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

Overheal wrote: »

Trump licensing his name on buildings doesn’t make him a civil engineer. And his comments are grossly oversimplified and in places incorrect.

Interesting you mention the building experts. The very same ones who seutp an organisiation in the quest for truth so obvious is the lie of how the buildings collapsed.

Ask Civil Engineers or Architects or people you personally know that work in building design for their thoughts on the twin towers buildings and their collapse. I always do when I meet them and I'm yet to meet a single person who believes the jetfuel superheated steel pancake nonsense peddled at the time.

Not sure what / if you studied but it goes against the laws of physics, thermomechanics and material science to name a few fundamentals. The explanation given isn't' correct. Why that is? no idea.

OwlsZat wrote: »

I won't lie, I'm disappointed to be left out

Now that you are back on thread, could you answer my question from your contribution a few days ago please?

banie01 wrote: »

If Operation Northwood and the history of false flags are, as you agree.
Evidence of nothing WTC7 related, why bother introducing them to support your position?

Proclaiming the collapse as a con, when it has been agreed by the vast consensus of Engineering and architects as the most likely mode of failure, without presenting any evidence to the contrary is not a rational or indeed competent debate tactic.

It doesn't matter how often you proclaim it.

NIST does have issues but by vast consensus it is the accepted mode of collapse.

What evidence do you want to present to refute that?
That one of the many contributions by many posters to this thread and the others hasn't already refuted across the multiple threads already on the topic and that Cheerful has already presented.[/quote

Dohnjoe wrote: »

1. Submit bad info
2. Get angry when anyone explains it
3. Double down on the bad info
4. Demonise anyone who doesn't accept that
(5. Mention Northwoods/gulf of Tonkien and label everyone corporate media controlled sheeple)
6. Repeat

I'm not getting paid enough by the government to refute this stuff

1. What bad info did I submit?
I submitted a scientific a peer-reviewed scientific paper that proved there was a thermititic material found in the dust. There was.
2. Nobody has explained why there would be in the dust because there is no reason only it was there.
3. The expression doubling down is used when someone has a position of strength and increases their bet. There are no bets here. So the use of the term is wrong.
4. I'm not demonising you. You're a John Doe. You're actually just like my brother. I explained this to there was serious doubt over the pony we were fed about 911. He basically said you could be right but I'd rather live in my media-fed bubble because it's safer here. If I started to question the news I was fed the world would be a scarier place to live. Ignorance is bliss so to speak.
5. It's important to establish that America has a long history of false flag attacks. You made out I was trying to infer this was evidence it happened. I wasn't.
6. Ironically it's only you that ensured these points were repeated.

OwlsZat wrote: »

1. What bad info did I submit?
I submitted a scientific a peer-reviewed scientific paper that proved there was a thermititic material found in the dust. There was.

It wasn't properly peer reviewed, it wasn't scientific. This was explained to you

2. Nobody has explained why there would be in the dust because there is no reason only it was there.

There is. Iron and aluminium are compounds in thermite. These compounds are also (unsurprisingly) present in buildings.

3. The expression doubling down is used when someone has a position of strength and increases their bet. There are no bets here. So the use of the term is wrong.

You are doubling down on bad info by repeating it. Despite it being explained. Despite the fact that you can't refute the explanation.

So yes you are doubling down.

4. I'm not demonising you.

Yes you are, you posted a ridiculous photo

6. Ironically it's only you that ensured these points were repeated.

If you aren't refuting any explanations, then you aren't here to debate. If you aren't here to debate you are here to soapbox or browbeat your views.

And what are your views on this event? if you can't articulate them, then you are attempting to revise history, without doing so

The 911 conspiracy theorist progression

Stage 1: A whole bunch of "can't explain that!" stuff which is actually easily explained

Stage 2: The videos, lots and lots of very long videos being posted

Stage 3: AE911 is discovered, out of millions of qualified experts in the world there are some who think it was an inside job, the floodgates of pseudo-science are opened

Stage 4: Dragging everything down to tiny, granular details. The essence of any type of denialism and historical revisionism

Every stage wrapped up in the same incredulity: "There's no way that happened" but "Totally plausible that it all happened as part of a massive secret inside job"

With an enormous dose of hypocrisy: "I require endless evidence of the facts" "I require no evidence of the conspiracy"

And at no point any attempt to detail the conspiracy itself.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Terrorists flew into the buildings. As evidenced by the largest FBI investigation in it's history. Supported by multiple corroborating investigations

Your view? Would love to know.

Any sensible man wouldn't get a criminal to investigate his own crime. It reveals a lot if your willing to accept two American government investigations finding. You'd do well to research the Chernobyl disaster and the Russian official investigations carried out at the time. The NIST and FBI investigations are completely biased irrelevant storytelling.

OwlsZat wrote: »

'Early advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, theologian David Ray Griffin, and Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, proposed that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures.'

What do you think the motive for these experts was to inform the public that the accepted building collapse theory disageeed with science?

A field they thought they understood well enough without having done any of the actual research to support their theories, they probably believed them early on but it became a moneywell for them, and as the evidence continued to fail to prove out their organization's reason for existing, they just kept sticking with it.

OwlsZat wrote: »

It reveals a lot if your willing to accept two American government investigations finding.

At least four separate investigations. Several by insurance companies very determined not to pay out. They all found fire was the key cause. No conflict of interest.

• There is no investigation that reveals controlled demolitions
• There is no credible evidence of controlled demolitions
• There are no actual consensus controlled demolition theory

It reveals far more that you will accept a theory with no evidence over a theory with a mountain of evidence and would suggest you aren't applying any reason, logic or objectivity to the subject

Watch the super slow motion of the building "collapsing". Explain to yourself why the debris is ejected sideways 100 feet as the building drops.

As yourself why at 1 minute in the video a charge detonates out of sequence with the building collapse.

The thing is so obviously planted with explosives. :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The problem with 9/11, we can't progress with the topic. The threads all end up being arguments for one side and another group on another side. . 

This is nonsense. Debating something doesn't mean there's a debate. That's the kind of weak stuff that flat-earther's come up with.

A bunch of terrorists flew into buildings. You can't accept that, cool, out of tens of thousands of boards users, this is apparently your personal forum that essentially goes dead when you don't post. If that doesn't give you a hint I don't know what will.

King Mob wrote: »

Because the conspiracy theories arent true.

The truth has a nice habit of being consistent

The people who attack the truth have a habit of being all over the place, because their theories are based on fantasy and lies which all contradict each other and require immense amounts of mental gymnastics. As demonstrated by every thread on this forum.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Did anyone go to 1munute in the video and see the charge go off in the bottom right. Anyone want to explain how it goes off before the collapse of the floor above. Perhaps someone who has read the full Nist explanation...

It's not a "charge", it's large quantities of air from collapsing floors being compressed, forced downwards and escaping from the building (bringing dust and debris with it)