Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

24567…37

Comments

  • #52
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    He says while ignoring pretty much every question put to you.

    The chips don't really matter when everything else about your theory is silly and makes no coherent sense.
    Even if we couldn't explain what the chips were (We can and did. Repeatedly) and your argument held that they were thermite (Shown repeatedly it doesn't hold.) your theory would still be contradictory nonsense because you can't answer any basic logical questions about it.

    Like for example:
    How did people not notice the large dust filled cardboard boxes being brought in and left by random students?

    You don't understand the debate. The only scientist to refute the claims was Dr Milette and he claims he found no elemental aluminium in the chip he tested. Everyone else who looked at the chips disputes this. Dr Milette then said he release a peer review paper debunking this and still hasn't. Why not when he was opposed to this?


  • #53
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,192 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The chips were shown in the Harrit paper.

    lol, no they weren't.


  • #54
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You don't understand the debate. The only scientist to refute the claims was Dr Milette and he claims he found no elemental aluminium in the chip he tested. Everyone else who looked at the chips disputes this. Dr Milette then said he release a peer review paper debunking this and still hasn't. Why not when he was opposed to this?
    I ignore the debate as it's irrelevant in the face of the giant gaping holes in the theory that you are unable to answer and are dishonestly trying to get away from.

    Even if your expert did show those chips were thermite, your theory is still self contradictory childish nonsense that you can't keep straight.


  • #55
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope. I don't have to refute anything.
    Firstly, it's been refuted to you many times. You just don't understand what was explained to you.
    Secondly, even if it wasn't, your theory doesn't make sense at all.

    You've admitted there's no reason why they would use nanothermite.

    If they had to demolish the building, they'd just use explosives.
    Using nanothermite offers no benefit.

    Yes, you do, this is how science works. Refuting something on a forum is not science.

    You don't even know the basic disagreements so stop pretending you do.

    The nano-thermite was found in the dust and was obviously did not appear naturally.


  • #56
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yes, you do, this is how science works. Refuting something on a forum is not science.
    Lol:rolleyes:
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You don't even know the basic disagreements so stop pretending you do.

    The nano-thermite was found in the dust and was obviously did not appear naturally.
    Ok, I will play pretend with you.
    Let's say for the sake of our game of pretend, that the dust is thermite...

    Now:
    You said that the thermite was placed in boxes next to the members.
    How did the people in the building not notice these boxes?


  • #57
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    lol, no they weren't.

    Yes, they were.

    Clear images of the chips in the Harrit paper. Harrit proved the chips were not paint so what else could they be?
    477029.png


  • #58
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Damn

    I thought we were finally going to see this magical report that CS has been waffling about for so long now, instead it's just CS repeating/copy/pasting his same claims over and over. Why has this thread turned into a mirror of the last thread within one page? :confused:

    Could someone Please P.M me if this report is ever released and added to the thread?


  • #59
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,192 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yes, they were.

    They weren't "chips of nano-thermite". The Harrit "report" was unscientific and has been thoroughly debunked - this has been explained in the thread, if you personally don't accept it, that's your issue. If you are going to present debunked misinformation as fact then you are being called out on it.

    That is completely aside from this theory you've suddenly entered into the debate

    And this is what we are addressing, you claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition


  • #60
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Damn

    I thought we were finally going to see this magical report that CS has been waffling about for so long now, instead it's just CS repeating/copy/pasting his same claims over and over. Why has this thread turned into a mirror of the last thread within one page? :confused:

    Could someone Please P.M me if this report is ever released and added to the thread?

    This debate is about the towers. The nano-thermite was found in the dust near the towers collapse. I have no evidence this was used to bring down building 7.

    Hulsey will be producing his finds to ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) in May a mainstream body. Right now I don't know when the draft or final report be released, but I believe it likely to be shown at this meeting.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    Hulsey will be producing his finds to ASCE (American Society Of Civil Engineers) in May a mainstream body. Right now I don't know when the draft or final report be released, but I believe it likely to be shown at this meeting.

    It was stated that the original goal of the "study" was to show that the NIST's explanation was impossible.
    It started out with a predetermined conclusion, thus is inherently unscientific.
    If he ever releases it, and he most likely won't, it will be laughed at by most experts.

    I also believe that you are making up this claim that he's "producing his finds" to ASCE.


  • #62
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They weren't "chips of nano-thermite". The Harrit "report" was unscientific and has been thoroughly debunked - this has been explained in the thread, if you personally don't accept it, that's your issue. If you are going to present debunked misinformation as fact then you are being called out on it.

    That is completely aside from this theory you've suddenly entered into the debate

    And this is what we are addressing, you claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition

    Debunked by who? Unscientific according to who the JREF forum lol, Of course, this is the calibre of people you trust. Even though I showed you evidence they are not scientists, and when confronted by a truther scientist to debate the physics of the towers collapse they could not find one physicist on the forum to debate.

    Dr Milette later admitted he did know DSC tests and other tests to verify the chips he had were nano-thermite and was not even sure he had the correct chips.

    He promised the JREF forum a rigorous peer review paper in 2012 and still hasn't released it. We don't have the pictures of the chips he tested. You guys debunked nothing it all in your own heads this occurred.


  • #63
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    It was stated that the original goal of the "study" was to show that the NIST's explanation was impossible.
    It started out with a predetermined conclusion, thus is inherently unscientific.
    If he ever releases it, and he most likely won't, it will be laughed at by most experts.

    I also believe that you are making up this claim that he's "producing his finds" to ASCE.

    ASCE meeting. Dr Hulsey listed as a speaker in May.
    http://branches.asce.org/fairbanks/events?mini=2019-05

    Yep the NIST study is junk, and not unscientific to believe it. You keep claiming the NIST study was peer-reviewed, yet nobody can replicate their study without the input and calculation data. You claim to understand how science works the reality is very different.

    Dr Hulsey study will be released with all inputs and calculations and another mainstream engineer will be able to replicate and correct his work.

    NIST study most of their work was not released. You have to believe them they made no errors.


  • #64
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    ASCE meeting. Dr Hulsey listed as a speaker in May.
    http://branches.asce.org/fairbanks/events?mini=2019-05
    Well, good for him.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yep the NIST study is junk, and not unscientific to believe it.
    Yes, and starting a study with a predetermined conclusion as your expert has is inherently unscientific.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You keep claiming the NIST study was peer-reviewed, yet nobody can replicate their study without the input and calculation data. You claim to understand how science works the reality is very different.
    But it was peer reviewed.
    I'm not claiming anything. It's a fact.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Dr Hulsey study will be released with all inputs and calculations and another mainstream engineer will be able to replicate and correct his work.
    But that's not peer review at all.
    You don't know how peer review works and you are simply using the phrase in an attempt to sound clever and informed.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    NIST study most of their work was not released. You have to believe them they made no errors.
    And also the journal that peer reviewed it.
    And also the vast vast vast majority of experts...

    Going to continue to ignore those questions? Or have you realised the hole you dug yourself into again?


  • #65
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well, good for him.


    Yes, and starting a study with a predetermined conclusion as your expert has is inherently unscientific.


    But it was peer reviewed.
    I'm not claiming anything. It's a fact.


    But that's not peer review at all.
    You don't know how peer review works and you are simply using the phrase in an attempt to sound clever and informed.


    And also the journal that peer reviewed it.
    And also the vast vast vast majority of experts...

    Their paper was not peer-reviewed. How can your rigorously peer review when they don't hand over the detailed documentation, coding and data for their finite element analysis? I don't even think ASCE peer-reviewed their WTC7 study, it was about something else about fires if I remember correctly. Post the link again if i am wrong?


  • #66
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Their paper was not peer-reviewed. How can your rigorously peer review when they don't hand over the detailed documentation, coding and data for their finite element analysis?
    I don't even think ASCE peer-reviewed their WTC7 study, it was about something else about fires if I remember correctly. Post the link again if i am wrong?
    Lol, pathetic dodge.

    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

    https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/
    Third, there have been many, many peer reviewed engineering articles published that directly analyze, draw upon, and confirm or otherwise independently corroborate NIST's methodology and conclusions. Here are links to those that I could find and review in about 3 hours of searching (remember, these are just the papers that include support for NIST's WTC 7 model; there are many, many more that only explicitly support NIST's WTC 1 & 2 collapse hypotheses):

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432
    http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29
    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944
    http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29
    http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29
    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801
    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459

    You have been shown examples before:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109661642&postcount=2672
    You seem to have either forgotten or you are directly lying.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5
    Three companion papers address the effects of aircraft impact damage on the WTC towers and debris damage on WTC 7, the effects of fire on the three buildings, and how these events contributed to building collapse by describing the contribution of key structural systems to the overall building behavior and collapse, such as the floor systems and hat trusses in WTC 1 and WTC 2 and the floor connections around Column 79 in WTC 7.

