banie01 wrote: » I just want to confirm this particular point? You actually believe that you have applied common sense in your approach to any of the CT's you subscribe to, or indeed your solo runs?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Wow almost missed this. What's common about a personal theory completely unique to you that contradicts historical fact?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It out now they have shown more transparency than NIST has ever shown. They're not cowards they've released their data for everyone just like they said they would. Skeptics then complain there two weeks late, when we all know NIST has not released a damn thing since 2008 to verify their findings. It is laughable You critics are funny.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » NIST has not released a damn thing since 2008 to verify their findings. It is laughable You critics are funny.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » This historical fact aired out in courts now.
Dohnjoe wrote: » 911 families have been trying to sue Saudi Arabia for years, because 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi. This has been explained to you repeatedly. After large terrorist attacks, families of victims often pursue lawsuits, e.g. after the Paris attacks in 2015, victims filed a lawsuit against the French government. It has nothing to do with your far-fetched theory of explosives in the buildings.
King Mob wrote: » The NIST report was peer reviewed and used as a reference in dozens of peer reviewed papers in the years since it has been released. Hulseys report bypassed peer review.
King Mob wrote: » The study is two years late. The data is two weeks late. Can you show where they have explained these periods of lateness? They are supposed to be complete transparent and open, but it looks like you dont know why they were so late. Could you also provide a list of the journals they plan on attempting to publish this in? And an explaination of what they are doing to secure this publication? Could you also detail which experts they are sending the report to for their "open review"? Or do you not know these things either because the totally transparent and open group has said nothing and released no information about any of that? Lol commonsense...
The Nal wrote: » So many holes in the study from the people who have studied it."the final results look not much better and given that they are not dynamic simulations and just animations makes this study look very amateurish if not fraudulant."https://www.metabunk.org/hulsey-uaf-report-data-release-analysis-thread.t10963/ "it is hugely flawed and biased"
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » NIST Data is not out. You complain about a two week delay seriously? 600 gigs of documents takes time to upload on a server. They ran into problems and perfectly fine with me. You should demand NIST data, but you won't. Why is a two week delay that serious for you? Truther community been waiting 11 years for NIST data. UAF data out. They are in draft phase and are now taking comments about the report. We have to wait a bit longer to see if any engineering group has contacted them and replied to AE911 about this study. Keep an eye out on Enignerring reddit forum. The moderator there said he open a thread at the end of the year. to discuss it.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » NIST conclusions are disputed by different mainstream engineering studies. They only agree on fire caused it. Different studies have the collapse starting on a different floor inside the building. The groups dispute their own peers findings and don't agree where it started. None of the four studies have ever released Data. They have released reports with claims and theories, but never shown their actual work they did to get there.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » UAF Hulsey study only one that released the data they accumulated over 4 years.
King Mob wrote: » Notice how you answered zero of my questions as per usual. They haven't explained the two week delay or the two year delay. They provided no details on why these delays happened. They aren't being as open as they claim. You also don't know the details of the review process because they are also not being open about that. No engineering group is going to contact them because they are a joke. None of the above is true. And again, it's been peer reviewed. And it's a joke. It's not been peer reviewed.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Why do they need to explain a two week delay? Why is so important? The study was only delayed by a year not two years. Was expected to come out in 2018. I don't speak for AE911 truth, send your questions to them, if you want to know the real reasons for delay.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Send us a link where people can find NIST data.
King Mob wrote: » They said that they were going to be completely open and transparent. They haven't explained either delay and a great deal of stuff because they aren't open or transparent. Why haven't they explained these things in your world? Why would I do this when I never said I had such a link... Again, the NIST report has been peer reviewed. Hulsey's report is not peer review and isn't going to be.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Two-week delay is a unimportant event. All I care about is they would release the data in full.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » NIST study was peer reviewed, you said. Yes ACSE peer reviewed a paper without seeing NIST input data, the simulation data, or connection results.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Study that can't be checked is worthless in my opinion. Everything in science has to be replicated and verified as possible.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » That's not true. The families are suing Saudi Arabia for its role in helping Al Qeada carry out the attack.
It says Saudi Arabia knowingly supported the 9/11 attacks.
The leading FBI agent
There two parts to 9/11 conspiracy. The funding and support network for the men who hijacked the planes This was covered up by the White House. The documents only got let out in 2015. The explosives in the building. I view this as a separate event. What the Saudis knew about that, i have got no clue. We have plenty of evidence the CIA actively protected the Al Qeada operation and prevented anyone from stopping it.
Based on the date in the analysis completion summary in the middle of the screen, this screenshot was taken in April 2019. There is a folder there in the upper right named "Tony's Comments". I am guessing that folder contains comments from Tony Szamboti. Notably, however, that folder was not contained in the files that were made public. So what gives? Why was Tony, a member of the leadership of the study's sponsor, allowed to comment on the report before it was made public? And why are his comments not included in the publicly available files?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Some of the guys in Metabunk are looking at the data Of course there's shady stuff right off the bat Based on the date in the analysis completion summary in the middle of the screen, this screenshot was taken in April 2019. There is a folder there in the upper right named "Tony's Comments". I am guessing that folder contains comments from Tony Szamboti. Notably, however, that folder was not contained in the files that were made public. So what gives? Why was Tony, a member of the leadership of the study's sponsor, allowed to comment on the report before it was made public? And why are his comments not included in the publicly available files? https://www.metabunk.org/hulsey-uaf-report-data-release-analysis-thread.t10963/
King Mob wrote: » And again, there was never any indication that Tony Szamboti was going to be involved or given access to the study before it was released. Nor is there any detail about what that involvement was. Again they show they are not being open or transparent. They are showing themselves to be the opposite.
Dohnjoe wrote: » It claims. That's one of the claims put forward in the lawsuit. So far, they aren't making much headway in that regard. No, the FBI found no evidence whatsoever of explosives. You can't use them "as a source" for your theory of the towers exploding. You are trying to use for a different conspiracy. One where the towers were absolutely not blown up. It's not a two-for-one deal. Oh the attacks were real AND the buildings were simultaneously blown up in a secret inside job. The two for one deal again. Schrodingers 911 theory, both reality and the conspiracy happened at the same time Princess Diana died in a car crash by accident, and was murdered at the same time. Best of both worlds!
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » I The FBI never looked for explosives
Dohnjoe wrote: » Some of the guys in Metabunk are looking at the data Of course there's shady stuff right off the bathttps://www.metabunk.org/hulsey-uaf-report-data-release-analysis-thread.t10963/
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » I not seeing the conspiracy here? Tony is part of AE911 truth. Plus all I see is a folder named Tony comments on one poster computer. I can make a folder right now and rename it Tony comments How do we know this Metabunk poster not lying? He claims to know what it's about, yet can not access the folder to see the folder contents allegedly. He claims it dated April 2019- so that folder is irrelevent, the study started in 2016.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Come to think of it Sandy Hook investigators never interrogated the family members of victims to check if they were actors or not.. The investigators into the death of Princess Diana never actually properly checked if the Queen was involved.. Did they ever investigate those energy weapons Dr Judy Wood was talking about? or look for remote control parts? how about hologram machines? or remnants of a mini-nuke.. Did they even do a radiation check?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » I watched the Judy Wood video. She not a real scientist. You can tell. I not sure who she is, but I felt she was a wacko. or she a disinformation person. It very interesting she claims explosives did not demolish the buildings, she thinks those people are crazy? Yet energy weapons from space a reasonble theory in her world. What Diana death got to do with 9/11- zero nothing make a new thread to discuss if you want. Sandy Hook- same there no link make a new thread if you want to discuss it.
Dohnjoe wrote: » You forgot the disclaimer, "and so what is Tony S was in contact with Hulsey, nothing wrong with that, they were probably talking about nothing to do with the study, people can contact each other, maybe they knew each other from before" Anyone can play your rationalisation game
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » She not a real scientist. You can tell.
Sandy Hook- same there no link make a new thread if you want to discuss it.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Yes, yes she is.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judy_Wood "Judy Wood Ph.D. is a materials scientist and former assistant professor of mechanical engineering who believes the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by a directed energy weapon. She earned her doctorate in materials engineering science from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1992. Her dissertation was on the topic of thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. From 1996-9 she was a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. From 1999 to 2006 she taught mechanical engineering at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Since 2006 she has been an independent researcher, lecturer and author." Did the investigators check if the relatives of the slain children were actors? No. Then according to your broken logic it's a possibility they were actors. In exactly the same way you've personally decided the FBI didn't look for explosives in the WTC buildings, therefore explosives are a possibility Why am I even saying "possibility", you've stated multiple times it was a fact that explosives were used. But keeping this on Hulsey, just because someone is an "expert" doesn't mean they aren't a crank or can be bought off with $300,000.
Dohnjoe wrote: » But keeping this on Hulsey, just because someone is an "expert" doesn't mean they aren't a crank or can be bought off with $300,000.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
