The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd like to address this too. Of course you can wait to answer after you've read the draft report.

    Let's say for argument's sake the "as-built" construction differed (even significantly - which is seriously doubtful) from the original plans.

    1. How would that change Hulsey's hypothesis that:

    a. The collapse of WTC7 was a global collapse and not a progressive collapse? (NOTE that Hulsey's hypothesis is not dependent on NIST's hypothesis being incorrect).

    b. That the most likely manner that WTC7 collapsed was the simultaneously removal of ALL of WTC7's columns?

    2. If it does significantly change Hulsey's hypothesis or even invalidate it, shouldn't that equally be true for NIST's hypothesis?

    3. And IF #2 above is true, then there is still NO valid hypothesis that supports the least likely probability, a collapse due to fire as the root cause, correct?
     
  2. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has Dulsey don't anything with is career other than attack 9-11?

    1. NIST versus Dr Leroy Hulsey (9/11 mega-thread) : engineering
      https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/71yw...
      Dr. Hulsey claims the study is completely open and transparent, but I have yet to hear him respond to any possible critiques of his study, nor have I seen the progression of the study. Regardless, I believe there are far more fundamental problems with this study: Dr. Hulsey claims that a fire could not have

    2. New Study on WTC 7 Collapse Challenges Government Findings ...
      https://www.marketslant.com/.../new-study-wtc-7-collapse-challenges-government-findings
      Dr. Hulsey
      ’s presentation, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, September 2017 Progress Report”, detailed how his team eliminated fire as the cause of the collapse of the 47-story building. Hulsey explained that NIST’s report on the collapse found fires on floors 7 through 9, 11 through 14, 19, 22, 29, and 30.
     
  3. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @ Bob0627

    Has Dulsey don't anything with is career other than attack 9-11?

    1. NIST versus Dr Leroy Hulsey (9/11 mega-thread) : engineering
      https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/71yw...
      Dr. Hulsey claims the study is completely open and transparent, but I have yet to hear him respond to any possible critiques of his study, nor have I seen the progression of the study. Regardless, I believe there are far more fundamental problems with this study: Dr. Hulsey claims that a fire could not have

    2. New Study on WTC 7 Collapse Challenges Government Findings ...
      https://www.marketslant.com/.../new-study-wtc-7-collapse-challenges-government-findings
      Dr. Hulsey
      ’s presentation, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, September 2017 Progress Report”, detailed how his team eliminated fire as the cause of the collapse of the 47-story building. Hulsey explained that NIST’s report on the collapse found fires on floors 7 through 9, 11 through 14, 19, 22, 29, and 30.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The name is Dr. Leroy J. Hulsey, not "Dulsey". Dr. Hulsey did NOT attack 9/11, whatever that means, that's as idiotic as it gets. I provided the link to his background and the videos that I posted also go into detail about his background. The video presentations by Dr. Hulsey and his papers speak for themselves. I have no interest in addressing excerpts from 2 meaningless out of context posts purportedly taken from discussion forums that say absolutely nothing. They are not even your own words as you have not one clue what this is all about, that's clearly obvious. If you have any interest in his 4-year scientific study and his draft report, you and anyone else have the opportunity to critique it directly by emailing a PDF or Word document, the email address is provided. It is up for peer review until November 1, 2019 after which the final report will be published. I strongly suggest you read his draft paper and review his video presentation BEFORE you address anything more about Dr. Hulsey and his 4-year study. I will not address anything more from you about this unless and until you show you are fully versed in what this is about and show you understand it. And preferably do it in the proper thread, this thread is about the 9/11 Commission and their report. You've already shown that you call incontrovertible video evidence and historical facts "beyond ridiculous", so I have to take that kind of mentality into consideration in any discussion with you.
     
  5. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has be ever earned a living the past 19 years other than hawking his 9-11 BS conspiracy?
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And some are so indoctrinated they volunteer their services for free.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Mick West interviews Donald Friedman.

    Description:
    [Audio only] Donald Friedman, P.E., F.ASCE, is a professional engineer with more than 30 years of experience in the investigation, analysis, and restoration of landmark buildings. He has taught engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Columbia University; he has spoken at numerous conferences including the fourth and fifth ASCE Forensics Conference; he is the author of After 9-11: An Engineer’s Work at the World Trade Center, based on his work at the World Trade Center site, starting September 12, 2001. We talked about his experience at the 9/11 WTC site, and how what he saw relates to the various conspiracies regarding the collapses of the World Trade Center Buildings. We specifically discuss the recent University of Alaska study that Professor Leroy Hulsey carried out for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. We close out with a discussion of how New York structural engineers view the 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories

    TFTRH #21 Donald Friedman - After 9-11: An Engineer’s Work at the World Trade Center
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not the correct thread for this. This thread is about the 9/11 Commission and their report. But having said that:

    The desperation is all too obvious. There is so much wrong with this it's not worth going over all the detail.

    1. Science is NOT a conspiracy nor a conspiracy theory, yet anything that contradicts the official party line is described in the interview as a "conspiracy theory", the usual nonsensical demon of OCT lovers.

    2. Friedman describes pancaking multiple times yet no one, not even NIST claims the towers pancaked.

    3. Friedman claims he didn't see molten steel, decided it was really molten aluminum, saw structural members at the furthest distance of about 300 ft from the towers and did not know of explosions and many other things he claims. He was not the only eyewitness or even an eyewitness from what I understand. Other eyewitnesses reported seeing molten steel, not one reported seeing molten aluminum, there were structural members weighing up to 4 tons found as far as 600 ft and multiple corroborating claims of explosions.

    4. Friedman also claims he doesn't know any engineers who believe in anything but the official story. Like who cares, there are thousands who don't buy it and I'm sure he knows that.

    5. Friedman supports the Popular Mechanics garbage that has been thoroughly contradicted in intricate detail by other experts and even by NIST as to a couple issues.

    There's much more but I really am not inclined to waste my time with this nonsense collaboration by Mick West and Donald Friedman, not to mention Gamolon.

    I'll just add a couple of things.

    If Donald Friedman feels so strongly about his position, where is any peer reviewed paper that he published that supports his position?

    If Donald Friedman, Mick West or Gamolon or anyone else have an issue with Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft paper on WTC7, by all means send it in PDF or MS Word form to the email address provided multiple times here.

    Interestingly, you never answered my question Gamolon, what are you afraid of?
     
  9. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know the towers weren't knocked over.. they had the spine cut out of them. Gravity is predictable. I am surprised after all this time the opportunists are still at it.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey Margot. Someone who claims one of the leading forensic engineers in the US is “hawking a BS 9/11 conspiracy theory” after a 4 year meticulous scientific study is in no position to tell anyone what they believe they think. Please go peddle your nonsense to those who care what you think.
     
  11. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do know that aluminum burns and the buildings had aluminum skins.. There hadn't been a hostage crash in years so the muscle may not have known it was a suicide mission.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey Bobby...

    Did Hulsey's report actually find that ALL possible fire scenarios have been ruled out as the above headline implies or just the "OCT's" claim?
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Which was paid for by a 9/11 truther group. There would be no reason for Hulsey to come up with a report that supports the claims of those who paid him eh Bobby?
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Really Bobby?

    How can anyone recreate his models when his data hasn't been released. I wonder why it wasn't released with his report. Funny that he's given 2 months, from September 3rd to November 1st for folks to examine his report and we're already past one week and none of his input data has been released yet.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain this one Bobby.

    How can Hulsey definitively say that fire did not cause the collapse yet all possibilities have not been explored?
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hulsey is one of the "leading forensic engineers" in the US? Based on what exactly Bobby? Is this your opinion or do you have evidence for such accolades?

    I don't see anything about "forensic engineer" mentioned on his UAF site.
    http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. And his research is what would be expected from any legitimate scientist. There is no comparison to NIST's "research" which was anything but science. But you know that yet never, ever questioned the NIST "investigation" or their report.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you read the draft report you would know the answer to that. You would also understand why it wasn't necessary to rule out all possible fire scenarios.

    Did you ever question why NIST never investigated all possible scenarios, including CD? No, you just accepted their phony excuses without question.

    If you read what I posted, you would know the answer to that. The multi-gigs of data will be available within the next 2 weeks, Why does it matter to you, do you really anticipate doing the research yourself or are you just going to rely on Mick West? Have you ever questioned or criticized NIST for never allowing all their data, models and methodology to be available for public scrutiny? Of course not, you just gave these criminal phonies a pass. The hypocrisy oozes.

    If you read my posts or understood that Hulsey modeled the most likely reason WTC7 collapsed the way it did, you would know the answer to that question. NO fire can remove all the columns of any building simultaneously. Did you ever question why NIST arrived at their conclusion without examining all the possibilities? No, of course not.

    You still haven't answered my question, are you that terrified or perhaps the question is too complicated for you?

    But don't bother, I'm not that interested.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who else would pay for it? The US government?

    Was the NIST "investigation" paid for by the US government?

    Yes there would, it's called professional integrity. Would there be a reason for NIST to fail to support the US government's official conspiracy theory?

    The hypocrisy is astounding if I didn't know where this is coming from.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's ridiculous Bobby. You say it wasn't necessary to rule out all possible fire scenarios yet Hulsey says that fire could not have caused the collapse. Can't have it both ways. You can't state that your study completely rules out fire when you admit that you didn't study all scenarios.

    Did you ever question why Hulsey never investigated all possible scenarios as he admitted INCLUDING DC?

    Did you ever criticize Husley for not releasing his data with his report? Why is he waiting two weeks? That's two weeks LESS for people to look over his work.

    How do you know Hulsey used correct input data? He hasn't released it yet. What is there are mistakes? Why are you not questioning Hulsey's work? Why did he lie about making the study transparent during the four years the study took place? Did you ever question that?

    The hypocrisy oozes.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He is? Why is "forensic engineering" or "leading forensic engineer" not listed anywhere on his UAF bio that I linked above? What criteria are you using to make that claim? Is that an opinion or based on fact? What "forensic engineering" has he done that makes him one of the top in the US?
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Professional integrity? Are you 100% sure that he didn't "tweak" his findings to make the group, which funded the study with about $365,000, happy? How can this be a an unbiased study when the donor is a 9/11 truther/conspiracy group?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is that what Hulsey's model shows Bobby? You better take a closer look. All columns simultaneously being removed eh? Why does the west penthouse fall into the building without the the roof descending?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bobby, here is the claim made by Hulsey.
    Hulsey makes the global, all encompassing claim that FIRE did not cause the collapse yet in the same breath YOU state that it wasn't necessary to rule out all scenarios. Explain how someone can rule out something COMPLETELY without studying all scenarios.
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you read the report, you would see the problem with Hulsey completely ruling out fire as a possible cause of collapse.

    Here is an excerpt from his report:
    See that Bobby? All they looked at and supposedly have shown was not possible was the HYPOTHETICAL failures alleged to have happened by NIST and the other firms.

    That's it.

    For Hulsey to COMPLETELY rule out fire as he did is an embarrassment.
     

Share This Page