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

ABC news confirming secret CIA office at WTC7

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cia-lost-office-in-wtc

The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that immediately after the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers. It was not known whether the efforts were successful.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the existence of the office, which was first reported in Sunday's editions of The New York Times.

The New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which the Times did not identify. The station was a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the CIA after returning from overseas.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope. All of the investigations point to fire as the cause of collapse.

None point to explosives. You passionately believe it was explosives, but you can't support that, so you relentlessly attack the facts, try to discredit the investigations, it's the only way you can bring your nonsensical unsupported theory "to life"

That's how all this works. It's why not a single 911 truther can support their claims - they all rely on this same bizarre denial tactic.

You continue to go round in circles doing this, we'll just continue calling you out on it

You support fire collapse why? The fire studies are flawed. I would accept fire as a likely cause if the study was done right,  i can't here as NIST removed construction elements to get a girder to collapse and start a progressive collapse. I don't support cheaters and liars. Ae911 truth are only people out there telling the truth about the construction of WTC7. iF Fire somehow brought the building down then a genuine study needs to be done to show it. Everything needs to be released for verification.

Truther are supporting their claims, they just released the data.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because it's overwhelmingly supported by the evidence/multiple investigations and there's no other faintly plausible theory whatsoever. It's not a mystery in the slightest.

I do not support evidence thats flawed.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No you don't

You view it the same way you view the Holocaust. A historical event you can subjectively play denial games with, compromised entirely of whatever you can imagine or rationalise or make up in your head. You are backed by a fringe of people who do exactly the same thing, all of whom either come up with contradictory explanations or no explanations at all

Wrong. I view the Holocaust differently. The camps existed and people died there i know about that.  Sites were in Poland and the Czech Republic. The numbers who were gassed it disputed even among Holocaust researchers. The official story has a lot more evidence and there not enough evidence to believe the denier narratives. 
Holocust deniers claim these camps were recreation centres to just house prisoners and nazis never killed Jews. Holocust deniers biggest problem is they don't explain where millions went after WW2, if they survived. This is where the denier story falls apart for me. 

I firmly believe the numbers died in camps is wrong. The numbers don't account for immigration during 1933 to 1945. They don't account for stories where Jews may have died due to illness, during war events, and basic lack of food and health care during a time when Europe was torn apart by war. Nazis were bombing cities in mainland Europe, none of the civilians were Jewish? Poland had one of the largest Jewish populations and Nazis bombed the **** out of the country in 1939 and very likely Jews died there.

With 9/11 the official story is not believeable. The only part i believe is young Muslim men were involved in hijacking planes.

banie01 wrote: »

I just want to confirm this particular point?
You actually believe that you have applied common sense in your approach to any of the CT's you subscribe to, or indeed your solo runs?

I don't think you guys apply logic to your beliefs at all.
You just accept NIST version of events when it's positively been shown they started a progressive collapse on a floor with an unsupported girder. 
I think most engineering groups if shown the actual construction drawings would dismiss the NIST theory today.
Most of the errors were noticed 5 or 6 years later after the study was completed in 2008. 
The WTC7 constructions blueprints is actual evidence that proves NIST is full of ****.
Fire could not have expanded a beam of its seat. NIST even had to change the construction of the building and passed it off as a science. 

King Mob wrote: »

The NIST report was peer reviewed and used as a reference in dozens of peer reviewed papers in the years since it has been released.

Hulseys report bypassed peer review.

NIST conclusions are disputed by different mainstream engineering studies. They only agree on fire caused it. Different studies have the collapse starting on a different floor inside the building. The groups dispute their own peers findings and don't agree where it started. None of the four studies have ever released Data. They have released reports with claims and theories, but never shown their actual work they did to get there. UAF Hulsey study only one that released the data they accumulated over 4 years. 

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It claims. That's one of the claims put forward in the lawsuit. So far, they aren't making much headway in that regard.



No, the FBI found no evidence whatsoever of explosives. You can't use them "as a source" for your theory of the towers exploding.

You are trying to use for a different conspiracy. One where the towers were absolutely not blown up.

It's not a two-for-one deal.



Oh the attacks were real AND the buildings were simultaneously blown up in a secret inside job. The two for one deal again. Schrodingers 911 theory, both reality and the conspiracy happened at the same time

Princess Diana died in a car crash by accident, and was murdered at the same time. Best of both worlds!

It's information in a report by the joint inquiry into intelligence community activities before and after the terrorist attacks of Sep 11, 2001. It was the first 9/11 investigation.

