Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William Seger

(11,323 posts)
5. Hulsey gets an F in logic
Mon Sep 12, 2016, 01:49 PM
Sep 2016

... as does anyone who thinks a finite element analysis "proves" what did or did not happen inside WTC 7, whether it's NIST's, Hulsey's, or two others that were commissioned by insurance companies, which differed from NIST's but also found that fire could have triggered the collapse.

Hulsey didn't do his credibility any favors by announcing the conclusion he intended to find at the beginning of his study, and (amazingly) even admitting that he "knew too much" to be unbiased. But still, even if he can cast doubt on NIST's hypothesis (which most definitely remains to be seen), that doesn't support the invalid inference "Fire DID NOT Cause WTC 7 Collapse." Obviously, logic is not the professor's strong suit.

You do realize, don't you, that some professors are nutty? You can probably find at least two documentaries on YouTube.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Canadian Civil Engineerin...»Reply #5