To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

And failure to answer the above means what exactly ?

Short answer: It means there is no credible alternative theory. Occam's razor.

Long answer: Most modern conspiracy theorists generally operate by attacking/discrediting an "official version" of events. It's relatively easy to do. Typically when there is a certain type of attack (like Boston bombing, Charlie Hebdo, Vegas shooting, etc) a small army of like-minded internet "detectives" goes to work with the sole aim of trying to discredit the details/facts of the event as they emerge

They don't really have an interest in what happened because their motivations are to typically discredit the "authority" figures (the mainstream media, the investigations, the government, etc)

Some of these people are very "good" at it because it's literally a years long obsession with them. I could create a troll account on boards and argue "against" the NIST all day long, it's simple stuff. Anything can be denied on the internet where people don't have to adhere to stringent rules on skepticism and reasonable debate

It ends up being circular

So instead, it's easier to highlight the weakness of that approach by exposing their lack of alternative theories, or even interest in another theory at all. For example when a plane crashes, there can be any number of reasons - bird strike, pilot error, malfunction, mid-air collision, missile, pilot suicide, etc

Investigators work with the evidence in order to build up a picture of what has happened. They work from the ground up. They use substantiated evidence and information. Reliable witnesses, recordings, flight data, etc.

They don't decide it's a conspiracy from the outset and retroactively work from there. They don't seek to discredit all the evidence but provide no evidence of their own.

Anecdotally, I know someone who does this as a job, they've done it for two decades. By all accounts they are pretty damn good at it. But it doesn't mean they are infallible. Which is why they work as part of a team, with other experts who've been in the field, often for many years. These people certainly do not "automatically" agree with each other. When the entire team have fully investigated e.g. an aircraft crash, and they have all come to the same conclusion, one that is supported by the evidence. Sometimes it can be the strongest theory among a group of theories. Other times it can be the only theory supported by credible evidence

911 is one theory, widely accepted and established, across multiple attacks supported by credible and corroborated evidence. Supported by multiple investigations. There are no other credible theories on the matter.

It's pretty cut and dried. But then again you'd think that the world being round was pretty cut and dried. It isn't, there are thousands of people who passionately argue against it on the internet using the same kind of circular logic

This is a thread asking simple questions about what alternatively happened with evidence

Page 6, no answers, no motives, no suspects/witness/evidence... just circular subjective "can't explain this to me" attacks on the investigation and incredulity, which is always the case with 911, 7/7, Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, etc

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. You have no sense of irony.

However, there are plenty of other scientists in the conspiracy world who buy into her theory.
Some of them have also been from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
She has published her work openly for anyone to peer review.

Why do you not believe her?

She has an opinion about how the twin towers were demolished. As far as I know, her work is not about WTC7

Her work cannot be verified. How do you prove a space beam destroyed the towers? It's science fiction. If the US had this technology why have they not used it since?

We can easily dispute the NIST findings of WTC7.

If you truly don't believe WTC7 was brought down by demolition. Then people like you have to explain scientifically how a fire in WTC7 melted the steel?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

That paper is based on 4 samples that were not collected by verifiably forensic means. It makes a blanket assumption of genuine sourcing and from its outset is based on flawed sample security.
Assuming any form of Nano Thermite was used, where was the UV spike?
Where are the damaged eyes from the thousands watching the incipient collapse?


If it was a controlled collapse via thermite/nano-thermite.
How was the burn initiated silently?
Simultanously at multiple points in the building?
How was the material placed?
By Whom?
To what end?

That's false the samples were verified as genuine. Where the samples were taken from is documented. Skeptics don't even dispute that.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's false the samples were verified as genuine. Where the samples were taken from is documented. Skeptics don't even dispute that.

And the other questions asked of you?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She has an opinion about how the twin towers were demolished. As far as I know, her work is not about WTC7

Her work cannot be verified. How do you prove a space beam destroyed the towers? It's science fiction. If the US had this technology why have they not used it since?

We can easily dispute the NIST findings of WTC7.

If you truly don't believe WTC7 was brought down by demolition. Then people like you have to explain scientifically how a fire in WTC7 melted the steel?

Her work includes wtc7. Have you not even looked at her work before dismissing it and declaring that she's a shill? That's very closed minded of you...

She has published all of her reasearch on her website. Plus, it's already complete. So you can go peer review it right now. It's been peer reviewed and verified and has tons of evidence, much more complete and detailed than anything you've provided that shows it was a space laser.

