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

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 1:12am

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, how much money have you donated to Hursley's effort?

Nothing. I support the cause.

If steel framed high rise buildings collapsed all the time by fire at freefall speeds, I would call this a fraud by truthers.

Fire records and engineering history support the truther position. It really odd this happened not once for the first time on on 9/11, but three times, there something odd about it.

King Mob · 09-04-2019 1:13am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST study of WTC7 is not sound. Fire technology can publish this in a journal if they like does not change the facts. How did they verify the NIST study?

They have accepted this study as truth. When you can't even check NIST work. It hilarious and not science. They are publishing this work for political reasons.

But it was published in a peer reviewed journal, contrary to your claim mere posts ago.

Fire Technology is the journal in which the papers were published. It was not who had the papers published elsewhere.

And since the papers were published in a peer reviewed journal they were peer reviewed.
Hence you lied.

If you contend that the papers did not undergo peer review, then how did they end up in a peer reviewed journal? Are the staff of the journal also now part of the conspiracy?

You don't seem to understand how peer review works or even what it is.
You also seem to be having trouble understanding who published what where....

King Mob · 09-04-2019 1:14am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nothing. I support the cause.

Lol and that shows how much faith you have.
Pathetic.

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 1:19am

King Mob wrote: »

But it was published in a peer reviewed journal, contrary to your claim mere posts ago.

Fire Technology is the journal in which the papers were published. It was not who had the papers published elsewhere.

And since the papers were published in a peer reviewed journal they were peer reviewed.
Hence you lied.

If you contend that the papers did not undergo peer review, then how did they end up in a peer reviewed journal.

You don't seem to understand how peer review works or even what it is.
You also seem to be having trouble understanding who published what where....

I believe you have to repeat a study to verify its authenticity. Accepting something on face value is not science. You can continue to believe this study was adequately peer reviewed if you want to, I never accept it. NIST refused to release their input data for the collapse models, their study is worthless to engineers.

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 1:24am

King Mob wrote: »

Lol and that shows how much faith you have.
Pathetic.

I have faith in people who don't lie. NIST even admits they modelled a connection failure at column 79 and was unsupported. It took 5 years for the truthers to get the Frankel framing and construction drawings for building seven and they discovered the errors NIST made ( in my opinion was a fraud)

King Mob · 09-04-2019 1:27am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I believe you have to repeat a study to verify its authenticity. Accepting something on face value is not science. You can continue to believe this study was adequately peer reviewed if you want to, I never accept it. NIST refused to release their input data for the collapse models, their study is worthless to engineers.

But no one gives a crap what you believe as you've shown yourself to be utterly incapable of doing basic science and math.

You are making up this bull**** standard out of nothing because you cant admit you lied.

The report was peer reviewed.
Saying otherwise is a lie.

The conclusions of the report were presented in these series of papers (amoung dozens of others you dismissed without reading or understanding).
If the report was obviously wrong in the wayz you believe it was, or was lacking in the data it needed like you believe, then those papers would not have been published as they would not have passed peer review.
The fact it was published in a peer reviewed journal shows that the report is sound and is replicatable.

You claim otherwise, but it is more pathetic lies from a dishonest religious position.

King Mob · 09-04-2019 1:29am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have faith in people who don't lie.

Cool. So why not donate?

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 2:07am

King Mob wrote: »

But no one gives a crap what you believe as you've shown yourself to be utterly incapable of doing basic science and math.

You are making up this bull**** standard out of nothing because you cant admit you lied.

The report was peer reviewed.
Saying otherwise is a lie.

The conclusions of the report were presented in these series of papers (amoung dozens of others you dismissed without reading or understanding).
If the report was obviously wrong in the wayz you believe it was, or was lacking in the data it needed like you believe, then those papers would not have been published as they would not have passed peer review.
The fact it was published in a peer reviewed journal shows that the report is sound and is replicatable.

You claim otherwise, but it is more pathetic lies from a dishonest religious position.

Your position is flawed. They peer reviewed a fraudulent study. I have higher standards than you. If Dr Hulsey study fails a proper peer review process I accept it. Least u can see where he made mistakes after engineers are done reviewing the input data.

The official narrative about the collapses is the accepted reality by the mainstream. Does not matter if the study is flawed there was nothing else available disputing it, you don't seem to get that. Hulsey study is comparable and we can now check NIST work when it's out

NIST even admitted on camera freefall was not possible during a progressive collapse failure. Your too biased to notice this problem. You will see never through the bull**** and see the lies they tried to pass off as truth three months later.

King Mob · 09-04-2019 2:21am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your position is flawed. They peer reviewed a fraudulent study.

So then why did it pass peer review?
Was the journal part of the conspiracy?
Were the experts on the peer review panel somehow less educated and knowledgable than you, a person who can't do high school physics?

Also you now admit it was perr reviewed. Why did you claim otherwise? Why lie when you know we aren't going to believe you?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have higher standards than you.
.

Lol. Nope. You dont understand what peer review is.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If Dr Hulsey study fails a proper peer review process I accept it. Least u can see where he made mistakes after engineers are done reviewing the input data.
.

His paper isn't being undergoing a peer review process at all.
If it did it would fail immediately as the premise of the study starts from an admitted pre determined conclusion.

Overheal · 09-04-2019 4:04am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again you dismissing the importance of what happened.

On the contrary, I am explicitly quantifying what happened: it was rather minute, literally the legal bare minimum as required by law.

Where your evidence they are not going to convene a grand jury?

The 5 consecutive months of complete radio silence.

Where is your evidence that they are?

They better have a good excuse ready if they decide to not let the court do its job.

The court can only act on what prosecutors bring them. As far as I'm aware, truthers cannot get a bead on who is actually involved in this alleged conspiracy (Aliens/Real Estate Moguls/Insurance Companies/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Israel/Neocons/Janitors/etc) or even how (Thermite/Aliens/Mini-Nukes/Space Lasers) so what function exactly is the court expected to perform? A base understanding of the function of the judicial system is required here.

I have seen enough to know the NIST study is pseudoscience. I have seen the omissions and lies by them. Their video of their lies and their own models of the collapse are fraudulent. I see some of the work Hulsey has done and it's more detailed and comprehensive. Hulsey is studying stuff NIST never did in their study in time this will be shown.

You haven't seen any of the work he has done - save for a powerpoint presentation. Do not lie. To suggest his one powerpoint presentation is somehow more detailed and comprehensive than the NIST body of work or the wider body of academia that has since surrounded it, is utterly psychotic.

He is doing the job full time and not a huge salary he taking home. Some of the highest paid architects earn 120 000 a year.

Except, what he is doing isn't architecture: it's social engineering.

How did they verify the NIST study?

You might be able to answer your own question by reading their studies. Opening the links would be a start.

I believe you have to repeat a study to verify its authenticity.

Replication is not the only method by which peer review is conducted. Indeed, replication is not always possible. A scientist may be the only one to observe a rare species in the tropics, or a geological event. Just a few days ago the LHC detected for the first time anywhere, a particle with 5 quarks. NASA also makes breakthroughs on a fairly regular basis, which are impossible to replicate given that oftentimes these breakthroughs come from single sources of data collection, like deep space probes.

How Stuff Works: Scientific Peer Review

They peer reviewed a fraudulent study.

Then they would have reported that. Just as scientists peer reviewed, then reported Dr. Hwang Woo Suk frabricated his research on stem cells. Just as peer review has bunked numerous claims of cold fusion over the years, or devices that defy the first law of thermodynamics. There are an awful lot of subsequent studies and cross-studies surrounding 9/11 that it would be amazing for so many scientists and bodies to be in on this. Again, such a theory suffers from the need to explain how thousands of people and hundreds of disparate organizations - many of whom are from countries not aligned with the US, not aligned with the US' enemies, or even not aligned with each other; but I suppose they all just got together in a room one afternoon and chose do this crazy false flag you and other truthers allege, with no leaks?

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-04-2019 7:01am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again you dismissing the importance of what happened. Where your evidence they are not going to convene a grand jury? This is just wishful thinking by Skeptics right now. There powerful forces who will not want this to happen, but that's not surprising. They better have a good excuse ready if they decide to not let the court do its job.

I have seen enough to know the NIST study is pseudoscience. I have seen the omissions and lies by them. Their video of their lies and their own models of the collapse are fraudulent. I see some of the work Hulsey has done and it's more detailed and comprehensive. Hulsey is studying stuff NIST never did in their study in time this will be shown.

Can you link us to this please so we can see it for ourselves?

King Mob · 09-04-2019 7:05am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you link us to this please so we can see it for ourselves?

The only thing thats been released has been that one power point presentation.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-04-2019 7:15am

King Mob wrote: »

The only thing thats been released has been that one power point presentation.

But he said

it's more detailed and comprehensive.

Haven't used PowerPoint in a while myself, are there new fonts? Does he do the jiggery pokery with the slide transitions? I really wanna see this now

King Mob · 09-04-2019 8:32am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But he said

Haven't used PowerPoint in a while myself, are there new fonts? Does he do the jiggery pokery with the slide transitions? I really wanna see this now

Well given that the only parts of the NIST report cheerful has read are the title and the one bit that mentions free fall...

Dohnjoe · 09-04-2019 10:46am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nothing. I support the cause.

If steel framed high rise buildings collapsed all the time by fire at freefall speeds, I would call this a fraud by truthers.

So according to your logic, which you keep repeating over and over, something has to happen repeatedly for it to be true

Yet your theory is that WTC 7 was secretly blown up in a way never seen before or since, a total one off

Contradicting your own false logic

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 8:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

So then why did it pass peer review?
Was the journal part of the conspiracy?
Were the experts on the peer review panel somehow less educated and knowledgable than you, a person who can't do high school physics?

Also you now admit it was perr reviewed. Why did you claim otherwise? Why lie when you know we aren't going to believe you?

Lol. Nope. You dont understand what peer review is.

His paper isn't being undergoing a peer review process at all.
If it did it would fail immediately as the premise of the study starts from an admitted pre determined conclusion.

I did some research into it and found out the editor in chief of Fire technology is a guy named Guillermo Rein.

You find his bio online if you type this into google Curriculum Vitae : Guillermo Rein - Imperial College London. He lists NIST (USA) as one group who sponsored research of his before 2006.

I suspect this paper was published because of who the authors and affiliates are and who was doing the reviewing.

I think the rules to change if bad science papers are sneaking through the system. You can't have a fraudulent paper sneak past unchecked.

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 8:35pm

Overheal wrote: »

On the contrary, I am explicitly quantifying what happened: it was rather minute, literally the legal bare minimum as required by law.

The 5 consecutive months of complete radio silence.

Where is your evidence that they are?

The court can only act on what prosecutors bring them. As far as I'm aware, truthers cannot get a bead on who is actually involved in this alleged conspiracy (Aliens/Real Estate Moguls/Insurance Companies/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Israel/Neocons/Janitors/etc) or even how (Thermite/Aliens/Mini-Nukes/Space Lasers) so what function exactly is the court expected to perform? A base understanding of the function of the judicial system is required here.

You haven't seen any of the work he has done - save for a powerpoint presentation. Do not lie. To suggest his one powerpoint presentation is somehow more detailed and comprehensive than the NIST body of work or the wider body of academia that has since surrounded it, is utterly psychotic.

Except, what he is doing isn't architecture: it's social engineering.

You might be able to answer your own question by reading their studies. Opening the links would be a start.

Replication is not the only method by which peer review is conducted. Indeed, replication is not always possible. A scientist may be the only one to observe a rare species in the tropics, or a geological event. Just a few days ago the LHC detected for the first time anywhere, a particle with 5 quarks. NASA also makes breakthroughs on a fairly regular basis, which are impossible to replicate given that oftentimes these breakthroughs come from single sources of data collection, like deep space probes.

How Stuff Works: Scientific Peer Review

Then they would have reported that. Just as scientists peer reviewed, then reported Dr. Hwang Woo Suk frabricated his research on stem cells. Just as peer review has bunked numerous claims of cold fusion over the years, or devices that defy the first law of thermodynamics. There are an awful lot of subsequent studies and cross-studies surrounding 9/11 that it would be amazing for so many scientists and bodies to be in on this. Again, such a theory suffers from the need to explain how thousands of people and hundreds of disparate organizations - many of whom are from countries not aligned with the US, not aligned with the US' enemies, or even not aligned with each other; but I suppose they all just got together in a room one afternoon and chose do this crazy false flag you and other truthers allege, with no leaks?

Not true. It not the truthers job to find the culprits, its the of the law of the land job.

Truthers have presented evidence of demolition. It listed on their website the evidence they send.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition. The July 30th Amended Petition included the same evidence but also addressed several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition.

I follow all the work Dr Hulsey is doing, I listen to interviews and watch the video they have released. He has already highlighted on video the problems with the NIST study. He has shown ABAQUS modelling of the floor system in building seven and shown were NIST is incorrect.

Even on video, he shows a graph of his studies compared to what NIST did.This work he was doing in 2016 and probably even more expanded since then. UAF is Hulsey work.

