Discussion in '9/11' started by Oystein, Jan 13, 2015.
Well, what's the null hypothesis in this case?
That WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
AE911 seems to think that the commonly accepted explanation is "NIST claims the collapse started EXACTLY like their probable-initiating-event hypothesis". And that if it's not, then it must have been explosives.
Reality would be more like:
"Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the probably initiating event hypothesis put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a slightly different hypothesis more readily replicates the observed destruction."
The problem with @gerrycan, @Tony Szamboti, et al, is that they insist that if one detail of NISTs description is wrong, then the building could not possibly have collapsed like it did. Unfortunately the current study seems to simply continue on the same lines. Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.
It is refreshing to see that rigorous identification of the true status of the principle issue of logic.
The post overall is a great summary.
Exactly. And T Szamboti's de-facto strategy for the past couple of years has been the closely related "high level false dichotomy". VIZ "If I can prove ONE "OCT supporter" WRONG it means that I am right". THEREFORE "If I can prove several of them wrong - I must be several times proven right." Needless to say BUT even if NIST. Bazant, Nordenson et many als are wrong it has ZERO effect on what really happend.
T Szamboti - all of them I suppose - need to learn that
it takes a "proven" assertive claim to establish an hypothesis.
Perhaps from AE911's perspective the null hypothesis is that it was a CD, and that is what they should be disproving.
Why don't they try that then?
I honestly think they should. But the argument here seems to suggest that would be impossible.
t would seem to be very useful to fun some simulations of CD and see what that looks like. However you'd need a "reasonable model either way".
It would at least be a good thought experiment. Do you really need explosives to duplicate the the results we saw - the expulsions, the flying beams, the rate of collapse? Can you duplicate the results without leaving other clues that make it obvious it was explosives?
Right now though Im focussing on the more general question of "can collapse near the top of a building rapidly progress downwards". I think you can probably see from the models that the answer is yes. I'm starting with disproving the "cardboard box" model, then the over-simplistic "challenges". Unlikely I'd get something acceptable as an accurate model of WTC1/2 but I hope at the least to illustrate that rapid progressive collapse is possible.
AE911Truth released a decently long interview with Hulsey last week here. The meat of interview comes from a long monologue from Hulsey starting in response to a question at around 21:40 into the broadcast. Here are the main points I took away relevant to our discussion here:
They tested a model of WTC7 using NIST's structural conditions (plus they added the omitted elements AE911Truth harps about--sheer studs, stiffeners, etc.) and NIST's fire model and found that, under those conditions, the girder displacement they saw was very similar to what NIST reported.
They then tested a model of WTC7 using their own conditions (a less-rigid outer frame, more internal connections) and NIST's fire model and found that under those conditions, there was no collapse initiation.
Hulsey, who had previously said the project was intended to determine what caused the collapse of the building, completely re-framed the scope of the project to be merely testing whether NIST's model was accurate. (I find this point in particular to be a bit of a shocking statement considering how explicit Hulsey previously had been in his talks that he did not want to prejudice his study by looking at the NIST model. In fact, in his previous presentations, Hulsey even repeatedly made the point that he was remaining deliberately ignorant of NIST's model so that his team could independently arrive at their conclusion re the cause of the collapse. How can he now pretend that the goal was to simply test NIST's hypothesis all along? See my edit below for more.)
They only tested NIST's fire model (and its not clear if they tested all of NIST's fire scenarios) and one fire model of their own creation which they described as being less severe than NIST's.
Hulsey no longer talks about having the paper published in a peer reviewed engineering journal; instead, the focus is now on a "peer review panel," which, per the project website, seems likely to be comprised of people who applied to participate in such panel via the website and who were then hand picked by Hulsey.
The final paper is going to be released (along with all modeling data) in August as part of AE911Truth's pre-9-11 anniversary marketing blitz.
EDIT: Adding in a clip of Hulsey previously talking about how the scope of the project in June 2016:
What a change a year brings...
I'm interested in this study because Dr. Hulsey seems to have the appropriate background for conducting this kind of work. Regarding the point above, was he saying that this model predicted a collapse? Have not listened to the interview yet, will later tonight...