    They were peer reviewed.

    If they were not peer reviewed, how did they get into the journals?
    If the report was flawed and unable to be replicated, why were the papers published in the journals?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,192 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Debunked by who? Unscientific according to who the JREF forum lol, Of course, this is the calibre of people you trust.

    You've demonstrated will ignore the consensus of hundred of experts, the world's historians - if it doesn't fit your narrative

    You have demonstrated you will support any loon, any crank, any isolated expert, garbage science, random conspiracy blogs - anything that supports your narrative. In exactly the same way that e.g. anti-vaxxers ignore the consensus of medical experts and support the few isolated doctors, cranks, physicians, pseudo-scientific reports, etc that support their narrative

    There's no point arguing back and forth, you will just go around in circles on that. Which is why we ask you about these claims you keep making..

    Simple questions

    You claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition, etc


  • #68
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, pathetic dodge.

    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

    https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/



    You have been shown examples before:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109661642&postcount=2672
    You seem to have either forgotten or you are directly lying.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5



    They were peer reviewed.

    If they were not peer reviewed, how did they get into the journals?
    If the report was flawed and unable to be replicated, why were the papers published in the journals?

    They got a technical paper published that's all. Even the majority of your links are not valid they are not papers about 9/11 :confused: You did not even click on them to check another failure by Kingmob to do research.

    Name another mainstream organisation who has replicated NIST findings? You will not find any mainstream engineer who has replicated the NIST findings. If you believe otherwise post this study.


  • #69
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You've demonstrated will ignore the consensus of hundred of experts, the world's historians - if it doesn't fit your narrative

    You have demonstrated you will support any loon, any crank, any isolated expert, garbage science, random conspiracy blogs - anything that supports your narrative. In exactly the same way that e.g. anti-vaxxers ignore the consensus of medical experts and support the few isolated doctors, cranks, physicians, pseudo-scientific reports, etc that support their narrative

    There's no point arguing back and forth, you will just go around in circles on that. Which is why we ask you about these claims you keep making..

    Simple questions

    You claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition, etc

    The difference with the truthers they are doing solid work to prove their version of the truth. They not sitting on forums debunking all day and think they are helping.

    Hulsey study of WTC7 will be shown to mainstream engineer groups be peer-reviewed, and they presenting evidence of demolition on 9/11 to a grand jury in New York. They're trying to do something and prove their claims are true. Your opinion about them is irrelevant.


  • #70
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,192 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The difference with the truthers they are doing solid work to prove their version of the truth. They not sitting on forums debunking all day and think they are helping.

    lol..

    "Their version of the truth"

    There's multiple versions of the truth now?


    You have dodged the earlier questions again

    You claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition, etc


  • #71
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,192 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Like the Alex Jones deposition, getting an answer from a truther is like getting blood from a stone

    How deep into horse**** do you have to be before you realise you the reason you don't have an answer for anything is because it's complete horse****


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    lol..

    "Their version of the truth"

    There's multiple versions of the truth now?


    You have dodged the earlier questions again

    You claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition, etc

    Why bother?

    The other thread fizzled out

    He wasn't getting his attention fix

    He starts this thread about a report that hasn't been released.

    Continues making the same B.S claims he made in the other thread and is again getting the attention he craves.


  • #73
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    lol..

    "Their version of the truth"

    There's multiple versions of the truth now?

    So your version of what happened on 911 is the truth that they back by consensus or you just made it up?

    You have dodged the earlier questions again

    You claim "boxes of nano-thermite chips" were placed near steel beams and were used to destroy the building

    1. Is this your personal theory? yes or no

    2. If it isn't show us the source of this theory, a source with proper details on the boxes used, method of demolition, etc

    3. Answer the earlier questions as to how it was done, where it's been used before in demolition, etc

    They're doing it the right way, or do you not agree? You can't change the narrative by posting info on Youtube and on Website only.

    You change the narrative by producing a scientific engineering body of work like NIST did and have it peer-reviewed by mainstream engineering bodies.

    Presenting truther evidence in court is the right way to do it also. I wish this was open and transparent and would be brilliant for openness on this issue. It really what is needed here because you see the lawyers going back and forth and debate the demolition theory and which side has the better arguments.

    Yes it's a personal theory where they placed the nanothermite. I have no inside knowledge. I do believe they found chips of nano-thermite in the dust. This why an open court setting would be useful because we find out if this real or not.


