Discussion in '9/11' started by Mick West, Sep 3, 2019.
I emailed Hulsey.
About 2 weeks to go to the end of the comment period - unless it gets extended (no reply yet on that matter from Hulsey)
Is anyone here going to submit a comment?
What do you think about the idea to collect as many comments submitted to AE/Hulsey as we can? Such that we have a repository of what they SHOULD publish. I kind of predict that they would put my contribution in the bin, based on name recognition alone...
This would mean to publish an email address and ask any would-be contributors to forward or Bcc their comment to it.
I was planning on submitting something, essentially a focussed summary of the issues raised here - mostly the inappropriate use of static analysis, and the lack of dynamic analysis. I was hoping to be able to at least look at their data set first. But they seem to be having difficulties uploading files to the internet.
Just for the record, as of Oct 15, 2019, the page still says:
This seems like a ridiculous excuse to me. Universities, even in Alaska, have quite adequate internet connections. So this suggests to me that it's not being handled by anyone at the University. The simplest way would be to upload it to a Dropbox account, which gives you 3TB, with 50 GB file sizes.
Hello guys and gals. I'm new here but read for a long time. Thanks Mick for the great work.
I just wanted to say that they just released the data.
Okey. I deleted my last comment regarding a problem with the download of the data. It stopped at 17.2 gigabytes. Then I tried to download it on a different computer. It downloaded past the 17.2 GB. So, I thought that my failed try was me and/or a problem with my computer or something, hence deleting of my comment. But now on the second attempt the download pauses(not stopped) at 97.7 GB.
Does anybody else have problems?
Now for something different: What effect did the release of the Hulsey Draft, and its associated media reports, have on AE911Truths online engagement (which I offer as a rough proxy of change in public awareness)?
As you know, for a long time I have been momitoring some online numbers from AE's web presences, among them
Their Facebook "Likes"
The number of Page Hits, as displayed on the bottom of the old homepage design ("Content View Hits")
It's always been the case that those numbers/day increased on and around the 9/11 anniversaries every year. Much of this can be attributed to general popular interest about 9/11 peaking around those days, some of it may be attributed to the fact that AE themselves center some of their largest marketing efforts (such as press releases and new announcements, projects) around that date.
The Hulsey report was released on September 03 this year (Alaska time - Sept 04 in most of the world), and in the days following, some independent media outlets carried the story, e.g
Alaska's KTVA on Sep 07
UK's Daily Star on Sep 07
UK's Express on Sep 09
I think I remember, but can't find it now, that Mick expressed some concern that such early news reports might have the power to transform the minds of many fresh people into Truthers. But how many?
If that was such a huge influence on public awareness, then some of these newly recruited Truthers should come back to AE911Truth, look at their home page, and like their Facebook presence.
Three graphics show that there is, if any, only a very small discernible signal in the data.
1. Here is the development of "likes/day" to their Facebook page:
What you see here is that they actually were losing a few likes almost every day until Sept 04, then (after the release),. three days just above 0, then (starting Sep07/08 - when news reports came out - a small jump to around 50/day. Then comes 9/11 proper, with a sharp 2-day peak follwed by about 10 days of deterioration back into negative territory.
Then comes another, smaller peak that deteriorates over 3 days. Sinced then, they've been below 0 again.
This seems to suggest that the Hulsey report and subsequent media echo has gained AE something like 5 extra Likes per day for a period of no more than 10 days - under 500 total.
To illustrate that it is normal for "Likes/day" to start increasing a few days before 9/11, peaking and then deteriorating on 9/11 and ca. 10 following days, here is an overlay of the same thing for the years 2015-2019. Note that in some years I did not record the numbers daily, nor at regular intervals, so don't compare peak heights. The area under the graph is what counts in the end:
What I claim is that the Hulsey report generated few, if any, extra "Likes" compared to the usual development in Septembers.
2. Visitors to the ae911truth.org - the home page, as recorded on the old design http://www1.ae911truth.org/
This data is very noisy from day to day, so I have now taken to record the numbers every 3rd day. Only from 9/10 onwards did I record daily for 6 days.
Almost every year, they see more traffic in September than in the preceding and following month, due to the heightened interest that the anniversary creates.
You see: Traffic peaks somewhat (roughly +40% over the average of preceding and following months) for no more than 4 days. There's a more prominent peak at the end of September that I have no explanation for.
The page hits after the press releases and before 9/11 are unremarkable.
September totals have been higher than August's and October's almost every year. Comparing the August-October averages of the last 5 years...
...2019 does'n stand out at all - in fact, other Septembers have stood out more markedly in recent years.
It seems that the press coverage of the Hulsey Draft has benefitted AE911Truth's online engagement only marginally, if at all. It is difficult to discern a signal.
(Post Scriptum: I have not seen, nor spent serious time looking for, explanations for the "FB Likes" peak of Oct 5, nor for the "Conetent View Hits" peak between Sep 28 and Oct 01. They also do not coincide with each other, which indicates they have different origins, which makes it unlikely that media reports about the Hulsey study would have caused them)
The spikes of Oct 5, Sep 28 and so on are probably certain truther website refering to AE9/11truth after they put something out. Just the usual around that time, I guess.
It sure has nothing to do with the public news only with the filter bubble. In my opinion.
So, 300'000$ for nothing.
Even the hardcore conspiracy theorist I once followed, did not use the study in his subsequent articles when he was summarizing 9/11 and his proof for a false flag. Maybe after I pointed out to him, that it is hugely flawed and biased(thanks to Mick as well).
That means it perhaps did not even convince the target group, much less so the common public.
THREAD on the DATA release moved to:
Please refrain from speculative or uninformative comments. Readers come to Metabunk to learn useful information, so please keep comments to actual analysis of what is in the data. Thanks!
Hi all, as I am wrapping up my comments to be sent to Hulsey, I have a couple of questions:
I am reading back and forth in the NIST report as well (NCSTAR 1-9, primarily), and here is something I can't find at the moment - does anyone know this, or better yet, can help me find where this is said explicitly - this:
In Chapter 10 (structural response to heating), the Figures with color-coded heat distributions have the floors at 0:30 hours intervals, labeled by the time on the clock: "12:30 pm" through "6:00 pm"
In Chapter 11 (ANSYS model - connection failures), the damage patterns are recorded after a number of hours: "3.5 h" and "4.0 h".
How did they map time on the clock to hours passed? "4.0 h" = "4:00 pm", or "5:00 pm"?
The reason I ask is that Hulsey copied the temperature distribution at "5:00 pm" (Figure 2.53), and I remember having seen someone say that this was an ill choice, for some steel temperatures were already decreasing at that time.
Same issue - Hulsey took the "5:00 pm" temperatures in the floor 12 and 13 slabs and steel as input to his SAP2000 model, and makes transforms them thusly:
But how? These temperatures correspond to 655, 505 and 20 °C. NIST's Chapter 10 temperature charts are color coded with about 20 °C increments. How did Hulsey translate, e.g., 250 °C, 450 °C and 580 °C to his three base temperatures? It's not explained in the Draft, afaics, but perhaps he talks about it in the presentation?
In the first video "WTC 7 Report Problems and Questions"
Hulsey is not confused. He is aware of the way the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models were used.
From "WTC 7 Report Problems and Questions"
That’s not a problem. Figure 2.5 is to show where the red dot-dash line in the ANSYS model is in the LS-DYNA global model (red dot line).
It's a problem because Hulsey thinks there's a difference on either side of the line in the LS-DYNA model. There is not.
His mistake is more clearly stated in the presentation he gave after the draft report was released. 40:04
what IS ls-dyna? it's not like Blender?
I'm confused by what Husley is even claiming. wouldn't the ls-dyna model fall instantly (the right hand side) if no connections were modeled?
Is he saying they just "solidly glued" the girders and beams connections together on that side and on the exterior frame (39:45) when they built the ls-dyna model?
The most benign interpretation I can come up with for Hulsey's drawing a line in the LS-DYNA model is the true fact that floors 8-14 have plenty of failed and damaged connections in the east, but none in the west (where there were fires, too, capable of damaging connections), which would make the west floors 7-14 more stable than they actually were.
But that would be rather incincere coming from a guy who totally ignored all the devastating fires below 12, and who started his global model from an entirely pristine state (zero connection damage)
I checked out the video and it appears that you are right. I notified the AE911Truth team of this and our mutual concerns about the unrealistic collapse models. The info has been forwarded to Dr. Hulsey. There will be a response to these and other questions/criticisms but it may take a while. Thank you for your observations. They will help Dr. Hulsey make these things clear.
Rebuttal to comments in “Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report”
Incorrect. NIST most certainly did use the collapse of the A2001 girder collapse in their global collapse analysis. (as you acknowledge at 13:08) According to NIST, the collapse of girder A2001 on the 13th floor triggered a cascade of floor failures which left column 79 without horizontal support. Without the failure of A2001 on the 13th floor column 79 would not have lost horizontal support and buckled. And there would have been no progressive collapse.
The whole report is about the “probable” cause of the collapse so that is misleading. There were no other “probable” collapse initiation events.
In the Tech briefing, Shyam Sunder uses the phrase "probable collapse sequence" nine times.
Incorrect: As noted above.
NIST has the failure data and you don’t.
And they say that it was the failure of A2001 on the 13th floor that triggered the cascade of floors that left column 79 horizontally unsupported in 3 directions over 9 floors. Even though there were other girder and floor failures, they did not leave column 79 horizontally unsupported in 3 directions over 9 floors.
The failure of girders to the south of (not around) A2001 on floor 13 did not cause it to fail. According to NIST, A2001 was pushed off of its seat by thermally expanding beams.
You are misunderstanding what I'm saying, and I'm not really sure why. Watch that section again and look at the green girder.
The green girder is A2001.
The green girder, in NISTS global collapse analysis, does not start to fall until AFTER the floors around it are collapsing - triggered by the failure of several other similar sized girders.
Separate names with a comma.