Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
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
Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event
Comments
-
It’s a big leap to go from one failure point - to it HAD TO BE BOMBS.
Well NIST and the AE911 engineers, are in agreement, the collapse initiated inside the building at the eastside.
The Eastside Penthouse structure ( was on the roof) This is the only visual clue, from outside, a collapse was beginning.
Around 5 seconds later movement, then the entire perimeter wall left to right collapsed. It took about 6+ seconds for the outside to collapse.
NIST best explantation for all this- the focal point.
A girder on floor 13, thermally expanded by fire, slipping it off its holding seat, resulted in floors below and above to collapse and then the collapse made it way around the entire building inside. What was left, a hollow empty shell , then NIST claimed the perimeter gave way and collapsed to the ground.
NIST even on video, we have developed a brand new theory to explain what happened..
Ok know past examples to show the engineering world. So they invented one. Anything else will do, and avoid an explanation, that will get us in trouble ie controlled demolition.
I don't think its giant leap, if you look over the history around this study.
NISTs claim, some of them debunked.
:They got the Column 79 girder seat size wrong and they claimed it was 11 inches, when it was actually 12 inches
:They claimed the steel beams on floor 13, had no shear studs. False claim.
Ae911 truth in 2013, after the NIST final WTC7 study was completed in 2008, recieved the Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawing and the Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings for building seven
The drawings actually showed the girder on floor 13 had 30+ plus shear studs. NIST claimed in their study the could not locate any drawing for this floor
:They also modelled the girder failure with no webplate
:The girder they claim was held with only bolts, false.
:They also ignore photographs there was no heavy fire on floor 12th and 13th floor, by 5pm it was gone out
They failed to recognise a key feature of the collapse ie freefall. In August 2008 NIST presented the final draft of their study and when asked about "freefall" NIST claimed our anyalsis showed this was not possible and was not a feature of the collapse we noticed. Three month laters after disputing it they changed their mind.
: Freefall is not consistent with a progressive collapse scenario. Freefall is something that happens all the time when buildings are controlled demolitioned
:They claimed nobody heard explosive noise, bangs in the area ( false again)
: They released graphs and charts that don't match the actual collapse.
: There timing errors compared to the real collapse times.
: Ignored 47 floors collapsing pre perimetter collapse, would cause dust plumes and broken windows across the width of the building.
Hopefully Hulsey will knock it out of the park with his study. NIST had not done a good job.0 -
-
-
Implying that AE911 has done any of its own engineering is an insult to engineers.
Maybe so.Yet i think this easily debunkable.
NIST progressive collapse.
If the buillding perimeter walls and external facade came down like that, it be shown on video. That not the case at all. The physical evidence actually disproves their theory. There floor collapses pulled in the outside walls and they could not hide that fact when running their finite element anyalsis.
If Hulsey finite element analysis and simulations match the collapse on video, NIST theory will be less likely. People who not interested in real science will of course ignore Hulsey findings. .0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Maybe so.Yet i think this easily debunkable.
NIST progressive collapse.
If the buillding perimeter walls and external facade came down like that, it be shown on video. That not the case at all. The physical evidence actually disproves their theory. There floor collapses pulled in the outside walls and they could not hide that fact when running their finite element anyalsis.
If Hulsey finite element analysis and simulations match the collapse on video, NIST theory will be less likely. People who not interested in real science will of course ignore Hulsey findings. .
It has been repeatedly and painstakingly explained to you at quite detailed length.
That the model developed by NIST, and the visualisation of the external walls and facade presented in their simulation are an illustrative tool.
It is not meant to precisely and irrevocably display the same external behaviour as the actual collapse.
As for your last comment, there are people commenting on this thread who have accumulated many years of engineering experience (not me
) and years of legislative and investigative experience(me 
).
You have displayed a total lack of any scientific understanding, even the basics.
Your maths are poor, and again your constant rush to take words and quotes entirely out of context is indicative of your poor understanding of the importance of an holistic view to this matter.
Should Hulsey ever present, ever!
His findings will be investigated, reviewed and if he somehow manages to present an interpretation of the evidence that changes the consensus view.
You will find very little objection to that from anyone who is rebutting your repeated nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It has been repeatedly and painstakingly explained to you at quite detailed length.
That the model developed by NIST, and the visualisation of the external walls and facade presented in their simulation are an illustrative tool.
It is not meant to precisely and irrevocably display the same external behaviour as the actual collapse.
As for your last comment, there are people commenting on this thread who have accumulated many years of engineering experience (not me ) and years of legislative and investigative experience(me ).
You have displayed a total lack of any scientific understanding, even the basics.
Your maths are poor, and again your constant rush to take words and quotes entirely out of context is indicative of your poor understanding of the importance of an holistic view to this matter.
Should Hulsey ever present, ever!
His findings will be investigated, reviewed and if he somehow manages to present an interpretation of the evidence that changes the consensus view.
You will find very little objection to that from anyone who is rebutting your repeated nonsense.
It not, it a model of internal connections failures and the result afterwards. You claim a lot and provide zero evidence. Why would they not just hide it and just match their collapse with the videos? See you just saying things and hope it sticks. Go ahead and find a passage a footnote where NIST said it just meant to be a illustration. You missed also their global computer simulation is the same as their illustrations. Science has to be precise.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Maybe so.Yet i think this easily debunkable.
NIST progressive collapse.
If the buillding perimeter walls and external facade came down like that, it be shown on video. That not the case at all. The physical evidence actually disproves their theory. There floor collapses pulled in the outside walls and they could not hide that fact when running their finite element anyalsis.
If Hulsey finite element analysis and simulations match the collapse on video, NIST theory will be less likely. People who not interested in real science will of course ignore Hulsey findings. .
I refer you to my other thread where I discussed at length a paper where an actual bonafide controlled demolition was analyzed, and simulated via computer - even with far more perfect information about the demolition and collapse, the model and the actual collapse are not in parity.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I believe penguins are aliens, I have no evidence of it. But if you believe penguins are mammals, that's just like your world view man.
Oh wait, the first view is backed by no supporting evidence,the second view is backed by overwhelming evidence.
The first view is baseless.
Does any of this sink in?
Wait, What???
OMG typo has uncovered the avian conspiracy! 0 -
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »I disagree because an internal collapse of floors over time would pull on the walls around the perimeter and deform it out of shape. NIST model shows it. The problem is, never happened it fantasy and we have video to prove it. NIST study is out of touch with reality.
LOL it's physics representation to show internal forces and mechanisms leading to the collapse
It's like in your mind you believe some structural engineer is eating a sandwich, leaves the computer model running, comes back on the phone with his friend, sipping a coffee, hits the "publish" button without looking at it
Then an intrepid conspiracy theorist like you comes along and thinks "Oh my god, they don't physically look the same, one's all bendy but in the video it comes straight down, holy ****!"
That's it isn't it
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
I can not post the entire simulation as it claims it may be copyrighted and best not to post it.
I am at a loss, just when I think no more nonsense can be spouted, the master of copy/paste raises the bar.
If Irony was a drug this is the equivalent of Renton taking that hit from the suppository!I’m glad to see you admit it’s not an implosion finally.
You see I honestly don't think he realizes at all thats exactly what he has done 0 -
-
-
LOL it's physics representation to show internal forces and mechanisms leading to the collapse
It's like in your mind you believe some structural engineer is eating a sandwich, leaves the computer model running, comes back on the phone with his friend, sipping a coffee, hits the "publish" button without looking at it
Then an intrepid conspiracy theorist like you comes along and thinks "Oh my god, they don't physically look the same, one's all bendy but in the video it comes straight down, holy ****!"
That's it isn't it
My mind can see the building was motionless. The first sign something wrong is the Penthouse collapsed and literally only took seconds for the building to come down when the Penthouse was gone. There is just no way that can occur naturally. Steel and floors take time to buckle and give way. It does not happen in seconds and with 47 floors of structural components, forget it.. Only way to achieve a uniform collapse take out 82 columns at the same time, and will take a few seconds to kick in, and will come down.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement