Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Things I will look for:
    • Do they make ALL data available - the full ABACUS and SAP2000 models, all parameters, all runs? They promised full transparency
    • Did they test any CD dynamic full collapse scenarios with accumulated damage to the structure - from hours of fire (weakend and failed connections on all fire floors, impact damage from WTC1 collapse, ...)? NIST's two simulations - one with impact damage, one without - showed that the outer appearance of how the perimeter comes down depends critically at least on prior damage to external columns on the south and west side
    • Did they expand the area in which they looked for fire damage to more than just the two floors we know they considered earlier in the project?
    • And of course any instance of making a global claim without covering (enveloping) the entire space of possibilities
    • Do they reference and discuss all the other studies (ARUP, Weidlinger, ...), as well as the literature that builds on the NIST report - such as the papers that NIST's lead authors (McALister, Gross) themselves placed in prestigeous journals?
    • Any unscientific references, any text passages copied&pasted from Truther works without proper attribution
  2. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Also to look for - in their "CD" model, where they cut columns to mimic the actual collapse:
    • Do they provide estimates how many and how large CD charges would have to be to effect that?
    • Are these charges placed in areas where there were fires? Any suggestions how they would survive the fires?
    • Any estimates about the other effects of such charges, such as making loud sounds or blasting out windows, that can be compared to observations?
    I am asking, because NIST did all that.
  3. Amber Robot

    Amber Robot Member

    It would seem to me that charges would have had to be placed at exactly the same floors that were impacted by the airplanes. That is good coordination and good flying. Somehow they’d have to be sure the charges weren’t destroyed by the planes’ impacts and resultant fires.
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    they are modeling WTC 7.
  5. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane.
  6. Amber Robot

    Amber Robot Member

    Sorry. My bad. I know there’s also a conspiracy that the towers were set up for controlled demolition.
  7. Crusher

    Crusher New Member

    This looks like building a red herring to pre-empt a reason to reject damaging information. It's a red herring because they are examining the collapse, and you are talking about 'how many and how large charges"
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's evidence that can be used to evaluate certain mechanisms of collapse. If a mechanism would require certain loud energetic events (i.e. loud bangs) and they were not observed, then that make that mechanism less supported by the evidence. If the absence of evidence is enough, then that's evidence of absence.
  9. Crusher

    Crusher New Member

    Obfuscation, they have stated their goal is to show the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition more readily replicates the observed destruction.

    Once NIST's report can no longer stand, an investigation can begin into any possible Controlled demolition. Note they are not saying that it is a demolition, and likely won't, but likely will be saying that a controlled demolition more readily replicates the observed destruction. The red herring by Oystein is that in order for them to accept if data leads to that consideration, they want precise data, in short, they want step 2-3 of the data, where step 1 is being presented.

    There are already witnesses to explosions that were denied a hearing, for example you can find a collection of first responders' witness here

    Horrible reasoning.

    If you were to go back 500 years and show the evidence for DNA to people of that time, but they didn't have the tools to see it yet (and wouldn't for at leasts 450 years), are they correct in saying "The absence of evidence for DNA is enough, we found nothing, so that's evidence of absence".

    They may have thought they were correct, but today we would know they're wrong.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, let's see what happens tomorrow. No sense speculating when we can just wait 24 hours.

    I'm traveling tomorrow though (H3 Podcast). So probably won't get to it for a while.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    Your analogy doesn't work. People were present at the scene with the tools to perceive the noises of explosions.

    That they did not hear or record any explosions of a magnitude you would expect with demolition charges is evidence of the absence of such charges.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  12. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Would you agree that this is besides the point you argue against? We are talking about conditions under which collapse would progress this way or that way. That's separate and relatively independent on collapse initiation.

    "Replicate the observed destruction" is a rather irrelevant objective, and a low-hanging fruit. You could "replicate" the same probably with many a fancy technology suggestion.
    What you really want to explain is the entirety of relevant observations made in reality. That would include the failure modes of columns, or the sounds recorded by a number of sound recording devices, as well of witness recollections of sounds. Are there any witness accounts reporting "explosions" that are consistent in loudness, timing, number and brisance with the devices that Hulsey models? Are sound recordings consistent with them? If not, then Hulsey FAILS to explain the observations made.

    This suffers from an invalid leap of logic.
    NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis could be as wrong as Goethe's color theory, and yet that does not make any CD hypothesis one bit more likely. There are potentially dozens, perhaps hundreds of collapse initiation scenarios that Hulsey hasn't even begun to consider, because he neglects MOST of the fires, ALL of the fire hisories, and also, I expect, the initial impact damage.

    Of course they won't - they are obfuscating. Plausible deniability and all.
    Of course Gage has rather openly campaigned for a decade to plant exactly that idea - demolition - into everybody's head.

    I explained the your red herring above: "Replicate" is not the same as "explain".

    No. Just the usual in science: I want a falsifiable hypothesis - and if the hypothesis is that it was a CD, then my very next step is, and should be, to try to falsify it.
    Now either Hulsey theorizes that it was a CD with charges placed at locations P1 to Pn and exploded at times T1 to Tn, then he should accept that this prediction will be tested against the evidence - in this time the evidence of sound records: Do we hear explosion sounds consistent with CD charges exploded at those times? If we don't, the hypothesis is falsified - and needs to be improved.

    Alright, your assignment, when the report comes out, will be then to take that PDF and mark in it any and all witness reports of "explosions" that are, in your assessment, consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with the CD charges Hulsey hypothesises about in his report. Fair deal?
    Of course, if you return with ZERO such witness reports, I shall assume that you found none :p

    As JohnnyH already pointed out: But we do have the tools to record explosion sounds, we know what they sound like from plenty of actual CDs, and we do have a fair number of sound recordings made near WTC7 at the time of its collapse.
    Of course the absence of a recorded sound level of x dB means that no such sound actually filled the air at GZ. That is not evidence that is absent - that is evidence of absence!

    (Cue desperate resort to silent explosives urrr incendiaries urrr incendplosives... they can tailor that stuff to make it explode but without sound and hurl many tons of steel hundreds of feet and pulverize it all and melt it at the same time, without anyone noticing anything - and all the witnesses heard explosions that were so silent no video could record it...)
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  13. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    I think many of these are loose translations at best. The quote at the top of the page from, John Coye, says that "at the time"... "Everyone at that point THOUGHT that they were being blown up" Sounds to me like he is fully aware of what he think happened, but is relaying what he thought at the time of the attacks. #2 on the list from Brian Becker seems like he is giving a pretty good description of Tower two coming down, but he doesn't mention anything about hearing "explosives". Yet is presented as on of their 188 pieces of evidence toward CD.

    It is a bit underhanded by AE911 to use this tactic, but decency and credibility do not see to be their Achilles heels.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  14. Crusher

    Crusher New Member

    It seems you forgot that you brought up the CD issue, "and Once NIST's report can no longer stand, an investigation can begin into any possible Controlled demolition." was a response was to your use of CD

    I was going to reply to your points, but after reading to this point i realized you don't have much and probably won't.

    Sorry i didn't mean to make you feel disrespected if that did, but in future try to remember:
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The old project page set up by AE911Truth,, now redirects to

    Mick, can you archive that page, please? Perhaps we should archive it daily now.

    I want to point out at this time what they say about the promised release of all data:
    This last date of the time frame they set themselves for releasing the data, 09/30, is a month before the end of the commenting period:
    So 8 instead of just 6 weeks for comments.
    I spot a curious caveat: They only "welcome" those reviews that are "intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report".
    Sounds a bit like they reserve the right to
    a) Speculate what the intention of submitters might be
    b) Limit allowable comment to things already made a topic in the report. Such that, for example. they will not discuss methods of CD if the report doesn't mention CD yet.
    These could be two filters to justify ignoring comments made by debunkers.
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    All links on Metabunk are automatically submitted to and, so you posting that caused it to be archived.
  17. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    To cause frequent archiving, I'd have to post the link again?
    I think it should be possible to sneak in the links in many posts :p
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2019
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Please don't. You can just go to yourself and submit it.
  19. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I am stunned.

    As you may know, I am daily toiling to maintain counts of all countable things AE911T. See the thread on the development of their Facebook likes that I opened the other day.

    Another count I keep is the development of their Petition. The current number is updated once every day on their home page,
    Yesterday (and on the first of the month), it stood at 3,164 Architects and Engineers. After 149 months, that's, on average a bit over 21 signatures from A&E per month.
    Lately (say, past 2 years), they averaged ca. 11 more signatures per month, with a range of 0 to 23 in the worst and best month in those last 24 months. Historically, the low and high numbers were -3 (minus three) and 100. Just to get you a feel for how much changes there.
    In reality, if you have, for example, +8 signatures last month, August 2019, the reality is that they deleted 5 signatures and added 13. This is rather typical: Most months, they delete a few signatures, and add a few more than they delete.

    It happens that they do not add any, or very few, signatures for quite a while, say 6 weeks, 3 months... but then a lot within a few weeks: I assume that they then have built up a back-log, which they work down belatedly.

    Anyway, I am jotting down the current number (for both the A&E part of the Petition, and the "Members of the Public" part, which stood at 22,963 yesterday) every day late in the evening here in Germany, but as there is not a lot of meaningful change from day to day, I actually keep records long-time only ever 15 or 16 days (=half months).

    Why am I expaining this here in the Hulsey thread?

    Because 24 hours ago, the Hulsey report came out (around the time I jotted down the numbers of signatures), 19 hours ago, they announced it on Facebook, 20 hours ago via Newsletter...

    ...and NOW, the numbers are 3,131 and 22,895!

    They deleted (at least) 33 A&E Petition Signatories, and 55 Members of the Public in a single day since the release of the Hulsey Draft! That is far and away the biggest loss of signed supporters ever!
  20. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    These are the 33 A&E that today are no longer listed as Petition signers:

    [Mod: list of names removed]
    There is, most prominently, Richard Gage himself in that list - but of the others, I recognize not a single name.

    It is possible that they are merely doing some database house-keeping, and that all these people will re-appear in a few days.

    I do not believe that any called AE911Truth today to demand being removed, AND that AE911Truth moved this swiftly to remove them. Highly unlikely.

    I have a sinister idea: Maybe some or all of these are the "Designated reviewers external to UAF and AE911Truth [who] will also review the report during this period", according to - and that they removed 32 so people won't see that they are actually already Petition Signers. I consider this possibility to be relatively unlikely, but won't rule it out - more likely than that they all called to be removed in outrage over the Draft.
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.