Why do you think so? What is there about Hulsey's background, specifically, that makes it appropriate for "this kind" of work?
"This kind of work" is a forensic engineering study of a large-scale progressive collapse incident. Can you cite any work Hulsey has previously done in "this kind of work"?
Does Hulsey have any background in the simulation of fire events in buildings like that?
Has he published any paper on this kind of work?
Attended any such conference?
1976 Ph.D. Structural Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla
1968-1971 Post Graduate, University of Illinois
1966 M. S. Civil Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla
1965 B. S. Civil Engineering, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy
UAF, Chi-Epsilon Award for Excellence in Teaching, Rocky Mountain District, 1999-2000
UMR, Outstanding Teaching Awards, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75
NCSU, Outstanding Teaching Award, 1979
Working with Students
Dr. Hulsey focuses on working with students to achieve a high quality education. His research is in the fields of bridge engineering and effects of temperature extremes on structural systems like composite wall panels for buildings. His work blends a strong experimental component with the fundamentals of theory. Dr. Hulsey has expertise in mathematical modeling using state-of-art methods in finite element, finite difference and theoretical solid mechanics. Funding isavailable for graduate students to work on the analysis or testing of bridges.
Major advisor 13 full-time MS students (9 thesis & 4 projects)
Graduate committees 41 students (29 MS and 12 Ph.D.)
Outside examiner 5 students (3 MS and 2 Ph.D.)
Faculty Advisor - National Competition for Students
ASCE Steel Bridge Team Faculty Advisor (Won National Championship 1993, 4th place in 1995, tied for 1st place in 1996). Obtained a provisional patent based on the 1998 bridge design. Faculty Advisor for the Civil Engineering Concrete Toboggan team; Canadian competition, best rookie team 1999 in the Great North American Toboggan race.
Dr. Hulsey has University and corporate experience. Before coming to the University, Dr. Hulsey owned and run three high-tech engineering-research corporations. He has extensive teaching and research experience. He taught at the University of Missouri Rolla, North Carolina State University and the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). While at UAF he has been an active researcher, served as Department Head and participated in numerous university committees.
President of the Fairbanks Chapter of ASCE; TRB-A201, A2F04
Professional Engineer: North Carolina, Alaska, Illinois (inactive), Missouri (Inactive)
Structural Engineer: Illinois
The Society of Sigma XI
Who's Who in the Midwest
Personalities of the West and Midwest
Men of Achievement
American Men and Women of Science
Chi Gamma Iota Honorary Fraternity
The Association of Tau Beta Pi
Who's Who in the Southeast
Community Leaders of America
Dictionary of International Biography
Governor appointed member of a task force to evaluate the Million Dollar Bridge (1995)
Wearing Surfaces for Orthotropic Steel Bridge Decks, 1999, Hulsey, J. L., Yang, L., and Raad, L., Transportation Research Record, Paper 991049, National Research Council.
Household Solid Waste and Disposal Site Selection, 1997, Koushki, P., Hulsey, J. L., and Bashaw, B. K., Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 123, No. 1, March, pp. 1-9.
Analysis of State Department Safety Expenditures and Highway Safety, 1995, Koushki, P. A., Yesean, S., & Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Research Record, Paper 1485, National Research Council, pp. 148-154.
Influence of Base Saturation on the Response of Rigid Pavements, 1995, Raad, L., Minassion, G. H., and Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Engineering Journal, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 121, No. 6, Nov/Dec, pp. 495-506.
On the Response Consistency of Questionnaire Surveys of State DOT Management, 1993, Hulsey, J. l., Koushki, P. a., Vaughn, C., Paper 930111, Transportation Record 1395, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 163-167.
A Rational Weather Model for Highway Structures, Hulsey, J. l., and Powell, D. T., 1993, Paper 931097, Transportation Research Record 1393, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 54-64.
Static Live Load Tests on a Cable Stayed Bridge, 1993, Hulsey, J. l., Delaney, D. K., Paper 930507, Transportation Research Record 1393, National Research Council, TRB, pp. 162-174.
Cold Region Logistics Planning and Management, Hulsey, J. l., Koushki, P. a., 1993, Bennett, F. L., and Kelly, J., Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 7, No. 1, Paper No. 3405, Mar. pp. 1-11.
