nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Cheerful Spring

This fairly recent presentation in 2017. If you listen to him you can clearly tell he is a man of integrity and not a charlatan.

Just take time to listen to him.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I read most of the eyewitness accounts. This one has bits for both sides of the argument.

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI
Interview Date: December 6, 2001

In relation to the first tower to collapse;

"We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up
these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we
ran into the parking garage because that's basically
where we were. Running forward would be running
towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming
down."

A burning building creates a lot of explosions, gas canisters going off, transformers blowing, lifts falling down shafts, generators, car tires blowing, etc. There are even theories that the super-heated aluminium in the WTC tower (from the plane° when melted, pooled and seeped down through cracks in the buildings, could have caused small explosions as it hit water storage

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A burning building creates a lot of explosions, gas canisters going off, transformers blowing, lifts falling down shafts, generators, car tires blowing, etc. There are even theories that the super-heated aluminium in the WTC tower (from the plane° when melted, pooled and seeped down through cracks in the buildings, could have caused small explosions as it hit water storage

I'm not disputing any of that. I just was suggesting that, taken in isolation, the first part could be used to suggest organised explosions.
That why I included the information of the collapse beginning on the 67th floor before the general collapse.
Which could lead, in my crazy mind, to an even collapse of the floors above.
I could probably find that witness statement if anyone demands it.
LOL I could accuse you of leaving it out on purpose!

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm not disputing any of that. I just was suggesting that, taken in isolation, the first part could be used to suggest organised explosions.
That why I included the information of the collapse beginning on the 67th floor before the general collapse.
Which could lead, in my crazy mind, to an even collapse of the floors above.
I could probably find that witness statement if anyone demands it.
LOL I could accuse you of leaving it out on purpose!

Indeed, was just clarifying the likely source of the explosions.

The reported explosions themselves happened sporadically throughout the day, which isn't consistent with any controlled demolition. Also, many conspiracy theorists support the idea of silent explosives, which is obviously contradictory

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, was just clarifying the likely source of the explosions.

The reported explosions themselves happened sporadically throughout the day, which isn't consistent with any controlled demolition. Also, many conspiracy theorists support the idea of silent explosives, which is obviously contradictory

I only realised after posting that this thread was WTC7 focused.
The first part of the witness statement is about one of the towers and what my 67th floor reference is about.
Building 7 just collapsed imv. The emergency fuel tanks and various within probably account for any explosions.

Overheal

Not just silent, we’ve seen the argument here that these alleged charges were silent, but also loud, surgical but also so explosive it hurled office furniture blocks away from the site. No consistent countertheory has emerged.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Not just silent, we’ve seen the argument here that these alleged charges were silent, but also loud, surgical but also so explosive it hurled office furniture blocks away from the site. No consistent countertheory has emerged.

cross posted there.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Not just silent, we’ve seen the argument here that these alleged charges were silent, but also loud, surgical but also so explosive it hurled office furniture blocks away from the site. No consistent countertheory has emerged.

With the emergency control centre and the SS in that building, it would be amazing if there weren't major explosions.
I should add, there is a repository of nearly all video footage collected somewhere online. It's well worth a look it you haven't checked it out. It shows WTC7 absolutely blazing. Convinced me anyway.

Of course, none of this actually discounts the possibility of a conspiracy.

OwlsZat

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Swallow the whole blue pill. Ya a steel frame super heated and collapsed on itself blowing debris 30 fleet out floor by floor before the floor above reached the floor below. Its physically impossible. Anyone who believes that tripe is completely moronic and totally ignorant of any type of science. Building 7. The Pentagon. The hole in the ground with no debris. All complete and utter nonsense of the highest order.

OwlsZat

Overheal wrote: »

Not just silent, we’ve seen the argument here that these alleged charges were silent, but also loud, surgical but also so explosive it hurled office furniture blocks away from the site. No consistent countertheory has emerged.

