You can start a new thread if you'd like and I'll respond there, but you can also find that information on the internet freely available. A good place to start would be NIST 1-9, especially Chapter 8.5 and Table 8-1.
The report itself (while flawed in my opinion) isn't alarming. What I was getting at was that it's alarming that it was authored by someone who is in a position to teach future engineers about this topic.
I'm also sure he deserves his good standing. We can disagree on just HOW kooky this was, but you're likely right that he earned his good standing over a long career. I never meant to imply that this should erase that good standing.
It may not necessarily be so black and white. They could simply be pretending that his one last bold but crazy project didn't over-rule his achievements in his actual field of expertise. I don't think we are clear as to ho much the project was formally supported sponsored by the UAF. The UAF may never have been "close" to the project which could reduce the need to crate extra distance and make it easier for them to overlook his bit of an indiscretion..
Hulsey was head of the Civil Engineering department at UAF during the time he worked on the WTC study. I think this means he had lots of freedom and discretion to choose his projects.
I should have been more clear. By "his work" I didn't mean his entire body of work. I meant this one last specific project. Then again that press release is likely "boilerplate", and pretty similar for anyone they are bestowing the title upon.
For what it's worth: I have contacted two other members of the UAF engineering department - Hulsey's successor as head of department, and the business manager of the "Institute of Northern Engineering", which provides the subdomain for the study. Both were careful to neither endorse nor criticize Hulsey's work, mainly pointing out that they were not qualified enough in that particular field of study to come to a judgement either way. I guess it's honorable not to opine against a colleague vis-a-vis a complete stranger like me, but neither did they come out in direct support.
I think you have it - in Oystein's post. The UAF will sit non-commitedly on the fence. So don't hold your breath waiting for an engineering professional assessment of the report from UAF staff. And several of us hear - from differing perspectives - are competent to offer comments on the merits of the project.
The antenna started down just a little before the roofline started down.
Note that the antenna starts down in the last frame in the second row but the roof line doesn't start down until the second frame in the bottom row.
And why do it in the daytime?
I know you wrote this a year ago. But are you suggesting there is any adult on earth who isnt aware some people believe 9/11 was a fix?
Knowing this, what good do you expect to come from arguing a point with someone who was last seen 11 months ago?
Im not a regular here. I have no idea who hasnt posted in 11 months, or 11 minutes
I had no idea either until I looked at his forum profile.
For your info Christopher 7 is open about his identity so I'm not "doxing" stating his true name Chris (or Christopher) Sarns. A long term supporter of R Gage and the more traditional AE911 leading activists. He like they support CD at WTC but are against the more "kooky" extremes of the current dominant clique Kelly, Steel, McKee. "C7" as he has been called on other Forums and FBook Groups has posted episodically over many years. Often "tag teaming" with T Szamboti. I assess him as a competent and persuasive writer. He is a carpenter by trade. And, like Szamboti, has seemed to appear episodically in support of current AE911 agenda emphases. I havent seen him around for at least 12 months. Ditto Szamboti. Consistent with the change of AE911's de-facto change of marketing tactics to focus every couple of days on a recycled older claim. Sarns and the other AE911 person W Coste have appeared on FBook but not recently.