Why are you asking me questions about the inner thoughts of the people who control the space laser? You complain when you are asked similar questions.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Her work includes wtc7. Have you not even looked at her work before dismissing it and declaring that she's a shill? That's very closed minded of you...

She has published all of her reasearch on her website. Plus, it's already complete. So you can go peer review it right now. It's been peer reviewed and verified and has tons of evidence, much more complete and detailed than anything you've provided that shows it was a space laser.

Why are you asking me questions about the inner thoughts of the people who control the space laser? You complain when you are asked similar questions.

Instead of claiming post information where she states a space beam destroyed WTC7?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Instead of claiming post information where she states a space beam destroyed WTC7?

Easily findable on her website. Google it.

Good luck.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Easily findable on her website. Google it.

Good luck.

So you don't if she actually said that? So your post is just hyperbole?

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

And the other questions asked of you?

You do realise you've just been fed debunked nonsense as a "fact"

The thermite thing has been long debunked, here's a starting point
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Anything but answer the questions

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So you don't if she actually said that? So you post is just hyperbole?

She did. Go google it.
Go read her research before you dismiss her as a crank and a shill and stop being so closed minded.

That's not what hyperbole is btw.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You do realise you've just been fed debunked nonsense as a "fact"

The thermite thing has been long debunked, here's a starting point
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Anything but answer the questions

Dohnjoe links to a Skeptic forum. He is unable to post a genuine peer-reviewed paper debunking their work?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

She did. Go google it.
Go read her research before you dismiss her as a crank and a shill and stop being so closed minded.

That's not what hyperbole is btw.

You made the claim you brought her into this conversation, prove it or never happened.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's false the samples were verified as genuine. Where the samples were taken from is documented. Skeptics don't even dispute that.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

There is no clear chain of custody for the samples used in the paper, none.
No chain of custody means that no credible hypothesis can be considered.
The Managing Editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal resigned after the articles publication as she claimed it was done without her knowledge and approval.
Plenty there to debunk the thermite hypothesis and thats before one takes into account the extensive issues with Bentham Open as a peer reviewed publisher in fact it is widely perceived to be a vanity publisher!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You made the claim you brought her into this conversation, prove it or never happened.

Lol. How many times had you been asked to provide evidence or a link to your claims and then fobbed it off by telling us to google it.

And again, she did include WTC7. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html

You are just being closed minded about her work.

Or you are starting to see how silly your own position and arguments are....

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe links to a Skeptic forum. He is unable to post a genuine peer-reviewed paper debunking their work?

banie01 wrote: »

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

There is no clear chain of custody for the samples used in the paper, none.
No chain of custody means that no credible hypothesis can be considered.
The Managing Editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal resigned after the articles publication as she claimed it was done without her knowledge and approval.
Plenty there to debunk the thermite hypothesis and thats before one takes into account the extensive issues with Bentham Open as a peer reviewed publisher in fact it is widely perceived to be a vanity publisher!

Dammit me an Dohnjoe posted the same link!

Can Cheerful spring post a credible peer reviewed paper supporting the same thesis? i.e Thermite that is not peddled by a discredited and non peer reviewed journal?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe What he should have linked is a debate between a Skeptic and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

You see two people debate the subject honestly from both sides.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289588

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

peer-reviewed paper

It's not a proper scientific paper published in a respected journal. It's a random claim. Doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. Doesn't even need to be addressed (but some have gone to the effort of doing so) because it was misleading

Just about every steel framed building contains the "components" for thermite, iron oxide and aluminium, so if a building falls down, then people can comb through the debris, find samples and et voila claim thermite was present so by extraodinary leaps and bounds.. it must have been bought down by some unspecified demolition somehow using thermite

Or nano-thermite to make it sound so much more cutting edge

You still haven't answered any of the questions properly, or you haven't provided any credible evidence

We're still at zero here

Harika

There is a book coming out from J. Horvath, Schiller and Goethe who show that wtc 7 collapsed because of an explosion caused by a chem trail container from one of the planes survived the impact and dropped into Wtc 7 where the chemical reaction of those chemicals caused the crash. They show that by using those chemicals you can reproduce everything like the explosion, the molten steel and the health impact of people close by. Impressive work.

Dohnjoe

Harika wrote: »

There is a book coming out from J. Horvath, Schiller and Goethe who show that wtc 7 collapsed because of an explosion caused by a chem trail container from one of the planes survived the impact and dropped into Wtc 7 where the chemical reaction of those chemicals caused the crash. They show that by using those chemicals you can reproduce everything like the explosion, the molten steel and the health impact of people close by. Impressive work.

Good, we have something.

Do you have a summary of the theory anywhere?

banie01

Harika wrote: »

There is a book coming out from J. Horvath, Schiller and Goethe who show that wtc 7 collapsed because of an explosion caused by a chem trail container from one of the planes survived the impact and dropped into Wtc 7 where the chemical reaction of those chemicals caused the crash. They show that by using those chemicals you can reproduce everything like the explosion, the molten steel and the health impact of people close by. Impressive work.

So even when it was the nano Thermite....
All along it was actually the pesk chem-trails?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

There is no clear chain of custody for the samples used in the paper, none.
No chain of custody means that no credible hypothesis can be considered.
The Managing Editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal resigned after the articles publication as she claimed it was done without her knowledge and approval.
Plenty there to debunk the thermite hypothesis and thats before one takes into account the extensive issues with Bentham Open as a peer reviewed publisher in fact it is widely perceived to be a vanity publisher!

This is false Dr Milette a scientist who was involved in the official WTC dust study confirmed the red/greys chips were in the dust.

He disagreed with their conclusions that's it. He is the only scientist to ever dispute their findings in a public setting. He also promised to release his findings to a peer review journal in 2012. Never happened because he knew his findings would be scrutinized and debated.

Hundreds of scientists release peer review papers on the Bentham open site. She probably someone who can not handle the truth. Look at this thread for example people beliefs often get in the way.

Harika

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Good, we have something.

Do you have a summary of the theory anywhere?

Should be on amazon soon but Jeff Bezos is holding it back. He wanted to release it but he was shown what would happen if he did by last weeks amazon shares drop

King Mob

banie01 wrote: »

Dammit me an Dohnjoe posted the same link!

Can Cheerful spring post a credible peer reviewed paper supporting the same thesis? i.e Thermite that is not peddled by a discredited and non peer reviewed journal?

Btw: Here's a good video I finally found after a bit of digging. It was years since I've seen it.

It outlines how the samples in the paper in question are highly suspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI

I particularly like the part when Dr Jones wears a glove to handle the sample, but then just passes it to his ungloved hand.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Dammit me an Dohnjoe posted the same link!

Can Cheerful spring post a credible peer reviewed paper supporting the same thesis? i.e Thermite that is not peddled by a discredited and non peer reviewed journal?

You have it backwards. There is no credible peer review paper disputing their findings.

When you release a scientific paper the other side has to debunk it scientifically.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is false Dr Milette a scientist who was involved in the official WTC dust study confirmed the red/greys chips were in the dust.

It is not false, chain of custody was never established for the Harrit samples.
That Milettes samples matched is a happy coincidence as it debunks the Thermite claim made by Harrit.
He also confirmed that whilst the samples he tested to replicate the Harrit study were consistent with Harrit et al. that there was no evidence of elemental aluminum in any sample tested and that the samples were categorically not Thermite or Nano Thermite.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. How many times had you been asked to provide evidence or a link to your claims and then fobbed it off by telling us to google it.

And again, she did include WTC7. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html

You are just being closed minded about her work.

Or you are starting to see how silly your own position and arguments are....

I see nothing on that awful looking website about a space beam blowing up WTC7 try again.

Cheerful Spring

II. Once Upon a Time...

Once upon a time, there was a building called WTC7, and then it went away. And, it didn't even spill onto adjacent streets.

Lol is she serious?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

II. Once Upon a Time...

Once upon a time, there was a building called WTC7, and then it went away. And, it didn't even spill onto adjacent streets.

Lol is she serious?

Her "theory" has as much credible evidence as yours. I'd argue more, since you don't have any

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I see nothing on that awful looking website about a space beam blowing up WTC7 try again.

That's what she's discussing. I don't know what you were looking at.

But you're just stalling now. Why do you reject DR Judy Woods' work?

Where's your peer reviewed study debunking all of her work?

Why are you dismissing her expertise? She's a doctor of many fields including engineering.
Why do you think you know better when you can't even do high school physics?

Dohnjoe

Harika wrote: »

Should be on amazon soon but Jeff Bezos is holding it back. He wanted to release it but he was shown what would happen if he did by last weeks amazon shares drop

Right, but surely there is some summary or overview?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

It is not false, chain of custody was never established for the Harrit samples.
That Milettes samples matched is a happy coincidence as it debunks the Thermite claim made by Harrit.
He also confirmed that whilst the samples he tested to replicate the Harrit study were consistent with Harrit et al. that there was no evidence of elemental aluminum in any sample tested and that the samples were categorically not Thermite or Nano Thermite.

