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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

There video online he says the same thing.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEZAiW16lECRv4_l58GtSwAjAXl2UtRah2RfXcYWFBW6hwmKrW&s

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

Lol

OwlsZat wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

The claim is fires brought it down not the planes. NIST got around this by claiming that the fireproofing was knocked off at the steel core. One building came down in 45 minutes, impossible with fireproofing that holds for three hours. That theory unprovable because the fireproofing would have just disappeared during the collapse and when in the rubble burning away. So NIST saw fireproofing was missing from steel so they used it to make the claim the plane knocked off the fireproofing allowing to burn hotter.

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A mate's friend met an old chap in the pub who swears that we didn't land on the moon, the shadows weren't right, something about radiation belts and some guy called Van Allen

My mates sister's boyfriend's second cousin twice removed swears Elvis works down the chip shop...
It is yet to be peer reviewed, but he has a very honest face by all accounts.

Overheal wrote: »

Yes as I said, I tried several times in good faith to explain to you this doesn’t mean what you think it means. I am not motivated to repeat myself, again. Only to say that the phenomenon being discussed only happens on the microscopic level, only affected the “skin” of the object, and is not a melting behavior that can be achieved in the bulk material properties of scale - ie. This type of sulfidation could not be used to melt the columns of a steel building in mere seconds.

The steel disappeared from one side to other turned side. That hardly just surface damage. You can see right through it all gone, all you see is holes. Even FEMA said that effect unusual and not what they expected to see occur in a fire. The claim is the liquid of sulphur penetrated the steel grain boundaries and started the process of erosion and corrosion. It's a theory they think occurred based on what they found. Still, they had no clear explanation to explain wherein the building the sulphur originated from. Plus, they said this event could only have occurred in a 1000c hot environment. They're no fires that got that hot in WTC7 and NIST highest temp was 600c ( they increasing it to support their version. The sulphur may be left over from what happened inside the building. Would the liquid sulphur be a byproduct of an explosion at the columns? It had to come from somewhere the sulphar.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

A mate's friend met an old chap in the pub who swears that we didn't land on the moon, the shadows weren't right, something about radiation belts and some guy called Van Allen

OwlsZat wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

Well, the towers fell because two jumbo jets crashed into them.

I’m assuming, since 2010, the guest lecturer’s academic argument hasn’t made it through peer review.

OwlsZat

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

FEMA Appendix C introduction:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000° C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

I was correct 1000c
Sulphar reduced the melting point of steel from 1500c.

Yes as I said, I tried several times in good faith to explain to you this doesn’t mean what you think it means. I am not motivated to repeat myself, again. Only to say that the phenomenon being discussed only happens on the microscopic level, only affected the “skin” of the object, and is not a melting behavior that can be achieved in the bulk material properties of scale - ie. This type of sulfidation could not be used to melt the columns of a steel building in mere seconds.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It blocked in European countries, not available.

Surely a conspiracy research expert such as yourself is using a VPN or Tor?
You can't honestly expect us to believe that you would put your personal data and security at risk by relying on those evil telecoms and social media companies to route your data in the clear?

Overheal wrote: »

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.

FEMA Appendix C introduction:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000° C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

I was correct 1000c
Sulphar reduced the melting point of steel from 1500c.

Overheal wrote: »

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

This stuff is not hard to find.

It blocked in European countries, not available.

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.

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

This stuff is not hard to find.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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..

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: »

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: »

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.

[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.