Dohnjoe · 09-04-2019 8:39pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did some research into it and found out the editor in chief of Fire technology is a guy named Guillermo Rein.

You find his bio online if you type this into google Curriculum Vitae : Guillermo Rein - Imperial College London. He lists NIST (USA) as one group who sponsored research of his before 2006.

I suspect this paper was published because of who the authors and affiliates are and who was doing the reviewing.

I think the rules to change if bad science papers are sneaking through the system. You can't have a fraudulent paper sneak past unchecked.

This guy is a crank?

4. Research
4.1 Overview of Funding
Since 2006, I have won in excess of £4 million in funds to sponsor my research from a range
of scientific and industrial sponsors, including ERC (2015 Consolidator Grant), EPSRC, Arup,
Leverhulme Trust, RAEng, BASF Germany, NIST USA, FM Global USA, BSEF Belgium, Research
Council of Norway, BRE UK, CSC China, SFPE USA, CERIB France, NFPA USA, and Met Office
UK.
4.2 Most important Prizes and Awards
2018 Guise Medal for eminent achievement in the advancement of the science and
technology of fire protection engineering, awarded by the Society of Fire Protection
Engineering.
2018 Research Foundation Medal for the research project that best exemplifies the NFPA
Foundation’s fire safety mission, technical challenges overcome, and collaborative
approach. Awarded by the National Fire Protection Association.
2017 Sudgen Award for the most significant UK paper in combustion, by The British Section
of The Combustion Institute.
2017 Collaborate to Innovate Prize in the Built Environment, awarded by The Engineer for
our work with Arup on the structural fire-safe design of the Scalpel in London.
2016 Early Career Award for Excellence in Wildland Fire for demonstrated outstanding
ability in the field of fire science, by the International Association of Wildland Fire.
2016 Peter Lund Award for significant contributions to the advancement of the professional
recognition of the fire protection engineer by the Society of Fire Protection Engineering.
2015 Best Fire Research Project for our work on travelling fires methodology for the
structural design of modern buildings by the UK Chapter of Society of Fire Protection
Engineering.
2013 Distinguished Paper Award on Fire Research at the 34th International Symposium
on Combustion for our research paper on the chemistry of smouldering combustion by
The Combustion Institute.
2009 Hinshelwood Prize for meritorious work in combustion by a younger scientist by The
British Section of The Combustion Institute.
2009 Distinguished Paper Award on Fire Research at the 32nd International Symposium
on Combustion for our paper the carbon emissions from smouldering peat by The
Combustion Institute.
2007 FM Global Award for best paper presented at the 5th International Seminar on Fire
and Explosion Hazards for our paper on a-priori modelling predictions of the large-scale
Dalmarnock fire experiments.
4.3 Other Prizes and Awards
2017 3rd Prize for Best Poster at the 2017 Fire Retardant Polymeric Materials.
2017 Best Poster Award at the 12th Symposium on Fire Safety Science.
2016 Cover article in journal Bioresource Technology, volume 207, issue May 2016 (for paper
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.027).
2016 Sentinels of Science Award from Publons for being among the top 10% peer reviewers.
2015 Chief Donald J. Burns Memorial Research Grant from Society of Fire Protection
Engineering (USA) for Fire Navigator - Forecasting fire dynamics in smart buildings
3/22
2015 Excellent Poster Award at 10th Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology
for Expandable Polystyrene Foam Spot Fire Ignition by Hot Metal Particle.
2015 Best Poster Award at 2th European Symposium on Fire Safety Science for An
Experimental Study of the Spread Profiles in Smouldering Wildfires.
2014 Best Speaker at the 2nd Annual Tunnels Fire & Safety Forum, Amsterdam.
2014 Best Photo Award at the 11th Symposium on Fire Safety Science for Fire Watch
Constellation.
2014 Best Poster Award at the 11th Symposium on Fire Safety Science for Computational
Smouldering Combustion: Predicting the Roles of Moisture and Inert Contents in Peat
Wildfires.
2013 Best Poster Award at 4th International Fire Effects on Soil Properties conference for
Effect of peat moisture content on smouldering fire propagation.
2011 Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in Technology for the paper The Influence of Travelling
Fires on a Concrete Frame.
2010 Best Poster Award at 2010 Spring Meeting of the British Section of The Combustion
Institute, for Experimental Review of the Homogeneous Temperature Assumption in
Post-Flashover Compartment Fires.
2010 Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in Technology for the paper A Novel Multiscale
Methodology for Simulating Tunnel Ventilation Flows during Fires.
2009 15th Lord Ezra Award for outstanding achievement in the study of combustion
engineering, Combustion Engineering Association for developing the STAR smouldering
technology for remediation of contaminated soils.
2008 Best Poster Award Audience Choice at the 9th Symposium on Fire Safety Science for Fire
Fighting Coal Mine Fires: Characterization and extinguishing methods using small-scale
Experiments.
2007 Bodycote Warrington Fire Research Prize for best paper, The Institution of Fire
Engineers for our paper on the Dalmarnock fire experiments.