Meridional Rib Stiffened Shells, Roy, D. k., Hulsey,J. l., and Zia, P., Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. EM1, proceedings paper 16037, Feb.. 1981, pp. 77-95.
Temperature Distributions in Composite Bridges," Emanuel, J. H. and Hulsey, J. l., 1980, Closure to the paper by Emanuel and Hulsey, Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 106, No. ST5, Proceedings paper 15380, May, pp 1219-1220.
Estimation of Air Temperature Extremes," Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., 1979, ASHRAE Transactions, 1978, Vol. 84, Pt. 2, Paper 2509.
Environmental Stresses in Flexibly Supported Bridges,", 1978, Hulsey, J. l. and Emanuel, J. h., Transportation Research Record 664, Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1, pp. 262-270.
Temperature Distributions in Composite Bridges", 1978, Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST1, Proceedings paper 13474, Jan., pp. 65-78.
Thermal Stresses and Deformations in Nonprismatic Indeterminate Composite Bridges," 1976, Emanuel, J. h., and Hulsey, J. l., Transportation Research Record 607, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.
Prediction of the Thermal Coefficient of Expansion of Concrete, 1977, Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol. 74, No. 4, Apr., pp. 149-155.
Refereed Conference Papers
Bulb Tee Bridges: Alaska Weather and Thermal Stresses, 2002, Hulsey, J. l., and Ma,J. , accepted for publication, ASCE Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Cold Region Engineering, May 20-22.
Deck Wearing Surfaces for the Yukon River Bridge, 2002, Hulsey, J. l., Raad, L., and Conner, B. , accepted for publication, ASCE Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Cold Region Engineering, May.
Buried Utilities for Alaska: Dewater or Winter Work?, 2002, Hulsey, J. l., Raad, N., Saboundjan, S., and Brand, R., accepted for publication, ASCE Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Cold Region Engineering, May.
Longitudinal Slab Stresses on One--Way Slabs on Flexible Supports, 1993, Hulsey, J. l., and Chen, Z., International Conference on Concrete & Structures - Hong Kong, Mar. 16-17, Hong Kong, pp. 71-77.
Logistic System Planning for Arctic Mining, 1992, Frouz, A. A., Koushki, P. a., and Hulsey, J. l., Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic /Fairbanks/Alaska/, July 19-22, pp. 145-151.
Mechanistic Evaluation of Saturated Granular Bases in Concrete Pavements, 1992, Raad, L., Minassion, G. h., and Hulsey, J. l., American Concrete Institute, Spring Convention, ACI Committee on Concrete Pavements, Washington, DC, Mar. 17.
A Logistic Planning Model Framework for Remote Polar Operations, 1991, P. a., Hulsey, J. l., Bennett, F. l., and Kelley, J., IDEEA ONE, Final Conference Proceedings Report, The First International Design for Extreme Environments Assembly, University of Houston, Texas, Nov. 12-15, pp. 815-819.
Composite Bridges on Flexible Supports in Cold Regions, 1990, Hulsey, J. l. and Powell, D. t., Proceedings, Second Workshop on Bridge Engineering Research in Progress , University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada, Oct. 29-30, pp. 229-232.
Instrumentation of a Cable Stayed Bridge at Skagway, Alaska, 1990, Hulsey, J. l., Delaney, D. k., Bunch, R. F., and Briggs, R. W., Proceedings, Eighth Structures Congress, ASCE, Baltimore, Md., April 30 - May 3.
Analysis of Hyperbolical Shells Using Galerkin FEM, 1981, Roy, D. k. and Hulsey, J. l., T heoretical and Computational Consideration in the Analysis of Large Thin Shell Structures, Committee on Elasticity, EMD, ASCE Annual Convention, St. Louis, Mo., Oct.
Analysis of Ribbed Hyperbolic Cooling Tower, 1980, Roy, D. k., Hulsey, J. l., and Zia, P., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Annual Conference, Structural Section, May, pp. 26:1-26:10.
