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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

  • 13-10-2018 6:57pm
    #1
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭


    This fairly recent presentation in 2017. If you listen to him you can clearly tell he is a man of integrity and not a charlatan.

    Just take time to listen to him.



«134567…37

Comments

  • #2
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,045 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    From an AE911 interview, the interviewer appears to get him to try and say it 3 or 4 times but:

    HULSEY: We have extensively studied that carefully. I'm not going to tell you that it's controlled demolition. I'm going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/480-wtc-7-evaluation-nearing-the-finish-line-an-interview-with-dr-leroy-hulsey

    I wonder how truthers will react if or indeed when the study ultimately concludes that the NIST study was imprecise but not inherently wrong about the cause of failure?

    The link above is the most recent update I found about this study, nothing about whether this study has actually been completed or disseminated for peer review.


  • #3
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    From an AE911 interview, the interviewer appears to get him to try and say it 3 or 4 times but:

    HULSEY: We have extensively studied that carefully. I'm not going to tell you that it's controlled demolition. I'm going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/480-wtc-7-evaluation-nearing-the-finish-line-an-interview-with-dr-leroy-hulsey

    I wonder how truthers will react if or indeed when the study ultimately concludes that the NIST study was imprecise but not inherently wrong about the cause of failure?

    The link above is the most recent update I found about this study, nothing about whether this study has actually been completed or disseminated for peer review.

    Despite what you claim it is wrong. NIST gave no explanation for where the dust went after 47 floors collapsed inside the building.

    They think random fires on a few floors by magic can bring down 47 floors.

    NIST ignores history and you guys continue to do so every time. Never has a large steel framed building fallen down by fires, symmetrically and at freefall speeds. You guys can't find one example, but continue on as if your position is valid and honest.

    NIST own study is full of holes. Why would you leave a girder unsecured to expand? Despite what you said in another thread the connections prevent the steel from expanding by heat. You have to model the connections to real-world conditions inside the building on 9/11.

    Yes, their collapsing model has the building coming down and see a crushing effect. You guys claim they not trying to replicate the real collapse? Are they not simulating the failures by computer and they end result is the crushing. If Hulsey computer collapse model shows the failures and the building falls down like the actual collapse, which one do we accept is the true version?


  • #4
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,045 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Despite what you claim [NIST?] is wrong. NIST gave no explanation for where the dust went after 47 floors collapsed inside the building.
    This is a bit like arguing that an accident report that the drunk driver wrapped his car around a tree is wrong, because the report gave no explanation for where all the gas in the tank leaked to. It doesn't serve to disprove the study or report.
    Never has a large steel framed building fallen down by fires, symmetrically and at freefall speeds. You guys can't find one example, but continue on as if your position is valid and honest.

    You're right. You're absolutely right. Because neither WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7 fell at free fall speed. Much of the outside wall of WTC 7 did, momentarily, but not the building as a whole.
    Why would you leave a girder unsecured to expand?

    The same reason there are unconstrained expansion joints on bridges.
    If Hulsey computer collapse model shows the failures and the building falls down like the actual collapse, which one do we accept is the true version?
    To be clear none of them will be the 'true' version. None of them have the benefit of enough solid raw data from the day of the event.


  • #5
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    This is a bit like arguing that an accident report that the drunk driver wrapped his car around a tree is wrong, because the report gave no explanation for where all the gas in the tank leaked to. It doesn't serve to disprove the study or report.



    You're right. You're absolutely right. Because neither WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7 fell at free fall speed. Much of the outside wall of WTC 7 did, momentarily, but not the building as a whole.



    The same reason there are unconstrained expansion joints on bridges.

    To be clear none of them will be the 'true' version. None of them have the benefit of enough solid raw data from the day of the event.

    We got video evidence of the collapse. If 47 floors had just collapsed prior to the full collapse, then there be dust plumes breaking windows and raising up- into the air across the width of the building and there would be furniture smashing up against walls and breaking windows across the width of the building. The only window breakage is when the Penthouse collapsed and when the building began to move from its stiff position.

