....[Hulsey] cannot say 100% for sure than fire did not take down WTC7.
Why some may ask. Because not all possible fire scenarios were modelled. Of course it would be next to impossible to do.
EXACTLY.
Unless he has changed his claims Hulsey has persisted with two claims - my words - I won't check for his several versions:
1) He claims he can prove (or has proved) that fire could not cause the WTC7 collapse; AND
2) He claims some variant on the theme NIST was wrong.
The first is a "global negative" assertion - logically equivalent to "there is no scenario where fire could cause collapse".
He CANNOT "prove" that claim for the reason you state mike2810. To "prove" it he has to falsify EVERY possible failure scenario. And he has only assessed a limited number. In addition it is probably impossible to even identify all scenarios even if it was practical to test them all.
So that error is fatal to his claims even if the engineering analysis of the scenarios he has tested is valid. And most of what he has revealed so far shows that his engineering has serious shortcomings.
Now why am I predicting that few if any will pick the error? Because in over 13 years of online discussion it is my experience that those debunking engineering applied physics routinely miss fatal errors in starting point assumptions. We saw years of it with Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" and there are many other examples.
So I wont surprised if few commentators pick the fatal error.
AND I identified it when Hulsey first announced his finding that "fire cannot cause collapse". And I have repeated that assertion every few months on two high profile forums and about four face book groups. (I cannot remember if I have posted it here.) And got zero response until recent weeks. All the engineering review attempts have focussed on the details of scenario analysis.
If I include your reference mike2810 I am now aware of three "debunkers" other than me who have identified the error. And no more than half a dozen post together with at least 20 of mine going back those few years.
So let's see what the paper actually says. I cannot see Hulsey being allowed by AE911 to correct his error. But we will see if he persists with it AND if enough people spot it.
Whatever the paper says we can be sure it will be mendaciously "spun" by AE911 and truthers in general. But that is situation normal. :roll: :doh