  • #74
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,192 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yes it's a personal theory where they placed the nanothermite. I have no inside knowledge. I do believe they found chips of nano-thermite in the dust.

    Finally, thank you!


  • #75
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    They got a technical paper published that's all. .
    Lol, what do you mean by "technical"?
    Any paper about a collapsing building is going to be technical.
    How does it being technical invalidate any of those dozens of papers?
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Even the majority of your links are not valid they are not papers about 9/11 :confused: You did not even click on them to check another failure by Kingmob to do research.
    Why are they not valid?
    And all of them reference the NISTs report as part of their research even if the paper doesnt directly deal with 9/11.

    Even so, I posted several that do directly deal with 9/11 and the NIST report.

    You can pretend otherwise if you like, but it woulx be more pathetic, desperate lying on your part.

    The report was peer reviewed.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Name another mainstream organisation who has replicated NIST findings? You will not find any mainstream engineer who has replicated the NIST findings. If you believe otherwise post this study

    .
    I have already posted such papers.
    Name a single mainstream organisation that supports your silly theory...


  • #76
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,192 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Opinions from an individual who worked with Gage and AE911 (the guys sponsoring this study)
    "Back in Fall 09 I met Gage and Tony Sz at a NYC truther event when I was curious to learn how the collapses of the 3 buildings unfolded. I believe at the time AE911T was calling for more or a new investigation to determine this... at least that was my presumption. Let's get the details.... the "truth" of how the buildings came down. This did not seem unreasonable.

    Gage asked me to help his group which I had no idea what they actually DID... I again presumed they were conducting "building performance studies"... drilling into the structural details and so on. What I learned very shortly as I listened in on his weekly "strategy" calls... that the group had very few professionals in doing anything even remotely resembling a building performance study. They were passionate amateurs who were part of their modus operandi - marketing their group to garner signatures and donations to sustain the group's ability to sustain itself. I did try to get Gage to enlist some of the licensed engineers and architects to do the building performance studies. He flatly turned this down. He did complained that they didn't have the structural drawings, details, and construction logs. He also was supporting CD as the cause of the collapse and at the time claiming nano thermite was the clue. After a few months of association with AE911T even being a board member for a few months I left completely frustrated by Gage and their dumb. They were a marketing operation promoting conspiracy anti official narrative explanations. If the US gov or the MSM said it... it was evidence of deceit on the face. AE911T and the rest of the so called "truth" movement had no interest in truth only conspiracy explanations which diverged from any all all things official presented. If the media and authorities stated planes were hijacked.. truthers would claim this was a lie. If the investigation stated their was no evidence of explosives they would come up with all manner of CD devices including mini nukes and directed energy weapons. If the official position was white.., truthers would be black. There was never any evidence to support these claims. Their main pitch was to sow doubt in people who had none to limited technical backgrounds about the official account. This turned out to not be very difficult. Many people remained duped by their nonsense and it makes perfect sense to these naive people.

    You can bring a horse to water but you cant make her think. And this is why the truth movement will continue on... there is no shortage of dumb out there."

    "Gage may be actually a case of someone who saw or read something which sowed doubt in his own mind. He may not have been smart enough or have access to information which would explain away his doubts. Everyone knows that gov and corps and media spin. PR (deception) is very real. So he may have reasoned we are being spun like a top. His doubt may not have devolved to the cynical position he later espoused as head of his own anti establishment PR operation. And it's possible that his idea of getting building professionals together to "figure out" how the buildings fell did not necessarily mean he was a conspiracy nut. However his tack attracted people who already were sailing in conspiracy waters and they became a self reinforcing echo chamber not after the so call truth about the collapses... but about what they perceived as official lies and deception. The official PR was characterized as PR on overdrive and intentional because it covered up the inconvenient truth. Crooks have alibis. The PR was a alibi and not the truth. Gage would represent the real truth seeker. Good pitch but there was no there there. He soon discovered he could make AE911T a decent paying job... and the original goal gave way to simply getting more people to financially support his effort... to get more people to financially support his effort. The sell was the rubbish about doubt and deception and their junk science which the anti establishment dupes couldn't care less about and were not interested in "fact checking" or verification. They bought the swill from Gage's "technical" experts such as Jones, and Harit and Tony Sz, Gordon Ross et al... All thrilled to be a big shot in a small crazy universe of alt reality called conspiracies.

