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

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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...

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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?

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)

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: »

1.

The questions have answers.

The average layperson doesn't have them, and that's how conspiracy theories like 911 work, by casting doubt. They don't even have to spell out what the conspiracy was.

Your imagination does the rest. Remote controlled planes, non-existent planes, thermite "explosions".

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The questions have answers.

The average layperson doesn't have them, and that's how conspiracy theories like 911 work, by casting doubt. They don't even have to spell out what the conspiracy was.

Your imagination does the rest. Remote controlled planes, non-existent planes, thermite "explosions".

Remote control planes? You're really revealing the sum of your parts. Plans haven't actively been flow by people in years. You program in your destination and watch the plane fly itself. You hover over the controls in case something goes wrong. It's this same autopilot that would have been engaged to deliver the planes to pinpoint targets.

The thermite explosions were also incorrectly interpreted by you. They are two separate materials. Not one you imagined that being said.

The planes on auto pilot reminded me of another one of the hoax red flags. New york had airborne defenses. Incredibly on the day of the attack both defense team were running exercises. Incredible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/the-military-drills-of-september-11th-why-a-new-investigation-is-needed/6906/amp

OwlsZat wrote: »

Remote control planes? You're really revealing the sum of your parts. Plans haven't actively been flow by people in years. You program in your destination and watch the plane fly itself. You hover over the controls in case something goes wrong. It's this same autopilot that would have been engaged to deliver the planes to pinpoint targets.

So you are claiming that the planes weren't remote controlled..

Rather they were pre-programmed to take off, fly and crash into WTC 1, WTC 2, the Pentagon and Shanksville PA, correct?

Timberrrrrrrr

OwlsZat wrote: »

Remote control planes? You're really revealing the sum of your parts. Plans haven't actively been flow by people in years. You program in your destination and watch the plane fly itself. You hover over the controls in case something goes wrong. It's this same autopilot that would have been engaged to deliver the planes to pinpoint targets.

The thermite explosions were also incorrectly interpreted by you. They are two separate materials. Not one you imagined that being said.

The planes on auto pilot reminded me of another one of the hoax red flags. New york had airborne defenses. Incredibly on the day of the attack both defense team were running exercises. Incredible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/the-military-drills-of-september-11th-why-a-new-investigation-is-needed/6906/amp

Is there a facepalm gif big enough for this :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is there a facepalm gif big enough for this :pac:

I'm genuinely curious to see where this one is going

banie01

I see Cheerful has a new partner...
Takes a lot to make him seem the rational one, so well done on that point at least

Overheal

OwlsZat wrote: »

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

And yet the paper has been debunked.

You’re here on a forum, contributing to a forum thread, on the discussion of 9/11. The topic has been discussed for the past 18 years ad infinitum. By millions of people. Why bother if you’re going to reject anything in the discussion because of the nature of the venue of an online message board? So far you haven’t discussed any truther argument that this forum in particular has been forwards and backwards through already, even in the most recent 18 months.

Furthermore you have been lacking in producing links or evidence yourself, you’ve made sweeping claims about the properties of thermite without citation. You’ve claimed it can cause steel to remain in a red hot state for a protracted length of time, without citation.

And none of this really has anything to do with Hulsey’s paper either.

banie01 wrote: »

I see Cheerful has a new partner...
Takes a lot to make him seem the rational one, so well done on that point at least

I reckon the play will be to dismiss this, but to claim the poster is right to suspect the whole thing.

Remote-controlled plane and mini-nuke truthers generally muck up the standard truther route of suggesting controlled demolition but not committing to any details on it

The Nal

That theory then, what happened to the people on the original planes? And what happened to the planes?

I want to know who pressed the automated "greet the passengers, speak to the aircrew, speak to the passengers, communicate with the control tower, perform all pre-flight checks, taxi to the required runway, perform all the pre-takeoff checks, take off, communicate with the ATC as terrorists, fly into building" button

Modern aircraft, it's amazing what they can do.

