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

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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 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.

I'm referring to the controlled demolition theory.

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

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.

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.