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

banie01 wrote: »

Are multiple accounts not against the site rules?

I can't use my other account. I locked out by google can't fix it. I'm the same person, not pretending to be someone else when i post here.

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.

Not just exercises they were mirroring the actual attacks. The exercises involved hijacked planes. Norad for that reason was having trouble telling the real from the fake. It standard false flag method to confuse everyone to what was happening in the air. The airforce workers were complaining on video was this real world or exercise when the hijacking began. And some even were saying why have they not shut down the exercises yet? The order to shut it down only came after the last plane crashed.

It fishy the terrorists picked this day to do it.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Despite what Kingmob claims, thermite cutting charges have been used to bring down steel structures. There are examples you can find online and I believe Metabunk also found some historical references thermite being used in the past to collapse steel structures.

But cheerful, I didnt say structures. I said buildings.

Steel structures have collapsed due to fire, yet you whinge that they don't count.
You cant have it both ways.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I can't use my other account. I locked out by google can't fix it. I'm the same person, not pretending to be someone else when i post here.

You forgot your password.
Dont go inventing an elaborate google conspiracy.

King Mob wrote: »

But cheerful, I didnt say structures. I said buildings.

Steel structures have collapsed due to fire, yet you whinge that they don't count.
You cant have it both ways.

A Controlled demolition is just removing the steel supports ie columns to allow the building to fall down. Could the Nanothermite have removed the columns and caused the building to collapse, thats Ae911 truth claim yes.
The truthers don't claim they found thermite. They claim always they found an exotic military engineered type of thermite ( super thermite or nanothermite) There experiments done by Livermore labs- but nobody has actually seen the substance been used to blow up stuff. It classified research. Truthers claim this substance was found in the dust and released a study about their findings. Independent chemists contacted Ae911 truth to get samples, and they too discovered the chips are nanothermite chips. We have one debunker a scientist who was involved in the official dust study who posted on international Skeptic forum who said he found no elemental (Al) in his samples and said he would release a peer review study soon. That was 2012 and since has disappeared and released nothing to confirm his findings.

King Mob wrote: »

You forgot your password.
Dont go inventing an elaborate google conspiracy.

There a cookie, i can't remove, it not talking to google to allow me to sign in. It could be a bug or something, not sure. I unstalled google chrome to try fix it, but still there. Not a big deal, can't use the account to sign in and be like that since friday.

banie01

King Mob wrote: »

You forgot your password.
Dont go inventing an elaborate google conspiracy.

Its the whole world against cheerful, even Google now.

@Cheerful, the report you mention.
The volume of the report is irrelevant.
Its based on a flawed assumption.

Long before 9/11 it was known that the "lost plane" in landing configuration is what the Towers were designed to sustain.

Sustain means to stay intact long enough to allow an evacuation.
In that regard considering the towers were impacted by forces an order of magnitude greater, they performed amazingly well.

You are now dismissing the statements of the man who led the design effort, and knows better than anyone what was considered in its design.
Again, you are a liar and a timesink.

Anyway enough of your waffle and deflection, unless some part of Hulsey's report deals with those impacts?

banie01

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

There a cookie, i can't remove, it not talking to google to allow me to sign in. It could be a bug or something, not sure. I unstalled google chrome to try fix it, but still there. Not a big deal, can't use the account to sign in and be like that since friday.

Can't use a VPN?
Can't figure out Tor?
Cookies are a causing issues with sign in?

But CS is an investigative genius who is cracking the NWO and Neo-Liberal conspiracy to keep us in the dark :pac:

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

A Controlled demolition is just removing the steel supports ie columns to allow the building to fall down. .

Cool. Please show a building of comparable size to the wtc that was demolished using thermite.
Please show an example of where large amou ts of flowing molten steel was found in such a building.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

There a cookie, i can't remove, it not talking to google to allow me to sign in. It could be a bug or something, not sure. I unstalled google chrome to try fix it, but still there. Not a big deal, can't use the account to sign in and be like that since friday.

I don't know if funnier if this is a lie or if its the real reason..

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.

