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)
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
and, second, that a controlled demolition more readily replicates the observed destruction.
"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.
Once NIST's report can no longer stand, an investigation can begin into any possible Controlled demolition.
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.
Note they are not saying that it is a demolition, and likely won't,
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.
but likely will be saying that a controlled demolition more readily replicates the observed destruction.
I explained the your red herring above: "Replicate" is not the same as "explain".
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.
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.
There are already witnesses to explosions that were denied a hearing, for example you can find a collection of first responders' witness here http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/090116-118Witnesses.pdf
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
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 ...
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
(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...)