    Not true WTC7 the entire building fell at free speed from east to west the entire width of the building. You can't get the building to fall at free speeds if a section of the floor support is still there providing resistance. When WTC7 reached stage 2 of the collapse there was nothing but empty space, the resistance from 84 columns was gone. Towers will deal with another time.

    Your logic is faulty. NIST is assessing what fire would do to a girder. Wtc7 girder was not unsupported at column 79 and thermal expansion was IT even possible with the supports and elements attached? NIST never modelled the girder with its proper connections to validate their theory of thermal expansion.


  • #6
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,045 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    We got video evidence of the collapse. If 47 floors had just collapsed prior to the full collapse, then there be dust plumes breaking windows and raising up- into the air across the width of the building and there would be furniture smashing up against walls and breaking windows across the width of the building. The only window breakage is when the Penthouse collapsed and when the building began to move from its stiff position.
    That would imply that 47 floors were primarily ash and dust. I'm not sure what kinematics you're imagining that would require furniture to be shoved up against or out of the windows, either.

    We do however seen tons of dust and ash and such, all the same - even black dust coming out of those front windows that get smashed

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

    Not true WTC7 the entire building fell at free speed from east to west the entire width of the building.
    No there was clearly some warpage, the top corners of the building fell slower than the breadth of the walls.
    Your logic is faulty. NIST is assessing what fire would do to a girder. Wtc7 girder was not unsupported at column 79 and thermal expansion was IT even possible with the supports and elements attached? NIST never modelled the girder with its proper connections to validate their theory of thermal expansion.

    Well, as WTC 5 certainly proved, supports and elements don't mean a girder cannot fail due to thermal load. So yes, it is certainly possible, whether or not they modeled that in their simulation. As I explained in another post, even if you know all the parameters of a controlled demolition, a computer simulation can take months to compile (and in that example, the computer hardware was circa 2011, not 2006, so generally speaking 8x faster processing than what NIST would have had - on a much smaller building no less). For WTC 7 they lacked all sorts of real, raw data, so I'm not the least bit surprised their simulation doesn't line up well. I haven't seen a full structure FEA from anyone else that would suggest a more probable mode of failure. Dr. Hulsey has released no such simulation, or clearly defined what he believes happened, he's just thrown spitballs at the NIST report so far and expressed incredulity that fires were a cause of failure. Wasn't his supposed to be an open and publicly transparent study at all stages? If it is done why hasn't he released a draft copy?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Remember, the original stated goal of the "study" was to prove the collapse due to fire was impossible.


  • #8
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Rather than CS rehashing and regurgitating his tiresome points re: the collapse.
    Given the actual title of this thread that he started?
    Would it not make more sense for this thread that rather than post his usual "theories"
    That until Hulsey publishes, there is actually nothing of note worth posting in this thread?

    Happy to review and assess my position based on newly published evidence if/when it becomes available.
    But at present all that seems to be happening is the same back and forth from every other thread CS is involved in has just moved to a new home.
    Surely until Hulsey publishes, there is nothing to discuss that hasn't been gone over on other threads ad infinitum?


  • #9
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    That would imply that 47 floors were primarily ash and dust. I'm not sure what kinematics you're imagining that would require furniture to be shoved up against or out of the windows, either.

    We do however seen tons of dust and ash and such, all the same - even black dust coming out of those front windows that get smashed

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg


    No there was clearly some warpage, the top corners of the building fell slower than the breadth of the walls.