    The world's a big place and the truth movement will continue to rope in suckers, naive, lazy thinkers and those with an ax to grind with the establishment. The original followers may fade because the movement can't come up with smoking gun evidence but there are always new ones coming along to replace them. For Gage it is mission critical to keep the fiction going or else he's out of a cushy job."


  • #77
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Opinions from an individual who worked with Gage and AE911 (the guys sponsoring this study)

    Interesting read, but has this person provided any real info to confirm they were a member of AE911? Where did you find this story the source?

    This person ignores engineering history. AE911 origins are not a conspiracy. They disagreed with the notion a few random fires could collapse a steel-beamed framed high rise building. Building seven collapse got them started.

    They had every right to question the official narrative about the buildings collapses on 9/11. Skeptics pretend history and fire records support their debunking narratives, the reality is very different.


  • #78
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, what do you mean by "technical"?
    Any paper about a collapsing building is going to be technical.
    How does it being technical invalidate any of those dozens of papers?


    Why are they not valid?
    And all of them reference the NISTs report as part of their research even if the paper doesnt directly deal with 9/11.

    Even so, I posted several that do directly deal with 9/11 and the NIST report.

    You can pretend otherwise if you like, but it woulx be more pathetic, desperate lying on your part.

    The report was peer reviewed.

    I have already posted such papers.
    Name a single mainstream organisation that supports your silly theory...

    NIST study of building seven was never properly peer reviewed. I don't care what you believe.

    Hulsey work is comparable to the NIST study of building seven. Hulsey work will be peer reviewed the right way.

    Publishing papers belonging to NIST proves zilch. Certain engineering groups believed NIST. Does not mean NIST is right

    The mainstream media and politicians believed for two years Trump was a Manchurian candidate for Russia. Even the mainstream is easily fooled and lead.


  • #79
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    NIST study of building seven was never properly peer reviewed. I don't care what you believe.

    Hulsey work is comparable to the NIST study of building seven. Hulsey work will be peer reviewed the right way.

    Publishing papers belonging to NIST proves zilch. Certain engineering groups believed NIST. Does not mean NIST is right

    The mainstream media and politicians believed for two years Trump was a Manchurian candidate for Russia. Even the mainstream is easily fooled and lead.

    Everything you have posted in this thread is exaxtly what you have posted in the other thread. Why start this one when

    A. The report isnt out yet

    And

    B. You're just using it to echo what you have said/claimed in the other thread?


  • #80
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    NIST study of building seven was never properly peer reviewed. I don't care what you believe.
    .
    Cheerful, this is a lie.
    Telling fibs is wrong.

    The study has been peer reviewed.
    Here are the peer reviewed studies:
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5

    You can't just pretend they don't exist.
    I know that's how you think things work, but it's not.


  • #81
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    they presenting evidence of demolition on 9/11 to a grand jury in New York.

    No, they're not. Here's the letter again

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/US-Attorney-Letter-110718.pdf

    Here's 118 U.S. Code § 3332. Powers and duties, in its entirety:

    (a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.

    (b) Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.

    Again, U.S. Attorney Berman complied with 3332, by informing the grand jury of the alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and Berman's action or recommendation - which 5 months later appears to have been a recommendation to not waste time on this ridicule, as there has been zero indication any other action has taken place.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    NIST study most of their work was not released.

    Nothing about the Hulsey study has been released, yet you seem to have complete and utter religious faith in it. No data, no calculations, no files, no simulations, just an errant powerpoint presentation here and there to give truthers their fix while Hulsey takes his cut and AE911 continues to sucker truthers out of their donation money.

    I doubt we will see the Hulsey study any time this decade. His May presentation will be a new breadcrumb, to ensure that every 6 months or so AE911 can shout "Progress!" and jiggle the collection plate.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,022 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Overheal wrote: »

    I doubt we will see the Hulsey study any time this decade. His May presentation will be a new breadcrumb, to ensure that every 6 months or so AE911 can shout "Progress!" and jiggle the collection plate.

    Thats the thing that gets me. "Truthers" believe they are critical thinkers and everyone else is a sheep yet they're the ones being swindled out of their money by the Hulseys, the Mark Lanes, the Jim Marrs and the Doug Hornes of this world.

    Imagine believing something as fact - in this case Hulseys study - before its even been released! :confused:


  • #83
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    They took in revenue, at least at one point, that was the tune of half a million dollars a year

    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/2011-261532493-08da7dec-9-1-pdf.5175/

    But they don't seem to spend much of that on research; in fact I'd wager to say the only reason they commissioned Hulsey was in response to that criticism. Just enough to help people suspend their disbelief; but AE911 themselves do not conduct any actual research (which is a shame, because research and development is a huge tax writeoff...) But Richard Cage does find the money to pay himself $85,000 from money that he purports: "100% of your donation goes toward the pursuit of 9/11 Truth."

