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

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: »

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody knows.

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

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: »

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.

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.

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.

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?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7.
I have seen only one picture of workers in the area and this was just after the building collapsed.
There nothing showing what happened there after the collapse.
We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.
You thinking of twin towers- there plenty of photographs of this clean up on different days.
Demolition experts said you find very little evidence cutting charges were used after the explosion went off- The charge blows up in the explosion. If the building wired, you may find det core pieces- but even in 2001 demolition charges can set off wirelessly. It is not used by commercial demolition crews because it expensive to use. For a military-style operation cost is irrevent if pulling off inside job. They're likely going to be doings things to mask this was demolition job.

So why did they hide the steel?
.

Overheal wrote: »

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7.
I have seen only one picture of workers in the area and this was just after the building collapsed.
There nothing showing what happened there after the collapse.
We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.
You thinking of twin towers- there plenty of photographs of this clean up on different days.
Demolition experts said you find very little evidence cutting charges were used after the explosion went off- The charge blows up in the explosion. If the building wired, you may find det core pieces- but even in 2001 demolition charges can set off wirelessly. It is not used by commercial demolition crews because it expensive to use. For a military-style operation cost is irrevent if pulling off inside job. They're likely going to be doings things to mask this was demolition job.

So I was looking around google and by chance found this, from an Irish engineering site

https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/cpd/training/Seminars%20temp/New%20Developments%20and%20Challenges%20in%20Fire%20Safety/Barbara-Lane.pdf

A training seminar on fire damage using 911 as a demonstration

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey Study not avoiding peer review- because the data is freely available to be reviewed by their peers.

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"

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

ASCE management agreed with NIST.
ASCE members are members of the truth movement.
blah blah waffle.

Cool. So why is the peer review fraudulent then?
Have you not called the ASCE to point out this massive smoking gun?

What about the dozens of other studies. Are they all fraudulent or not? Is the peer review of them fraudulent or not?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey said he wanted his work published in respectable journals for perr review-

I'm sure he does. Or at least he knows that sounds good.
However he's avoided doing that.
He had bypassed peer review because he wouldn't pass it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

since the report only in the draft stage and not the final report it not a big issue for me yet AE911 truth silent about what happening. They are taking public comments now and that will be completed in Nov.

Again, this is not how peer review works. It's avoiding and bypassing peer review.
You have also been claiming that this pretend paper is perfect and 100% before it's even completed its silly pretend version of peer review.

Well that's why I'm jumping ahead and trying to imagine how many dozens of acres of warehouse you'd need to house all that steel, concrete, human remains, etc. so people could spend the next 50 years cotton swabbing all over it hoping to find evidence of supernanothermite

Overheal wrote: »

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

"Show me proof they kept the steel"

"Okay, how do we know that steel is from WTC?"

"If they only checked a few pieces of course they aren't going to find evidence of explosives, they need to check them all!"

See how we all get lured back into the "prove it to me" fallacy, whereby someone (Cheerful) can invent a neverending flow of demands to satisfy something they will never accept

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So that one is a fraud.
Have you contacted ASCE about this?
I though you claimed that the ASCE were on your side perviously?

What about the other papers reference the NIST report. They all passed peer review.
Do you believe that all of those are fraudulent?

That is not what peer review is or means cheerful.

Real peer review is a very specific process involving publishing in journals AFTER the paper has been checked over by unbiased experts.

That is what Hulsey is avoiding. That is what he claimed his study would get. He lied. You believed him.
He is an expert. He knows doing that is dishonest and shady. But he's doing it anyway.
So by your logic, he is as much of a fraudulent expert as Dr Judy Wood.

ASCE management agreed with NIST.
ASCE members are members of the truth movement.
When they get published? And what other papers about?
The progressive collapse scenario that NIST came up with could not have happened, end of story. Even two mainstream engineering studies in court did not side with NIST. There only single agreement is that fire played a role in the collapse.

The AE911 movement believes controlled demolitions explains why the building collapsed. They are backed up by history and fire records. NIST had to invent a new fire collapse theory never seen in history before, and the theory is a joke.
I now the real world as it is, the mainstream engineering groups would never accept and publish this report based on words alone. The Hulsey conclusion, even though he stays away from it, but most people can see it controlled demolition. Now with the data they are have no real excuse not to look at it, but I Am realistic they may just ignore it unfortunately for political reasons, bias or funding reasons.

Hulsey said he wanted his work published in respectable journals for peer review- since the report only in the draft stage and not the final report it not a big issue for me yet AE911 truth silent about what happening. They are taking public comments now and that will be completed in Nov.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone.

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone.

Would you be very surprised if you found that all the steel wasn't shipped away..

Let's say they kept some, in a warehouse, for the purposes of investigation - how would you spin that?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

ASCE peer reviewed a WTC7 paper belonging to NIST yes.

Ok. So that one is a fraud.
Have you contacted ASCE about this?
I though you claimed that the ASCE were on your side perviously?

What about the other papers reference the NIST report. They all passed peer review.
Do you believe that all of those are fraudulent?

Hulsey Study not avoiding peer review- because the data is freely available to be reviewed by their peers.

That is not what peer review is or means cheerful.

Real peer review is a very specific process involving publishing in journals AFTER the paper has been checked over by unbiased experts.

That is what Hulsey is avoiding. That is what he claimed his study would get. He lied. You believed him.
He is an expert. He knows doing that is dishonest and shady. But he's doing it anyway.
So by your logic, he is as much of a fraudulent expert as Dr Judy Wood.

Overheal wrote: »

Doesn't at all meet the description of a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence for that claim. Now, if you had found an unused supernanothermite bomb strapped to a steel column or something - that would be a 'smoking gun' for the controlled demolition theory.

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Many in the engineering field are afraid to touch this smoking gun the building was taken down by explosives.

You a spokesman for the engineering field now?

So after all these investigations determined fire caused the collapse, the entire engineering field in the world is terrified the building came down due to explosives..

Do they go pale when 911 is mentioned?

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I know you believe that, but that wasn't the question.

The NIST report was peer reviewed.
Was the peer review process also fraudulent?

The NIST report was used as reference in dozens of studies that were in turn peer reviewed.
Were these dozens of peer reviews also fraudulent?

And again, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that Hulsey's study is avoiding peer review despite promises.
Why are you ignoring that when you rambled on and on about it being peer reviewed previously?

ASCE peer reviewed a WTC7 paper belonging to NIST yes.
Did ASCE see the data before publishing this on their library, i have seen no evidence that happened.
So in my opinion NIST work was never truly scientifically scrutinized.
They published the paper on ASCE site in 2012.
The blueprints came out in 2013, so ACSE likely not involved in a cover-up.
They trusted NIST opinions and published their work.
Hulsey Study not avoiding peer review- because the data is freely available to be reviewed by their peers.
ASCE wrote a report about the Hulsey study and they found problems with Hulsey modelling and calculations, is that not a good thing for Skeptics like you? Why are you not Happy about this?
NIST we got nothing but words on paper., no data nothing. Joke since the building collapsed, and there was no reason to keep the work secret.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST study fraudulent.
WTC7 blueprints show structural elements on gider A2001 that NIST said were not there in drawings they had.
Since the blueprints are real, NIST must have lied.
The blueprints were got by freedom of information request in 2013.
The drawings are presented side by side with the NIST modelling in Hulsey study and shear studs, web plate and stiffeners are missing in their 2008 modelling.
Yes NIST fooled everyone. Unfortunately, since AE911 are pushing the controlled demolition theory caused the collapse, its harmed their stance on the issue. Many in the engineering field are afraid to touch this smoking gun the building was taken down by explosives.
You find the construction for the eastside if you type this in Google.
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center

Doesn't at all meet the description of a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence for that claim. Now, if you had found an unused supernanothermite bomb strapped to a steel column or something - that would be a 'smoking gun' for the controlled demolition theory.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST study fraudulent.

Yes, I know you believe that, but that wasn't the question.

The NIST report was peer reviewed.
Was the peer review process also fraudulent?

The NIST report was used as reference in dozens of studies that were in turn peer reviewed.
Were these dozens of peer reviews also fraudulent?

And again, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that Hulsey's study is avoiding peer review despite promises.
Why are you ignoring that when you rambled on and on about it being peer reviewed previously?

King Mob wrote: »

But again, the NIST report was peer reviewed and used as a source for dozens of other peer reviewed papers.

Are those peer reviews all fraudulent?
If not, why did they not see the problems you do, given your poor grasp of math and physics?
Are all of the experts who conducted those peer reviews and wrote those papers all somehow stupid?

And again, Hulsey's report is not peer reviewed. It isn't going to be peer reviewed.
It dishonestly dodged peer review because it wouldn't pass it. Because it's a joke.

NIST study fraudulent.
WTC7 blueprints show structural elements on gider A2001 that NIST said were not there in drawings they had.
Since the blueprints are real, NIST must have lied.
The blueprints were got by freedom of information request in 2013.
The drawings are presented side by side with the NIST modelling in Hulsey study and shear studs, web plate and stiffeners are missing in their 2008 modelling.
Yes NIST fooled everyone. Unfortunately, since AE911 are pushing the controlled demolition theory caused the collapse, its harmed their stance on the issue. Many in the engineering field are afraid to touch this smoking gun the building was taken down by explosives.
You find the construction for the eastside if you type this in Google.
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center
• Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center