Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not at all

Do you think that multiple conspiracies theories can be correct?

What I mean is, if someone believes that all three buildings were deliberately blown up in demolitions, and someone else believes that only one of the buildings was blown up (the other two falling due to plane strikes + fire)

Can both of those chain of events be correct?

Or does that matter?

Just "one" of the buildings deliberately demolished by explosives is needed to prove the theory, i believe! Its reason i focus on world trade center seven. You can get bogged down all day discussing what happened to three buildings on 9/11..

I have got many reasons to doubt NIST probable theory for the collapse of WTC7.

1) We got online pictures, and one can see the fires were contained within the lower section half portion of the building" Roughly about 14 floors had pockets of light to small and medium-range fires. Fires of this type can be easily suppressed with water and other fire suppressants. According to the official account, a decision was made, and it can only come from superiors in crisis management, to halt all fire activities to save this building. It very suspicious, in my opinion, the decision was made early in the day, only one hour after the collapse of the Twin tower to give up saving the building. The building was left alone for up five to to six hours, this personally bugs me.

2) NIST probable collapse theory involves a single girder at column 79' floor 12 and 13 expanding due to fires. The girder slipped of its positioned seat and fell downwards " this they claim caused floors, above floor 13 and below floor 12 to fail with it. NIST then claims all the floors across the entire width of the building buckled and fell away too. Interesting theory till you actually examine the construction of building seven and you notice the girder is very well protected and can not move 360 degrees. The girder is welded with a web plate to stop it from moving side to side and up and down, plus the girder has multiple shear studs welded to the deck of the floor to hold everything in place. NIST ignored all this in their study and basically decided after they could not find the proper drawing for this floor, they made a decision the girder was unsupported and claimed still this how it happened.

3) NIST refused to release their computer simulation data so people can't check their work and find errors. NIST even messed up massively when they held a tech conference in Aug 2008 and they themselves when asked a question about freefall, said we found no evidence this occurred!

Six years and at this stage of their study'- NIST missed an important feature of the actual collapse! And after realising the question was asked was, in fact, true- freefall had occurred. They went away and rewrote a section of their report and released a revised edition of their final report on Nov 2008. In this report, they make the startling claim freefall was thought of all along and was never left out from the beginning? NIST got away with it, but for me, we should never forget what they said at their live video conference event were only three months earlier they personally ruled out freefall!

4) There modelling charts and graphs look nothing like the actual collapse. NIST models do show bowing in, but there no bowing in of perimeter walls on any 9/11 video! NIST completely ignores this discrepancy between the real videos and their collapse modelling graphs .If you believe the inner shell was collapsing prior to perimeter collapse, then the outer walls and roofline would be pulled in also on video and there be visual signs of this. NIST has never explained how can 47 floors disappear inside the building prior to perimeter collapse and there be no large dust plumes and broken windows across the width of the building.

There many other lies but these are main ones for me.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Just "one" of the buildings deliberately demolished by explosives is needed to prove the theory, i believe!

Finally, there's a theory, what is it?

Its reason i focus on world trade center seven. You can get bogged down all day discussing what happened to three buildings on 9/11..

You focus on WTC 7 because it's the "easiest" to cast doubt on. You tried the Pentagon and got tangled up in your own contradictions, you gave WTC 1 and 2 a very half-heart attempt. The path of least resistance

I have got many reasons to doubt NIST probable theory for the collapse of WTC7.

Yup, every reason to bring yourself closer to a conspiracy you haven't the slightest intention of ever fleshing out

"Guys! I have reached a state of almost perfect self doubt about an investigation report, this means, by proxy, that a conspiracy must have taken place!"
-"Cool! what's the conspiracy?"
"Don't know, don't care"

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Finally, there's a theory, what is it?



