It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC 7 Evaluation Misses Draft Release of Nov 2017?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
By the way, below are the project dates listed on the University Website.



A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

ine.uaf.edu...

Project Dates
May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018




posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
I guess the WTC 7 Evaluation is not going to live up to its original promises of transparency and peer review, but also miss a 2018 release?


Maybe tied in with the grand jury process? Timeline does match (spring 2018).
US Attorney Letter

Or a serious problem within evaluation.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

I don’t think the study has much to do with the grand jury.

Current posting from the WTC 7 evaluation project website.



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



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

Here are some links to a person that posted their filtered opinion on a podcast that was said to be an update to the study on 9-6-2018 at metabunk:

www.metabunk.org...
www.metabunk.org...

A page that has a link to the actual podcast:



9/11 FREE FALL 9/6/18: WTC 7 STUDY UPDATE
911freefall.com...

Dr. Leroy Hulsey joins host Andy Steele to update the audience on the WTC 7 study, which is nearing completion, as well as share some of his current findings.


I don’t know if it’s telling or odd, but the WTC 7 Evaluation site and the University WTC 7 site reflect none of the information given in the Podcast from 9-6-2018?
edit on 31-12-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

As for metabunk and Oystein: The devil can cite scripture for his purpose, ie. Cherry picking at it finest.

We both hate to be in the dark with the WTC7 evalution, there is a reason for this.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

As for metabunk and Oystein: The devil can cite scripture for his purpose, ie. Cherry picking at it finest.

We both hate to be in the dark with the WTC7 evalution, there is a reason for this.


I am not waiting. I don’t think it will ever be released. It’s never going to be released under the conditions as advertised when the original donations were solicited. And I don’t think the university wants its name tied to a study where donations were sought under what are now false pretexts and/or a study that will not conform to peer review.

If I was a betting man, you might see some pseudoscience report in the future once the university figures out how to distance themselves from a study that now has no intention to complete an actual discovery process.




top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join