Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

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

2456761

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Nano-thermite "chips"? then put them "besides" a steel column, like laying on the floor?
    I thought that it was a gel that was sprayed on the columns like in Ghostbusters.
    tenor.gif?itemid=4845202

    Huh, guess cheerful's changed theories again...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Nano-thermite "chips"? then put them "besides" a steel column, like laying on the floor?

    You can. The perimeter steel is located behind the aluminium and windows. A box of nano-thermite chips would ignite during a fire.

    The steel core hat truss is a separate part you have to access this through the elevator shaft there would be space to place boxes and containers of chips there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You can. The perimeter steel is located behind the aluminium and windows.
    How could these be placed without people noticing?
    Would the office workers not find giant boxes of random weird looking dust right next to the windows a bit strange?:confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    I thought that it was a gel that was sprayed on the columns like in Ghostbusters.
    tenor.gif?itemid=4845202

    Huh, guess cheerful's changed theories again...

    The chips are not paint and this was the claim by debunkers. Livermore labs developed a nano-thermite in gel form so I was open to the possibility this how it was done. The chips are solid are all the same size this cannot occur naturally. If it was paint the sizes would vary widely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Livermore labs developed a nano-thermite in gel form so I was open to the possibility this how it was done.
    So then it's not gel.
    Please make up your mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    How could these be placed without people noticing?
    Would the office workers not find giant boxes of random weird looking dust right next to the windows a bit strange?:confused:

    This why people link Israel to the 9/11 attacks.

    Israeli art students were given access to the towers and they brought in huge boxes. They had complete access to floors where the plane hit on 9/11.

    It later emerged in mainstream news Mossad agents was pretending to be art students to gain access to US facilities.

    Find pictures here.
    https://www.google.ie/search?q=israeli+art+student+9/11&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE784IE784&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsjYrX5rbhAhUkonEKHeqBCl0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1088&bih=556#imgrc=ycjTP9URp_BpFM:


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    This why people link Israel to the 9/11 attacks.
    Ok, so we're adding random Isreali art students to the conspiracy...

    But that doesn't answer the question I asked.

    People would notice giant boxes of weird dust being placed in front of windows.

    You are now saying that random students just waltzed into the building with these giants boxes in broad daylight and just left them in the offices.
    And no one noticed this...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so we're adding random Isreali art students to the conspiracy...

    But that doesn't answer the question I asked.

    People would notice giant boxes of weird dust being placed in front of windows.

    You are now saying that random students just waltzed into the building with these giants boxes in broad daylight and just left them in the offices.
    And no one noticed this...

    In 2002 200 spies were arrested and send back to Israel. This was a huge scandal never fully investigated. The Israelis in 2001 were actively engaged in sabotage and surveillance of US facilities. This was a mainstream report back then forgotten today.

    Mossad agents were pretending to be art students and art students from Israel just happened to be given access to floors where the planes hit on 9/11. Why would they need to fill the rooms full of boxes and what inside the boxes? You can see one room they removed the tiling from the roof? What are they doing there?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You can. The perimeter steel is located behind the aluminium and windows. A box of nano-thermite chips would ignite during a fire.

    The steel core hat truss is a separate part you have to access this through the elevator shaft there would be space to place boxes and containers of chips there.

    So. Many. Questions.

    Okay, so, they just place a box of "chips", why is it in "chip" form?

    Surely you've just confused conspiracy theorists who think they discovered microscopic "chips" of thermite and you've decided somehow that's the form it takes to destroy buildings?

    This is a method used to destroy buildings in the past? which buildings?

    If it hasn't been used, why not?

    Does this method create an explosive "boom" or not?

    Does this method create "squibs" or not?

    Can I go to a demolition forum and confirm with experts that "boxes of nano-thermite chips" can bring down skyscrapers or is this something you've made up?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why would they need to fill the rooms full of boxes and what inside the boxes? You can see one room they removed the tiling from the roof? What are they doing there?
    You have again failed to address the point.

    You said that the thermite was placed in boxes next to the members.
    How did the people in the building not notice these boxes?

    Are you now saying that they were in fact place in the roof tiles?

    Have you abandoned the idea of it being a gel?

    How long would it have taken these random Israeli students to plant the boxes of thermite?

    Also, I like how the boxes you now seem to claim contain the thermite are just cardboard ones. I assume this is to protect the thermite from going off early due to fire exposure.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    So. Many. Questions.

