Facebook. He's a nice genuine guy. Used to be into crop circles and UFOs. Now less so, and he's also been open to examination of the 9/11 Truth movement.

    TFTRH #4 goes into more detail about his past:

    Source: https://youtu.be/J9KQUQxyxv0
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    And there is absolutely no benefit in making the obvious response to that admission. He is confident and assured of the security of his market niche.
     
  23. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Thanks, Mick
     
  24. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Two months now
     
  25. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I have sent five follow-up emails to Hulsey since - no response whatsoever.

    The only thing that has changed is that the UAF's project webpage now has changed the project end date from April 2018 to September 2019: http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    From what I've heard it seems they are trying to get something out in time for the Sept 11 anniversary (this year, 2019). Still, so many missed release timeframes that I'll believe it when I see it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  27. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    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 (http://archive.is/6wrba)

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2019 at 7:46 AM
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    This report of theirs will never be released.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1402727
     
  30. Joe_the_Joe

    Joe_the_Joe New Member

    I must say, that reads more like a ransom note than an inspirational development.
     
  31. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I'll bet that most commentators miss the logical problem with that assertion.

    If I'm correct we should see a replay of the same confusions we saw for several years with "Missing Jolt" which also was based on false foundation premises of logic.
     
  32. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    It'll be interesting to see if any of Prof. Hulsey's research assistants also lent their names to the report. It seems at least one of them ran away from the project as fast as he could.

    It's also disappointing that AE911Truth and Prof. Hulsey are seemingly charging along with releasing the report without first subjecting it to any of the peer review processes they previously promised. They first stated that it was their intent to have the paper published by a peer reviewed engineering journal but then later watered that down to only say the report would be subject to a six week comment period for an undefined group of "peers" (which presumably meant those who signed up on the project website to be reviewers, but it could have been intended to be even narrower than that). I believe at one point Prof. Hulsey also threaded the needle by saying in an interview that maybe a European engineering journal would publish it. Now the report is coming out with AE911Truth standing firmly behind its conclusions without any peer review taking place whatsoever, so far as we know. I don't think anyone here is surprised that AE911Truth is pushing it out that way in the end, but I am somewhat surprised that Prof. Hulsey didn't come to his senses and find his integrity during this drawn out process. I strongly suspect that, if the report is not going to be be subjected to any serious, independent review, it's because Prof. Hulsey knows the report would not survive such a review.

    My prediction: Prof. Hulsey merely formalized his previous power point presentation, glaring flaws and all, and added some additional analysis re just-so collapse models wherein he induced collapses caused by simulated demolition events.
     
  33. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I have a feeling you are correct... change the font and do a spell check and issue his previous offering as the final report. Truthers don't do well when they have to defend or debate with people who understand engineering and science.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In another press reslease they describe it as a draft.
    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/543...years-later-september-2019-schedule-of-events
    The livestream will be here:
    https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_770r6b6b
     
  35. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Sounds about right... go for publicity with the old stuff...
     
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I suspect you are wrong here. His previous offering was just a PowerPoint presentation. Now they are going to also present the results of various simulation of the full building model they have created. They will show some where they tweaked it to look like the videos of the collapse. They will probably show some where they set up what they think NIST described, and show how it differs.

    The graphic they put in the fundraiser is a good indication of this:
    [​IMG]
     
  37. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Just to clarify (because it was my quote to which @Jeffrey Orling was responding)--I expect them to focus a significant portion of the report on their collapse models, which will be new to the public. But the heart of their report is still going to be the analyses they previously included in the power point presentation, which was collectively debunked here. Those analyses (flawed as they were) were taken as Prof. Hulsey as "proof" that fire could not cause the collapse of the building and so he moved on to separately analyze a global model of the building with the goal of demonstrating what could cause the collapse. It is a logically tortured way to conduct a study, but that's more or less how Hulsey has described his process over the years.
     
  38. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Feng Xiao is now an (assistant?) professor at a Chinese university (Nanjing, if memory serves), and has had until most recently papers published where he collaborated with Hulsey (all on bridges) - so I assume you are talking of Zhili Quan?

    I think you are conflating a few things here.
    First, they have a "review panel", presumably hand-picked by Gage by the criterion "dyed-in-the-wool Truther". Not sure what their exact role is - I imagine they vetted and guided Hulsey's draft before the upcoming publication of the same.
    Then, they promised a sex-week period for public comments - and that is still on, as I documented in my post earlier today
    And finally, he had said he would seek to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Now that would not, could not apply to the entire report - journals accept papers, not full-fledged study reports. This is probably not going to happen.

    Yes - true as regards journal papers.

    Read my previous post!
    I am less sure than you that Hulsey is not himself a dyed-in-the-wool Truther. I had privately entered the hope, which I considered rather unlikely, that he would end up with a big NYAAANYAAA HAHA IT WAS FIRE AFTER ALL up the noses of Gage and co. - but that hope has now sailed. Evidently, AE911Truth knows the draft report already, and they are pleased with it.
     
  39. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Oh wait ... I didn't post here :D

    Anyway, the AE911Truth website had two news items out yesterday: One was "Building 7 Study to Be Released September 3" and does not mention any "draft" or "six weeks", but the other does:

    Science, Truth, and Justice 18 Years Later: September 2019 Schedule of Events

    This article says:
    So: Public review until October 15th.
     
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    Source: https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/911-breakthroughs-on-the-horizon-as-18th-anniversary-nears-richard-gage-and-ted-walter


    Here they discuss the upcoming report, Some points:
    • It's 130 pages, which they mention several times
    • There will be a 6 week public comment period
    • (20:35) They ran a simulation of removing six floors worth of columns, and the building fell straight down (why they need to run a simulation for that is not clear).
    • Hulsey will do a live (streamed) presentation on Sept 3rd, 5PM Pacific in Alaska.
    • Hulsey will fly down to do another presentation at UC Berkely, sept 5th, 5PM