The names of the people and locations were identified. Nobody disputes the red/grey chips were found in the dust samples.

Dr Milette conclusions are problematic because he a scientist involved in the cover-up. Skeptics should have asked independent scientists to debunk this paper. Dr Milette was involved in a documented mainstream cover-up of the dangers of the WTC dust to people health after the attacks. It was reported by official news sites.

Dr Milette claims no elemental aluminium was present even though he did not do the tests Harrit carried out. He did even do a DSC test to see if the chips spiked when heated. Dr Harrit tests clearly showed the Aluminium was not bonded with silicon. Dr Milette claims Aluminium and Silicon were bonded. He never produced his peer review he had promised he would to prove this.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Milette conclusions are problematic because he a scientist involved in the cover-up.

LOL

Besides creating spurious facts you can now label anyone that disagrees as being part of some fictional "cover-up"

It's the casual and effortless dishonesty of these statements

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

cover-up

1. What cover-up?

2. List of all those involved in this cover-up?

3. Explain it's existence?

Again, only with evidence. No speculation or assumptions.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

LOL

Besides creating spurious facts you can now label anyone that disagrees as being part of some fictional "cover-up"

It's the casual and effortless dishonesty of these statements

You, Skeptics, are still waiting for his peer-reviewed paper that he promised six years ago.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That's what she's discussing. I don't know what you were looking at.

But you're just stalling now. Why do you reject DR Judy Woods' work?

Where's your peer reviewed study debunking all of her work?

Why are you dismissing her expertise? She's a doctor of many fields including engineering.
Why do you think you know better when you can't even do high school physics?

I not finding what you claimed. I see pictures of 9/11 events on her website.

Link me to where she has paper discussing light beams blowing up WTC7

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You, Skeptics, are still waiting for his peer-reviewed paper that he promised six years ago.

A skeptic is someone who questions things logically and reasonably. Using it as a label is a compliment.

I like how you are suddenly demanding peer-reviewed everything but have stated that Hulsey's paper will be infallible the moment it is released.. without even knowing what it says

That's the opposite of skepticism.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not finding what you claimed. I see pictures of 9/11 events on her website.

Link me to where she has paper discussing light beams blowing up WTC7

Again you are stalling. It's a bit sad.

Here you go:
http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

Now, please explain why you are dismissing her.
She is a doctor. She is an expert. Why would we doubt her?
If we are to follow your arguments, that makes her unquestionable.

Her research is there in the open meaning that it's peer review, according to your definition of the word and no one has debunked her research.

You have not even address any of her points except to dismiss it as silly just because it relies on made up technology that doesn't exist and then you asked the same questions that you yourself say don't need to be answered when they are posed to you...

So why do you not believe her?

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

demanding peer-reviewed everything

Remember that cheerful's version of "peer review" means "publish it on the internet and have your friends look it over and say it's fine."

It's the best kind of peer review apparently.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A skeptic is someone who questions things logically and reasonably. Using it as a label is a compliment.

I like how you are suddenly demanding peer-reviewed everything but have stated that Hulsey's paper will be infallible the moment it is released.. without even knowing what it says

That's the opposite of skepticism.

I am Skeptical of NIST claims how the building collapsed.

He is already given an update on his findings. He opinions are the collapse was not caused by fire.

He even replicated the actual collapse conditions in a computer simulated model. You going to see this alongside the NIST model and people will notice the differences immediately.

If he can by science replicate the real conditions of the collapse, that's what happened.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again you are stalling. It's a bit sad.

Here you go:
http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

Now, please explain why you are dismissing her.
She is a doctor. She is an expert. Why would we doubt her?
If we are to follow your arguments, that makes her unquestionable.

Her research is there in the open meaning that it's peer review, according to your definition of the word and no one has debunked her research.

You have not even address any of her points except to dismiss it as silly just because it relies on made up technology that doesn't exist and then you asked the same questions that you yourself say don't need to be answered when they are posed to you...

So why do you not believe her?

Your link
The Towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned (mostly) to dust in mid air.”

Please just show me something that supports what you said.

I want to see a detailed write up of her theory, not this crap.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your link
The Towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned (mostly) to dust in mid air.”

Please just show me something that supports what you said.

First, I didn't say that.