    Okay, so, they just place a box of "chips", why is it in "chip" form?

    Surely you've just confused conspiracy theorists who think they discovered microscopic "chips" of thermite and you've decided somehow that's the form it takes to destroy buildings?

    This is a method used to destroy buildings in the past? which buildings?

    If it hasn't been used, why not?

    Does this method create an explosive "boom" or not?

    Does this method create "squibs" or not?

    Can I go to a demolition forum and confirm with experts that "boxes of nano-thermite chips" can bring down skyscrapers or is this something you've made up?

    Waffle. If the chips are not paint. How were they made what your explantation?

    I doubt nanothermite was the only thing used to bring the towers down. The explosion of the top floors is very dramatic and this collapse was not caused by nanothermite just cutting steel.


    Still there no evidence debunking nano-thermite in the dust. Independent scientists have verified Harrit work. Only one scientist who involved with the official WTC study of dust refutes Harrit paper.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Waffle.

    These are basic common sense questions about the theory you just posted

    I'll number them, can you please answer the questions

    1. Okay, so, they just place a box of "chips", why is it in "chip" form?

    (1.1 Surely you've just confused conspiracy theorists who think they discovered microscopic "chips" of thermite and you've decided somehow that's the form it takes to destroy buildings?)

    2. This is a method used to destroy buildings in the past? which buildings?

    3. If it hasn't been used, why not?

    4. Does this method create an explosive "boom" or not?

    5. Does this method create "squibs" or not?

    6; Can I go to a demolition forum and confirm with experts that "boxes of nano-thermite chips" can bring down skyscrapers or is this something you've made up?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I doubt nanothermite was the only thing used to bring the towers down. The explosion of the top floors is very dramatic and this collapse was not caused by nanothermite just cutting steel.
    So why was nanothermite used at all?:confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    These are basic common sense questions about the theory you just posted

    I'll number them, can you please answer the questions

    1. Okay, so, they just place a box of "chips", why is it in "chip" form?

    (1.1 Surely you've just confused conspiracy theorists who think they discovered microscopic "chips" of thermite and you've decided somehow that's the form it takes to destroy buildings?)

    2. This is a method used to destroy buildings in the past? which buildings?

    3. If it hasn't been used, why not?

    4. Does this method create an explosive "boom" or not?

    5. Does this method create "squibs" or not?

    6; Can I go to a demolition forum and confirm with experts that "boxes of nano-thermite chips" can bring down skyscrapers or is this something you've made up?

    Continues on as if your argument has merit.

    How were the chips made? Are you going to address this ever and just pretend the chips don't exist?

    Debunkers will never touch this because they prefer to deny and deny and position questions as if they are debunking something when they are not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So why was nanothermite used at all?:confused:

    Not my problem. The chips were found in the dust they evidence for it is overwhelming.

    Calorimeter can't lie. Dr Farrer spoke about this the chips were highly energetic and the chips ignited at very low temps and exploded to very high temps. There no paint that acts like thermite. If that was the case buildings be collapsing worldwide at an increasing rate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Debunkers will never touch this because they prefer to deny and deny and position questions as if they are debunking something when they are not.
    He says while ignoring pretty much every question put to you.

    The chips don't really matter when everything else about your theory is silly and makes no coherent sense.
    Even if we couldn't explain what the chips were (We can and did. Repeatedly) and your argument held that they were thermite (Shown repeatedly it doesn't hold.) your theory would still be contradictory nonsense because you can't answer any basic logical questions about it.

    Like for example:
    How did people not notice the large dust filled cardboard boxes being brought in and left by random students?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Not my problem.
    So, you don't know. You can't answer the question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So, you don't know. You can't answer the question.

    It, not a theory. The chips were shown in the Harrit paper.

    You have to refute the science and Harrit and others position they are nano-thermite chips. There no doubt the chips are real.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Continues on as if your argument has merit.

    How were the chips made? Are you going to address this ever and just pretend the chips don't exist?

    Debunkers will never touch this because they prefer to deny and deny and position questions as if they are debunking something when they are not.

    You are making the claims that "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were used to blow up the buildings

    If yes, then there are questions about that claim

    Why are you dodging the questions?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It, not a theory. The chips were shown in the Harrit paper.

    You have to refute the science and Harrit and others position they are nano-thermite chips. There no doubt the chips are real.

    Nope. I don't have to refute anything.
    Firstly, it's been refuted to you many times. You just don't understand what was explained to you.
    Secondly, even if it wasn't, your theory doesn't make sense at all.

    You've admitted there's no reason why they would use nanothermite.

    If they had to demolish the building, they'd just use explosives.
    Using nanothermite offers no benefit.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    He says while ignoring pretty much every question put to you.

    The chips don't really matter when everything else about your theory is silly and makes no coherent sense.
    Even if we couldn't explain what the chips were (We can and did. Repeatedly) and your argument held that they were thermite (Shown repeatedly it doesn't hold.) your theory would still be contradictory nonsense because you can't answer any basic logical questions about it.

    Like for example:
    How did people not notice the large dust filled cardboard boxes being brought in and left by random students?

    You don't understand the debate. The only scientist to refute the claims was Dr Milette and he claims he found no elemental aluminium in the chip he tested. Everyone else who looked at the chips disputes this. Dr Milette then said he release a peer review paper debunking this and still hasn't. Why not when he was opposed to this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The chips were shown in the Harrit paper.

    lol, no they weren't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You don't understand the debate. The only scientist to refute the claims was Dr Milette and he claims he found no elemental aluminium in the chip he tested. Everyone else who looked at the chips disputes this. Dr Milette then said he release a peer review paper debunking this and still hasn't. Why not when he was opposed to this?
    I ignore the debate as it's irrelevant in the face of the giant gaping holes in the theory that you are unable to answer and are dishonestly trying to get away from.

    Even if your expert did show those chips were thermite, your theory is still self contradictory childish nonsense that you can't keep straight.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope. I don't have to refute anything.
    Firstly, it's been refuted to you many times. You just don't understand what was explained to you.
    Secondly, even if it wasn't, your theory doesn't make sense at all.

    You've admitted there's no reason why they would use nanothermite.

    If they had to demolish the building, they'd just use explosives.
    Using nanothermite offers no benefit.

    Yes, you do, this is how science works. Refuting something on a forum is not science.

    You don't even know the basic disagreements so stop pretending you do.

    The nano-thermite was found in the dust and was obviously did not appear naturally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes, you do, this is how science works. Refuting something on a forum is not science.
    Lol:rolleyes:
    You don't even know the basic disagreements so stop pretending you do.

    The nano-thermite was found in the dust and was obviously did not appear naturally.
    Ok, I will play pretend with you.
    Let's say for the sake of our game of pretend, that the dust is thermite...

    Now:
    You said that the thermite was placed in boxes next to the members.
    How did the people in the building not notice these boxes?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    lol, no they weren't.

    Yes, they were.

    Clear images of the chips in the Harrit paper. Harrit proved the chips were not paint so what else could they be?
    477029.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Damn

    I thought we were finally going to see this magical report that CS has been waffling about for so long now, instead it's just CS repeating/copy/pasting his same claims over and over. Why has this thread turned into a mirror of the last thread within one page? :confused:

    Could someone Please P.M me if this report is ever released and added to the thread?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Yes, they were.

    They weren't "chips of nano-thermite". The Harrit "report" was unscientific and has been thoroughly debunked - this has been explained in the thread, if you personally don't accept it, that's your issue. If you are going to present debunked misinformation as fact then you are being called out on it.

    That is completely aside from this theory you've suddenly entered into the debate

    And this is what we are addressing, you claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Damn

    I thought we were finally going to see this magical report that CS has been waffling about for so long now, instead it's just CS repeating/copy/pasting his same claims over and over. Why has this thread turned into a mirror of the last thread within one page? :confused:

    Could someone Please P.M me if this report is ever released and added to the thread?

    This debate is about the towers. The nano-thermite was found in the dust near the towers collapse. I have no evidence this was used to bring down building 7.

    Hulsey will be producing his finds to ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) in May a mainstream body. Right now I don't know when the draft or final report be released, but I believe it likely to be shown at this meeting.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob



    Hulsey will be producing his finds to ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) in May a mainstream body. Right now I don't know when the draft or final report be released, but I believe it likely to be shown at this meeting.

    It was stated that the original goal of the "study" was to show that the NIST's explanation was impossible.
    It started out with a predetermined conclusion, thus is inherently unscientific.
    If he ever releases it, and he most likely won't, it will be laughed at by most experts.

    I also believe that you are making up this claim that he's "producing his finds" to ASCE.


Advertisement