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
    Apples and oranges, you're trying your damnedest to find fault with Hulsey's hypothesis strictly via denial opinion. Obviously you will never be able to prove that Hulsey's hypothesis is invalid and you have no intention to try to prove him wrong in any valid scientific manner.

    What is irrefutable:

    1. The documented corroborating eyewitness accounts of explosions (150+ accounts), supported by video evidence.
    2. That to cause a building such as WTC7 (47 stories, about 1 acre per floor) to fall at free fall symmetrically requires that all the columns be removed simultaneously. This doesn't even need Hulsey's hypothesis to come to that conclusion, it's logical, it's supported by physics AND by real world application (models if you will). In other words, it's a no brainer.
    3. That NO other known possibility with respect to fire (or any other known cause) as a primary cause exists that can duplicate the above and none has ever been demonstrated either by experiment, computer simulation or real world event.
    4. Both #1 and #2 above are 100% true and do not cancel each other out.
    5. #3 supports #2 because it does not contradict it.

    So what do we have left? I'm not a CD expert nor do I have the expertise to contradict Hulsey's hypothesis and neither do you as much as you'd like to pretend you do. So IMO, what makes sense is that the explosions prior to collapse served to weaken/destroy critical structural supports to insure a nearly perfect controlled demolition. Anything short of near perfection would either cause total failure or a failed partial controlled demolition. There are many real world examples of CD failures seen all over YouTube. Here's one:



    The global collapse of WTC7 was a CD expert's wet dream.



    And the difference between CDs and structural failures:

     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's already been proven invalid.

    1. He made a global claim that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7 yet admits he didn't look at all the scenarios.
    2. The models in his video do not show internal components
    3. In his models, her shows the top potion of WTC7 falling THROUGH the lower portion
    4. He only used the fire modeling for floors 12 and 13
    5. His model of the east penthouse collapsing is not based in reality. Just look at how it opens up like an egg being pried open. The columns along the side of the east penthouse pivot outward at the TOP of the columns and the bottoms of the columns slide outward instead of the bottoms of the columns being pinned at the bottom and the tops being pulled inward.
    6. His models show a screwed up deformation of the east penthouse as it falls through the building as it descends. It actually comes back together and then stops falling.
    7. Where is the pronounced kink in the roof line in his model?
    8. He never comes out with reason he "removed" all the columns
    9. The eyewitness reports of explosions don't match his "simultaneous removal of columns" claims
    10. Where is the removal of columns or structural components in Hulsey's report that supports the supposed "detonation" that Barry Jennings' and Micheal Hess experienced?

    Lot's of things in Hulsey's report aren't matching what was seen/experienced that day.

    The fact that he's waiting a month into the "public review" timeline to release his data is very telling.

    Those are just a few items the shows his models are not based in reality. I'm sure much more will come out once his data is released.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't need expertise to point out what is wrong with his analysis. Look at the list above. Engineering is not needed to see what's wrong. Engineering expertise is to see WHY his visual models are wrong and don;t match reality. Engineering expertise is not needed to point out that he needed to use more than just floors 12 and 13 fire models. There was much more on fire than just 12 and 13.

    You sit there and say that I don't have the expertise to contradict what Hulsey report says yet you can approve of what he says even though you admit YOU don't have the expertise? Is it just blind faith on your part? What makes you think everything in his report is without error or mistakes? Nobody has reviewed it yet.
     
  4. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your point of the video?
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope. Wrong. Not what Hulsey's report shows. The only scenario that he found that could have caused the collapse that we saw on 9/11 was the "simultaneous removal of all columns".
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What a stupid reply on your part.

    WTC7 fell in three stages. Anyone can see it.

    1. The east penthouse collapsed first
    2. The west penthouse collapsed next
    3. The remaining structure then collapsed

    Explain how Hulsey's claim of "simultaneous removal of all columns" could possibly have achieved the three collapsed mentioned above at DIFFERENT TIMES.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please show me the peer reviewed scientific analysis that was accepted by the engineering community that proves beyond doubt that Hulsey's hypotheses are invalid. Your opinion is worthless, especially knowing where it's coming from. I know it's really difficult for you to accept the reality that WTC7 was control demolished because you've been married to NIST's fraud for so many years that you can't possibly accept any other scenario but that's not my problem, it's yours.