The second investigation is the 9/11 commission. The first investigation blamed Saudi Arabia for helping Al Qeada. They classified this report. Many of the allegations appeared later in the public still redacted version of the 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report.

The full version the Bush Administration White House classified and censored for 13 years. Obama tried to stop it coming out in 2015 but was overruled by congress vote and finally released a redacted copy of the allegations made by the joint inquiry. 

The FBI never looked for explosives and i have seen no evidence they did. You can provide evidence if you believe otherwise.. They assumed like everyone else fire caused the collapse. NIST said they searched for WTC7 steel on their own website, yet were unable to locate it anywhere. There only evidence earlier before the NIST investigation FEMA finding one piece of steel flange from (WTC7) that seemly melted and chunks of the steel were missing. Skeptics and Truthers have argued about this for years, where did the steel melt or corrode away did it happen outside the building before it collapsed or inside the building before it collapsed?

Look many people find it odd this was the first time in history a steel beamed building high rise has collapsed to just fire. It not the only time a steel beamed high rise caught fire in history and burned out of control for hours. None of these other buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds. The entire fire scenario envisioned by NIST is on shaky ground when there claim a girder unsupported and yet the construction drawings clearly show all these element supports are there that NIST removed . Now we don't trust the blueprints for the building?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some of the guys in Metabunk are looking at the data

Of course there's shady stuff right off the bat



https://www.metabunk.org/hulsey-uaf-report-data-release-analysis-thread.t10963/

I not seeing the conspiracy here?
Tony is part of AE911 truth.
Plus all I see is a folder named Tony comments on one poster computer. I can make a folder right now and rename it Tony comments
How do we know this Metabunk poster not lying?
He claims to know what it's about, yet can not access the folder to see the folder contents allegedly.
He claims it dated April 2019- so that folder is irrelevent, the study started in 2016.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Come to think of it Sandy Hook investigators never interrogated the family members of victims to check if they were actors or not..

The investigators into the death of Princess Diana never actually properly checked if the Queen was involved..

Did they ever investigate those energy weapons Dr Judy Wood was talking about? or look for remote control parts? how about hologram machines? or remnants of a mini-nuke..

Did they even do a radiation check?

I watched the Judy Wood video. She not a real scientist. You can tell. I not sure who she is, but I felt she was a wacko. or she a disinformation person. It very interesting she claims explosives did not demolish the buildings, she thinks those people are crazy? Yet energy weapons from space a reasonble theory in her world.

What Diana death got to do with 9/11- zero nothing make a new thread to discuss if you want.
Sandy Hook- same there no link make a new thread if you want to discuss it.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You forgot the disclaimer, "and so what is Tony S was in contact with Hulsey, nothing wrong with that, they were probably talking about nothing to do with the study, people can contact each other, maybe they knew each other from before"

Anyone can play your rationalisation game

I not getting the Metabunk conspiracy. Ae911 truth hired Hulsey. Tony sits on the board of Ae911 i believe and obviously knows Hulsey.
I don't see the issue because All I See is a folder named Tony Comments and don't see the contents.
It could be a message about anything. They could have asked Tony for documents or files. Ae911 truth collected a lot of info over the years that Hulsey may not have access to.
MetaBunk posters are debunkers, i wait for the real peer reviews carried out by capable structural engineers. You find none on Metabunk. None of them have a degree in this field. If engineers find flaws with the data, I listen to them , not this shower of manipulators on there. 

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes, yes she is.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judy_Wood

"Judy Wood Ph.D. is a materials scientist and former assistant professor of mechanical engineering who believes the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by a directed energy weapon.

She earned her doctorate in materials engineering science from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1992. Her dissertation was on the topic of thermal stresses in bimaterial joints.

From 1996-9 she was a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.

From 1999 to 2006 she taught mechanical engineering at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.

Since 2006 she has been an independent researcher, lecturer and author."



Did the investigators check if the relatives of the slain children were actors?

No. Then according to your broken logic it's a possibility they were actors.

In exactly the same way you've personally decided the FBI didn't look for explosives in the WTC buildings, therefore explosives are a possibility

Why am I even saying "possibility", you've stated multiple times it was a fact that explosives were used.

But keeping this on Hulsey, just because someone is an "expert" doesn't mean they aren't a crank or can be bought off with $300,000.

She has a Wikipedia page with no other work outside of 9/11. If she a scientist she would have written papers, given lectures or did something before this. Has anyone phoned the school to see if she attended there and got degrees from those schools and universties?