You focus on WTC 7 because it's the "easiest" to cast doubt on. You tried the Pentagon and got tangled up in your own contradictions, you gave WTC 1 and 2 a very half-heart attempt. The path of least resistance



Yup, every reason to bring yourself closer to a conspiracy you haven't the slightest intention of ever fleshing out

"Guys! I have reached a state of almost perfect self doubt about an investigation report, this means, by proxy, that a conspiracy must have taken place!"
-"Cool! what's the conspiracy?"
"Don't know, don't care"

Starters you don't think NIST failure is a good starting point to prove the demolition collapse theory is correct? Clearly their fire scenario does not work and their plenty evidence found showing corruption. If NIST went this far to cover up their incompetence, we seriously need to find out why they did it, and who was forcing them to lie and omit evidence and distort it. Freefall thing is clear unambiguous evidence they were attempting a cover of something they said on video on Aug 2008. If freefall was truly something they thought of it would not be a surprise question to them back then" they would said yes, we calculated 2.25 seconds of freefall, wheres what they actually said was in Aug 2008 our calculations were not consistent with a freefall scenario. They said thier progressive collapse was slow and not instant and there needed to be a serious of failures to occur first. So in Aug 2008 Freefall was not something they accounted for during their study and saying otherwise was complete and utter lie.

Pentagon is lot less certain. I did some work on it and make more sense to me a plane hit the building, I actually found out trees stood in front of the west wall and they got blown away by the impact. Clearly a large object hit the building. I still find the official story to be wrong in were it places the plane at time of impact. Eyewitnesses have not helped as they some of them claim the plane was north of the annex and lesser extent south of the annex, only some of the eyewitnesses can be right. The north side witnesses are highly credible so very confusing.There some other errors that dispute the official story, but a plane itself is just one element of a bigger story at the Pentagon.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Pentagon is lot less certain. I did some work on it and make more sense to me a plane hit the building,

Amazing what facts can do!

Anyone claiming anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon is trolling or insane.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Amazing what facts can do!

Anyone claiming anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon is trolling or insane.

They are not trolling. Plenty of things still remain unanswered about what happened.

Cameras all not recording on this day seems odd to me. There was three cameras placed along the rooftop of the Pentagon.. And there was traffic cameras on light poles along the highway. Two cameras located on firehouse wall. None of this footage has got out to the public, i have always wondered why. If there nothing to hide this footage so just be released and there be no issue about hidden video and conspiracy about it would go away.

The different directions the plane was seen at before hitting the Pentagon. There a big dispute about this and then people wonder why the pilot decided to do a u turn in the air go around the pentagon to attack the wall on the west side. The pilot can easily have just brought the plane down on top of the Pentagon and caused mass casualties and this obviously was the plan.

Plane involved does not really fix the anomalies noted here.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They are not trolling. Plenty of things still remain unanswered about what happened.

Cameras all not recording on this day seems odd to me. There was three cameras placed along the rooftop of the Pentagon.. And there was traffic cameras on light poles along the highway. Two cameras located on firehouse wall. None of this footage has got out to the public, i have always wondered why. If there nothing to hide this footage so just be released and there be no issue about hidden video and conspiracy about it would go away.

The different directions the plane was seen at before hitting the Pentagon. There a big dispute about this and then people wonder why the pilot decided to do a u turn in the air go around the pentagon to attack the wall on the west side. The pilot can easily have just brought the plane down on top of the Pentagon and caused mass casualties and this obviously was the plan.

Plane involved does not really fix the anomalies noted here.

Loads of stuff wrong there, as usual. They hit the Pentagon as a statement, not to kill as many as possible. Also, I've posted the (extensive) list of eyewitnesses before, which you may have ignored as the truth doesn't suit you. How many was it? 80 odd people saw the plane crash?

All liars apparently.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

Loads of stuff wrong there, as usual. They hit the Pentagon as a statement, not to kill as many as possible. Also, I've posted the (extensive) list of eyewitnesses before, which you may have ignored as the truth doesn't suit you. How many was it? 80 odd people saw the plane crash?

All liars apparently.

Member when Cheerful was claiming that it was an entirely different plane and the real plane just flew away?
All based on the same arguments?

Good times...

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

Member when Cheerful was claiming that it was an entirely different plane and the real plane just flew away?
All based on the same arguments?

Good times...

And that someone must have ran around the lawn quickly throwing bits of an a plane around the place while knocking down lamp posts, apparently unnoticed, in front of a couple of hundred people.

He would've had to look like this.



About 90 people saw something hit the building from that direction. 45 described airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring" etc, 25 described it specifically as an American Airlines jet and so on.

