The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

millman84

New Member
This would need to be a different thread, but I'm very interested to hear in what sense One Meridian was "built much more robustly" than WTC7.
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.

Edited to add a reference for your own research so we can avoid a separate thread.
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Member
The last thing one would want to do with a building all nicely and neatly packed and wired up with explosives all set to go off in a controlled demolition....is fly a controlled demolition wrecking Jumbo jet into it.
 

millman84

New Member
If there's anything alarmingly wrong with the Hulsey report, I would expect his peers in the engineering community to publish a critique in a major journal. It's not like these are views he's been developing in secret. I've looked at quite a bit of the scientific literature on the WTC and the range of opinion is quite wide without, it seems, "alarming" anyone in the profession.
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.
Hulsey is probably wrong about a lot of things, but I'm sure he deserves his good standing, all things considered. He just did something a little kooky near the end of his career. Given that NIST discovered what Shyam Sunder described as "a new kind of progressive collapse", it wouldn't be suprising for there to be disagreements about it going forward. Where there's disagreement, someone must be wrong. That doesn't make them incompetent or dangerous. It just makes them "academic".
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.

Honestly, I'm less alarmed about his good standing than I was when I was wondering aloud if he was actively teaching a new generation of engineers about his research into WTC7.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Ooof... I guess that answers my question (in no uncertain terms) about whether or not they are distancing themselves from his work.
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..
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Ooof... I guess that answers my question (in no uncertain terms) about whether or not they are distancing themselves from his work.
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.
Hulsey was born in 1941 (according to the German Wikipedia, the only language version that has an article on Hulsey), so he was already 73 or 74 by the time he started the study in 2015. Not sure if he was still teaching then, but he may well have, as it always appeared to me that he was more a teaching than a researching professor.
He did a couple of presentations on the WTC7 project at UAF - including the presentation of the draft report last September, and I understand those talks were attended by engineering students there. No idea if any were "turned Truthers" by those talks.

Have you read the Public Comments on the draft report? The critique on pages 13 to 25 - I'd like your reaction to that!

All resources are linked here: https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
The Public Comments are here: https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments-Updated.pdf
The Draft Report is here: https://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
(Interesting that the Public Comments are hosted in the AE911Truth domain)
 

millman84

New Member
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..
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.

I'd love to hear a UAF representative's take on the actual report itself.

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.
Hulsey was born in 1941 (according to the German Wikipedia, the only language version that has an article on Hulsey), so he was already 73 or 74 by the time he started the study in 2015. Not sure if he was still teaching then, but he may well have, as it always appeared to me that he was more a teaching than a researching professor.
He did a couple of presentations on the WTC7 project at UAF - including the presentation of the draft report last September, and I understand those talks were attended by engineering students there. No idea if any were "turned Truthers" by those talks.

Have you read the Public Comments on the draft report? The critique on pages 13 to 25 - I'd like your reaction to that!

All resources are linked here: https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
The Public Comments are here: https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments-Updated.pdf
The Draft Report is here: https://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
(Interesting that the Public Comments are hosted in the AE911Truth domain)

I've read some of the comments, but not thoroughly. I'll take a look when I have some more time.

Honestly I formed my own opinion of the piece just a few pages in, and it was clear to me that it was not a very valuable analysis of anything. I finished it anyway, and then I started looking for more resources online (which is how I stumbled upon metabunk). I read through many of the various threads here that were based on the report at different times of its development, and was not surprised to see the early AE911T request for a report that would fit their pre-determined outcome of choice. It's hard to take seriously any report that was initiated by what more or less equates to a bounty.

Wanted: A report that will prove a specific outcome that we have already determined ahead of time.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...
I'd love to hear a UAF representative's take on the actual report itself.
...
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.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I'd love to hear a UAF representative's take on the actual report itself.
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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
R Explained: Video of Vandenberg UFO shooting down ICBM [reenactment] UFOs and Aliens 8
TripWire Why Doesn't The Military Shoot Down UFOs/UAPs in Military Airspace? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 34
Mick West Andrea Themely, Former Air Force Pilot, Breaks Down UFO Footage UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 11
N Gimble UFO = Upside Down Jet? UFOs and Aliens 2
Z.W. Wolf Ukrainian Plane Crashes in Flames in Tehran - Shot Down By Iran's IRGC Current Events 43
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
Mick West Trees Burnt Down to the Roots in Widfires [Old Stumps] Wildfires 2
Mick West Molten Steel in the Debris Pile, Cool Down Time? 9/11 51
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
McGurnicle Why some people fall down the rabbit hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 28
Mick West Debunked: Furious American Citizens In San Bernardino Burn Down Radical Islamic Mosque General Discussion 20
Mick West Unusual Trail on the Russian Su-24 shot down By Turkey Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West How to Track Down a Contrail with FlightRadar24.com Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Pythagoras Drones shot down in Turkey and Ukraine, Russian or not? General Discussion 20
Bruce Lansberg Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK Flight MH17 34
Mick West Debunked "When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons" [Satire] Quotes Debunked 0
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
C MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine Flight MH17 410
qed How did I end up down here? Escaping The Rabbit Hole 14
WeedWhacker Large Images now Resize Down to 1600 Pixels Max. Site Feedback & News 9
TWCobra Evergreen Air shutting down Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Debunked: US Reported In Panic After Chemtrail Planes Forced Down In India and Nigeria Contrails and Chemtrails 1
tryblinking contrailscience down? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
JFDee NY Times: "A Conspiracy Melts Down Into Washers and Dryers" Conspiracy Theories 2
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
lee h oswald WTC: Architects and Engineers, what percentage actually disagree with NIST? 9/11 9
Related Articles





























Related Articles

Top