    Well, as WTC 5 certainly proved, supports and elements don't mean a girder cannot fail due to thermal load. So yes, it is certainly possible, whether or not they modeled that in their simulation. As I explained in another post, even if you know all the parameters of a controlled demolition, a computer simulation can take months to compile (and in that example, the computer hardware was circa 2011, not 2006, so generally speaking 8x faster processing than what NIST would have had - on a much smaller building no less). For WTC 7 they lacked all sorts of real, raw data, so I'm not the least bit surprised their simulation doesn't line up well. I haven't seen a full structure FEA from anyone else that would suggest a more probable mode of failure. Dr. Hulsey has released no such simulation, or clearly defined what he believes happened, he's just thrown spitballs at the NIST report so far and expressed incredulity that fires were a cause of failure. Wasn't his supposed to be an open and publicly transparent study at all stages? If it is done why hasn't he released a draft copy?

    Your video is the collapse after the building moved from its previous stiff position and collapsed downwards. NIST theory is floors were collapsing across the width of the building before the roofline and perimeter walls even moved from its original stiff position. Your video is the full collapse, not the progressive collapse.

    I would imagine 47 floors crashing down on top of each other would cause a deformation of the side walls and the floors collapses would be breaking more windows across the width of the building, silly me for believing this :)

    There was a kink where the Penthouse fell in on the east side. Where do you see the deformation of the top corner walls?

    WTC5 partially collapsed because of its Gerber girder framing. It was a weak point in the building structure. It not what caused WTC7 or twin towers to fail. WTC5 did not fully collapse either and certainly was more engulfed in fire then WTC7 ever was or do you disagree?

    Dr Hulsey has only completed his study recently after three years. NIST took six years to release their study. Hulsey will release his study and checks can be done by mainstream engineered bodies. Unlike NIST the Hulsey study will be released with its full input data and can be replicated by science, unlike the NIST study. You have to take NIST word on everything and they did not cheat, however, it's obvious they did when they modelled the failures incorrectly.


  • #10
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    Rather than CS rehashing and regurgitating his tiresome points re: the collapse.
    Given the actual title of this thread that he started?
    Would it not make more sense for this thread that rather than post his usual "theories"
    That until Hulsey publishes, there is actually nothing of note worth posting in this thread?

    Happy to review and assess my position based on newly published evidence if/when it becomes available.
    But at present all that seems to be happening is the same back and forth from every other thread CS is involved in has just moved to a new home.
    Surely until Hulsey publishes, there is nothing to discuss that hasn't been gone over on other threads ad infinitum?

    Willing to do that. Hulsey study will be new info to look over when it's out and compare.


  • #11
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You have to take NIST word on everything and they did not cheat, however, it's obvious they did when they modelled the failures incorrectly.

    This is a lie.
    Also hilarious that you are in the same breath praising an expert that started out with a stated bias.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Willing to do that. Hulsey study will be new info to look over when it's out and compare.

    Appreciated!
    At the moment, without actual new peer reviewed hypothesis backed by Hulsey's math all we are doing is repeating ourselves in a circular argument.

    Hulsey will publish, whenever he does and the report and it's methodology will be very closely scrutinized.
    I'm very happy to wait and see what comes of that.

    I am very curious as to what will happen if Hulsey's actual conclusion is similar to NIST!
    Will be interesting to see how the conspiracy crew react.
    I wonder will it be similar to the fallout from the Mueller report not having found the collusion evidence that everyone "Knew" was there.


  • #13
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,045 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I just find it highly odd that in 3 years he hasn’t published any interim work, a conference paper, or even much of an update outside of a PowerPoint presentation on YouTube. This was originally billed as a fully transparent study from start to finish and it has already failed on that score.

    It’s also been about 6 months since we heard that the study was in any sort of draft or complete phase and yet nothing has happened, we don’t even have names for what institutions are performing the alleged peer review?


  • #14
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    I just find it highly odd that in 3 years he hasn’t published any interim work, a conference paper, or even much of an update outside of a PowerPoint presentation on YouTube. This was originally billed as a fully transparent study from start to finish and it has already failed on that score.

    It’s also been about 6 months since we heard that the study was in any sort of draft or complete phase and yet nothing has happened, we don’t even have names for what institutions are performing the alleged peer review?

    I don't find it odd really.
    I am by nature a cynical bollox though.

    My thinking on it currently runs like this.
    Set up a new study, promising to debunk NIST and expose the real reason for the collapse of WTC7.
    Become lauded and funded by the truther brigade as their scientific Messiah!
    The rock of truth that will shatter the "conspirators" lies.

    Carry out said study in the hope of proving the negative that has already been claimed.
    3 yrs of research are starting to show that NIST are in the main correct....

    Postpone publication and peer review...
    Blame a funding crunch, ask for more donations and continue to study the problem...
    Rinse and repeat above as needed.

    Delay publishing until overtaken by death to avoid needing to defend oneself against either academia or the truthers depending upon actual report conclusion.


  • #15
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Also worth mentioning that the Hulsey study is entirely funded by an internet conspiracy group (AE911) who believe that 911 was an inside job. The details of which they never specify. This same group which has just celebrated 2 years of another building they claim was demolished, likewise the details of which they never specify.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/509-two-years-ago-today-the-plasco-building-demolition-killed-22-innocent-people-in-iran
    January 19, 2019, marks the two-year anniversary of the demolition of Iran’s 15-story Plasco Building and the murder of 16 firefighters and six civilians who were inside the building at the time of its destruction.

    As with the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7, a false narrative of the building suddenly collapsing due to fire was successfully promulgated immediately after the incident and was subsequently reinforced by a fraudulent government report.


  • #16
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Also worth mentioning that the Hulsey study is entirely funded by an internet conspiracy group (AE911) who believe that 911 was an inside job.
    Remember also that our resident conspiracy theorist have rejected the peer reviewed studies based on the NIST report based solely on that the authors were connected with the NIST.
    They then falsely and without evidence claimed that the NIST controlled that peer review. And now they continually pretend such studies don't exist.

    The fact that Hulseys study is funded by the AE911 should be enough to reject it if standards were being applied equally. But clearly they are not.

    I'm sure they would laugh off a study funded by the NIST to prove a controlled demolition was impossible, which is increasingly late, has not released any of the information it said it would, is not going through the normal peer review process and was now seeking additional funding from donors.


  • #17
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    I not back to debate the 9/11 just came across something interesting online. I wait for Hulsey study to be out.

    Apparently, for 20 years this was unknown to the public. Repairs were done in secret at night at the Citicorp building in New York. Only a handful of people knew about it.

    It interesting in light of claims on here how can anyone plant explosives and not be noticed. Apparently, a bunch of welders fixed stuff in the building for three months and the public and the workers in the building were unaware.



  • #18
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I not back to debate the 9/11 just came across something interesting online. I wait for Hulsey study to be out.

    Apparently, for 20 years this was unknown to the public. Repairs were done in secret at night at the Citicorp building in New York. Only a handful of people knew about it.

    It interesting in light of claims on here how can anyone plant explosives and not be noticed. Apparently, a bunch of welders fixed stuff in the building for three months and the public and the workers in the building were unaware.


    He's a professor in structural engineering, write to him and ask?

    If you are so "curious" about this perhaps stop reading pseudo-scientific conspiracy sites and check with proper experts


  • #19
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's a professor in structural engineering, write to him and ask?

    If you are so "curious" about this perhaps stop reading pseudo-scientific conspiracy sites and check with proper experts

    Why would I need to contact him? He revealed the story in this non-conspiracy video.

    He said welders were hired and, they carried out repairs to the building, over a period of three months at night. This secret was not disclosed to the public for twenty years. Only a handful of people were aware of this event.

    I just highlighted the debunker argument here. You guys claim secret work in a building cannot be done unnoticed. Again this true case proves they are wrong.


  • #20
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would I need to contact him? He revealed the story in this non-conspiracy video.

    He said welders were hired and, they carried out repairs to the building, over a period of three months at night. This secret was not disclosed to the public for twenty years. Only a handful of people were aware of this event.

