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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.

They took all the steel?

Where did it go?

How quickly did they take it all away?

banie01 wrote: »

That's not how peer review works CS.
Its been explained to you multiple times already.
Peer review takes place before publication and is a vitally important part of academic validation.

Self publishing on the back of a cash call for post cards is AE911"s get out of jail free card for the next few weeks.
They will claim they sent thousands of post cards and received no negative response.
They won't have received any response because all they did was spam!

They deliberately avoided peer review and will try and portray that avoidance as it's being "accepted"

Banie do you accept a study based on just words alone?
Science only works if the data you provide can be replicated by others in the field.
NIST wrote a letter they will not release, their input data, calculations and modelling data. Its a letter you can find online.
You simply don't understand science and how works in real world.
Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.
They're not architects and engineers so they not counted. They are scientists who understand you must provide data in any work to be taken seriously.#
You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They took all the steel?

Where did it go?

How quickly did they take it all away?

Nobody knows.
We have a statement by NIST they could not locate during their investigation.
We have one piece FEMA had and was melted with holes. It part of steel flange, we don't know where in the building it came from.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality.

Cheerful, this is exactly what hulsey has done.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.

Scientists like Dr Judy Woods, architects like Gage who suggests that explosives were planted in WTC as it was being built, those kind of people?

Speaking of Gage, last time he had a vote to reinvestigate 911 at AIA, 4000 architects voted against it, that right there trumps these 3k "engineers and architects"

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody knows.

If you don't know, then how are you assuming every scrap of it shipped away?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Banie do you accept a study based on just words alone?
Science only works if the data you provide can be replicated by others in the field.
NIST wrote a letter they will not release, their input data, calculations and modelling data. Its a letter you can find online.
You simply don't understand science and how works in real world.
Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.
They're not architects and engineers so they not counted. They are scientists who understand you must provide data in any work to be taken seriously.#
You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality

Irony of ironies

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Banie do you accept a study based on just words alone?
Science only works if the data you provide can be replicated by others in the field.
NIST wrote a letter they will not release, their input data, calculations and modelling data. Its a letter you can find online.
You simply don't understand science and how works in real world.
Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.
They're not architects and engineers so they not counted. They are scientists who understand you must provide data in any work to be taken seriously.#
You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality.

So the entire academic and scientific peer review process is both corrupt and involved in perpetuating the conspiracy?

Hulsey and AE911 are saving the world from that broken system by avoiding it?

You surely aren't this naïve?
That you can't see what is happening with how this has been managed?

Don't go down the road of credentials or experience or scientific understanding CS.
We have been over that repeatedly with you, I and others have discussed our experience, our qualifications and indeed our limitations in critiquing scientific papers, a discussion which may have occured funnily enough around the time you went and got a 1 month ban.

1 "expert" self publishing a paper and deliberately circumventing peer review in a manner that his acolytes make it seem he is actually being ignored!

Does not scientific fact or consensus make.

banie01 wrote: »

So the entire academic and scientific peer review process is both corrupt and involved in perpetuating the conspiracy?

So there we have it, we have reached the final frontier, academia is now a conspiracy

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, this is exactly what hulsey has done.

I would see it that way if they refused to publish their data. The data is there for everyone to use now. Engineering groups can see what he did for 4 years and not buying your excuse the study not transparent when the data out for everyone to try to replicate themselves . Mick West downloading it. Just accept the fact Ae911 truth is honest about this and did not try to hide what they did. 600 gigs of data is a lot of work- so it is obvious they were doing real work here for years and not pretending. If the study flawed, go find the issues with it and we can debate it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7.

I’m looking at 2 right now, actually, and that’s before I trawl through thousands of photos just in this one archive alone: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7185067/Incredible-never-seen-images-Ground-Zero-clean-operation.html

Not to mention the countless photographs that thousands of people took of the sites in much the same manner that I don’t have rapid access to.

Overheal wrote: »

I’m looking at 2 right now, actually, and that’s before I trawl through thousands of photos just in this one archive alone: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7185067/Incredible-never-seen-images-Ground-Zero-clean-operation.html

Not to mention the countless photographs that thousands of people took of the sites in much the same manner that I don’t have rapid access to.

I don't see them. I see WTC5 and towers wreckage? Can you number the photos you see down the page?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I would see it that way if they refused to publish their data. The data is there for everyone to use now. Engineering groups can see what he did for 4 years and not buying your excuse the study not transparent when the data out for everyone to try to replicate themselves . Mick West downloading it. Just accept the fact Ae911 truth is honest about this and did not try to hide what they did. 600 gigs of data is a lot of work- so it is obvious they were doing real work here for years and not pretending. If the study flawed, go find the issues with it and we can debate it.

That was already done over a month ago.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I would see it that way if they refused to publish their data. The data is there for everyone to use now. Engineering groups can see what he did for 4 years and not buying your excuse the study not transparent when the data out for everyone to try to replicate themselves . Mick West downloading it. Just accept the fact Ae911 truth is honest about this and did not try to hide what they did. 600 gigs of data is a lot of work- so it is obvious they were doing real work here for years and not pretending. If the study flawed, go find the issues with it and we can debate it.

But why not do real peer review like a real scientist?
Why do it in a way that offers no oversight and seems to get a lot of money in the pocket?

They weren't transparent however. They did not release the information during the process like the promised and there appears to be things they are covering up. They are also not being transparent about their review process.

Overheal wrote: »

That was already done over a month ago.

Mick West work?
Mick West a known liar he got exposed so many times i have given up on him. He goes around claiming Hulsey left out stuff study in his report and yet people are finding the paragraphs in the Hulsey report refuting his allegations. Its hilarious stuff to be honest. Mick West controls the narrative on Metabunk, he only allows posts to be posted after he edits them first. It not a website for free discussion.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't see them. I see WTC5 and towers wreckage? Can you number the photos you see down the page?

Just read the captions. Contrary to your claim, at least 2 of the 2,000+ photos in that archive depict the cleanup of WTC 7

Overheal wrote: »

Just read the captions. Contrary to your claim, at least 2 of the 2,000+ photos in that archive depict the cleanup of WTC 7

I see two, but it same view one taken at night and one in the day. It mainly a picture of building six and building seven just in the picture. To the left was WTC7 but mostly see just dirt a few cranes near it. The steel mostly gone at this stage. I wonder when this was taken?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick West work?
Mick West a known liar he got exposed so many times i have given up on him. He goes around claiming Hulsey left out stuff study in his report and yet people are finding the paragraphs in the Hulsey report refuting his allegations. Its hilarious stuff to be honest. Mick West controls the narrative on Metabunk, he only allows posts to be posted after he edits them first. It not a website for free discussion.

Anyone who doesn't agree with your wild and unique conspiracy is a sham or a liar or not an expert or in on the conspiracy or whatever

Ever thought how that comes across..

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I see two, but it same view one taken at night and one in the day. It mainly a picture of building six and building seven just in the picture. To the left was WTC7 but mostly see just dirt a few cranes near it. The steel mostly gone at this stage. I wonder when this was taken?

Between September 12, 2001 and May 2002.

You claimed as evidence that only 1 WTC photo exists- you haven’t provided this photo, I assume it is different than the two photos I linked to directly, and is probably different from the countless others that are also from that CD.

There seem to be multiple photos of the WTC 7 wreckage.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't agree with your wild and unique conspiracy is a sham or a liar or not an expert or in on the conspiracy or whatever

Ever thought how that comes across..

He lies about what Hulsey said in the report. I respect Mick take on if he was truthful about it. He leaves out stuff as if Hulsey never explained it and then when told his wrong, he ignores it. That i will not accept sorry. It ok to be critical about study, its another thing to lie.
Do you want me to give you examples of Mick dishonesty?

Overheal wrote: »

Between September 12, 2001 and May 2002.

You claimed as evidence that only 1 WTC photo exists- you haven’t provided this photo, I assume it is different than the two photos I linked to directly, and is probably different from the countless others that are also from that CD.

There seem to be multiple photos of the WTC 7 wreckage.

I have only seen one photograph; this is another one accepted ( same photograph with day and night cycle. It still not a photograph on the ground showing the workers removing the steel on top of a pile. All i see is dirt and cranes. I looking for a photograph that we see the condition of the steel when removed. If you find that i be very happy:)

What happened to steel and why nobody kept some of it back is the issue.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you want me to give you examples of Mick dishonesty?

Cheerful, just because he has written something that you don't understand it doesn't mean he's lying.
It just means you don't understand technical terms, basic math and physics and have trouble with reading comprehension.

Lying would be like saying that a studying is going to be open and transparent then doing what Hulsey did.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He lies about what Hulsey said in the report. I respect Mick take on if he was truthful about it. He leaves out stuff as if Hulsey never explained it and then when told his wrong, he ignores it. That i will not accept sorry. It ok to be critical about study, its another thing to lie.
Do you want me to give you examples of Mick dishonesty?

Why are you avoiding the earlier questions

You claim the steel all went somewhere, what is your basis for that claim?

I am perplexed with this steel obsession, I don't recall Hulsey having any access to steel..

He seems to get cut a suspiciously large amount of slack, while every one else is held up to much, much higher standards. Strange that.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why are you avoiding the earlier questions

You claim the steel all went somewhere, what is your basis for that claim?

If the steel was still available NIST would have said so. They said they could not locate it. Only government agency that retrieved steel from the site was FEMA in 2002. Their steel piece had undergone some unusual process of corrosion or melting. We discussed it before. First the claim the steel had evaporated, and they could not explain it. Next tests showed it melted in a hot environment and it reduced, melting point of steel because of high sulphur content they found. They could not find reasons for this high sulphur being present on the steel.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have only seen one photograph; this is another one accepted ( same photograph with day and night cycle. It still not a photograph on the ground showing the workers removing the steel on top of a pile. All i see is dirt and cranes. I looking for a photograph that we see the condition of the steel when removed. If you find that i be very happy:)

What happened to steel and why nobody kept some of it back is the issue.

There’s 9/11 steel on eBay right now.

Overheal wrote: »

There’s 9/11 steel on eBay right now.

Sure you can. Everyone would like to see the condition of the steel at WTC7 though.

The FEMA study still leaves many unanswered questions. In their scenario, the steel melted at above 1000c at WTC7 site and only melted below 1500c due to high sulphar content.

FEMA said more studies need to be done to find the source of the sulphar. NIST ignored the issue and never discussed it. Even though FEMA was finding this odd melting had occurred.

NIST even said no steel melted, that factually incorrect. When steel has holes in it, the steel had to have melted.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-world-trade-center-steel-20150909-story.html

This stuff is not hard to find.

We’ve been forwards and backwards about the melting of steel and I don’t see anything constructive about re re re re educating you about the basic principles of metallurgy. You choose to believe what you want to believe, but I still haven’t seen any smoking gun for your controlled demolition theory.