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I want to know who pressed the automated "greet the passengers, speak to the aircrew, speak to the passengers, communicate with the control tower, perform all pre-flight checks, taxi to the required runway, perform all the pre-takeoff checks, take off, communicate with the ATC as terrorists, fly into building" button

Modern aircraft, it's amazing what they can do.

All of the traffic controllers, ground staff, air crew and control tower staff were in on it.

Duh!

Timberrrrrrrr

The Nal wrote: »

All of the traffic controllers, ground staff, air crew and control tower staff were in on it.

Duh!

Sure we all know the pilot just parachuted out duhhhh

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sure we all know the pilot just parachuted out duhhhh

I reckon the pilots pressed the "autopilot" button, which like we all know has a maneuver through traffic and fly into buildings function, then they disguised themselves as maintenance people and just walked off the plane

Went down the Winchester to have a pint, waited for it all to blow over, picked up their suitcases full of money and went to live on an island somewhere with all the ATC crews and fake passengers and fake terrorists safe in the knowledge that the world would soon be at war with their arch-nemesis: Saddam

I mean it's a hell of a lot more plausible than terrorists flying planes into buildings, come on like

banie01 wrote: »

So the Engineer who had responsibility for the structural design, who laid out quite clearly what type of impact the Towers were designed to cope with!
Doesn't know what he's talking about and has no credibility?

The 600mph impact survivability claims are patently false.
The Engineer who led the design effort is on record confirming that a lost 707 in landing configuration is what they considered.
He also confirms that no fire suppression effort was capable of dealing with the fuel loads in such a situation.

Cheerful, you have spent years being wrong, being proven wrong then repeating and starting again.
You have zero credibility, you present rports and info from the '93 carbombing that is portrayed as being somehow related or represantitive of the 2001 impacts.
Its not, you have a prediliction for waffle that is unfortunately compounded by your access to the internet!

You lie, misrepresent, deflect and ignore actual evidence and testementary fact because it doesn't fit your theory.
Then your theory expands into nonsense but Hulsey fits in there somewhere and even though he hasn't been peer reviewed...
It must be right!
Based upon your sum total of zero scientific or critical expertise!

You are a timesink and a liar.

You guys said the speed of the plane was lower. Then attacked me for suggesting it would hit at its cruise speed, claiming I was stupid for believing it. We then found the actual document about this, and they had done calculations based on 600mph 707 hitting the tower.
John Skilling who was involved in the 1200 page study told the Seattle paper they did think about fire and jet fuel. Silly to believe they would not think about the fuel the plane was carrying.

Leslie constantly changes his personal stories. Leslie actually said before 9/11 the tower would survive a plane impact.You don't seem to care he told an entire group of people at Stanford University 2002; he saw a river of steel in the basement of one of fallen towers and said a firefighter showed him this. We have firefighters on video who claim the exact same thing. And then later 2006 Leslie said nobody he knows saw molten steel. Was Leslie story a lie, give me an opinion and we can discuss it then.
That's your opinion you believe i am always wrong.

I have to use a new account as google refusing to sign me in for two days. I can't fix it there a cookie embeeded in my account i can't get rid of. So i had to sign up for proper account on boards with an email.

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.

NIST progressive collapse theory says 47 floors collapsed before the building even moved downwards. All this happened silently too on video. Nobody heard anything that would indict the building was about to collapse. I heard one bang on video and then the Penthouse collapsed a second later. The floor collapses are occurring horizontally from east to west after this according to NIST and its silence on video i have seen. There no broken windows, no dust plumes.

This only happened when building seven actually moved on video, the windows broke and dust escapes through the windows. If floors are pancaking down then why is there no broken windows or dust on any video seen? NIST got a pass and yet their theory doesn't make lot of sense.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

A training seminar on fire damage using 911 as a demonstration

Look at page 23 and 13-14 you see what i have been saying for years!