This theory was speculated years ago the planes were taken over by uninterruptible autopilot. Truthers claim this explains why all four planes communications went dead suddenly and none of the 8 pilots radioed in they were hijacked. It's an interesting theory, but nobody can truly prove it. Personally i believe there was planes hijacked by real people on 9/11, but it also curious we don't have a full picture of the past lives of the 19 hijackers. There no video of this men shown on TV. There no martyrdom video, no history of how they got recruited- there lot of gaps in the official history of 9/11. Mohammed Atta is the most well known and he life is very mysterious. He got a scholarship from the Carl Duisberg Society, to go to Hamburg. It wrongly said he was send there by Al Qeada. Carl Duisberg Society took an interest in Atta is very curious. Carl Duisberg Society paid for his housing and education. The US deep state heavily invested in the Carl Duisberg society work.

banie01 wrote: »

Can't use a VPN?
Can't figure out Tor?
Cookies are a causing issues with sign in?

But CS is an investigative genius who is cracking the NWO and Neo-Liberal conspiracy to keep us in the dark :pac:

I was using my google account to sign in.
It was not allowing me to since Friday.
It could be bug and could be change in my google settings causing an issue. I looked it up change of location could cause an issue they said on the website- but i never changed my location so i don't know what the issue is. There cookie issue it said in element page.
Tried everything to fix it and can't.
Unstalled chrome removed everything.
I using a proper account now by signing up to boards.ie. I don't post to conspiracy forums using a different account, cheerful in the name is giveway its me still.

banie01 wrote: »

Its the whole world against cheerful, even Google now.

@Cheerful, the report you mention.
The volume of the report is irrelevant.
Its based on a flawed assumption.

Long before 9/11 it was known that the "lost plane" in landing configuration is what the Towers were designed to sustain.

Sustain means to stay intact long enough to allow an evacuation.
In that regard considering the towers were impacted by forces an order of magnitude greater, they performed amazingly well.

You are now dismissing the statements of the man who led the design effort, and knows better than anyone what was considered in its design.
Again, you are a liar and a timesink.

Anyway enough of your waffle and deflection, unless some part of Hulsey's report deals with those impacts?

Why is a false assumption?
Based on what?
They showed you the screenshots of the red/chips under a microscope and provided all the experiments they did.
Dr Milette failure to provide a successful debunk is telling. Do you not care he promised the Skeptic community a peer review paper and has failed to do so since 2012?

The towers have not changed since they were built. The same steel was there, so they obviously knew what the impact force would be.

Read the link Dohnjoe provided. Arup Engineering said the reason the towers failed was due to missing fireproofing. Tests proved in past steel would not collapse in 1000c heat condition. They ruled out office fire and plane impact would cause a structural failure at WTC ( this was obvious to me years ago) They are saying the fireproofing was knocked off by the plane- so this report saying something i believe was true years ago.
I have a hard time trusting someone who tells a life experience story and then changes it as if never happened and denies it. You still don't give me answer why he said that in 2002?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

This theory was speculated years ago the planes were taken over by uninterruptible autopilot.

It was something made up by a bunch of people on the internet with their imagination.

It differs completely from the thing you made up with your imagination.

Therefore you will be arguing vociferously against it.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Why is a false assumption?
Based on what?
They showed you the screenshots of the red/chips under a microscope and provided all the experiments they did.
Dr Milette failure to provide a successful debunk is telling. Do you not care he promised the Skeptic community a peer review paper and has failed to do so since 2012?

The towers have not changed since they were built. The same steel was there, so they obviously knew what the impact force would be.

Read the link Dohnjoe provided. Arup Engineering said the reason the towers failed was due to missing fireproofing. Tests proved in past steel would not collapse in 1000c heat condition. They ruled out office fire and plane impact would cause a structural failure at WTC ( this was obvious to me years ago) They are saying the fireproofing was knocked off by the plane- so this report saying something i believe was true years ago.
I have a hard time trusting someone who tells a life experience story and then changes it as if never happened and denies it. You still don't give me answer why he said that in 2002?

It's very telling that you're refusing to actually discuss hulsey's report now.
You're going off on mad tangents because either you realise hulsey's report is a joke or because you don't understand it or it's technical nature.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

steel would not collapse in 1000c heat condition.

Woah woah there, absolute nonsense

A paper on steel resistance to fire in WTC

https://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/35/paper/71sakumo.pdf

This paper verifies analytically the fire resistance of the World Trade Center’s steel frames and also examines precautions
to be taken in designing skyscrapers.
In the analysis, the temperature increase of steel members for the columns (perimeter and core columns) and the floor
trusses of the World Trade Center, when subjected to heating by hydrocarbon fire and standard fire, was calculated in
case the steel members were adequately fire-protected and in case they were not fire-protected (or in case the fire
protection was blown off). The fire resistance of these steel members was also verified by thermal deformation analysis.
The analysis revealed that, compared with the columns (core columns) of heavy sections, the floor trusses composed of
light-gauge steel members, even if fire-protected or not, experienced a temperature increase at a more rapid pace, that
the increase in steel temperature posed restraint on thermal deformation, thereby causing the steel members to buckle
and leading eventually to the failure of the floor trusses at a relatively low temperature, and that a larger restraint acted
on the end connections.

It will be attacked by our resident truther

There is a century of fire tests on steel

King Mob wrote: »

It's very telling that you're refusing to actually discuss hulsey's report now.
You're going off on mad tangents because either you realise hulsey's report is a joke or because you don't understand it or it's technical nature.

Owl a new poster, so i am replying to him. It nice to see new people around here for a change.
Mick West lying about the Hulsey study and thats where you went looking for debunking information..
Mick not acting in good faith, he leaving out many things that would not support his argument.
Mick originally claimed Dr Hulsey used the wrong abaqus to remove columns for progressive collapse. When he was shown to be wrong about that, he never admitted his mistake. He just ignored it and claimed Hulsey does not know what he doing? A teacher of structural engineering at a university is stupid and Mick West experience of structural engnerring is better, really?

All university and FEA expert would disagree with Mick West
ASCE papers were provided to Mick and his claim that you don't use static linear analysis for column removal is false.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Owl a new poster, so i am replying to him.

And you did so by misrepresenting my argument, then you ran away when you were caught out. Again.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Mick West lying about the Hulsey study and thats where you went looking for debunking information..
Mick not acting in good faith, he leaving out many things that would not support his argument.
Mick originally claimed Dr Hulsey used the wrong abaqus to remove columns for progressive collapse. When he was shown to be wrong about that, he never admitted his mistake.

All lies.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

He just ignored it and claimed Hulsey does not know what he doing? A teacher of structural engineering at a university is stupid and Mick West experience of structural engnerring is better, really?

Again, you have accused dozens of scientists and experts of being stupid, liars and criminals based on nothing but your own delusions.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

All university and FEA expert would disagree with Mick West
ASCE papers were provided to Mick and his claim that you don't use static linear analysis for column removal is false.

Again, lies because you don't understand what you are talking about.

You moaning about Mick West and accusing him of things behind his back is not discussing Hulsey's paper.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Mick West lying about the Hulsey study

Mick not acting in good faith

You attack this guy simply because he's the moderator of a forum of skeptics that exposes your endless disinfo and nonsense on the subject. That's it.

All university and FEA expert would disagree with Mick West

Made-up stuff

ASCE papers were provided to Mick and his claim that you don't use static linear analysis for column removal is false.

The ASCE supports the NIST report, they took part in it (as well as the FEMA report)

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Woah woah there, absolute nonsense

Read the pages in the link you provided.

A steel structure was on fire for 4 hours and stood. Tests have been carried out since the 90s. No columns, girders and beams collapsed during these experiments The fires were 1000c.

The Arup enignerring firm on page 23 claimed the reason both tower failed, was the fireproofing protection was no longer there. They ruled out fire and plane caused the collapse. It fairly obvious no fire going to collapse the tower in 45 minutes. The fireproofing would prevent failure. So thats their theory.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Read the pages in the link you provided.

A steel structure was on fire for 4 hours and stood. Tests have been carried out since the 90s. No columns, girders and beams collapsed during these experiments The fires were 1000c.

The Arup enignerring firm on page 23 claimed the reason both tower failed, was the fireproofing protection was no longer there. They ruled out fire and plane caused the collapse. It fairly obvious no fire going to collapse the tower in 45 minutes. The fireproofing would prevent failure. So thats their theory.

Again, you are trying to deflect from hulsey's report because you don't want to admit it's crap or that you don't understand it.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You attack this guy simply because he's the moderator of a forum of skeptics that exposes your endless disinfo and nonsense on the subject. That's it.

Made-up stuff

The ASCE supports the NIST report, they took part in it (as well as the FEMA report)

I attacking Mick for lying about the study.
I have no problem if he was just pointing out serious flaws with it. These flaws are all in his own mind. When shown to be wrong, he just ignores it.
I have watched Mick videos, have you? If you knew nothing about the Hulsey study, Mick rambles make sense. Mick a liar.
Has he talked with an enigneer yet who has actually found some real genuine flaws?
Mick posted two times since the data came out and not really a debunk yet. He just posted models that showed Hulsey did real FEA work.
Fact is ASCE research paper refutes Mick allegations about progressive column removal. ASCE agrees with NIST is irrelevent, this is about Hulsey study.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I attacking Mick for lying about the study.

You attack science, world historians, anyone or anything that contradicts the way you view the world

It's a psychological issue

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I attacking Mick for lying about the study.
I have no problem if he was just pointing out serious flaws with it. These flaws are all in his own mind. When shown to be wrong, he just ignores it.
I have watched Mick videos, have you? If you knew nothing about the Hulsey study, Mick rambles make sense. Mick a liar.
Has he talked with an enigneer yet who has actually found some real genuine flaws?
Mick posted two times since the data came out and not really a debunk yet. He just posted models that showed Hulsey did real FEA work.
Fact is ASCE research paper refutes Mick allegations about progressive column removal. ASCE agrees with NIST is irrelevent, this is about Hulsey study.

Again you are attacking him with accusations riddled with grammatical errors.
It's clear that again you just don't actually understand what you are talking about.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You attack science, world historians, anyone or anything that contradicts the way you view the world

It's a psychological issue

Show me the science NIST did. All there is hundreds of pages of technical words.
NIST can prove their claims now by releasing their data.
View of the world- 9/11 was inside job. All the evidence shows that. It amazing you still deny there was a conspiracy, when Fox News in 2019 is airing the allegations that Saudi Arabia helped the 9/11 hijackers. This conspiracy still not fully fleshed out how they knew the hijackers were going to do this and what they told their allies in the United States before it happened.
You seem to think everything already know and thats end of the story.
George Tenet lied to a congress and said the CIA was unware of 9/11 hijackers entering the country in 2000. That been shown to be lie by futher investigations and yet nothing was done about it. There no real culpability. It sad to say this real world these guys are untouchable liars.

Another 9/11 style attack likely to occur in the future, you get away it you likely do it again when needed in the future.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Show me the science NIST did. All there is hundreds of pages of technical words.
NIST can prove their claims now by releasing their data.
View of the world- 9/11 was inside job. All the evidence shows that. It amazing you still deny there was a conspiracy, when Fox News in 2019 is airing the allegations that Saudi Arabia helped the 9/11 hijackers. This conspiracy still not fully fleshed out how they knew the hijackers were going to do this and what they told their allies in the United States before it happened.
You seem to think everything already know and thats end of the story.
George Tenet lied to a congress and said the CIA was unware of 9/11 hijackers entering the country in 2000. That been shown to be lie by futher investigations and yet nothing was done about it. There no real culpability. It sad to say this real world these guys are untouchable liars.

Another 9/11 style attack likely to occur in the future, you get away it you likely do it again when needed in the future.

Again, more waffling deflecting to try and change the topic away from hulsey's report.
This is because you can't defend it.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, more waffling deflecting to try and change the topic away from hulsey's report.
This is because you can't defend it.

What wrong with it?
What your issue with it?
Name any enigneer has come out claiming its bull****?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Show me the science NIST did.

Nope. Nothing can stop you denying anything and everything you want. No one can "prove" to you that e.g. man landed on the moon. No one could prove it to me either if I so choose, any effort to do so would be completely futile.

That's subjective denialism, and it's simple.

It's why science and history aren't built on denialism. Coincidentally, notice that Hulsey's report is proving a negative.

Conspiracy theories like 911 function almost entirely on denialism.