Segmentally Constructed Cooling Tower, 1979, Zia, P., Tung, C. C., Hulsey, J. l., and Mostafa, T., ACI Committee 115, American Concrete Institute, Washington, D.C., Oct.
Estimation of Air Temperature Extremes, 1978, Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., ASHRAE Transactions, 1978, Vol. 84, Part II, Paper No. 2509, presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July.
Environmentally Induced Bridge Stresses, 1977, Hulsey, J. l. and Emanuel, J. h., Summary paper, Second Annual ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, North Carolina State University, May.
Finite Element Modeling of Climatically Induced Heat Flow, 1977, Hulsey, J. l. and Emanuel, J. h., IMACS Int. Symposium on Simulation Software and Numerical Methods for Differential Equations, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, Va., Mar. 9-11.
Thermal Stresses and Deformations in Nonprismatic Indeterminate Composite Bridges, 1976, Emanuel, J. h., and Hulsey, J. l., paper presented to TRB Committee AC201-General Structures, Transportation Research Board 55th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Jan.
Software for Structural Analysis, 1986, Hulsey, J. l., Structures '86, Session No. 64, Learning About Structural Analysis Using the Computer, ASCE, Sept.
?Prediction of Beam Deflection in a Vibrated Slurry Wall Installation, 1983, Hulsey, J. l., ASCE Fall Meeting, Charlotte, N. C., Sept.
Software and Computers for Structural Engineers, 1982, J. l. Hulsey, AISC Structural Steel Building Design Seminar, Charlotte, N. c. and Richmond Va., Oct.
Experimental Investigations of Steel Frame Utility Buildings, 1982, J. l. Hulsey, ASCE Fall Meeting, Greensboro, N. c., Sept.
Use of Computers in Civil Engineering Practice," 1981, J. l. Hulsey, ASCE Fall Meeting, Raleigh, N. c., Sept.
Instrumentation of a Cable Stayed Bridge at Skagway, Alaska, 1990, l., Delaney, D. k., Bunch, R. f., and Briggs, w., Structures Congress Abstracts, Eighth Congress, ASCE, Baltimore, Md., April 30 - May 3, pp. 90-91.
Fairbanks Alaska Temperature Extremes for Life Cycle Design, 1989, Powell, t., 40th Arctic Science Conference, Global Change, University Fairbanks, 14-16, 30.
Professional Engineering Review Course, Civil Structural Analysis Hulsey E. Farzam, North Carolina State University, Carolina, 1983, 1986.
Permafrost Database Spring 1996 Data, Final Report, No. INE/TRC/RP-97.07, Department Transportation & Public Facilities, Institute Northern Engineering, December 1997. 1995,/RP-97.08, Yukon River Deck Strains Surfacing Alternatives , Yang, Curtis, Raad,/RP-94.10, September 1995.
Bethel Highway Thermosyphon Tests, Report 94.14, Dept. Feb.. 1994.
Standard Response Spectra Based on Earthquakes, Succarieh, M. F. Sow, B., Paramatsu,/RP-94.11, Dec., 1994,/RP-95.05, 1993,/RP-94.09, Research Center, [991-1992],/RP-93.03, July 1993. Lengths: Jointless Prestressed Girder Bridges, 1992,/QRP-92.04, One-Way Concrete Slabs: Uniform Concentrated Loads Chen, Z., May.
Revisiting Management Information Systems Allocation Funds Activities/ Projects/ Maintenance, TNW 92-05, Northwest (TRANSNOW), Washington, Mar. Cable-Stayed Geometric Nonlinear Analysis, k. Dec.
The No Expansion Joint Regions, 90-08, Static Linear Captain William Cooper Moore Bridge, FHWA AK-90-08A, Facilities. Tests An Experimental Study AK-RD-90-08, Transportation.
Bibliography Sensors Instrumentation, Emanuel, h., Best, Senne, Thompson, E., 73-1, Series, Missouri-Rolla, 1973.
Current Design Practice Superstructures Connected to Flexible Substructures, 1973, 73-3, Missouri-Rolla.
Investigation Criteria Stresses Induced by Semi-Integral End Bents: Phase 1 Feasibility Study, Missouri Cooperative Program 72-9
Lectures Inspection Training Short Juneau, Alaska. Taught from 10-15
EIT computers (3 hour sessions), evenings 1987 present. dynamics were presented in 1987, 1988.
ITRE-Highway Concepts two-part 133 lecture hours, technicians. Responsible 49 hours Part covering basic subjects 14 Geotechnical 2, 1985
ITRE-PE course with 85 hours. 28 Structures, Summer 1985. Education (ITRE), ITRE-EIT 77 covers 17 different subjects... such as Mathematics, Chemistry, Mechanics, etc.
Co-Instructor Fracture Critical Members. prepared Byrd Tallamy, MacDonald Lewis U.S. Transportation, FHWA. pilot courses Virginia Minnesota (2 day course), 1986, total 1988 course).
Rehabilitation Existing Bridges Workshop. Preparation same above. Kentucky, Missouri, Dakota, Instructor 1987. Maintenance Supervisors. New Jersey, Ohio, 1986 Byrd, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Alabama, Minnesota, South (1-week 1985 (Course Director), 1979, 1980, 1983.
Building Inspectors c. Insurance, 1982, 1984. Engineers 1979
Finite Element Methods Modeling Ground water, Rolla, Mo., 1976-1977. 1976.
Presentations (after 1993)
1999, Alternative Decking American Society Engineers, Bartlett Inn, June.
1997, Orthotropic Steel Committee A2F04, Board DC, Jan. 1996, UAF Competition, 18. Available Regional Acceleration Records Their Corresponding Spectra, Seismic Zonation Anchorage, 6-7. Moderator, Forum, AK, May, Cold Weather Impacts A2LO4 Frost Action Committee, D.C., 10
So why exactly do you think (for example) "
Estimation of Air Temperature Extremes," Emanuel, J. h. and Hulsey, J. l., 1979, ASHRAE Transactions, 1978, Vol. 84, Pt. 2, Paper 2509.
That entry in particular, not relevant. I did not go through the whole list and pick out the strictly relevant entries to the investigation at hand, I see quite a few though that I would pick had I done that. Looking at his overall CV, I see someone who has a long history in finite element modelling, structural analysis, thermal analysis, and some forensics work (bridges). What's your point? You think he's not qualified to do this work?
well can you pick them? all you have to do is copy and paste.
Sometimes there's a tendency to just pile a bunch of stuff, and assume:
"Well, that's an impressively huge list...some really relevant stuff is surely in that massive pile."
But it often isn't.
So, I agree with the others: rather than just admiring the size of the pile,
it would be more useful if you'd copy and paste the few bits that you believe best prove that
"Dr. Hulsey seems to have the appropriate background for conducting this kind of work."
Is there any evidence that he has reviewed the studies done by others over the several years? Or reached out to them? This research is not adversarial is it? Wouldn't it make sense to speak to the ARUP engineers?
I thought I was sufficiently clear when I asked you "What is there about Hulsey's background, specifically, that makes it appropriate for "this kind" of work?"
Perhaps you did not see the word "specifically" when you dumped a load of unspecific, irrelevant stuff.
I even went to some length to guide and help you with your answer:
"This kind of work" is a forensic engineering study of a large-scale progressive collapse incident. Can you cite any work Hulsey has previously done in "this kind of work"? -> Why did you ignore this question? An easy answer was available to you: "No. I cannot cite any work Hulsey has previously done in this kind of work"
Does Hulsey have any background in the simulation of fire events in buildings like that? -> Why did you ignore this question? An easy question would have been available to you: "I have not the slightest evidence that Hulsey has any background whatsoever in this."
Has he published any paper on this kind of work? -> Why did you ignore this question? An easy answer was available: "No. His vita lists zero (0) papers on this kind of work"
(Did) Hulsey (attended) any such conference? -> Why did you ignore this question? An eas answer was available to you: "I can't know. His vita lists no such conference."
I am glad though you did dump that very long list of Hulsey achievements. It documents that
Hulsey has done no prior work in fire simulation
Hulsey has done no prior work in forensic engineering
Hulsey has done no prior work on progressive collapse
Hulsey's experience in engineering is mostly in infrastructure - bridges, roads and pipelines -, none in high rise engineering.