The debris is visible blowing out the side of the building. You can look up any video on youtube and see it instantaneously. No further proof needed thats it. Silent my hole. There is montages of witness accounts recalling the series of explosions. There is also freely available video of the supposed super heated steel burning away after the collapse. The whole lot is a giant ball of steaming manure. How people can be so slow to realise? The whole plan in on record dreamed up when the Cuba crisis was ongoing and false flag attacks were Americas go to maneuver.

[Deleted User]

OwlsZat wrote: »

The debris is visible blowing out the side of the building. You can look up any video on youtube and see it instantaneously. No further proof needed thats it. Silent my hole. There is montages of witness accounts recalling the series of explosions. There is also freely available video of the supposed super heated steel burning away after the collapse. The whole lot is a giant ball of steaming manure. How people can be so slow to realise? The whole plan in on record dreamed up when the Cuba crisis was ongoing and false flag attacks were Americas go to maneuver.

How do explosions cause molten steel?

OwlsZat

King Mob wrote: »

How do explosions cause molten steel?

Better question how does jet fuel on the 110th floor cause molten steel on the 1st to 90th floors. It doesn't.

There was quite clearly thermite planted in the building. It's been published.

Google "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

[Deleted User]

OwlsZat wrote: »

Better question how does jet fuel on the 110th floor cause molten steel on the 1st to 90th floors. It doesn't.

There was quite clearly thermite planted in the building. It's been published.

I'd prefer sticking to the first question I asked and getting a direct answer to that...

But thermite doesn't explode and has never been used in demolitions.
Nor does it result in large long lasting flows of molten steel.

So how can thermite cause explosions and molten steel on the 1st to 90th floors?

Overheal

OwlsZat wrote: »

Swallow the whole blue pill.

I’m a mechanical engineer and I’ve discussed this issue both with truthers, as a truther, and as an engineer. Not swallowing anything.

Spencerfreeman

I believe that all the focus being on the physics of the collapses is deliberate.
Much like the current distraction technique of 'official' UFO sightings.

In my view it is impossible that some intelligence agency, somewhere, didn't know that at least 20 people were involved in such a large scale conspiracy.

If only we focused on those details.

[Deleted User]

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

This eyewitness account piqued my interest a bit. It's not included in the usual places.
I've put this one up in full and underlined the bit that made me wonder who else he was talking about? Maybe Bill Feehan thought it was a bomb also?
These were all oral interviews that were transcribed later.

Why is it interesting? How does it support a conspiracy?

Does it have anything to do with Hulsey's report or has that already been abandoned as a topic?

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Why is it interesting? How does it support a conspiracy?

Does it have anything to do with Hulsey's report or has that already been abandoned as a topic?

No, nothing to do with WTC7.

It's was just interesting to me because two of the most experienced
firefighters on the day thought it was a bomb.
Both died.

[Deleted User]

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No, nothing to do with WTC7.

So why bring it up on a thread about Hulsey's report?

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It's was just interesting to me because two of the most experienced
firefighters on the day thought it was a bomb.
Both died.

Weird that you're already changing what was said...

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

So why bring it up on a thread about Hulsey's report?

Weird that you're already changing what was said...

Grand. It's going to look even wierder now when I delete it.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I believe that all the focus being on the physics of the collapses is deliberate.
Much like the current distraction technique of 'official' UFO sightings.

In my view it is impossible that some intelligence agency, somewhere, didn't know that at least 20 people were involved in such a large scale conspiracy.

If only we focused on those details.

That theory lacks much in the way of inculpatory evidence. Further, there is no physical feasibility to the theory, which itself cannot be ignored. And, physics is the central thesis behind which Leroy Hulsey's study is purportedly framed and so forms the basis of how it ought to be counter-argued.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

That theory lacks much in the way of inculpatory evidence. Further, there is no physical feasibility to the theory, which itself cannot be ignored. And, physics is the central thesis behind which Leroy Hulsey's study is purportedly framed and so forms the basis of how it ought to be counter-argued.

I don't understand what you mean here, unless you are referring to WTC7 ?

As would be proper, as pointed out me me by Kingmob.

To be clear, I believe the impacts brought down the Towers.