Dr Judy Wood does. She's an expert and a doctor. She provides all of her evidence there on her peer reviewed website. That is the most detailed version of her theory. It's not really our problem if you have trouble understanding it.
Please read it. You can find all of those things by clicking through the site. However some of the links are down as the government is trying to censor her.

Or you explain why you are dismissing her in such a closed minded way?
Why are you asking the same question that you said don't need to be answered when they are posed to you.

Also, if poor website design is a valid reason to dismiss conspiracy theories...:pac:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

First, I didn't say that.

Dr Judy Wood does. She's an expert and a doctor. She provides all of her evidence there on her peer reviewed website.
Please read it. You can find all of those things by clicking through the site. However some of the links are down as the government is trying to censor her.

Or you explain why you are dismissing her in such a closed minded way?
Why are you asking the same question that you said don't need to be answered when they are posed to you.

You posted a link and that's what I read.

I don't care if she is a Doctor. Expert in what ( space beams blowing up the twin towers?

You made a claim she said a space beam blew up the WTC7 building. You still have not provided that quote or information.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You posted a link and that's what I read.

I don't care if she is a Doctor. Expert in what ( space beams blowing up the twin towers?

You made a claim she said a space beam blew up the WTC7 building. You still have not provided that quote or information.

She lists her credentials on her website I provided. And she's a lot more qualified than a lot of the "experts" you trot out and demand we accept unquestioningly.
http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dr-judy-wood-biography/

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.
...

Dr. Wood received her

B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

Experimental Stress Analysis,
Engineering Mechanics,
Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
Strength of Materials Testing

I doubt you read all of the evidence on her peer reviewed website as she provides quite a lot and you've only had a few minutes.

And again, I have provided a link to where she discusses WTC7. You can find it by going back or by looking through the website you've been provided.

Again, why are you dismissing her? You don't seem to know anything about her or her claims and qualifications. Yet you seemed quick to pass her off as a shill.
Yet you have not provided anything to actually debunk her. You haven't even discussed any of the evidence she provides.

That's really closed minded of you.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

She lists her credentials on her website I provided. And she's a lot more qualified than a lot of the "experts" you trot out and demand we accept unquestioningly.

I doubt you read all of the evidence on her peer reviewed website as she provides quite a lot and you've only had a few minutes.

And again, I have provided a link to where she discusses WTC7. You can find it by going back or by looking through the website you've been provided.

Again, why are you dismissing her? You don't seem to know anything about her or her claims and qualifications. Yet you seemed quick to pass her off as a shill.
Yet you have not provided anything to actually debunk her. You haven't even discussed any of the evidence she provides.

That's really closed minded of you.

Has anyone actually taken the time to check those credentials? She claims to be a scientist but she writes like a crazy woman.

This is not serious science work.

From her website
II. Once Upon a Time...

Once upon a time, there was a building called WTC7, and then it went away. And, it didn't even spill onto adjacent streets.

Lol is she serious or trolling?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Has anyone actually taken the time to check those credentials? She claims to be a scientist but she writes like a crazy woman.

This is not serious science work.

From her website
II. Once Upon a Time...

Once upon a time, there was a building called WTC7, and then it went away. And, it didn't even spill onto adjacent streets.

Lol is she serious or trolling?

So if she's not really an expert, and is just crazy, please point to a peer reviewed source that actually debunks her evidence?

Please point to any evidence that she does not have the qualifications she claims.

Can we now claim all of your experts are likewise fake?

And again... if we could just dismiss conspiracy theories because of terrible, awful writing styles...:pac:

Cheerful Spring

Dr Hulsey is serious person researching and reviewing WTC7 collapse event.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey is serious person researching and reviewing WTC7 collapse event.

Has anyone checked his credentials?
No?
Great, then not a doctor, not an expert and in fact involved in the conspiracy to discredit the serious work of Dr Judy Wood: Actual Expert.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Has anyone checked his credentials?
No?
Great, then not a doctor, not an expert and in fact involved in the conspiracy to discredit the serious work of Dr Judy Wood: Actual Expert.

Yes, they have checked his credentials. There video of him teaching online. You only have to listen to him to know he is a serious academic.

Cheerful Spring

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx What more proof do you need?

King Mob

Those sites are obviously planted there by the conspiracy against Dr Judy Wood: American Hero.

You are again dodging and stalling

Could it actually be that you can't actually debunk any of her claims?
Are you so closed minded that you won't even consider her ideas?

Why not? Why do you not believe her?