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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, because it's not a scientific paper. It's junk science. But it fooled you (and that was it's intention)

This is very simple, I'll play devil's advocate and demonstrate how this works..

1. Explain how a police officer happened to find one of the hijackers passports, perfectly intact, just laying on the sidewalk in NY?

2. How did Hani Hanjour, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, a complete novice, pull those extreme maneuvers to hit the Pentagon perfectly? it's impossible

3. Why is there no proper footage of that plane hitting the Pentagon despite it being one of the most prominent buildings in the world?

4. How did small office fires take down the steel-framed WTC 7 building? (when other larger, taller buildings survived much larger infernos)

1. How did loads of police officers hear a series of explosions? Passports are copied and forged all the time.

2. The planes were flown into the targets using the automated control. Its hugely unlikely that civilians would have the skill to manually control jumbo jets with that level of precision.

3. The Pentagon building 7 and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site devoid of any plane debris are among the most obvious red flags.

4. The manner that all the buildings collapsed totally goes against the material science and building design employed in making them in the first place. Building 7 falling down is just a spectacular climax of if you believed the rest you'll probabaly believe this too. You"d wonder was there a plane originally planned to hit it too.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Did you try to debunk a scientific paper with a forum post? Lolers way to science.

Yup, because it's not a scientific paper. It's junk science. But it fooled you (and that was it's intention)

This is very simple, I'll play devil's advocate and demonstrate how this works..

1. Explain how a police officer happened to find one of the hijackers passports, perfectly intact, just laying on the sidewalk in NY?

2. How did Hani Hanjour, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, a complete novice, pull those extreme maneuvers to hit the Pentagon perfectly? it's impossible

3. Why is there no proper footage of that plane hitting the Pentagon despite it being one of the most prominent buildings in the world?

4. How did small office fires take down the steel-framed WTC 7 building? (when other larger, taller buildings survived much larger infernos)

OwlsZat wrote: »

What points did I make that you didnt agree with? You do understand science and the concept of debating. In order to disagree you should refute a point and cite a reason or a reference. Not knowing a similar story or understanding the isn't really a substitute.

You claimed that thermite was found in dust from the WTC, which is not true as shown by Dohnjoe above.
You claimed that there were pictures of "burning" or molten steel.
Firstly, "burning" steel doesn't really make sense in this context, so I assume you meant melted/molten/glowing steel.
No such pictures exist.
The link you provided showed a picture you claimed proved your point, however you ignored the question I asked about it.
Perhaps you'd like to answer it now?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are expressing a personal, subjective view on a public forum - but we aren't allowed to question it?

So far you are posting debunked information or misunderstandings. So technically that's disinformation.

There is little mystery around 911.

There is however a small lucrative industry in people who create a fantasy mystery surrounding it. You can pay monthly subscriptions for this stuff. Some people love conspiracies.

You really think people who can comprehend what happened are doing so to make money?

That's some outlandish statement.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's debunked

https://www.metabunk.org/investigating-active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.t9485/

Did you try to debunk a scientific paper with a forum post? Lolers way to science.

King Mob wrote: »

So there is no viable alternative theory. You cannot explain how Thermite and explosives can be used to destory any of the buildings.
So we can discount it as a possibility worthy of consideration.

As for "things we know" several of them you have pointed to aren't actually true in the first place... so...

What points did I make that you didnt agree with? You do understand science and the concept of debating. In order to disagree you should refute a point and cite a reason or a reference. Not knowing a similar story or understanding the isn't really a substitute.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Check out the paper to further your scientific understanding of the Thernitic material involved. Its titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

It's debunked

https://www.metabunk.org/investigating-active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.t9485/

OwlsZat wrote: »

If your posting a question which starts but how did they... then don't bother.

You are expressing a personal, subjective view on a public forum - but we aren't allowed to question it?

I'm only posting about things we know.

So far you are posting debunked information or misunderstandings. So technically that's disinformation.

The rest is fantasy.

There is little mystery around 911.

There is however a small lucrative industry in people who create a fantasy mystery surrounding it. You can pay monthly subscriptions for this stuff. Some people love conspiracies.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not commercially or recently as far as I am aware. But in the distant past, around 60 or so years ago, I believe there was an attempt. If I recall correctly they blew one side of a fairground attraction with TNT, and "burnt" the other with thermite. In terms of composition, they required 10x the amount of thermite over TNT. Highly impractical, which is probably why we never see it used by the demo industry.

Check out the paper to further your scientific understanding of the Thernitic material involved. Its titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

From the conclusions
- It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and
carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive
elements are sometimes present, such as potassium,
sulfur, lead, barium and copper.

-After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to
700 ˚C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and
spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-
temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich
product clearly must have been molten to form these
shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was veri-
fied since the iron content significantly exceeded the
oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature
reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the
heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

I'm not a material scientist but it's clear it's some form of thematic material.

OwlsZat wrote: »

If your posting a question which starts but how did they... then don't bother.

I'm only posting about things we know. The rest is fantasy. Things we dont know. Just accept the things we don't know.

So there is no viable alternative theory. You cannot explain how Thermite and explosives can be used to destory any of the buildings.
So we can discount it as a possibility worthy of consideration.

As for "things we know" several of them you have pointed to aren't actually true in the first place... so...

If your posting a question which starts but how did they... then don't bother.

I'm only posting about things we know. The rest is fantasy. Things we dont know. Just accept the things we don't know.

King Mob wrote: »

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.)

Not commercially or recently as far as I am aware. But in the distant past, around 60 or so years ago, I believe there was an attempt. If I recall correctly they blew one side of a fairground attraction with TNT, and "burnt" the other with thermite. In terms of composition, they required 10x the amount of thermite over TNT. Highly impractical, which is probably why we never see it used by the demo industry.

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?

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.

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

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm referring to the controlled demolition theory.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.