Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Free Fall thread

Options
11314161819

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Rubbish.

    Lol. And still no word on them publishing Hulsey's report in a real journal then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    We learn what NIST has to say when they hand over their internal review work.

    AE911 are a bunch of conspiracy cranks, no one takes them seriously except for other truthers, who are a lifeline of money to their organisation. Note how you hang on every piece of new rubbish they produce, there's a reason for that. They need to keep this non-existent conspiracy alive, otherwise that revenue-stream is closed.

    If NIST wants to respond to their nonsense, they can.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    AE911 are a bunch of conspiracy cranks, no one takes them seriously except for other truthers, who are a lifeline of money to their organisation. Note how you hang on every piece of new rubbish they produce, there's a reason for that. They need to keep this non-existent conspiracy alive, otherwise that revenue-stream is closed.

    If NIST wants to respond to their nonsense, they can.

    This is a silly opinion. We know NIST has corrected mistakes in their study based on AE911 truth work. There nobody else informing them is there? You have
    not followed the debate and not noticed it though, you just repeat talking points you read on Skeptic forums.

    NIST knows Ae911 truth right, but they have backed themselves into a corner over the years, with this false report.
    Fresh eyes and new people at NIST may correct the mistakes, or they may just continue the cover up? We’ll find out!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    AE911 truth work

    AE911 aren't interested in any truth, they are solely interested in promoting the conspiracy for money. Which is precisely all they do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    AE911 aren't interested in any truth, they are solely interested in promoting the conspiracy for money. Which is precisely all they do.

    Moving here let to Ruby have that thread to flesh out his theory.

    Why did they spend 300,000 dollars then if are in for the money? 9/11 as a conspiracy topic is losing interest among the public. Its all covid,russiagate , trump, Q and other stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    He's an architect, so he's a member. People with qualifications can believe in mental things. Dr Judy Wood (hint: Doctor) is a materials scientist, with a PhD, she thinks magic energy weapons were used.

    Judy Woods approach makes little sense. There no sign of a beam striking the tower’s roof and making a blast there. They would destroy the radio Antenna first on the north tower if a satellite type space weapon blasted a heat source at the towers.
    Gage and Judy science about the collapses are the same, you nuts? Her theory was not noticed here by anyone and no serious architect or engineer has endorsed her views. Her support is from viewers watching the videos she uploaded on Youtube.
    You can't handle facts that dispute your faulty beliefs and random conspiracies

    It's crystal clear The American Institute of Architects want little or nothing to do with Gage's extra-curricular conspiracy group, which they have no hesitations in openly slamming in their own magazine.

    Why is collapse of building seven collapse out of place? Explained and still ignored. NIST admitted on tape this was fire time in history of building collapses, a steel framed building fully collapsed from just fire.

    When something new is proposed how is it verified? Why is it people are attacked for questioning this new theory. When the theory flawed, why is the alternative explanation difficult for some people to consider?

    These mainstream organisations are claiming it happened the way NIST said even though, they never saw it develop before in other buildings of the same type. I think the organisations are carrying views that damage their own credibility.
    A new collapse theory has to be demonstrated and justified beyond all doubt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Moving here let to Ruby have that thread to flesh out his theory.

    Why did they spend 300,000 dollars then if are in for the money?

    Think.

    How does AE911 get money - from subscriptions. If people stop believing 9/11 was an inside job, then those subscriptions stop.

    You don't see Richard Gage, who already earns a salary as an architect giving up the ~$80,000 he draws from AE911 per year to pursue his "passion"..

    He seems happy enough to keep that and spend other people's money on frivolous reports in an attempt to stay relevant after 20 years. If he wasn't doing it, someone else would be. Don't forget that AE911 and Alex Jones have had a close relationship over the years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Judy Woods approach makes little sense.

    Exactly. But she out-qualifies Gage. On top of that, she actually has a fleshed-out theory, Gage doesn't have any structured theory. After 20 years there is no excuses.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Think.

    How does AE911 get money - from subscriptions. If people stop believing 9/11 was an inside job, then those subscriptions stop.

    You don't see Richard Gage, who already earns a salary as an architect giving up the ~$80,000 he draws from AE911 per year to pursue his "passion"..

    He seems happy enough to keep that and spend other people's money on frivolous reports in an attempt to stay relevant after 20 years. If he wasn't doing it, someone else would be. Don't forget that AE911 and Alex Jones have had a close relationship over the years.

