I emailed Hulsey.
In the first video "WTC 7 Report Problems and Questions"Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OClixCTdDw
The above two videos details some issues raised in the thread below (and in prior threads) regarding Professor Hulsey's study.
Draft report and videos at:
Hulsey's Presentation on Sept 3 [Slides enlarges. Question Audio Fixed]
This thread is to discuss the data within Leroy Husley's final draft report funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" released September 3, 2019.
This thread should be viewed as an analytical and informational thread, written for outside readers looking for informed analysis. Links and quotes that support your comment, must accompany all observations and objections.
This thread will be strictly moderated.
- Off topic observations will be removed.
- Circular arguments will be removed. If you disagree with someone, but have nothing NEW to add to your previous observations, then use the "disagree icon".
- Long winded, gish gallop responses and comments are strongly discouraged and may be deleted.
Please focus on the data WITHIN the report only.
Linking MB's original threads on the topic:
what IS ls-dyna? it's not like Blender?in the presentation he gave after the draft report was released. 40:04
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.
When I read lines like these, I always ask myself why noone is doing that thorough and meticulous analysis with the virtual goal and approach of a debunk towards the NIST report.Truthers really need to stop worrying about the official stuff... They need to make a thorough compelling technical presentation of how / why the building collapsed
you are welcome (as everyone is) to analyze and debunk whatever you want. Read the posting guidelines and start a new thread ... or check to see if there already is a thread, as NIST problems have been discussed and dissected by many.but things that are taken as granted are never tried to be debunked
NIST-despite having access to thousands of photos, videos and witness statements- already discussed the limitations of any/the fire model. Is there a reason you are 'playing dumb'? What exactly are you insinuating?How accurate and reliable are the various inputs to a very dynamic and somewhat chaotic situation? Aren't these energy inputs largely "educated guesses"?
I dont see how NIST ignored the rest of the building. I also don't see how the hulsey 'debunk' is doing that. Perhaps if you are going to comment, you can be more specific and way way less cryptic in the future.Can one node or location be isolated from the structure for study almost completely ignoring the rest? Isn't that what both NIST,