Mick West has the same opportunity as anyone else. Hulsey's draft report is available for peer review and once the data is made available, he can verify or reject Hulsey's models 24/7 and send his detailed analysis and conclusions directly to Leroy Hulsey (see below). Or alternatively publish his own peer reviewed paper contradicting Hulsey's findings, that is IF he can actually get anyone reputable to agree with and support his findings. Until then, the guy is nothing more than a self labeled "9/11 debunker" (aka a complete fraud) with zero expertise and zero standing. If you take this guy seriously, it says all anyone needs to know about you. publiccomment@AE911Truth.org I'll wait for the analysis of Hulsey's draft report by real experts who actually know what they're talking about.
What do you need it for? Do you have access to a mainframe loaded with SAP2000 and ABAQUS? And if you do, do you actually have any clue what to do with it? How about your favorite "authority", Mick West? Personally, I've waited 18 years for a legitimate study of the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11, I can wait as long as it takes to get it as close to accurate as possible. I am 100% confident peer review will result in an unchallenged final report (not even challenged by NIST). Unchallenged other than by irrelevant "debunkers" who will never provide anything other than opinions, certainly not science.
It has nothing to do with "what I need it for" Bobby. It has everything to do with giving a 2 month time frame to give feedback and then not releasing the data for a month into that time frame and then missing the deadline. There's no excuse for that. Yet another missed deadline.
Exactly, you don't need it so it's not your concern. What a nightmare, eh Gamolon? The draft report took about a year or more to be released later than scheduled. Such is the nature of scientific research, deadlines suffer for the sake of accuracy and thoroughness. In the software business those in charge always promised unrealistic deadlines that the technical staff could rarely deliver on. But you would know that if you had any technical background.
For those who are worried sick about the availability of the data needed to verify Dr. Hulsey's draft report and replicate the computer models: All input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during this study will be made available here and at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7. The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019. (Update: Please be advised the data has not been posted yet due to technical issues encountered while uploading several hundred gigabytes of data. It will be available as soon as the technical issues are resolved.) For anyone intending to download the data, please be advised that there are several hundred gigabytes, so plan your data storage accordingly. https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7 Please be sure that you have at least 1 TB (terabyte) of disk space available for your research and expect the download to take hours? FYI, ALL the data will be made available despite any concern for public safety, so be sure to wear appropriate safety gear when downloading and run for your life if anything goes wrong. NIST warned you.
From AE 9/11's website: https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7 That was added last last Thursday morning. "Technical issues". Riiiiggghhhhttttt. More lame excuses to delay the data that generated such crappy models. They'll be exposed when the data is finally (if ever) released.
As opposed to the NIST data that allegedly generated their crappy models that is unavailable to this day because releasing it would "endanger public safety"? That lame excuse? By who, Mick West, you? Are you hoping and praying? So far no one legitimate who matters has contradicted or even challenged any of Hulsey's findings. NIST has already been exposed as a fraud long before Hulsey's study. That leaves no legitimate hypothesis for a natural global collapse due to fire alone, the least likely (and virtually impossible) case. It also means that it leaves only the most likely hypothesis (and most possible case), a controlled demolition, there are no other known possibilities.
Wow! Must be some "technical issue" that almost another week goes by without their data being posted. Hard to believe that "engineers" can't figure this stuff out or find the resources to do it for them. Maybe they'll come out with more excuses like the data being corrupted or hard drive failure.
As compared to over 11 years worth of lies and endless genocide based on those lies? Are you trying to achieve the same level of phoniness as Trump?
Oh Bobby. There you go just shooting your mouth off again, making stupid comments without having any idea of what you're talking about. I'm currently a telecom engineer and project manager. Previously I worked in the computer support department and had my own business repairing and setting up PCs. Prior to that I worked for an engineering firm as a construction supervisor for projects in steel mills. I designed hydraulic/piping system for steel mills. I also did damage assessment for two catastrophic plant failures. I did work for the Army Corp of Engineers designing pipe supports for a nerve gas incineration plant. I designed piping modules for Anheuser Busch breweries. That makes your quoted comment above pretty stupid. Seems to be a recurring theme with you. No matter how you slice it Bobby, missing multiple promised deadlines is a sign of incompetence no matter who made those promises.
Oh I’m so sorry I missed where your biography was posted somehow, my bad. I can only go by what you actually do post. And based on your posts, one would never guess you had any professional background, just the opposite. What kind of real professional actually believes the OCT fairy tale and has no clue that deadlines are often missed?
Did the lack of a "biography" stop you from posting an idiotic assumption about my technical background? No, it didn't. Again, an idiotic assumption on your part. Pure opinion, which means nothing. The fact that you focus on ME and not the actual context of what I post says quite a bit. How about you argue the points I make instead of trying to make it about me and my supposed lack of a technical background? The same kind that refutes what you post/believe and puts up with you attacking people's character and credentials in order to invalidate what's being posted instead of discussing the points at hand.
Can you point out where I said that deadlines are never missed? No? didn't think so. Anyways, using your example from above. That is a sign of incompetence from "those in charge" is it not? The fact that those in charge make "unrealistic promises" that they know the "technical staff could rarely deliver on" is just flat out lying. That's incompetence. Engineers missing a deadline by two weeks because they're having difficulty uploading data somewhere? That's incompetence.
So your ok with lying about a deadline knowing full well that the staff cannot make said deadline? Good to know Bobby.
What's idiotic is that you've been posting apologist nonsense in defense of the OCT for years and expect intelligent people to believe the OCT is correct and that you have some kind of professional expertise as a result. My opinion of you is based strictly on your own posts, you have yet to show I'm wrong. I do as often as reasonable and back it up with facts and real expert opinion (that excludes you and Mick West), all of which refutes the OCT in hundreds if not thousands of different ways. I can't because I never made the claim that that's what you said. In fact you quoted me so perhaps in your world "often" and "always" are synonyms. And the above is only one reason why I find it hard to believe you have any professional background. In the real world "those in charge" are pressured by all sorts of issues, including budget constraints. And some are just plain snake oil salesmen who must sell a bridge to their clients in order to get the sale and maintain their client base. So often they make promises they can't deliver on time or at all in some cases. While there may be an element of "incompetence" at times, most often that isn't the problem at all. Coming from someone who has never used the term "incompetence" with respect to NIST and the US government, I don't believe you even know the definition of the term. Hypocrisy you're well acquainted with I must say. You're focusing on an issue that you don't even care about in the least bit, not to mention it's so incredibly trivial with respect to the overall picture. It's just your way of trying to bury what's really important. You fool no one. Where did you ever read any post where I wrote that? Making crap up about me as usual?
Your phony concern has been satisfied. No wonder you haven't posted anything today. UAF, AE911Truth Release All Data from WTC 7 Study — Time for NIST to Do the Same https://www.ae911truth.org/news/591...from-wtc-7-study-time-for-nist-to-do-the-same Get to work, download it all and test all the computer models to see how many hundreds of mistakes Hulsey made. I assume you have a mainframe loaded with SAP2000 and ABAQUS available for your research? BTW the deadline has been extended 2 weeks so not to worry.