    I just highlighted the debunker argument here. You guys claim secret work in a building cannot be done unnoticed. Again this true case proves they are wrong.

    Why not him whether he thinks the buildings were brought down via controlled demolition

    and whether it would have been possible to rig all the buildings for demolition (very different from welding) in total secrecy


  • #21
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would I need to contact him? He revealed the story in this non-conspiracy video.

    He said welders were hired and, they carried out repairs to the building, over a period of three months at night. This secret was not disclosed to the public for twenty years. Only a handful of people were aware of this event.

    I just highlighted the debunker argument here. You guys claim secret work in a building cannot be done unnoticed. Again this true case proves they are wrong.
    Repairs are not demolitions Cheerful.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why not him whether he thinks the buildings were brought down via controlled demolition

    and whether it would have been possible to rig all the buildings for demolition (very different from welding) in total secrecy

    Why would I ask him this :confused:

    How is any different? The debunker argument is demolitions could not be planted in secret and not be noticed by the public.

    This true story proves otherwise. They took three months to carry out the repairs that a long time.


  • #23
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would I ask him this :confused:

    How is any different? The debunker argument is demolitions could not be planted in secret and not be noticed by the public.

    This true story proves otherwise. They took three months to carry out the repairs that a long time.
    But you also claim that the demolitions could be done over a weekend with a team of 8.
    His story seems to contradict yours...

    Why would repairs with a bigger team take longer?


  • #24
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you also claim that the demolitions could be done over a weekend with a team of 8.
    His story seems to contradict yours...

    Why would repairs with a bigger team take longer?

    Bull**** mutiple times I clarified this.

    Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust by scientists. How long do you think it would take to place nano-thermite on steel?

    I told you a combination of nano-thermite and explosives will take longer than a weekend.


  • #25
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Bull**** mutiple times I clarified this.

    Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust by scientists. How long do you think it would take to place nano-thermite on steel?

    I told you a combination of nano-thermite and explosives will take longer than a weekend.
    So then how long would it take?


  • #26
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would I ask him this :confused:

    To get the truth?

    If I wanted the truth on e.g. vaccines the last thing I would be doing is browsing anti-vaccine sites all day, I'd be going to the experts


  • #27
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    To get the truth?

    If I wanted the truth on e.g. vaccines the last thing I would be doing is browsing anti-vaccine sites all day, I'd be going to the experts
    Well...
    If you wanted an answer other than the truth...


  • #28
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then how long would it take?

    A few minutes each steel member? They found hard solid nano-thermite chips in the dust. The chips could be placed in containers or boxes and put near the steel on each floor?

    If they are using military explosives as well then that going to take weeks maybe a month or two.


  • #29
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    A few minutes each steel member? They found hard solid nano-thermite chips in the dust. The chips could be placed in containers or boxes and put near the steel on each floor?

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


  • #30
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    To get the truth?

    If I wanted the truth on e.g. vaccines the last thing I would be doing is browsing anti-vaccine sites all day, I'd be going to the experts

    What has this got to do with 9/11?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    A few minutes each steel member?
    Where are you getting that idea from?
    How do you know that it's a "Few minutes"?


  • #32
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #33
    Cheerful Spring
    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.


  • #34
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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:


  • #35
    Cheerful Spring
    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.


  • #36
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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
  • #37
    Cheerful Spring
    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:


  • #38
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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...


  • #39
    Cheerful Spring
    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?


  • #40
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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?


  • #41
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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
  • #42
    Cheerful Spring
    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.


  • #43
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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?


  • #44
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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:


  • #45
    Cheerful Spring
    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.


  • #46
    Cheerful Spring
    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.


  • #47
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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?


  • #48
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Not my problem.
    So, you don't know. You can't answer the question.


  • #49
    Cheerful Spring
    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.


  • #50
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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?


  • #51
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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
Advertisement