Funny thing, that’s a perfect description of your mentality. You must have been looking in the mirror.
So after reading the blog, most of which I've heard before, I can't disagree with the theories posted by the author. The problem is that they are only theories, ones that are quite plausible. And they are based on some realities. For me the only issue that is not theoretical about 9/11 is the science behind 9/11, it is irrefutable (except if refuted by legitimate science). And that science says in no uncertain terms that the official conspiracy theory is not only wrong, it is impossible.
The integrity of the US ended when the US Congress passed and implemented unconstitutional legislation. That was not long after POTUS Bush took the country to war under fraud, but before POTUS Obama invaded Syria. Those actions were US actions, not Russian actions. That is, the domestic enemies of the US are far more powerful and effective in its destruction than any actions from Russia.
Do we have any whistle blowers from the huge crew that rigged the towers for controlled demolition? ... I mean, anyone that saw anything? ... did the janitors do it? ...
There are 2 conflicting hypotheses. The first is the official one that claims that fire is the sole cause of the “collapse” of WTC7. A 4 year scientific study has examined this hypothesis and concluded that it is impossible. The same study has created a model that replicates the manner in which WTC7 was destroyed and concluded that the most likely manner it was destroyed was caused by the near simultaneous removal of all of the building’s columns. So if fire was truly the sole cause then what is missing is to formulate a valid scientific hypothesis that can demonstrate how fire can simultaneously remove all of WTC7’s columns. Science works even better than whistleblowers because it is nearly irrefutable when properly applied. Don’t you agree Mr. “Engineer”?
Most of the whistleblowers regarding 911 are dead. Kinda like those associated with the JFK assassination.
Years ago I read about employees in the twin towers who reported certain floors were closed off several times weeks & months prior to 911, and heard a lot of racket going on on those floors. It sounded like some kind of construction going on...and some said it sounded like workers were pushing dumpsters and slamming them against the walls, it was so loud. I don't recall all the details since it was so long ago...but I'll hunt around for those reports if they're still out there. But I definitely recall reading about it because I was curious about this too.
Also...the crew who planted the demolitions would surely have been murdered. There's no way they'd let those witnesses run around free. I would guess, if they were murdered, that their deaths (according to any family they left behind) were attributed to the 911 attacks. But who knows.
See Item IC in the document called "Persons With Material Information", a supplement to the Petition for Special Grand Jury Investigation into 9/11. https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/12-march-2019-persons-with-material-information/
So you disagree that science works better than whistleblowers? Then you know nothing about science. Science has confirmed or refuted the testimony of eyewitnesses and whistleblowers on countless occasions. If that weren’t true all we would ever have is the word of eyewitnesses and whistleblowers with no way to confirm or refute their claims. Asks the hypocrite who always runs away from inconvenient challenges to his posts he can’t answer. Claims the guy who is clueless about science. The NIST investigation that you once characterized as “adequate” has been proven to be based on wholesale fraud. So to say their reports are “flawed” is to be extremely kind. The Hulsey report has been peer reviewed and is due to be published shortly in its final version. You not only are in no position and have zero qualifications to critique it, even by your own admission, but you are 100% wrong given that it has already been confirmed via peer review. Not that I care about your opinion but I asked you at least twice to post your opinion(s) on what you believe are the flaws with Hulsey’s draft report. Again I’m really not interested in that anymore, your opinion is irrelevant.
I have posted repeatedly the flaws of the Hulsey and NIST reports ... can you link any peer reviews? ... I have yet to find any ...
Barely, but again who cares, you're unqualified so your opinion is worthless. What for? You actually believe you know better than Hulsey's peers? Do you even really care? You claimed you were anxiously waiting for Hulsey's draft report yet when it was published you had nothing significant to say about it. Like I said, it will be published shortly along with all the comments from the peer review process. I'm sure you're "anxiously waiting" for that too LMFAO.
You don’t need it I already posted all the information you need on the peer review process. Put your glasses on and do the research, not that you really give a flying one. Your pretenses are so immature for a guy who claims he’s retired.
You claimed that the Hulsey report has been peer reviewed ... prove it ... and what the **** does any of this have to do with me being retired? ... jealous Bob? ...
That's the claim. It was open for public comments for a 2 month period prior to final publication. I have no reason to doubt it since there are well over 3,000 peers who were fully aware and who have had a chance to review it. Not to mention that all the data, models and methodology were made available for anyone's review. Everyone on the planet had the opportunity to replicate Hulsey's investigation. Everyone had a chance to critique it, including YOU, NIST, all the proud self-proclaimed "debunkers" (e.g. Mick West) and Mickey Mouse. When the final publication is released anyone and everyone still has the opportunity to review it. Every scientific study that has ever been conducted is always reviewable and open to scrutiny and modification or refutation. You would know that if you knew anything about science. Why would I need to prove the obvious? Why would you need me to prove the obvious? Why would you think I would be inclined to prove anything to you? And even if I did, what difference would it make to you? I'm not here to prove anything to anyone. I'm here to discuss issues I'm interested in discussing, with anyone who is serious and preferably mature and intelligent. And in the process share information and educate myself on anything I don't already know. So I'm not sure why I discuss anything with you other than I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Of you and your mentality? Is that even a serious question? I'd rather be dead than share your bankrupt mentality.
so no published peer reviews of Hulsey's deeply flawed paper? ... keep digging Bobby ... put up or shut up ...