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Member when Cheerful was claiming that it was an entirely different plane and the real plane just flew away?
All based on the same arguments?

Good times...

Was clearing the downloads folder this weekend when I spotted the black box video for the pentagon flight. Good times

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Loads of stuff wrong there, as usual. They hit the Pentagon as a statement, not to kill as many as possible. Also, I've posted the (extensive) list of eyewitnesses before, which you may have ignored as the truth doesn't suit you. How many was it? 80 odd people saw the plane crash?

All liars apparently.

I used flight 77 FDR and FAA radar returns data to try locate where the plane was. This is physical real evidence the official story is not accurate.. The plane is located northeast on both animations it approached the Pentagon. All this info was released years after the 9/11 commission report was completed in 2004 and Skeptics and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have argued about it ever since and what does it all mean? The US government has never clarified why the FDR and FAA radar returns show a plane heading north of the navy annex? For the official story to be true plane had to be coming in from opposite side heading southwest.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I used flight 77 FDR and FAA radar returns data to try locate where the plane was. This is physical real evidence the official story is not accurate.. The plane is located northeast on both animations it approached the Pentagon. All this info was released years after the 9/11 commission report was completed in 2004 and Skeptics and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have argued about it ever since and what does it all mean? The US government has never clarified why the FDR and FAA radar returns show a plane heading north of the navy annex? For the official story to be true plane had to be coming in from opposite side heading southwest.

You seem to have this bizarre notion that by attacking one detail of one component it all magically falls apart. And into that void you try to suggest some conspiracy happened, but you never detail it

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The data is fine. You have made a decision to deliberately misinterpret it. The motivation is to bring to life a conspiracy you can never explain.

"This bit doesn't make sense to me, therefore conspiracy"

I think part of it is that he is confusing cardinal directions and mixing up "heading" and "coming from".

Dohnjoe

The FDR data, the radar data, the ATC info, the witness reports, the physical debris, the identified remains of the passengers and crew, the subsequent investigations into the hijacking and attack, all separately corroborate what happened

A credible alternative has never been provided by anyone, ever.

And people who think that every tiny detail must stand up to their understanding are contradicted by the fact they'll accept a vague conspiracy they can't provide any details for.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The FDR data, the radar data, the ATC info, the witness reports, the physical debris, the identified remains of the passengers and crew, the subsequent investigations into the hijacking and attack, all separately corroborate what happened

A credible alternative has never been provided by anyone, ever.

And people who think that every tiny detail must stand up to their understanding are contradicted by the fact they'll accept a vague conspiracy they can't provide any details for.

Q: Why did they have the plane come from a certain direction that makes the conspiracy obvious?
A: Dunno.
Q: Why did they claim that the plane came from a different direction than it did?
A: Dunno.
Q: Why did they go to ths effort of faking evidence to show it from a direction it didn't but then also not fake the data?
A: Dunno.
Q: Why did they release the evidence that shows they are lying?
A: Dunno.

Etc. Etc...

Overheal

Lest we rehash the flight data recorder - again - I am reminded we had an at length conversation about it a year ago and you were no closer to convincing anyone else, especially those in the thread, that there was evidence by it of a conspiracy.

I’m only saddened that there isn’t a clearly remarked thread for this because, again, every 9/11 thread turns into an everything about 9/11 thread. In light of that, I’m going to put my foot down and ask people not to engage on these tangents, each can exist in their own thread to be endlessly prattled on about in an organized and discrete fashion. At this point this thread is about the release of the Hulsey study, and is not intended as a catch all to re discuss every facet of 9/11 that has already been discussed ad infinitum in this forum.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Lest we rehash the flight data recorder - again - I am reminded we had an at length conversation about it a year ago and you were no closer to convincing anyone else, especially those in the thread, that there was evidence by it of a conspiracy.

I’m only saddened that there isn’t a clearly remarked thread for this because, again, every 9/11 thread turns into an everything about 9/11 thread. In light of that, I’m going to put my foot down and ask people not to engage on these tangents, each can exist in their own thread to be endlessly prattled on about in an organized and discrete fashion. At this point this thread is about the release of the Hulsey study, and is not intended as a catch all to re discuss every facet of 9/11 that has already been discussed ad infinitum in this forum.

