WTC 7 Evaluation Misses Draft Release of Nov 2017?

a reply to: mrthumpy

What I find strange:

The UAF page for the WTC 7 Evaluation does list a project end date.

ine.uaf.edu...

The AE page for the WTC 7 Evaluation gives no new dates. And still has what I call the breakup letter.

www.wtc7evaluation.org...

Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave the following update on March 27, 2018:

To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.

We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.

Again, we thank you for your interest in our study and we appreciate your patience as we strive to bring a truly scientific answer to the important question of how WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Alaska Fairbanks

a reply to: neutronflux

The AE page for the WTC 7 Evaluation gives no new dates.

Annoying yes, but nothing egregious, just pending an update on a website.

And still has what I call the breakup letter.

What did Mr Hulsey say in that March 2018 update?

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse.

i.e not half-assing it, as i call it.

And now from AE911: Science, Truth, and Justice 18 Years Later: September 2019 Schedule of Events

In the first week of September, AE911Truth will participate in releasing the draft report of the groundbreaking World Trade Center Building 7 Study by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).

The release of this report will include a livestreamed presentation by the study’s principal investigator, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, at UAF’s Schaible Auditorium on September 3, 2019, followed by a second presentation from Dr. Hulsey at the UC Berkeley Faculty Club on September 5, 2019. The draft report will be published that same week at ine.uaf.edu... — as well as at AE911Truth.org — and will be open for public comment for a six-week period ending October 15, 2019.

a reply to: democracydemo

Isn’t this tied to a request fo $50,000 in donations. If you think this study is out to solve anything, your kidding yourself. There is no end game for Richard Gage and company. They need to keep milking the conspiracy cash cow as long as possible.

Let’s just take baby steps. Let’s see what happens on the release dates. Remember. This is year five of a two year study headed by one professor and two undergrads. All from an organization that boasts how many engineers? You think those engineers would donate some time to the cause. But Richard Gage has to over see the script........., to three selected individuals.

a reply to: democracydemo

Actually, didn’t they do more or less the same thing a year or two ago? Did the whole power point thing before September 11. Talked up the report, did interviews, and asked for more donations. Then the release date came, and then nothing...

a reply to: neutronflux

They need to keep milking the conspiracy cash cow as long as possible.

Ironic that Google says the life span of a cow is 18-22 years.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Isn’t this tied to a request fo $50,000 in donations. If you think this study is out to solve anything, your kidding yourself. There is no end game for Richard Gage and company. They need to keep milking the conspiracy cash cow as long as possible.

Let’s just take baby steps. Let’s see what happens on the release dates. Remember. This is year five of a two year study headed by one professor and two undergrads. All from an organization that boasts how many engineers? You think those engineers would donate some time to the cause. But Richard Gage has to over see the script........., to three selected individuals.

It'll be interesting to see how they think they've managed to prove a negative

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Isn’t this tied to a request fo $50,000 in donations. If you think this study is out to solve anything, your kidding yourself. There is no end game for Richard Gage and company. They need to keep milking the conspiracy cash cow as long as possible.

Let’s just take baby steps. Let’s see what happens on the release dates. Remember. This is year five of a two year study headed by one professor and two undergrads. All from an organization that boasts how many engineers? You think those engineers would donate some time to the cause. But Richard Gage has to over see the script........., to three selected individuals.

It'll be interesting to see how they think they've managed to prove a negative

It’s the only game they got left. There is no proof of CD from the video and physical evidence. The whole thermite thing went up in smoke

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Isn’t this tied to a request fo $50,000 in donations. If you think this study is out to solve anything, your kidding yourself. There is no end game for Richard Gage and company. They need to keep milking the conspiracy cash cow as long as possible.

Let’s just take baby steps. Let’s see what happens on the release dates. Remember. This is year five of a two year study headed by one professor and two undergrads. All from an organization that boasts how many engineers? You think those engineers would donate some time to the cause. But Richard Gage has to over see the script........., to three selected individuals.

It'll be interesting to see how they think they've managed to prove a negative

The whole thermite thing went up in smoke

Along with the $350k

a reply to: neutronflux

Nasty noisy negativists @ full throttle, what a surprise.

All from an organization that boasts how many engineers?

A lot, around 3000 by now.

You think those engineers would donate some time to the cause.

Yes, they signed up to demand a new investigation into 911 after considering(donating some time) the evidence.

But Richard Gage has to over see the script........., to three selected individuals.

The "script" over seed by Richard Gage... Congratulations, you've created a conspiracy theory neutron.

Let’s see what happens on the release dates.

You have them. Nailed to the wall.
Now would be a good time to dip your tip in a different pond as it were.

a reply to: democracydemo

Ok? So post evidence of CD from the actual WTC 7 video?

Again.....

Falsely claiming fire collapse is impossible is the only game they got left. There is no proof of CD from the video and physical evidence. The whole thermite thing went up in smoke

With, how would a CD system survive the fires and WTC 7 building damage to even initiate?

Don’t get made at me because there is only faith in WTC 7 CD with no proof of columns being cut to initiate collapse.

a reply to: democracydemo

The "script" over seed by Richard Gage... Congratulations, you've created a conspiracy theory neutron.

Then who has had access to the actual modeling to assess and critique the model, and how were they picked.

When is the study going to be peer reviewed by an engineering journal where a referee gets to pick the peers with no ties to the study, and Gage does not have control?

a reply to: neutronflux

Falsely claiming fire collapse is impossible is the only game they got left.

Debunking Fire Collapse as a cause is the pointy point in this study, which you have already claimed false... without reading a single syllable of it.

With, how would a CD system survive the fires and WTC 7 building damage to even initiate?

A very robust one.

The whole thermite thing went up in smoke

How did it do that? In your mind, i gather.

a reply to: neutronflux

When is the study going to be peer reviewed by an engineering journal where a referee gets to pick the peers with no ties to the study, and Gage does not have control?

Why not ask this procedure be done, directly from AE911 and/or Dr. Hulsey?

a reply to: democracydemo

How does “Debunking Fire Collapse“ help your cause when in reality the heat caused the metal to expand resulting in deformation of the steel, and the cool and contracting of the steel was the coffin nail in the lid.

Is the study going to debunk that steel expands when heated. Is the study going to debunk steel weakens and deforms when heated under load? Is the study going to debunk steel contracts when cooling. Is the study going to debunk uneven heating causes thermal stresses?

Is the study going to debunk the steel failures in WTC 5 that shows the WTC buildings were susceptible to failure?

Is it false the an outer wall of WTC 7 was reported bulging before collapse?

Is it false it was reported that WTC 7 was showing signs of structural failure before collapse.

Is the study going to debunk that WTC 7 was failing before collapse.

The study is a joke. And has nothing to do with proof of steel columns being physically cut to initiate collapse.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

When is the study going to be peer reviewed by an engineering journal where a referee gets to pick the peers with no ties to the study, and Gage does not have control?

Why not ask this procedure be done, directly from AE911 and/or Dr. Hulsey?

So? What was the most transparent part of the WTC 7 Evaluation process? Wasn’t that one of the promises, along with peer review by an engineering journal. The study already failed its goals.

a reply to: neutronflux

Is the study going to debunk that steel expands when heated.

Is the study going to debunk steel weakens and deforms when heated under load?

Is the study going to debunk steel contracts when cooling.

Is the study going to debunk uneven heating causes thermal stresses?

Debunking Laws of thermodynamics? Ehh...im gonna go with no

How does “Debunking Fire Collapse“ help your cause when in reality the heat caused the metal to expand resulting in deformation of the steel, and the cool and contracting of the steel was the coffin nail in the lid.

You to need contact the demolition industry if a random application of fire can achieve a symmetrical free fall collapse to a steel-framed high-rise.

The study is a joke. And has nothing to do with proof of steel columns being physically cut to initiate collapse.

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Team Hulsey has been on this like stink on s*hit, it's time to take the blinders off buddy.

a reply to: democracydemo

Show where WTC 7 was a symmetrical collapse. Not only is your argument misguided, it’s based on a false premise.

I want evidence of cut columns. Not shady truth movement opinion pieces which is the only thing the WTC 7 Evaluation will amount to. And it’s not even close to providing evidence of columns physical cut by pyrotechnics to initiate collapse.

a reply to: democracydemo

Freefall and symmetrical collapse
WTC 1 collapses, WTC 2 collapses, WTC 7 collapses

www.911facts.dk...

World Trade Center 7
The building is 186 meters tall and takes at least 13.5 seconds to collapse, which combined is way from freefall. During the collapse, a part of the building collapse in freefall for 2.25 seconds, which – for that part – is equivalent to 32 meters. Gravity does pull the building straight down (what else should gravity do?) but towards the end of the visible collapse, it can be observed that the building topples and falls apart.
The visible part of the collapse takes about 13.5 seconds before the area is covered in smoke and dust. Prior to the 13.5 seconds, there are an additional 3 seconds or thereabout where no movement of the building is detectable but where smoke and dust are pressed out of the bottom of the building, indicating that the building has already started to collapse from the inside4.
The collapse was not in freefall, it was not symmetrical, and the building debris spread over the nearby streets5.

a reply to: democracydemo

Besides the NIST studies, your ignoring two other WTC 7 studies the show the collapse was very possible without pyrotechnics. Then there is no chance a highly sophisticate demolitions system that is claimed to have existed by the truth movement would have survived the building damage and fires. There there is zero evidence of pyrotechnics taking out structure resistance floor by floor.

What’s that about occam's razor Salander keeps on about?