Overheal

I'm referring to the controlled demolition theory.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I'm referring to the controlled demolition theory.

Sure. Completely agree, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise as evidenced by my earlier post that shows that the entire bottom corner of WTC7 was missing.

I was posting the other witness account because it's not published in the usual places. I should have put it somewhere else, I'm actually still finding my way around here.

Overheal

"Shows" may be a strong word for truthers but yeah it's a firsthand account of what he saw from his vantage.

OwlsZat

King Mob wrote: »

I'd prefer sticking to the first question I asked and getting a direct answer to that...

But thermite doesn't explode and has never been used in demolitions.
Nor does it result in large long lasting flows of molten steel.

So how can thermite cause explosions and molten steel on the 1st to 90th floors?

Thermite with explosives is one scientifically plausible way the building could have been collapsed. Jet fuel super heating steel on the other hand would not create audible explosions. It would also not blow debris out the side of the building floor by floor. Nor would it leave steel burning on ground zero long after the collapse.

https://images.app.goo.gl/91ka7gqQ9Snji12T9

There is no way jet fuel causes the collapse. It's also certain thermite was used in the demolition. Everything else is guesswork.

Love also how people love to debate the main towners collapsing. Yet ignore all the other obvious red flags. Building 7. The Pentagon attack and the apparent hole in the ground free from any plane debris whatsoever.

OwlsZat

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I believe that all the focus being on the physics of the collapses is deliberate.

When your trying to solve problems you focus on knowns and unknowns. Science has loads of things we know. Intelligence agencies and what they know on the other hand we don't know. Which is why we focus on the science.

[Deleted User]

OwlsZat wrote: »

Thermite with explosives is one scientifically plausible way the building could have been collapsed.

It is not scientifically plausible on 2 levels.
Firstly, no viable alternative theory that involves explosives, thermite or both exists. Conspiracy theorists have never been able to produce one in the 18 years since the event.
Secondly, thermite or a combination of thermite and explosives have never been used once to demolish a building. (Nevermind a skyscraper and nevermind a skyscraper in a secret demolition.)

OwlsZat wrote: »

Jet fuel super heating steel on the other hand would not create audible explosions. It would also not blow debris out the side of the building floor by floor. Nor would it leave steel burning on ground zero long after the collapse.

No one claims that Jet fuel super heating steel on the other hand would create audible explosions. That's a silly straw man.
Nor does anyone claim the other things.

However you are claiming that thermite or explosions can leave steel "burning" long after the collapse.
This isn't the case as neither explosives or thermite can do that.

OwlsZat wrote: »

There is no way jet fuel causes the collapse. It's also certain thermite was used in the demolition. Everything else is guesswork.
.

That's patently untrue.

And again, thermite has never been used for a demolition of a building.
It cannot produce the type of effects you are claiming. It doesn't and can't result in a typical collapse.
That's why you guys have to invent things like nanothermite and add explosives.

So in your theory, why did they use thermite? Why not just explosives?

[Deleted User]

OwlsZat wrote: »

Nor would it leave steel burning on ground zero long after the collapse.

https://images.app.goo.gl/91ka7gqQ9Snji12T9

So this will be fun.
How do you know for a fact that picture is showing molten steel? Or "burning" steel, whatever that means...

OwlsZat

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly, no viable alternative theory that involves explosives, thermite or both exists.

There was explosives in the building as shown by the debris exploding outwards and the audible series of explosions. There is Thermite in the dust as proven by the peer reviewed published scientific paper and the pictures of the steel burning long after the building collapse

King Mob wrote: »

No one claims that Jet fuel super heating steel on the other hand would create audible explosions.

Exactly. Which is why the accepted theory is balderdash. Another unexplained part of the blue pill theory.

King Mob wrote: »

However you are claiming that thermite or explosives can leave steel "burning" long after the collapse.
This isn't the case as neither explosives or thermite can do that.

