My question to you is why do you care? It's quite obvious to me (as with your posting history) that you're not interested and this entire thread exhibits zero sincerity on your part. What's also obvious to me and should be obvious to you (if you were indeed sincere) is that a study of this type should necessarily take quite a bit of time if one were to produce a peer reviewable paper in order to ensure the highest level of quality and accuracy possible. An expert who has a genuine interest would want nothing less. It did after all take NIST almost 7 years to produce their fanciful concoction (they had to make sound as reasonable as possible). The difference is rather than invite peer review, NIST did everything in their power to prevent it. I'm quite certain those who funded this study (AE911Truth) are well aware of what's going on and have a keen interest in the results. MY prediction is that Dr. Hulsey will present something on or around 9/11/18 but I can't speak for him, it's just an educated guess, unlike your worthless baloney. It may be just another progress report or it may be the peer reviewable paper itself. We'll see. After nearly 17 years of despicable official lies I'm quite patient.
They certainly are an issue. But I think a critical key is the results of a detailed analysis of NIST's WTC7 report. If a peer reviewed report on the matter of WTC7 proves NIST's chicanery, it will serve to point an accusing finger on their twin tower report as well, bringing that into serious question.
It seems to me you’re the one who’s desperate to troll all genuine discussions about 9/11. That’s all you ever do. I have never seen any post from you in any other section of this forum. What is your real agenda besides your idiotic claim that it’s a hobby?
Yeah, just like people are still waiting on the Mark Basile dust/thermite study that was supposed to validate Harrit's findings. Mark Basile received the $5,000 in donations on 01/12/2014 (http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/WTCdust/donate/index.htm) to perform that study and it's now been 4 1/2 years since that date. The issue Mark is facing and probably why no report has come forth is because he proposed analyzing primer paint chips from the dust AND the supposed thermite chips from the same dust. The problem is that the chips are the SAME and MARK is not able to differentiate between the two. Ever wonder why Harrit never tested or published the composition of the steel primer paint chips he hand in his hands from the dust samples he collected? There were two kinds of primer paint used on the steel.
This thread is NOT about the Mark Basile study which I agree we're still waiting for and it's been years since it was promised.
This thread is NOT about Shineboxe's posts and your perceived notion that they are trolling nor is it about his "real agenda".
If the author of the thread refuses to discuss the topic he started the thread with and instead posts irrelevant drivel it is not a perceived notion of trolling, it IS trolling. And both his agenda and yours have nothing to do with genuine 9/11 issues and everything to do with attacking and denying anything, anyone and everything that questions or contradicts the official 9/11 narrative. That was the real purpose of the author of this thread. I know it, you know it and certainly Shiner knows it.
Stay on topic Bob. His "trolling" and "our agenda" is not the subject of this thread. Practice what you preach.
Ok but I'd much rather leave this worthless thread and have a discussion on Hulsey's preliminary report where it really belongs: Beginning approximately at Post #241. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/page-13 If you care to that is.
What part of I am waiting for the report do you not get? ... his initial findings mean nothing and he is clearly trying to save his ass at this point ... as this is my hobby, I will privately peer review his findings (still waiting) and post for all to see ... then again, I am not a licensed PE according to you as you very obnoxiously dismiss many peoples credentials on here because you can "tell by their posts" ... you must have a 200 IQ or be an idiot savant ... Hulsey is just trying to prove a negative and it appears that he can't even find that ... as per troofer protocol, I certainly don't expect him to offer an alternative hypothesis ...
The thread title YOU created is "The Hulsey Report". Thanks for confirming my point "per troofer protocol" indeed.
Nope. There's no reason. I am waiting for the published, peer reviewed report. His latest update about states it is complicated and they want to be as thorough as possible..
Ok so this thread is strictly about waiting. And here I thought it was about the Hulsey report. It should be re-titled then to "Waiting for the Hulsey Report". No problem, I'm waiting too. /thread
You can always take bets on when the report will be released for peer review and the one who comes closest wins. I’ll take 9/11/18. You can take never since I believe that’s what you’re hoping and praying for.
And what 'peers' are going to review it? That is what I find ironic about David Chandler. If he is wrong why aren't dozens of his fellow high school physics teachers pointing that out? If he is right why aren't plenty standing up and agreeing with him? The massive silence is so illogical it is almost amusing. This is what people expect from scientists and engineers? My favorite is NASA rocket scientists who say nothing about the center of gravity of the tilted top of the south tower. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktcg.html Socio-political bullshit is not logical. Humans!
It’s open to anyone according to peer review standards including you. Anyone interested who is willing to scrutinize it. That’s why politics is not a science but it is mostly about lying. You see the majority of experts criticizing NIST are retired, one even a former NIST employee. The reason is they are not in fear of their careers. And I’m sure you also know that those who have been vocal have jeopardized their careers. So I’m not sure why this surprises you.
Whatever Hulsey comes up with will be complicated and subtle, hidden in the expertism. The center of mass of 90,000 tons is obvious middle school physics.
If and when Hulsey's paper is peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community it will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the NIST report on WTC7 was bogus. That would then put into question NIST's report on the twin towers (not that it already isn't). So the next logical step would be a new paper by Hulsey (or another structural engineer or team of engineers) to analyze that report and make it available for peer review. One step at a time Psikey. We've been waiting almost 10 years since NIST's WTC7 paper was released to rip it apart the proper way. Many of us who are not experts intuitively knew WTC7 did not collapse naturally primarily as a result of fire. But intuition doesn't cut it, the analysis has to be done the right way using the scientific method.
that's if it is ever released and peer reviewed by an unbiased scientific community ... still waiting ...
Just looked it up. The Saturn V was 3,270 tons. A bit smaller that the top of the south tower. NASA rocket scientists have no curiosity? Maybe skyscrapers are beyond their comprehension. LOL