It not about convincing you guys. You guys have already sided with the official story.

<snip off topic>

I accept this is Hulsey study thread and i not post about the Pentagon on here.

Overheal

18 years later and 3000 ‘architects and engineers for truth’ haven’t published a single peer reviewed study or report of a cohesive conspiracy theory.

Cheerful Spring2

Hearing new information. Hulsey report could be out before Sep 11th- dates i hearing now between 3th and 5th of September.

Hulsey will be giving a lecture about his conclusions at UC Berkeley 5th of September. UC Berkeley is one of the best universities in the United States. I doubt he can just appear wthout permission?

Ipso

Berkley is also nut job ventral, so i wouldn’t use that as a basis for anything.

Overheal

Permission to be on a university campus isn’t that complicated. Anyone could be invited for a talk by any student staff or faculty, and be fed in pizza slices and time in the parking meter. Even if there’s any truth to him giving a talk there it could be as low key (or lower) as some after class student organization invited him in to talk. That’s incidentally how I’ve met some VPs of some companies who just come to give talks to engineering clubs and hand out business cards in exchange for pizza. Any large speaking event would be advertised.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

Permission to be on a university campus isn’t that complicated. Anyone could be invited for a talk by any student staff or faculty, and be fed in pizza slices and time in the parking meter. Even if there’s any truth to him giving a talk there it could be as low key (or lower) as some after class student organization invited him in to talk. That’s incidentally how I’ve met some VPs of some companies who just come to give talks to engineering clubs and hand out business cards in exchange for pizza. Any large speaking event would be advertised.

It could also be that the campus rents out space for events to whoever.

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

It could also be that the campus rents out space for events to whoever.

Never seen that practice except to music gigs or swaglords from companies

Dohnjoe

From AE911

Building 7 Study to be released Sept. 3

In just a couple of weeks, the breakthrough Building 7 Study by Dr. Leroy Hulsey will be released, proving definitively that fire did not cause the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11.

I urgently need your help to raise $50,000 by August 31st to spread the word about this study far and wide.

How do they know the "outcome" of the study?

How do they know it proves definitely if it hasn't been peer reviewed by credible experts?

Why the neverending search for donations always?

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

From AE911



How do they know the "outcome" of the study?

How do they know it proves definitely if it hasn't been peer reviewed by credible experts?

Why the neverending search for donations always?

More importantly how do they prove a negative?

The Nal

Hang on, this is a fúcking scam. They're looking to milk 50k from people?! WTF?

Surely any news outlet would fly them in and put them up if they found cause for conspiracy?

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/544-building-7-study-to-be-released-september-3-i-need-your-help-to-spread-it-far-and-wide

Overheal

“For example, for just $25 you can ensure that ten engineers receive our large-format postcard about the report (plus you’ll receive one, too!), helping us reach 20,000 engineers across the country.“

Ludicrous. Large format postcards. LOL

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

From AE911



How do they know the "outcome" of the study?

How do they know it proves definitely if it hasn't been peer reviewed by credible experts?

Why the neverending search for donations always?

Why is money needed to "spread" the study?

Surely if the study is complete, and its method and the conclusions reached support the conspiracy...

Then it will quite likely be the biggest news story of the millennium?
What needs to be paid for?

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

“For example, for just $25 you can ensure that ten engineers receive our large-format postcard about the report (plus you’ll receive one, too!), helping us reach 20,000 engineers across the country.“

Ludicrous. Large format postcards. LOL

In an age of instantaneous free communication...
We are gonna send postcards to every engineer we can!

Rather than publish via the usual method and accept peer review :pac:

King Mob

banie01 wrote: »

Why is money needed to "spread" the study?

Surely if the study is complete, and its method and the conclusions reached support the conspiracy...

Then it will quite likely be the biggest news story of the millennium?
What needs to be paid for?

Weird we have to ask these questions, since the whole process was supposed to be totally transparent.
And weird we don't know why exactly is being released for the same reason.

We know it's not going into getting it published in a real journal or having it peer reviewed. They've already given up on that promise.

King Mob

So these are the postcards that will cost $50,000.


I get the feeling that it's going to be $50,000 straight into the bin with the other junkmail.