That's simply untrue. Explosives explode and release all their energy. Thermite on the other hand forms reactions with Metallics when ignited or exploded. Many of the reactions it can form are self-sustaining meaning they can continue to burn long after ignition. Thanks for highlighting this. Its one of the reasons why some form of thermite was most definitely used. Aside from actually being found in the rubble / dust.

King Mob wrote: »

Why did they use thermite? Why not just explosives?

Steel framed buildings are exceptionally tough buildings to demolition. Particularly ones designed to be resistant to both earthquake and fire. Demolition of steel framed buildings also requires the weakening of the structure which they achieved here using thermite.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309371768_Demolition_of_steel_structures_structural_engineering_solutions_for_a_more_sustainable_construction_industry

Dohnjoe

OwlsZat wrote: »

Thermite with explosives is one scientifically plausible way the building could have been collapsed.

Can you explain to us how they rigged the world's two largest towers with thermite, in total secrecy?

What if one of the planes missed, what was the plan? The "inside job" is immediately up

(Pay attention to the fact that you will likely be answering these questions using the limits of your imagination, rather than direct evidence. That should be a big enough clue in itself)

Jet fuel super heating steel on the other hand would not create audible explosions.

Other stuff explodes in buildings when they are on fire

Explain how thermite makes an "explosion"?

It would also not blow debris out the side of the building floor by floor.

Air pressure from the collapsing building being forced downwards and outwards through the path of least resistance.

Explain how thermite "blows" out debris?

There is no way jet fuel causes the collapse.

Argument from incredulity.

Steel begins to weaken at 450c, it loses half it's strength at 650c. Fires were estimated to have hit 1000c in the towers (those temperatures can weaken steel up to 90%) The key point is that the fires were uneven, in one area of the building they were extremely hot, weakening the steel, in another they weren't as hot. This put immense pressure on different parts of the structure

There's a reason why steel is covered in fire cladding.

Love also how people love to debate the main towners collapsing. Yet ignore all the other obvious red flags. Building 7. The Pentagon attack and the apparent hole in the ground free from any plane debris whatsoever.

Multiple investigations concluded that building 7 fell due to fire. There is no mystery over the Pentagon attack. Flight 93 that crashed into Shanksville hit soft ground at high speed, there was debris, they managed to forensically identify all the victims on the plane by December. The flight recorder was recovered.

At any time, you can explain what alternatively happened, with evidence. It's 18 years after the fact - no credible counter theory exists in any form.

[Deleted User]

OwlsZat wrote: »

There was explosives in the building as shown by the debris exploding outwards and the audible series of explosions.

Ok. Where were the explosives? Where and how where they placed? By whom?
Where was the thermite placed? What kind of thermite was used?
When were the explovises set off and when were the thermite charges set off?
How did these things initiate the collapse?
How did these things survive the plane crashes, the falling debris and fires?

If you can't answer these questions, then there is no viable alternative theory that you can point to.

OwlsZat wrote: »

There is Thermite in the dust as proven by the peer reviewed published scientific paper and the pictures of the steel burning long after the building collapse

Sorry, no. None of that is true.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Exactly. Which is why the accepted theory is balderdash. Another unexplained part of the blue pill theory.

But there are other explanations you are discounting out of hand without examination.

OwlsZat wrote: »

That's simply untrue. Explosives explode and release all their energy. Thermite on the other hand forms reactions with Metallics when ignited or exploded. Many of the reactions it can form are self-sustaining meaning they can continue to burn long after ignition. Thanks for highlighting this. Its one of the reasons why some form of thermite was most definitely used. Aside from actually being found in the rubble / dust.

Cool. Source for any of that?
Can you show another building where thermite was used in it's demolition where molten/"burning" steel was found?

OwlsZat wrote: »

Steel framed buildings are exceptionally tough buildings to demolition. Particularly ones designed to be resistant to both earthquake and fire. Demolition of steel framed buildings also requires the weakening of the structure which they achieved here using thermite.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309371768_Demolition_of_steel_structures_structural_engineering_solutions_for_a_more_sustainable_construction_industry

Ok. Which other buildings were demolished using a combination of explosives and thermite?