Because at one point he was sponsored by National Institute of Standards and Technology?

Dohnjoe · 09-04-2019 8:42pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Truthers have presented evidence of demolition.

No they haven't, not one shred of credible evidence. They don't even have a theory. You made yours up during debates on this forum and it changes every other day

It listed on their website the evidence they send.

It's not evidence of a demolition, it's nonsense. Stuff like the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did. That's not evidence, that's insanity.

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 8:45pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This guy is a crank?

Because at one point he was sponsored by National Institute of Standards and Technology?

Never said he was a crank. He was receiving funding from NIST prior to publishing these reports.

Dohnjoe · 09-04-2019 8:51pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Never said he was a crank. He was receiving funding from NIST prior to publishing these reports.

and?

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 8:53pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No they haven't, not one shred of credible evidence. They don't even have a theory. You made yours up during debates on this forum and it changes every other day

It's not evidence of a demolition, it's nonsense. Stuff like the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did. That's not evidence, that's insanity.

Says Dohnjoe who has a bias against all conspiracies. You will ignore evidence all day long.

You guys even denied the doctors and medical staff at Bethesda and Parkland are telling the truth about the JFK assassination. Skeptics are a crazy bunch of people.

Evidence for demolition- is based off the engineering, history and fire records, eye witness accounts, NIST lies and scientific research.

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 9:11pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So according to your logic, which you keep repeating over and over, something has to happen repeatedly for it to be true

Yet your theory is that WTC 7 was secretly blown up in a way never seen before or since, a total one off

Contradicting your own false logic

This one-off looks like a controlled demolition. There no evidence fire collapsed the building. NIST even admits the steel from WTC7 was shipped away and melted down before any investigation could take place.

NIST would not lie if the fire was the cause. They even went away and fixed their study of six years after they got exposed at their own briefing on the collapse of building seven. NIST was asked a direct question in Aug 2008 about freefall and they denied the possibility and they listed the reasons why during this meeting. Three months, later ( they released a newly revised study) and freefall was possible and they knew it all along, bull****, only truthers can see through this crap.

Never mind the modelled the failure at column 79 incorrectly without support elements. A steel girder can collapse unsupported in a fire. The reality is the girder and steel beams at column 79 are not unsupported.

Dohnjoe · 09-04-2019 9:24pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Evidence for demolition- is based off the engineering, history and fire records, eye witness accounts, NIST lies and scientific research.

Conspiracies and inside jobs have happened throughout history

There's no credible evidence of controlled demolition inside job on 911. It doesn't exist, only in the minds of a few zealous believers who can't even explain what the theory is, let alone support it

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-04-2019 9:25pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This one-off looks like a controlled demolition. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH EVERYTHING I HAVE POSTED IN THE OTHER THREAD BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH COPY/PASTE/REPEAT BLAH BLAH BLAHHHHHHHH

:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring · 09-04-2019 9:52pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Conspiracies and inside jobs have happened throughout history

There's no credible evidence of controlled demolition inside job on 911. It doesn't exist, only in the minds of a few zealous believers who can't even explain what the theory is, let alone support it

Factually incorrect.

1) WTC7 came down just like a controlled demolition- implosion.
2) History and fire records don't support NIST theory
3) NIST denied anyone heard an explosion- a lie and not supported. There video you can hear an enormous bang before the Penthouse fell in. There even reports from the near building of people hearing bangs.
4) we can see the windows broke from bottom up to the top at right corner west wall- evidence of controlled demolition.

5) NIST could only get the building to collapse in the remodel of the collapse when they left the girder unsupported without its elements
6) we have evidence of high temp steel melting at WTC7. NIST denied melting occurred and claimed office fire would never get that hot. You left with some unanswered questions when did the steel corrode- melt whatever language you prefer to use?