    People request for donations on numerous media sites online. Youtube even has a donation button to help people out. Gage does a lot of work behind the scenes that you don’t see, his the CEO and has to manage people.


    You want me to believe Gage does not believe the version of the story his telling, and his just in it for the money? That make no sense he could make more money doing other things in life.

    He spend almost 5 years of Gage alleged wage on a project he doesn't believe in?

    You think Gage fooled 3,000 engineers and architects here with his meager evidence? Debunkers are really clinging to nonsense. James Randi made million a year from his forum, are all the people signing up gullible idiots?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Exactly. But she out-qualifies Gage. On top of that, she actually has a fleshed-out theory, Gage doesn't have any structured theory. After 20 years there is no excuses.

    Thats a lie.

    The have fleshed out theory that a decade old.

    If there no collapse on floor 12 and 13 there no progressive collapse that leads to the full collapse by fire. There no other probable theory here.

    AE911 truth says you can only remove 82 columns in a second by controlled demolition.
    NIST says no there was this slow collapse that began on the eastside and moved to the west.
    AE911 truth looked at the eastside local collapse on floor 12 and 13 and noticed NIST was distorting the truth there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    People request for donations on numerous media sites online. Youtube even has a donation button to help people out. Gage does a lot of work behind the scenes that you don’t see, his the CEO and has to manage people.

    Plenty of people volunteer, especially when something is a passion. One of the guys researching Malaysian Airlines 370 pays his own money. Gage on the other hand pays himself a handsome second full-time salary from all these subscriptions.

    You constantly suspect engineers, architects, experts, investigators, AIA managers, professionals, of being corrupt, being "in" on the false flag, etc, etc

    Yet you never suspect dare suspect AE911 of milking a cow. They get this magic out card from your constant paranoia of everyone.. odd that

    Whether they make money from it or not doesn't detract from the fact that they are a crank pseudo-scientific internet group full of extremely dodgy characters, "experts" who've been disowned by their universities, been caught manipulating photographs, filmed mishandling "evidence", trying to pass shady studies into scientific journals.. they never stop trying to legitimise and lend false credit to their ever increasing pile of disinfo about the event


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Thats a lie.

    The have fleshed out theory that a decade old.

    Explain Gage's theory. Give the timeline and the details of this "fleshed" out theory.

    He has mentioned he believes that explosives were planted as WTC 1 and WTC 2 were being built - is it that one? if so, provide the full theory

    If it's another one, provide the full theory. Pretending to not understand what the word "theory" means here is not going to protect you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Thats a lie.

    The have fleshed out theory that a decade old.
    AE911 truth says you can only remove 82 columns in a second by controlled demolition.
    Where were the charges placed?
    When?
    By who?
    What kind of charges were they?
    How were their triggered?
    How did the charges survive the plane crashes?
    Where the planes made to hit in specific areas or where they allowed to hit anywhere? How did they ensure the plane hit a specific area?
    Who flew the planes?
    Who designed this elaborate and specific demolition and how did they know it would work?
    Why did the government do all of that rather than just fly planes into the buildings?

    Again, if their theory was fleshed out, they would have answers for all of these questions.
    But they don't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Plenty of people volunteer, especially when something is a passion. One of the guys researching Malaysian Airlines 370 pays his own money. Gage on the other hand pays himself a handsome second full-time salary from all these subscriptions.

    You constantly suspect engineers, architects, experts, investigators, AIA managers, professionals, of being corrupt, being "in" on the false flag, etc, etc

    Yet you never suspect dare suspect AE911 of milking a cow. They get this magic out card from your constant paranoia of everyone.. odd that

    Whether they make money from it or not doesn't detract from the fact that they are a crank pseudo-scientific internet group full of extremely dodgy characters, "experts" who've been disowned by their universities, been caught manipulating photographs, filmed mishandling "evidence", trying to pass shady studies into scientific journals.. they never stop trying to legitimise and lend false credit to their ever increasing pile of disinfo about the event

    For me your spouting nonsense and AE911 retains a legitimate right to question an enigneering event that’s never taken place in history before.
    It not a conspiracy, NIST on video, said high rise steel-framed buildings don’t collapse to fire, but on 9/11 they shifting the narrative it happened this way though for the first time?
    It’s too much for your mind to think they are wrong here and AE911 truth is correct. You prefer to just keep repeating the ad- hominems attacks and link different conspircies with other ones as if they are all the same.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    and link different conspircies with other ones as if they are all the same.
    But they are all the same.

    Your theory is not any better or more valid than those who claim the planes were holograms or the buildings were destroyed by space lasers.
    You claim the buildings where taken down by magicsupernanothermite planted by 20 guys in a weekend.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    AE911 retains a legitimate right to question an enigneering event that’s never taken place in history before.

    They aren't asking legitimate questions. They are asking absurd questions and using pseudo-scientific claims with one aim in mind: to cast doubt about the event in order to hint some conspiracy took place

    A conspiracy they never specify.
    It’s too much for your mind to think they are wrong here and AE911 truth is correct.

    Whats the AE911 theory?

    Provide the timeline, the suspects, the details, the names, and all the supporting evidence for that. Nope, all they have are excuses for their complete lack of a credible theory. They are bull**** merchants, selling the fantasy of a conspiracy to people who are incredible low on critical thinking and high on paranoia


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They aren't asking legitimate questions. They are asking absurd questions and using pseudo-scientific claims with one aim in mind: to cast doubt about the event in order to hint some conspiracy took place

    A conspiracy they never specify.



    Whats the AE911 theory?

    Provide the timeline, the suspects, the details, the names, and all the supporting evidence for that. Nope, all they have are excuses for their complete lack of a credible theory. They are bull**** merchants, selling the fantasy of a conspiracy to people who are incredible low on critical thinking and high on paranoia

    There three, steel-framed high-rise buildings here, not two that failed.

    Only one of them has to be confirmed to have collapsed a different way . Reason AE911 picked building seven, it’s the easier one of the three to show the controlled demolition. Controlled demolition having taken place here demonstrates the official narrative of a fire only collapse to be unsound.

    Already have revealed to you NIST said a girder slipped from its seat between column 79 and 44 and that failure there caused multiple floors on the eastside of building seven to collapse and further caused a chain reaction of collapsing floors to the west of the building. The inside hollowed out before the full destruction. Thats NIST probable collapse theory in a nutshell.

    No failure of steel support on floor 13 and 12 by way of fire- then its impossible for the NIST collapse to even happen here!!!! Debunkers don’t seem to comprehend this central important find for some reason.

    That's what Leroy Hulsey, in one section of his report, had a look at, could the fire have collapsed the steel support there on Floor 12 and 13.
    What the found is interesting and this information was shown to be true 5 years after NIST completed their study in 2008

    NIST left the girder between column 79 and 44 unsupported it could proceed to move more easily of its seat in their finite design model and collapse,. When you model the girder at column 79 with the removed construction elements- the 32 shears studs, girder web plate, and stiffeners, the girder will be stuck and can’t expand and move off its settled position. AE911 right in suggesting NIST had to have voluntarily removed these fittings to allow the girder come off its seated position.


    Personally i think AE911 has solid reasons to doubt the NIST report is accurate. And that's only the start, there further issues here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    There three, steel-framed high-rise buildings here, not two that failed.

    Denial and incredulity of something is not a theory

    You or Richard Gage or AE911 have never provided details of this alleged "false flag" you claim occurred on Sept 11th 2001 in the US.

    Details, timeline, names, dates, suspects, chain of command, who did what, who ordered what, what was used, how much was used..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Denial and incredulity of something is not a theory

    You or Richard Gage or AE911 have never provided details of this alleged "false flag" you claim occurred on Sept 11th 2001 in the US.

    Details, timeline, names, dates, suspects, chain of command, who did what, who ordered what, what was used, how much was used..

    Why would a well known CIA officer who appears on CNN news claim to know a broker who cashed out day before 9/11 and his said it's going down tomorrow? Like Corbett said on this video Baer just casually says the broker brother works at the White House.

    This is too much for Dohnjoe info and co to think there was a slimy network of people here who knew the attack was happening and did nothing to stop it.

    42 minutes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Why would a well known CIA officer

    On top of making the claim about Gage, you made the claim that "AE911" had a fleshed out theory that is a decade old, what is that theory?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    On top of making the claim about Gage, you made the claim that "AE911" had a fleshed out theory that is a decade old, what is that theory?
    I think cheerful was telling lies again.

    Conspiracy theorists seem to do that a lot for some reason.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    On top of making the claim about Gage, you made the claim that "AE911" had a fleshed out theory that is a decade old, what is that theory?

    You cannot grasp the engineering aspect of the collapse, and yet you claim it not fleshed out theory :confused:

    Debunkers are a bunch of spoofers who have provided no evidence AE911truth views are wrong.

    Video Corbett discusses 4 suspects who covered up what they knew. There even a general! Watch the end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You cannot grasp the engineering aspect of the collapse, and yet you claim it not fleshed out theory

    I'm waiting for this "fleshed out" theory from AE911

    You can use all the usual deflection tactics you want, it's very simple, where is this theory you claimed exists?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,692 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful is the best "debunker" and reason for not believing in a conspiracy that I've seen. All those posts over years and years and not one credible theory or explanation for anything. Zero. Nothing.

    Cheerful proves the official story is true.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I'm waiting for this "fleshed out" theory from AE911

    You can use all the usual deflection tactics you want, it's very simple, where is this theory you claimed exists?

    Explained already, still you guys are unable to take it all in and debate the subject honestly.
    All the studies written by mainstream engineering companies claim the progressive collapse began on the eastside of building seven. Leroy Hulsey says no that false, AE911 truth have their own concept.

    Leroy Hulsey still has to scrutinize all possibilities here for collapse, so he did his own research of the eastside collapse.

    NIST is the leading official mainstream group with a hypothesis. The said, a local failure started on Floor 12 and 13 and this led to a progressive collapse that resulted in the total loss of the building?

    Dohnjoe claims AE911 truth has no theory but that’s a lie. They have done a decade work of solving the issue and investigating that alleged local failure of the girder on Floor 12 and 13 on the eastside.
    Dohnjoe and Friends don’t discuss that, they just post nonsense, to hide the truth.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Only two individuals are known to have got trapped inside building seven before collapse, Barry Jennings and Michael Hess. Both had to be rescued six to seven hours later after the collapse of the twin towers.

    Barry Jennings was employed as the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority.
    The story he told unbelievable and very mysterious. Story is arrives at work and finds the entire OEM staff had left after the first plane hit. He found that odd, OEM office handles emergency situations . He says someone must have ordered them to leave building seven after the first plane hit? How would this person in charge know what was going to happen next?

    Mr Hess and Jennings tried to get out after the second plane hit the second tower. When they reached the 8th floor, there was an explosion on the 7th or 6th floor that drove them back upstairs to the 8th.

    This is very odd, when both towers are still only on fire and have not come down yet to cause any damage to building seven. What causing the floor/stairwells inside building seven to explode?
    Jenning heard other explosions inside the buildings and Hess backed him on this of hearing other explosions

    The only logical reason for this is controlled demolition devices went off prematurely or the conspirators had set the demolitions to go off at certain time.
    It’s a myth demolitions have to be started, all at the same time to bring down a building, that's false. Demolitions can be arrayed to go off at different intervals at different times of the day. Hearing explosions at different moments is not unusual here.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Debunkers will post endless rants the fires were extremely hot inside building seven. Reality is different.
    NIST revealed their position in this Q and A.
    How hot did WTC 7’s steel columns and floor beams get?
    NIST reveals belows
    Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.
    https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    What NIST is asserting here is the steel beams expanded at very low temperatures not high temperatures. Debunkers of course keep insisting on forums the steel girder lost strength and folded from the heat.

    There claiming here this girder at Column 79 when floor beams thermally expanded, pushed the girder off its seated position when fires were below 400 degrees Celsius.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,692 ✭✭✭✭The Nal




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »

    Debunked what? Posting a link to Mick West website and saying case closed and ending there is laughable.

    I quoted NIST. So what is Mick debunking here?

    That thread is a lie.

    From your link
    The study only focuses on one connection. Dr. Hulsey focuses on the connection that NIST identified as a "probable initiation event" in some of its reports, but in fact NIST identified several potential connection failures. This particular connection was not the initiating one in NIST's global collapse models.

    False and make believe. Column 79 has to fail for the progressive collapse to work here on the eastside. NIST is clear that was caused by steel beams thermally expanding and pushing a girder of its seated position between 79 and 44. How else did it happen. Metabunk just lies here!

    NIST explanation for the collapse.
    According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

    Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

    The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,692 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Mick Wests latest. Its laughable really how AE911Truth have tried to manipulate people. Hulsey well and truly debunked here aswell.



Advertisement