Dr. Leroy Hulsey WTC 7 report to be released soon, any predictions?

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: neutronflux

don't know the man but if he is honest he will say it had to be a controlled demolition.

Can you cite from his investigation any evidence of CD?

ATTENTION PLEASE!!! One last try and a Final Warning before Posting Bans and other actions like closing the thread happen.

If you can't post on topic move on to something else or you will find yourself Posting Banned.

Opinions about each other are never on topic.

Moderating is done by Staff, not thread authors or anyone else. If you see a post that needs attention, alert Staff, do not reply to it. Otherwise you will be actioned also.

Do not reply to this post.

After watching the October 2016 update video I'm wondering if the Professor has managed to discover the damage to WTC7 from the collapse of the North tower. He thinks that the fires were started by burning debris smashing through windows!

By my calendar it is no longer August

originally posted by: mrthumpy
By my calendar it is no longer August

A good analysis? Not sure what all the opinions are based on?

One of the newer post.

metabunk
Thread: ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-5

www.metabunk.org...

By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

This is incorrect. As I've already noted in this thread, NIST's WTC7 report was independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering, which is the flagship journal of the ASCE and one of the most highly respected and cited engineering journals in the world.

Also, I note that you have yet to respond to my specific criticisms of Hulsey. This forum's focus is on specific claims. Instead of speculating about what Hulsey may or may not be thinking, we can analyze his words and actions to date, which is what I have done. You seem to be avoiding specific analysis. Here again is a link to my analysis in this thread as to why Hulsey's claims to date do not add up. Mick has also noted several times how the original study design explicitly stated its bias.

If the claims of the posts are true, the modeling was created to prove a biased view.

The model was supposed to be independent, but the project started to studdy NIST data to insure the outcome would be different.

The invitation for the world to peer review the model, and try to publish the results in journals, is now down to a select panel where the criteria for picking individuals is being concealed.