    Just such a coincidence their announcement about the 3332 action had such a grandiose "DONATE" page involved: https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury


  • #84
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,022 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    No different to the televangelists really.

    giphy.gif


  • #85
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Overheal wrote: »
    They took in revenue, at least at one point, that was the tune of half a million dollars a year

    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/2011-261532493-08da7dec-9-1-pdf.5175/

    But they don't seem to spend much of that on research; in fact I'd wager to say the only reason they commissioned Hulsey was in response to that criticism. Just enough to help people suspend their disbelief; but AE911 themselves do not conduct any actual research (which is a shame, because research and development is a huge tax writeoff...) But Richard Cage does find the money to pay himself $85,000 from money that he purports: "100% of your donation goes toward the pursuit of 9/11 Truth."

    Just such a coincidence their announcement about the 3332 action had such a grandiose "DONATE" page involved: https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury

    A but like To the Stars Academy, always have the next big thing in UFO evidence.


  • #86
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    No, they're not. Here's the letter again

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/US-Attorney-Letter-110718.pdf

    Here's 118 U.S. Code § 3332. Powers and duties, in its entirety:

    (a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.

    (b) Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.

    Again, U.S. Attorney Berman complied with 3332, by informing the grand jury of the alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and Berman's action or recommendation - which 5 months later appears to have been a recommendation to not waste time on this ridicule, as there has been zero indication any other action has taken place.



    Nothing about the Hulsey study has been released, yet you seem to have complete and utter religious faith in it. No data, no calculations, no files, no simulations, just an errant powerpoint presentation here and there to give truthers their fix while Hulsey takes his cut and AE911 continues to sucker truthers out of their donation money.

    I doubt we will see the Hulsey study any time this decade. His May presentation will be a new breadcrumb, to ensure that every 6 months or so AE911 can shout "Progress!" and jiggle the collection plate.

    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.


  • #87
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, this is a lie.
    Telling fibs is wrong.

    The study has been peer reviewed.
    Here are the peer reviewed studies:
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5

    You can't just pretend they don't exist.
    I know that's how you think things work, but it's not.

    Springer is a publishing website. You can keep pretending, they are credible and the owners are engineers. They publish mainstream scientific articles and NIST WTC7 was a US government-backed study. They were going to publish it.


  • #88
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    They took in revenue, at least at one point, that was the tune of half a million dollars a year

    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/2011-261532493-08da7dec-9-1-pdf.5175/

    But they don't seem to spend much of that on research; in fact I'd wager to say the only reason they commissioned Hulsey was in response to that criticism. Just enough to help people suspend their disbelief; but AE911 themselves do not conduct any actual research (which is a shame, because research and development is a huge tax writeoff...) But Richard Cage does find the money to pay himself $85,000 from money that he purports: "100% of your donation goes toward the pursuit of 9/11 Truth."

    Just such a coincidence their announcement about the 3332 action had such a grandiose "DONATE" page involved: https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury

    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. His running an entire group and is the head guy. By the way, James Randi was earning a salary by owning the JREF forum. Should we just dismiss the entire forum for Randi earning a salary?

    The AE911 movement survives by donations. Hulsey study was paid for by donations. It no joke they spend over 300, 000 thousand dollars. They could have paid someone less to do a study if they were not interested in truth. That not true Hulsey turned them down as he was too busy prior to 2015. They may have just waited till he was ready to do it and collected the resources.


  • #89
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Springer is a publishing website. You can keep pretending, they are credible and the owners are engineers. They publish mainstream scientific articles and NIST WTC7 was a US government-backed study. They were going to publish it.
    Yes.
    But thats not the journal they were published in.
    The journal is named in the linka provided.

    You have not even opened the links.
    Hilarious.


  • #90
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes.
    But thats not the journal they were published in.
    The journal is named in the linka provided.

    You have not even opened the links.
    Hilarious.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


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


  • #92
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    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.


  • #93
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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....


  • #94
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Nothing. I support the cause.
    Lol and that shows how much faith you have.
    Pathetic.


  • #95
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    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.


  • #96
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    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)


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #98
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I have faith in people who don't lie.
    Cool. So why not donate?


  • #99
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    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.


  • #100
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #101
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement