UA Anchorage releases the final report on WTC-7: Fires DID NOT cause the collapse

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You

If it were glaringly inaccurate, it wouldn't even get released on the University of Alaska website. And it is currently available there.

ine.uaf.edu...

Hulsey’s having an university page saying the report is finished is not the same thing as being peer reviewed or endorsed by the university.

In fact. Was the press release of the paper held on the UAF campus?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

a reply to: Salander

Please cite a more credible review of the “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” than the one linked to in this post.....

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

I don't think conventional scholars are eager to comment.

If it is accurate, and they say it isn't, then they hurt their credibility one way.

If it is accurate and they say it is, then they hurt their credibility on a professional "will we get funding?" level.

If it were glaringly inaccurate, it wouldn't even get released on the University of Alaska website. And it is currently available there.

ine.uaf.edu...

Because you say so?

I'm sorry but the whole report smells.

The whole budget was $316,153.
All paid for by A&E911

From this link Report updates

Findings to date (9-6-2017):
– Part 1: WTC 7 was not found to collapse by fire.
• Findings are based on results from ABAQUS & SAP2000.

So their conclusion was set in stone 3 years ago.
But they just didn't have the time to finish it for 3 years.
The research started in May 1,2015.
The lead researcher Hulsey has his findings set on Sept 11,2016
Hulsey and Gage Sept 11,2016

If you look at the experience of the 3 researchers it falls mostly under the heading of "road surfaces".
Plus the final conclusion:
"global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building"
is a BS non committal statement.
They didn't say what caused the collapse only that it happened.
The conclusion was carefully worded as to not destroy their professional credibility.


This was about as "bought and paid for" as you can get.

This report follows the A&E911 theme to a T.

They state it couldn't have happened as the OS states.
But they NEVER take a position as to what did happen.

That allows them to keep this dog and pony show going indefinitely.

a reply to: neutronflux

In fact. Quote the names of people actually reviewing the report for a release?

Page iii of the report. Had you read the report you would not be asking me for this information.

Can you show that is was independently peer reviewed in a manner that was credible or ethical?

You need to do that work. That is your job isn't it...debunking? Prove this was not done so.

a reply to: democracydemo

So. The paper wasn’t ethically peer reviewed by independent impartial reviewers?

And the report will not be peer reviewed by impartial individuals via a referee for publication in an engineering journal. So, the report will never accomplish one of its goals used to solicit donations.

Got it.

And the question to you was....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

a reply to: Salander

Please cite a more credible review of the “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” than the one linked to in this post.....

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

Double post.

a reply to: neutronflux

So. The paper wasn’t ethically peer reviewed by independent impartial reviewers?

You know this how exactly?
You're just adding adjectives to a previous question. So who are the external peer reviewers on page iii, can you post the names? Are you insinuating they did not review this report to standard?

About that youtube video; see the comments below, priceless.

a reply to: democracydemo

First name on the list Gregory Szuladzinski:

Is this the same Gregory Szuladzinski?

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...


Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, Some Misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis, International Journal of Protective Structures, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2013
Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports www.ae911truth.org...

See the Anthony Szamboti tie.

Szamboti worked with Hulsey?

By Mick West

WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave

www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...

Oystein said:
Not sure that's true. I remember this only as claimed by @econ41, but haven't seen any evidence.
Which bit? The first bit Tony has confirmed here:
Tony Szamboti said:
As shown here, I have explained several times that there was no need to set charges on the exterior columns to produce the observed collapse of WTC 7.
The working with Hulsey comes from a couple of things, in my podcast debate with him he said:

38:44
I am in contact with them, most of it, most of you guys probably know that
Content from external source
(I did not know, other than him being a member of AE911, but it was not surprising)

The second, unfortunately I forget where I saw it, but I remember Tony discussing the removal of 8 floors in the context of what to expect from the Hulsey study. Perhaps on Facebook in one of the 9/11 groups. I could be wrong.

So Gregory Szuladzinski is the only “ Chartered Consulting Engineer Analytical Service Company” engineer Hulsey could find for hire?

Or Gregory Szuladzinski being “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ a paper written with Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey because he was part of the good old boy Richard Gage network?

I thought the whole point of the Hulsey paper was to get people outside the truth movement involved. And the first listed reviewer is part of the truth movement, worked with Anthony Szamboti on a paper, and Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey.


The paper was not ethically reviewed by impartial individuals.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So. The paper wasn’t ethically peer reviewed by independent impartial reviewers?

You know this how exactly?
You're just adding adjectives to a previous question. So who are the external peer reviewers on page iii, can you post the names? Are you insinuating they did not review this report to standard?

About that youtube video; see the comments below, priceless.

Please list your favorite one for debate here.

a reply to: democracydemo

Care to address

And the report will not be peer reviewed by impartial individuals via a referee for publication in an engineering journal. So, the report will never accomplish one of its goals used to solicit donations.

a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, Some Misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis, International Journal of Protective Structures, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2013
Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports www.ae911truth.org...

So can you honestly say none of Gregory Szuladzinski work concerning “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ made it into the Hulsey report?

a reply to: neutronflux

Who is Anthony Szamboti and how do you tie this man to a James Bond villain character? You're building a conspiracy theory neutron.

a reply to: neutronflux

Debate the commentators.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

a reply to: Salander

Please cite a more credible review of the “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” than the one linked to in this post.....

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

I don't think conventional scholars are eager to comment.

If it is accurate, and they say it isn't, then they hurt their credibility one way.

If it is accurate and they say it is, then they hurt their credibility on a professional "will we get funding?" level.

If it were glaringly inaccurate, it wouldn't even get released on the University of Alaska website. And it is currently available there.

ine.uaf.edu...

Because you say so?

Obviously I never studied at that particular University, but at the University where I studied physics, the department had a big project working on micronuclear reactors for small scale power plants.

An amazing project. Not quite sure who was funding it, but I don't think they would be willing to put that project in jepaordy by offending the investor just so they could comment on a conspiracy theory.

Now consider how many big engineering projects get their funding from the Department of defense.


Professors have a lot more to think about than just their academic integrity.

Sometimes the easiest way to address both problems is just to stay quiet.

a reply to: democracydemo

So who are the external peer reviewers on page iii, can you post the names? Are you insinuating they did not review this report to standard?

Given the conclusion of the research, I'm not sure peer review would have
anything to grab onto.

Their conclusion amounts to ;
The car crash was caused by the cars hitting each other.
The airplane crashed because it hit the ground.
He died because his heart stopped beating.

If you had paid out of your pocket for this research you would be pissed.

It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the nearsimultaneous failure of all columns in the building

But this fits in perfectly with Richard Gage's business model.
He's had 19 years to tell us what caused the failure and this is what he came up with???

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Who is Anthony Szamboti and how do you tie this man to a James Bond villain character? You're building a conspiracy theory neutron.

That’s the kind of naïveté the truth movement counts on.

Shrugs.


Now.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, Some Misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis, International Journal of Protective Structures, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2013
Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports www.ae911truth.org...

So can you honestly say none of Gregory Szuladzinski work concerning “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ made it into the Hulsey report?

a reply to: samkent

Be specific

He's had 19 years to tell us what caused the failure and this is what he came up with???

A reason to call for a new investigation on 9/11, as a whole. This is the goal. WTC7 UAF report is just one driver to make it a reality.
Even lawyers are involved, with some smole grand jury investigation. Fits perfectly with the business model yes?

a reply to: neutronflux

Where are you going with this? Anthony Szamboti is a Mechanical Engineer as i googled him, what gives?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Where are you going with this? Anthony Szamboti is a Mechanical Engineer as i googled him, what gives?

The whole argument....

You
originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Hulsey paper was never offered to a group outside the truth movement for an independent peer reviewed. The individuals that conducted the review had ties to, or were knowN by Architects and Engineers in regards that their review would not be critical.

Is it so? Awaiting proof for these allegations.

—————————————————-

The proof.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

First name on the list Gregory Szuladzinski:

Is this the same Gregory Szuladzinski?

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...


Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, Some Misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis, International Journal of Protective Structures, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2013
Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports www.ae911truth.org...

See the Anthony Szamboti tie.

Szamboti worked with Hulsey?

By Mick West

WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave

www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...

Oystein said:
Not sure that's true. I remember this only as claimed by @econ41, but haven't seen any evidence.
Which bit? The first bit Tony has confirmed here:
Tony Szamboti said:
As shown here, I have explained several times that there was no need to set charges on the exterior columns to produce the observed collapse of WTC 7.
The working with Hulsey comes from a couple of things, in my podcast debate with him he said:

38:44
I am in contact with them, most of it, most of you guys probably know that
Content from external source
(I did not know, other than him being a member of AE911, but it was not surprising)

The second, unfortunately I forget where I saw it, but I remember Tony discussing the removal of 8 floors in the context of what to expect from the Hulsey study. Perhaps on Facebook in one of the 9/11 groups. I could be wrong.

So Gregory Szuladzinski is the only “ Chartered Consulting Engineer Analytical Service Company” engineer Hulsey could find for hire?

Or Gregory Szuladzinski being “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ a paper written with Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey because he was part of the good old boy Richard Gage network?

I thought the whole point of the Hulsey paper was to get people outside the truth movement involved. And the first listed reviewer is part of the truth movement, worked with Anthony Szamboti on a paper, and Anthony Szamboti was consulted by Hulsey.


The paper was not ethically reviewed by impartial individuals.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Care to address

And the report will not be peer reviewed by impartial individuals via a referee for publication in an engineering journal. So, the report will never accomplish one of its goals used to solicit donations.

———————————————————————

You

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Who is Anthony Szamboti and how do you tie this man to a James Bond villain character? You're building a conspiracy theory neutron.

———————————————————

That’s the kind of naïveté the truth movement counts on.

Shrugs.


Now.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, Some Misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis, International Journal of Protective Structures, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2013
Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports www.ae911truth.org...


So can you honestly say none of G

So can you honestly say none of Gregory Szuladzinski work concerning “ Areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC reports“ made it into the Hulsey report?