The vita you posted is proof of this. It boggles my mind though why you claimed, erroneously:
"Looking at his overall CV, I see someone who has a long history in ... structural analysis, thermal analysis, and some forensics work (bridges)."
The word "forensic" does not appear in his vita - did you make that up? Nor do "collapse" or "failure" appear, and the word "investigation" does not appear in connection with any bridge failure.
"Structural analysis" appears half a dozend times - all of those occurrences in the mid 1980s. Example:
Software for Structural Analysis, 1986, Hulsey, J. l., Structures '86, Session No. 64, Learning About Structural Analysis Using the Computer, ASCE, Sept."
You are aware that software 30 years ago was rather different than what we have today? And anyway, "structural analysis" can be quite a lot - it is unclear if and how this is relevant to "this kind of work" - i.e. a forensic study of a fire-induced progressive highrise collapse.
"Thermal analysis" - Hulsey seems to be a bit of an expert on the effect of extreme weather and climate on infrastructures and bridges. That is certainly not the worst starting point for a fire analysis, but also certainly does not qualify as "experience on fire simulation".
Hulsey got his awards all in teaching - which is excellent and commendable, but not what we need here. Except that this teacher, unfortunately, teaches to PhD students to embark on a foolish errand.
His last journal article was 18 years ago, his last refereed conference paper 15 years ago.
I appreciate that Hulsey is a PhD structural engineer, head of an engineering department, and that "Dr. Hulsey has expertise in mathematical modeling using state-of-art methods in finite element ... mechanics". That makes him vastly more qualified "for this kind of work" than, for example, me.
But your initial claim that "Dr. Hulsey seems to have the appropriate background for conducting this kind of work" is quite a stretch.
Indeed, and unfortunately the same can be said for most, if not all, of the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The conspiracists like to claim that the actually qualified people (people actively involved in skyscraper engineering and/or demolition) all remain silent because they don't want to lose their jobs. But from outside the conspiracy bubble, the more reasonable explanation is that they simply don't think the controlled demolition theory is plausible.
Still, Hulsey's background aside, perhaps he will produce a report of interest. However AE911 still seem to be strongly pushing for him to reach a certain conclusion.
Back in January 2015 they said:
Now, in August 2017 they say:
I know he has the Aegis Ins. litigation expert reports and the Weidlinger Associates expert report because I emailed those to his PhD students directly and received an acknowledgement of receipt for each. His receipt of these reports is also confirmed by the fact that the first and only mention of the existence of these reports by AE911Truth, vague and unhelpful to its readers as it may be, comes in the press release re the August release of the WTC7Evaluation Report:
Of course, AE911Truth never bothers to provide further explanation as to what those reports are, where they are freely available, or what they conclude; rather, they appear to simply be attempting to dismiss them outright due to the nonavailability of the modeling data that underlies them (though it is unclear, in any case, whether AE911Truth ever requested such data).
AE911T has always presented conclusions in search of evidence to support them... or just pick what appears to be supporting evidence and ignore everything which does not support their conclusion.
How about researchers begin by stipulating to the FACTS first????
and then starts questioning how much vibration and shock waves from the towers collapse might have affected WTC7!
This is pretty much what he was saying two years ago and he STILL hasn't realised 7 was hit by the north tower.
The "Work Diaries" folder is interesting. It's rather odd that it's not been updated since 2015. Is there any documentation that has been released since then (other than some YouTube videos?)
Zhili Quan's diary is far more detailed than Feng Xiao's. It contains lots of references to problems they encountered getting the software to do what they wanted, and dealing with errors and unknowns.
Here's Zhili's diary
Examples (emphasis mine).
This all reminds me of my experience in video games. We would also be dealing with large models of similar complexity that needed to be set up in a particular way. There is a huge potential for error - indeed errors in such a project are inevitable. We can see that highly significant problems were being discovered continually through the project. There was also a high degree of uncertainty and continual discovery about how the software being used actually worked.
Zhili's diary end abruptly on September 7th 2015:
The much less detailed diary from Feng continues for a few more weeks:
If he was writing a report in 2015 then where is it? What happened to this promise?
I signed up for the newsletter. All I've seen is announcements of presentations and the upcoming August release of the final report. What happened to "every aspect of the scientific process"?
And there's practically nothing on the university's website.
That's it. Not open at all. It seems highly likely that AE911 will announce and publicise their conclusions far in advance of any kind of peer review of the study. Given that the project was concluded in April 2017, they seem to be simply holding onto it in order to maximize publicity around the 9/11 anniversary next month.
According to a note on the front page of the project website, the WTC7Evaluation paper has been delayed:
Not sure what the public comment period means over all, but, consistent with Hulsey's last comments, which I summarized above, there is no indication that the UAF team still plans on submitting this paper to a peer reviewed engineering journal. This is puzzling because, if this paper is going to be a critique of the NIST WTC7 report, as Hulsey has recently claimed, then it should be submitted to the Journal of Structural Engineering in rebuttal to the publication by the same of NIST's report.
If nothing else, this disjointed, unprofessional approach to the project is likely harming the professional reputations of the two research assistants who have been caught up on the project under Hulsey. I don't understand how UAF can be ok with two grad students devoting so much time to a project that will not lead to a peer reviewed article that advances their careers.
Are they actually still working on it, or have they been working on it this year?
At AE911Truth.org, they have a news item out today:
The part I marked in blue indicates they (or Hulsey, for the two students are no longer mentioned) apparently have been working on it lately.
The part I marked in green indicates that they have abandoned their original plan to have this submitted to a real, peer-reviewed journal. Instead, it will get rubber-stamped by truthers hand-picked by Gage.
The part I marked in red tells us that there is no sense at all that this is a work of science, but that this is considered a work of propaganda.
Let us look at how the content of http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ as changed over time:
On 05 Jan 2016 (the first capture of that year on the WayBackMachine):
On 04 August 2017 - earlier this month, little had changed:
I marked additions in red. Note that they said the FINAL report would ve released this August (not a draft).
Today, the text is this - additions since 04 August marked in red, deletions marked as strike-out.
So they dropped the chance to become a sustaining donor (good), the promise of a speed final report (can happen), the idea that this is an investigation into the cause of the collapse (reveiling?), the promise to keep the public informed while the study was underway (bad!), and that followers would get alerts, and that there would be videos (they didn't do any).
The introduction mentions the "team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be issued the same day". This reveals that there were progress reports, and perhaps they were issued internally, but they were never made public.
Appears to be the same as the 28 Nov 2015 page:
I signed up back in 2015. I saw no announcements of new materials. Nor do there appear to have been any "aspect of the scientific process " posted other than the three additional YouTube videos of presentations.
This seems distinctly NOT "open and transparent"
The site has now posted this:
So anyone can contribute in that time.
I think that's a gullible thing to say.
When they first solicited money, they promised than anyone could sign up to follow and contribute ("give input"). That promise was broken entirely.
I have zero faith that what you wrote will come true at all - that "anyone" can contribute at that time.
I'd bet that, for example, I will sure as hell not be able to contribute in the slightest, as critics like us get the full, complete ban hammer from each and every Truther, no exception, ever.
They will definitely NOT accept any contribution that blows their ship out of the water, or even poses a slight question.
Good question. I had assumed yes because the project site is still written as if they were, but it turns out that it may not be the case. One of the two (the post-doc) is no longer listed in the UAF directory and his linkedin (which is public) states that he has moved to Jackson University, but it does still also list him as being part of the project:
Neither has responded to any of my emails in some time, so I guess we really can't say what's going on and I shouldn't assume.
But you don't know until you try. The data will be made public as well as the results, so why not take a look and pose a question? The AE911 truth campaign is about government openness. It would be a very weak move to hide the research methodology. Actually, a quick glance at the site shows you can download a 1.1Gb file of data already.
The NIST model is classified, by contrast.
I'm also intrigued how it is possible to know the conclusions are wrong already, without looking at the data.
They promised they would post regular updates of their work, and all the data. That 1.1Gb file was posted in 2015. It contains:
12 screenshots of parts of WTC7
2 FOIA folders that were previously available elsewere
2 "work diaries" that end in Nov 2015
So basically they have released no data, and no technical reports since 2015.
I stand corrected. But it would be an incredible own goal not to share the data. I would say it's much more likely that doing the study has taken up much of their time and energy, and keeping people updated has slipped down the priority list, rather than there being a concerted cover up.
No. It's about siphoning money from the gullible into the pockets of Hulsey and Gage.
That ship sailed a long time already with AE911T's sustained breaking of the promise that the investigation would be open and transparent as it went along. I don't understand why you do not address this breaking of promises, especially when you have been informed that these broken promises were made to pad calls for MONEY.
Have you ever taken a quick glance at the 1.1 GB? Almost all of the data is from NIST actually! Drawings of the building they got from NIST through a FOIA request. They put this out soon after they had begun the project, when little process had been made. The only "data" from Hulsey's team is the information that they were still learning how to use the software by plugging in some first floors and seeing what happens.
You are so gullible!
You haven't seen the Hulsey model yet, and I want to remind you once again to please not be gullible and lend them any benefit of the doubt.
Please quote me as saying "the conclusions are wrong"!
But more importantly: Are you equally intrigued by Hulsey presented his conclusions already a year ago? He said then, with no ifs and buts, that it is impossible that fire brought down WTC7. Please quote where YOU asked "how it is possible to know the conclusions without having even produced the data".
It was AE911Truth's duty to keep the public informed - THEY called for MONEY from the gullible by promising ongoing updates. Perhaps you are saying here that AE911Truth has no engineers committed to the cause? Zero engineers who actually do anything? You would be quite right then.
See now why I caution you to gift them with any benefit of the doubt?
We'll see what happens. No, the data has not been released, and yes, one of the conclusions has been revealed (fire wasn't the cause). But there are other things still to be presented, like the modelling of other connections overlooked by NIST, the behavior of the substation, the behavior of the outer shell with respect to the inner structure, and ways in which the observed collapse could have progressed inside the building, assuming that column 79 was not responsible for global collapse.
They will present their conclusions and their model while the peer and public review gets underway. Afterwards, they will revise their study and publish. This hasn't happened yet as the study isn't finished. Even if they have lapsed in giving regular updates, the real test of their promise to be open and scientific will come when they present the results. Prof Hulsey is a UAF employee, is he not? It's funded by AE911, but he has standards to uphold.
that's pretty much the whole point of this study, no? that's the data that should have been and needs to be released. I'm sure even I can think up different ways the building 'could have' come down. We need the data that shows NIST was wrong in their conclusion. They need to prove fire was not the cause. And if Husley had all that conclusive data a year ago, why wasn't it released?
It's also incredibly unseemly to wait for the 9/11 anniversary to release this. Looks like a total marketing scheme. If they actually had any real data and real proof, releasing the data this spring, this summer would have made just as much of a splash in the mainstream media. More so actually, as MSM will shy away from such things near the anniversary due to sensitivity to the victims and their families.
I agree the data needs to be released, but the study hasn't finished yet. If they have failed to keep the public updated throughout the study, so be it. That is a failing. But if they reveal the final results but not the data and methodology, that would be unscientific. Once they public conclusions, you'll have to make that judgment.
If AE911 want impact, media and coverage, this is the most obvious time of year. Average Joe and Jane do not think about 9/11 at any other time. As to whether it's ethical to bring these issues up before an anniversary, it's wrong if they don't care about the truth and only want money. It's rather different if there is clear evidence that a crime has not been properly investigated, and justice not served.
Here is another failing in the making:
Two years ago, Hulsey said the goal was to publish in a peer-reviewed journal - a real journal.
The announcement now, with a time plan as when to publish, sounds as if a journal publication is no longer intended. Instead, I am convinced they have their own, hand-picked "peer" (= dyed-in-the-wool "Truth" believers) vetting the conclusions they all so desperately need. Remember this expert council they say they have? I am sure that's who's going to do the "peer review".
And "publish" will mean to put a PFD on Truther websites, and produce a slick propaganda video.
In other words: Making sure the actual academic and professional community takes no notice, by totally avoiding the usual routes of scientific publishing.
Separate names with a comma.