7) NIST does not explain where the dust after 47 floors of concrete collapsed went prior to full collapse.
8) NIST modelling calculations are not accurate. You can time the collapse on video.
9) There modelling is showing a crushed building when it fell, unlike the real collapse on 9/11.

There so many problems with the NIST theory and the evidence is way stronger the building was brought down by controlled demolition. It explains the observations by people and why the building fell down in a symmetrical way into its own footprint.

King Mob · 09-04-2019 11:10pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did some research into it and found out the editor in chief of Fire technology is a guy named Guillermo Rein.

You find his bio online if you type this into google Curriculum Vitae : Guillermo Rein - Imperial College London. He lists NIST (USA) as one group who sponsored research of his before 2006.

I suspect this paper was published because of who the authors and affiliates are and who was doing the reviewing.

I think the rules to change if bad science papers are sneaking through the system. You can't have a fraudulent paper sneak past unchecked.

Lol. Pathetic.
This is honestly your most dishonest and desperate point yet.

You are so desperate to avoid the fact you lied you are once again throwing another organisation into the conspiracy based on absolutely nothing at all.

The NIST report was peer reviewed. Stating otherwise is denying reality.
You are in denial of reality.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

the building fell down in a symmetrical way into its own footprint.

That's factually incorrect.

Overheal · 09-04-2019 11:34pm

Cheerul Spring wrote:

He has shown ABAQUS modelling of the floor system in building seven and shown were NIST is incorrect.

So where are his files? Where's the hard data and calculations? That's the standard you've applied to NIST, why does it not apply to Hulsey?

Truthers have presented evidence of demolition. It listed on their website the evidence they send.

Then why wait for the Hulsey study? Or rather, why not wait for the Hulsey study to make this petition, if the Hulsey study is allegedly the lynchpin?

The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition. The July 30th Amended Petition included the same evidence but also addressed several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition.

This was all a year ago. Stale information, all things that have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum before, debunked, and clearly none of this 'evidence' has reached acceptance in the scientific community or been disseminated at large.

But again, this thread is about Hulsey.

Dohnjoe · 09-04-2019 11:39pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

1) WTC7 came down just like a controlled demolition- implosion.

Cool. Didn't look or sound anything like a controlled demolition to me.

2) History and fire records don't support NIST theory

We know steel structures have partially collapsed and fully collapsed due to fire. Also, records don't "have to" support it, it was a unique event.

3) NIST denied anyone heard an explosion- a lie and not supported. There video you can hear an enormous bang before the Penthouse fell in. There even reports from the near building of people hearing bangs.

There was no explosive sound captured, and yup, people heard explosions all day, that's because stuff was on fire and exploding, fuel tanks from cars, transformers, you name it - buildings burning and disintegrating make a lot of noise

4) we can see the windows broke from bottom up to the top at right corner west wall- evidence of controlled demolition.

No it isn't.

5) NIST could only get the building to collapse in the remodel of the collapse when they left the girder unsupported without its elements

Nitpicking. Not evidence of a controlled demolition

6) we have evidence of high temp steel melting at WTC7. NIST denied melting occurred and claimed office fire would never get that hot.

Nah, melted metals. Again, no evidence of a controlled demolition

7) NIST does not explain where the dust after 47 floors of concrete collapsed went prior to full collapse.

Again, bizarre thing to pick up on. Not evidence of a controlled demo

8) NIST modelling calculations are not accurate. You can time the collapse on video.

Your personal opinion, but not evidence of a demo

9) There modelling is showing a crushed building when it fell, unlike the real collapse on 9/11.

It was a computer simulation to see if the building would fail as it did. And that's what happened. You just seem to think it has to literally "look like it" to qualify

There so many problems with the NIST theory and the evidence is way stronger the building was brought down by controlled demolition. It explains the observations by people and why the building fell down in a symmetrical way into its own footprint.

Attacking a report because it threatens your conspiracy theory is not evidence of a controlled demolition, none of these points are

Again, you have provided zero credible evidence for a controlled demolition. You can't answer basic questions on this "controlled demolition", you struggle to outline it and your theory changes almost every time I ask for it

A theory that is entirely unique to you and different from any other 911 truther

Overheal · 09-04-2019 11:46pm

7) NIST does not explain where the dust after 47 floors of concrete collapsed went prior to full collapse.

Next you'll complain they didn't account for the location of every office chair after the collapse.

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

Comments