    Thanks for confirming that facts, science and expertise are not anything you rely on. See above.

    Correct, prove otherwise if you can, not by opinion/denial but by science. Prove there is a scenario that could have caused the global (or even "3 stage") collapse of WTC7. NIST couldn't do it legitimately in 7 years without falsifying the data and hiding their methodology but maybe you can.

    Based on what you posted so far, I'll take that as a compliment.

    If that were true, the majority would believe it and say so. The fact is that not only do well over 3,000 experts don't believe it and neither do a majority and there is a 4 year study (and several other studies) conducted by experts that shows the fallacy of the "3 stage" fraudulent NIST claim, but what anyone can actually see is that it was a GLOBAL collapse, from the moment the roof line began to descend, unimpeded, at free fall initially, near free fall after 100 ft and symmetrically down to near ground level (the portion visible in videos).

    Explain it to Hulsey if you have the stones to. Explain to him how you're right and he's wrong, how YOU proved his 4 year analysis and his hypotheses are invalid. And for bonus points, prove how NIST was correct. Prove that even with NIST's fudged data and claims, WTC7 "collapsed progressively" as they hypothesize, due to structural failure caused by fire alone, contradicting Hulsey's analysis. Publish your peer reviewed study/contradiction of Hulsey's work in any engineering (or scientific) journal and post the link here. Thanks.

    There is an entire thread devoted to NIST's SCAM, the one you pray to. The details of the SCAM have been thoroughly analyzed and posted well before Hulsey's study was even imagined. They were also posted in the other forum I once was a member of and you still are. And even before that, I KNEW back in 2004 that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, there was never any doubt in my mind. Once I figured that one out, I KNEW WTC1 and WTC2 were also controlled demolitions. But that's just me, I speak for no one else, everyone has the absolute right to figure it out for themselves. And they will in due time, once they learn the facts. Some of course, such as yourself, will never figure it out (or will continue to pretend they have no clue other than what they were told by the US government).

    "The evidence is dispositive (a NO BRAINER)" - Attorney David R. Meiswinkle
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For you Margot, none. Just assume the videos are "beyond ridiculous". Nothing to see here.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  9. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you see the controlled demolitions versus structural failure? NONE of the building were cantilevered around a central core nor did they have aluminum skins.... and neither were hit by large aircraft at high speed. What did the video prove? How about some critical thinking here.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Someone who doesn't see the point of my post should not be asking that question. Then again, it's you lol.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I missed the edit window so I'll just add a few things.

    I don't, neither does Hulsey. That's why real experts use the PEER REVIEW process prior to publishing a final report. Hulsey invites the planet to find his mistakes (I found one and emailed my finding), correct them and prove him wrong if possible. SCAMMERS such as NIST make sure peer review is not possible. So even YOU have the opportunity (once the data is available):

    1. To try to prove Hulsey is wrong about his assessment that NIST's hypothesis is not valid for any or all the reasons listed in his draft report.

    2. You keep insisting that Hulsey should have modeled other floors that were on fire besides 12 and 13. It has already been proven that the "fires" on floors 12 and 13 were actually out long before the collapse of WTC7 so NIST's hypothesis is not valid just on the basis of that FACT. NIST was very specific as to what happened on those floors. You would have to come up with similar specificity using other floors that were on fire as models. Furthermore, by insisting that Hulsey should have modeled other floors, you're ADMITTING NIST's hypothesis for those floors is not valid or at best, questionable. So what do you think would lead to a "progressive collapse" using different floor models? How and why? Be specific, use calculations and the exact structural components, as well as temperatures and timing. I already explained to you why that is not a reasonable/practical approach, it requires nearly infinite iterations. I also explained that one of Hulsey's objectives is to explain what did NOT (or could not) happen using NIST's hypothesis. So why would he try another floor? It would have had nothing to do with NIST's hypothesis.

    3. To try to prove Hulsey is wrong that removing all the columns produces a global collapse result of WTC7 similar to that seen on videos. His hypothesis is that the penthouse collapse had to be a separate event based on computer modeling of the failure of column 79. Show in detail why it wasn't and Hulsey is wrong about that. You ask why Hulsey removed all the columns. The answer is quite simple, because that's how you get WTC7 to drop symmetrically at free fall, just like it actually did. Remember one of his other objectives was to show what could have made WTC7 collapse in the manner seen on videos. So he did just that. Do you actually believe there are many ways this could have happened due to fire alone? You keep rejecting the MOST likely way this happened in favor of the LEAST likely way. That's not a very scientific or logical approach.

    4. To try to show that there is an alternative to removing all the columns that can produce either a progressive collapse or a global collapse of WTC7 that matches (within reason) what is seen on videos. Can you program infinite iterations into a model?

    If you can't do it within the time frame of Hulsey's publication of his final report, you can still be an OCT hero no matter how long it takes you. You can even assemble a team of "debunker" pals (including Mick West) and see if the engineering community supports your conclusion(s). Trying to convince me is an exercise in futility, convince experts, that would be a real achievement.

    I did. Didn't you? I'm sure many others have. But we are still waiting for the data, right? Something NIST refused to provide because it would "endanger public safety". Why would you not wait for the engineering community to have their day in court? I waited 18 years, I can wait a few more months, I'm not the expert and I can admit that 24/7. But I'm definitely not ridiculously dumb enough to believe fire alone caused WTC7 to drop just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition. And if you believe you know more than the experts even before any of them have had a chance to review the draft report (or any time for that matter), you're really delusional, especially given your fanatical defense of a fraud such as NIST's impossible hypothesis.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You mean you don't believe your own eyes?! Have you watched the actual video of the collapse? Are there three distinct potions of WTC7 that collapse at different times?

    1. East penthouse
    2. West penthouse
    3. Rest of the structure

    How ridiculous that you deny this simple fact.
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Please show me a peer review that shows Hulsey's hypothesis is valid. Until that is done, you have no leg to stand on. I can easily see that his models do not match what was seen on that day. We'll see when his data finally gets released.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The report, yes. And so far people are pointing out his mistakes just from the visual models alone. Anyone can see that they are not realistic.

    We need to see the actual data to see WHY they are unrealistic.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But you're not an expert in the field Bobby! Isn't that what you keep saying? Expertise matters when criticizing his report? Why should he listen to a non-expert? Why did you even send him anything?
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roflol::roflol::roflol:

    And then you say this!
    So you're agreeing that the collapse consisted of separate events/stages?

    That's just awesome! Way to contradict yourself! Thanks for proving my point!
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And your above post is exaclty what is wrong with Hulsey's report. If he is correct, and that's a big IF, all he did was prove NIST's HYPOTHESIS is wrong and that's it. Yet he says that FIRE COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE.

    Do you understand that problem with what his report supposedly shows and what his claim is? You posted it numerous times above. He admitted he didn't test all scenarios. How can he claim fire didn't do it?
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's valid unless and until proven otherwise by legitimate science, not opinion. That is currently in the process of peer review.

    You have it reversed, YOU made the claim that Hulsey's draft report has been proven invalid. You have no basis from which to make that claim other than your personal opinion, which counts for zero. It's you who has no leg to stand on.

    Exactly, you just contradicted yourself. What you personally "see" or don't "see" has no basis in validity and then you reverse your own opinion with the second sentence, which is also inaccurate. It's not up to you to decide anything, you have no expertise in the matter and therefore no standing. I also see that NIST's model does not match what is seen on video. The difference is that Hulsey's model is much more representative of what is seen on video. Is it perfect? Of course not, it's a computer model that has its limitations.

    Same nonsense. Who are these "people" that are pointing out his "mistakes"? If you mean the OCT fanatics at Metabunk and yourself, not one of you has the level of expertise and background required to peer review Hulsey's draft report, all you have is a fanatical desire to try to prove the OCT is correct and everything that contradicts it is wrong or usually a "conspiracy theory", a catch-all term you use as a substitute for science. You don't even seem to understand the purpose of computer modeling, despite that it was already explained to you. That much I am an expert on because my entire career of well over 4 decades has been devoted in part to computer software modeling on a commercial platform.

    This is a moronic backwards statement. No valid investigation begins with the premise that something is "unrealistic" prior to a complete investigation.

    Exactly, something you don't have. Your hypocrisy is astounding but typical for you.

    Because it was an obvious typo that requires correction. I posted exactly what it was that required correction because it referred to a figure that doesn't exist in the draft report. It doesn't take an expert to note a typo, just careful reading.

    Nonsense, I never said "the collapse consisted of separate events/stages", you said that because you plagiarized it from the NIST report. I said that a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION consists of 3 stages: Planning, Rigging and Triggering. Part of the CD apparently required blowing out a structural support that cause the penthouse to drop into the building prior to the triggering that caused the GLOBAL COLLAPSE of the building. I don't know why or if it's true that it was required since I didn't plan it and I'm not a CD expert. And you certainly don't know either. Like I said, explosions were going on prior to the collapses that were apparently required to weaken the structure to insure a global collapse. All you're trying to do with the penthouse collapse is to try to push NIST's invalid "progressive collapse" hypothesis that never made any sense even before Hulsey studied it.

    You don't have any point and never did.

    You can't even see the contradiction in your claim. Prior to the draft report, I also felt the same way, that Hulsey should not have made the claim that he proved fire did not cause the collapse of WTC7. But upon closer inspection following the draft report and the computer models, I fully understand how and why Hulsey's claim is 100% correct. By proving NIST's hypothesis invalid, it leaves NO valid existing hypothesis (not that NIST's was ever valid in the first place) that can show that fire caused either the progressive or global collapse of WTC7. It was the last (and only) barrier. Therefore the only possibility proven to have the capability to cause it is the simultaneous removal of ALL of WTC7's columns. Something that fire is incapable of causing. While it is extremely remotely possible that fire could have caused the collapse of WTC7, it is not possible that it could have caused a global, symmetrical collapse at free fall. Even Shyam Sunder agrees with that in a couple of ways.

    1. “free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it" - Shyam Sunder
    2. The NIST hypothesis is that the collapse of WTC7 was a progressive collapse, not a global collapse. Progressive collapses by definition cannot drop uniformly at free fall.

    pro·gres·sive
    /prəˈɡresiv/
    adjective

    1. happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step


    You say IF Hulsey proved that the NIST hypothesis is invalid. What more in the world do you need to understand from Hulsey's draft report that is missing that shows beyond doubt that NIST's hypothesis has no basis in validity? There are at least 2 other engineering studies (Weidlinger and ARUP) that contradicted NIST's WTC7 collapse initiation hypothesis and not one that supports it.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to Hulsey's modeling the support for the penthouse was destroyed at about the 45th floor, which was never on fire. Removing the support at lower floors would have produced a different result. I have no way to vouch for that, it is however verifiable once the data becomes available.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Let's take the east penthouse for example Bobby. You think Hulsey's model represents reality? He shows the east penthouse opening up like a clamshell bucket as it descends, falls through the building still holding together, closes back up, and then stops descending still together.
    eastpenthouse1.png
    eastpenthouse2.png
    eastpenthouse3.png
    eastpenthouse4.png

    How is it possible that the BOTTOMS of the east and west side perimeter columns of the east penthouse swing outward? How did the eats penthouse stay together as it descended? How did the east penthouse close back up as it stopped in the building? Most importantly, where are all the disconnected structural elements effected by this descent?

    That's completely unrealistic. We need to see his data to find out why.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Contradict yourself much? How can you say there was a SIMULTANEOUS REMOVAL OF ALL WTC7's COLUMNS when the east penthouse collapsed 6 to 7 seconds earlier than the rest of the building? If there was a SIMULTANEOUS REMOVAL OF ALL WTC7's COLUMNS then why didn't the ENTIRE BUILDING fall at the same time?
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you're guessing.

    Got it.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Interesting. So you agree with Weidlinger and ARUP findings? They found that fire caused the collapse. You're in quite a pickle with that statement Bobby. Either you accept the Weidlinger and ARUP reports as valid (including their conclusion that fire caused the collapse) in order to use them as proof that NIST was wrong, or you have to retract that statement and say that they were wrong.

    Which is it?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you don't see different stages of the collapse as being;

    1. East penthouse collapses
    2. West penthouse collapses
    3. Rest of building collapses

    You instead see the ENTIRE building collapse at the same time?
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wait! I thought you said the columns were all removed SIMULTANEOUSLY? Now we have demolitions going of to weaken the structure prior to the collapses?
     

Share This Page