Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…8687899192…102

Comments

  • #2642
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    weisses wrote: »
    I said ...properly peer reviewed

    Wasn't it reviewed by people connected to NIST ?

    Their study was not peer reviewed you correct. They never released their data and calculations to be independently verified. The reason the Architects and Engineers for truth had to spend 300,000 dollars to do a new study and completed now after three years.


  • #2643
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and again the part you leave out because you think it proves some kind of point:
    I don't believe it is true.

    can you quote that part ... where you contradict the first part ?


  • #2644
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Do you know why this is false? Dr Hulsey has done a finite element analysis of the collapse and his computer model looks like the actual collapse on 9/11. Dr Hulsey is not doing a half-arsed study.

    Link?


  • #2645
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    You clearly did not watch the videos

    At least make an effort man

    You make an effort, dude: learn science.


  • #2646
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Their study was not peer reviewed you correct. They never released their data and calculations to be independently verified. The reason the Architects and Engineers for truth had to spend 300,000 dollars to do a new study and completed now after three years.
    You guys realise that you have incompatible theories, right.
    You both believe the other is completely wrong and that the other subscribes to debunked nonsense.

    Weisses doesn't believe cheerful's notions about nanothermite.
    Weisses as far as I know isn't a holocaust denier.


  • Advertisement
  • #2647
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    can you quote that part ... where you contradict the first part ?
    Ok, is English your native language?
    I don't think you understand the meaning of "Possible".


  • #2648
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    You make an effort, dude: learn science.

    Attack the post not the poster

    Look at the videos ... its with people who learned science


  • #2649
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, is English your native language?
    I don't think you understand the meaning of "Possible".

    quote it ... simples


  • #2650
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Their study was not peer reviewed you correct.

    That is false.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5


  • #2651
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You guys realise that you have incompatible theories, right.
    You both believe the other is completely wrong and that the other subscribes to debunked nonsense.

    Weisses doesn't believe cheerful's notions about nanothermite.
    Weisses as far as I know isn't a holocaust denier.


    Ohh dear different people having different theories .... the horror


  • Advertisement
  • #2652
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    Link?

    There links on the internet of early talks he gave.

    This one was at the ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) venue in Fairbanks, a small lunching venue with engineers present.



  • #2653
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    quote it ... simples
    Quote what?
    You are again dodging questions, so I will assume that English is not your native language and you don't understand the meaning of "possible".

    Please use a dictionary.


  • #2654
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh dear different people having different theories .... the horror
    Yup.
    You think he's a deluded nut bar. But you can't admit it.


  • #2655
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    That is false.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5

    and what about the authors and their affiliations ?


  • #2656
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    That is false.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5

    Who is Springer link? Seems to be just an access site to publish reports?


  • #2657
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    There links on the internet of early talks he gave.

    This one was at the ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) venue in Fairbanks, a small lunching venue with engineers present.


    No, I'm not interested in a talk: if he did the FEA, where is the raw data? Where are the files that one can independently run, verify and in a word: 'peer-review?'


  • #2658
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Who is Springer link? Seems to be just an access site to publish reports?

    It is a peer reviewed scientific publication.

    https://link.springer.com/

    They're Swiss.


  • #2659
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Quote what?
    You are again dodging questions, so I will assume that English is not your native language and you don't understand the meaning of "possible".

    Please use a dictionary.

    I know what entirely possible means

    As in it was entirely possible 9/11 was allowed to happen


  • #2660
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    and what about the authors and their affiliations ?

    If any of the authors had a conflict of interest, then it would be mentioned in the paper and would have been considered in the course of the peer review process.
    If such a conflict of interest affected or invalidated the paper, it would be caught by the peer review process and it would not have been published.

    The fact it has been published means that if there were any conflicts of interest, they did not affect the papers.

    If you disagree with that, then you should contact the journals in links and point out where in the papers the conflicts of interest exist and how they effect the paper.
    But you can't do this as you don't understand what peer review is or how science works.


  • #2661
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    I know what entirely possible means

    As in it was entirely possible 9/11 was allowed to happen

    It is also entirely possible the official explanation is entirely valid.

    It is also entirely possible aliens gave everyone the false memory it happened at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #2662
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I know what entirely possible means

    As in it was entirely possible 9/11 was allowed to happen
    Yes.
    And "possible" does not have the same meaning as "true" or "happened" or "is real".

    You don't seem to understand this.
    Is it because English is not your native language?
    A lot of your theories seem to be based on misunderstandings of some complicated phrases.

    What did you want me to quote exactly?


  • #2663
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    It is a peer reviewed scientific publication.

    https://link.springer.com/

    They're Swiss.

    Read what it said?
    Providing researchers with access to millions of scientific documents from journals, books, series, protocols, reference works and proceedings.

    Who peer reviewed it. Name the universities?


  • #2664
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Who peer reviewed it. Name the universities?
    Universities do not conduct the peer review.
    You also do not understand how it works and are pathetically, desperately trying to avoid facing the fact the NIST report was peer reviewed and you cranks lied about it.


  • #2665
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup.
    You think he's a deluded nut bar. But you can't admit it.

    Some of his theories are far fetched yes .... some are very interesting

    Don't project your own views on me


  • #2666
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    It is also entirely possible the official explanation is entirely valid.

    Correct

    I am for a proper investigation ... something I have said for years


  • #2667
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Some of his theories are far fetched yes .... some are very interesting

    Don't project your own views on me
    Which theories are far fetched and why?

    Do you believe that the WTC was destroyed by nanothermite explosives?
    Yes or no.


  • #2668
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes.
    And "possible" does not have the same meaning as "true" or "happened" or "is real".

    I never claimed the part in bold

    Quote where I did please


  • #2669
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Kingmob needs to get a grip.

    Why is replication important in science?
    Getting the same result when an experiment is repeated is called replication. If research results can be replicated, it means they are more likely to be correct. Replication is important in science so scientists can “check their work.”

    NIST refused to release their work.


  • #2670
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which theories are far fetched and why?

    Do you believe that the WTC was destroyed by nanothermite explosives?
    Yes or no.


    Already answered ... And I am not going back on which cheer fulls theories I find far fetched


  • Advertisement
  • #2671
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I never claimed the part in bold

    Quote where I did please
    Ok.
    So you have no point.
    Great.

    Any chance you'll be going back to address any of the points you've ignored?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement