cha ching! ... I'm getting rich here while you still live in Mom's basement ... - - - Updated - - - no, he has the right link ... durrr ...
I already have, so often you could probably read any of my posts and find the answer. You don't need to play ignorant games, you're way too transparent.
Why would you do that when his research is specifically about NIST's published claim that WTC7 collapsed primarily due to fire (using NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7)? I can't blame him for ignoring your emails. The website is called WTC 7 Evaluation. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ Hulsey makes no claims about the twin towers that I'm aware of. So which of Hulsey's claims do you have a problem with?
For you. PM's defense of NIST's 9/11 claims (even their abandoned/demonstrably false claims) and attack and ridicule of those who contradict it is just your speed.
Look at the 12th picture on this page: https://publicintelligence.net/911-ground-zero-damage-overview-high-resolution-photos/ That is a perimeter panel hurled from the WTC into another building. There were lots of pictures like that in September of 2001. FEMA had a map of where big pieces hit. The problem is they did not specify the weights and figure out where they came from in WTC 1 & 2. Then you demand figures when it is obvious that the people who should have been collecting data didn't do it. Or at least they haven't told US. The perimeter panels were painted with numbers so the workers would know where they went during construction. A lot of those numbers were visible after 9/11 but we haven't been told how much came from where. A Normal Controlled Demolition makes a building fall in on itself not fly all over the place. psik
I don't believe this is that complicated a problem and "experts" should not have let it go this long. The physics should have been solved before January 2004 and 1300 foot buildings do not stand for 20+ years without getting the distributions of steel right. So at the very least "experts" should have been saying that information is important. This is worse than the Piltdown Man Incident. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wn-man-one-of-sciences-most-notorious-hoaxes/ Who went to war over Piltdown Man? psik
I understand and you're absolutely right but it has nothing to do with Hulsey's research into NIST's published claims about WTC7. Your point is restricted to the twin towers, not WTC7.
How you decide to compartmentalize your thinking is your business. How Hulsey decides is his. Maybe he could not think about the Twin Towers up until 2012. Sounds like a really interesting psychological trick for a structural engineer to me. psik
I can do that absolutely feasibly. Explanation of the pulverization and shredding of twin towers contents is really only done with a demo model that uses the concrete core. See the bottom right corner of the nav quad. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html There are links to other supporting documents through out the page supporting each aspect of theory.
The same can be said for you. True I can't speak for Hulsey, I can only state the obvious. Maybe but according to Hulsey himself, he makes no unsupported claims. He only bases results on a forensic investigation which I don't believe he's done with the twin towers. For example, when asked if he believes CD brought down WTC7, he says he can't make that claim based on the information he has. It's quite possible that when and if he attempts an investigation into the collapse of the twin towers, he will take every detail into account, and I don't doubt he will. Analyzing Hulsey's psychology is not relevant to anything having to do with 9/11 sorry (see your own comment above).
Curiously, so far I have not seen any comment by Hulsey on the amount of steel toward the bottom of WTC 7 versus the top. Are we to assume it had a uniform distribution? And if he says it was greater toward the bottom won't that imply it was more extreme in any buildings twice as tall? So until he says something about that doesn't it mean he either has not analyzed or has not revealed relevant info about WTC7? psik
You haven't seen anything other than his general statements for a very good reason. He has yet to publish his paper for peer review as far as I understand (or it's currently in the peer review process but I haven't seen that it's publicly available). But being as he's allegedly a leading expert in forensic analysis of building collapses, he decides what data he requires to analyze NIST's theory not you. I doubt that you share Hulsey's area of expertise. It's possible the above is necessary for his analysis but then again, maybe not. For example, the NIST claim is that thermal expansion caused a chain of events that ultimately led to the total collapse of WTC7. That expansion was claimed by NIST to be 5.5 inches. Hulsey's analysis (based on all the data NIST had at their disposal as opposed to NIST's selective data) shows expansion could not exceed 2 inches, rendering NIST's claim impossible based on that alone. So he already determined that NIST's claim is impossible (i.e. his objective was reached) without requiring any data on the amount of steel toward the bottom of WTC 7 versus the top. But I understand he went much further than that assessment. You can't make any assumptions as to what data he used and didn't use or what's relevant to his analysis or not since his paper has yet to be published following peer review. Also, you can't apply data and research conducted on WTC7's collapse to the twin tower collapses, they are 2 very different structures and were destroyed quite differently. Personally, I don't need any detailed forensic analysis to know all 3 buildings did not "collapse" as a result of planes/damage/fire or a combination. But it's understood that scientific investigation and forensic analysis does require all the appropriate data. It doesn't mean I'm not interested in Hulsey's work (or any legitimate scientific investigation), quite the contrary, it just means I don't personally require it to reach a conclusion. Basic physics and common sense tells me all I need to know about the OCT.
You are absolutely right and I do not deny it. I have never taken a structural engineering course in my life. But I am not a worshiper of experts and I expect them to state the obvious. And skyscrapers have certain obvious aspects in common. But I have been in electronics and computers for decades and I have seen "experts" leave out information that would make their area of expertise much easier to understand for most people. I worked for IBM and saw them come out with a new computer slower than what it was replacing. I had to run my own benchmarks to determine this because IBM never said anything about benchmarks. Even if what happened to the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were CDs using explosives they were obviously done in different ways but the designers of the destruction would have to cope with the facts that skyscrapers must get stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom. So any EXPERT not explaining this is leaving out information. So I make a point of looking for what "experts" do not say, especially when it is simple. Making themselves look smart? So most people select experts that tell them what they prefer to hear rather than concentrating on understanding the problem for themselves. psik
Not needed? We are talking about historical facts, not proposals for some pending action. There are a number of observed facts at WTC back in 2001 that can be explained ONLY by the nuclear theory. A few: molten metal for about 3 months, hot spots visible from space, strangely burned vehicles, hundreds of them in the vicinity of WTC, many humans with symptoms of radiation poisoning including unusual cancers, massive pieces of steel bent like pretzels and other hurled hundreds of feet laterally. An in depth investigation by whom??? NIST??? You're joking, right?
Absolutely, there are experts at NIST too. Need I say more? I was in the consulting business for decades myself (commercial software). I started in engineering back in the day but ended up majoring in math. Maybe, that depends on context. If it's not relevant to the issue then there's no point to it. As in Hulsey's work. It isn't about the manner in which WTC7 collapsed or even the actual cause (although that is going to be researched according to Hulsey), it's strictly about NIST's probable collapse initiation theory, which is not only improbable but impossible. That makes sense. That may be true or not, I don't know of any poll on that subject. I'm not quite sure what your point is here.
I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report years ago and have searched it dozens if not hundreds of times. I have read every paragraph using the words 'steel' and 'concrete'. Fortunately they are usually in clusters. Also searched for "center of mass" and "center of gravity". They specify the total amount of steel in the buildings in three places but never do that for the concrete. In three places they claim to need the distribution of mass of the towers to analyze the effects of the aircraft impacts. But then they never specify that data or explain why they never get it. Center of gravity should be important to figuring out whether or not the tilted top portion of the south tower should have fallen down the side. But "center of mass" is only used to talk about the aircraft, and "center of gravity" only used to specify some of the computer simulated components in their model. Needless to say "experts" know how to obfuscate things when they want to. I find it very interesting and annoying that the "experts" do not seem to want to totally resolve this issue but merely inclined to play office politics about it. How much is actually accomplished if Hulsey simply proves that the NIST's explanation cannot hold water? psik
It doesn't matter, NIST admitted in a footnote that they didn't investigate the actual collapse of the twin towers. If one isn't going to investigate the collapse, why would one need any of that data? Of course, that was the point of creating computer models for NIST as opposed to conducting an investigation. Computer models are extremely effective tools in an investigation when used legitimately. But when not, one can use selective data (as NIST did) to create a model to yield one's preconceived conclusions and pretend it's a legitimate model. NIST didn't investigate anything other than what they needed to concoct their theories. When one experiment or model didn't work, they tweaked the data to make it work the way they wanted it to work. Even then, the two models of the WTC7 collapse they created were an insult to one's intelligence, at least to those who are actually intelligent. A lot, at the end of the day it's peer reviewed scientific proof as opposed to opinion. In the real world though? Absolutely nothing IMO. There's no way that even proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that NIST's conclusion is 100% false will trigger a legitimate official investigation.They DON'T WANT ONE for obvious reasons.
That statement makes no sense to me in relation to 9/11. I would have no problem with it if it were about something like the Piltdown Man Hoax. 9/11 is not just academic. How many Americans died in Afghanistan and Iraq believing that airliners could destroy skyscrapers and were barely aware of building 7? If more Americans were scientifically aware would the perps have even tried this? psik
First, most intelligent people who have done minimal research know the OCT is scam and that hasn't had any effect on getting the US government to conduct a legitimate investigation into 9/11. If a peer reviewed scientific forensic analysis proves NIST's report is false, the result will also not move the US government to conduct such an investigation IMO. Polls also show most Americans believe the US government is not being truthful about 9/11 and that doesn't have any effect either. The US government relies heavily on the false NIST report to pursue its insane perpetual war agenda. However, for the sake of getting at the truth about 9/11, it is critical and will possibly tip the scales for those who are on the fence. And maybe, just maybe, it will make my opinion wrong and spark something. I don't really believe it will but better to get at the truth and publish it than not and hope for the best. So there is truth at stake and that's the ultimate goal with regard to 9/11. It's far from all of it but it is a significant part so in that sense, it is critical. Trust me I'm fully aware of the consequences of the OCT, I post that point quite often. Ignorant/gullible people believe the US government and are never likely to be moved. Some still believe there were WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. According to AE911T, there are many professionals in various scientific disciplines, including engineers, who are still unaware of WTC7. And more intelligent, probably not. They knew what kind of mentality they were dealing with. Just look at the two embarrassments that ran for President. Would these two have any chance at a candidacy if the level of intelligence in America was higher?
It can't happen without massive radiation, and there is none. Thermite in the steel at sublevels explains the molten metal. The ignition phase of thermite contained behind drywell installed with the WTC1 1993 bombing repair creates airborne super heated particulate that can burn things. There was an in depth study done by forum members years ago that revealed there was a 5 mph breeze with the parking lot of cars incinerated downwind. It seems S jones collected up his samples where he found nano sized particles of thermite across the street form the car park. That's what happens to thermite when it's burning and the gets involved with an HE detonation. Seems the quanity of thermite was quite excessive. There was a lot of toxins released. Also I read that flourscent lights and CRT s have considerable radioactive powder in them. I can show you steel deformed from a wave of concrete particulate slamming it at 5 miles per second. Level and to the left of the man on the right is the face of an I beam web. Notice the billowing of it and creasing of it. Close proximity HE encapsulated in concrete will do that.
How do YOU know there was no radiation? Remember that EPA did not even measure the toxicity of the air, yet pronounced it fit to breathe. DELTA Group was brought in about 10 days after, and the air sampling they did showed it to be most toxic. Mainstream media didn't even cover it. That fact was suppressed. Actually DOE did do some radiation testing, and found some levels. Sorry I don't have a link to it. According to footnotes in Prager's book, USGS collected samples at 35 locations within a 1km radius on September 17 and 18. It had rained September 14. Despite the rain, the USGS crew found many signs of a nuclear event. One girder sample showed Thorium at 6 times the lowest level recorded in those samples. The radiation sicknesses amongst the people who worked "on the pile" are very similar to those amongst survivors of Chernobyl and Hiroshima. Those sicknesses prompted the passage of the Zadroga Bill. I have no problem understanding that thermite was employed. Its use does not exclude the use of nuclear devices. I accept all those pictures you show, and would remind you that such damage, and all the damage observed but not included in your photos, are not consistent with the NIST explanation, office fires burning on the upper floors. The bizarre damage done to so many vehicles, which you seem to NOT want to discuss, can be explained ONLY by the nuclear theory.
This thread is called "911 Theories.....Are there any facts?". Mini-nukes, direct (or free) energy, thermite based products and even controlled demolition are all theories even though each of these have merit. There are irrefutable/indisputable facts however, many of them. These include, but are not limited to: 1. The US government did not do anything of any significance either before or during 9/11 to try to prevent or stop it from happening, despite many strong warnings. 2. The US government conducted several military exercises during 9/11 that effectively compromised its military defense system. 3. As a result, 3 of 4 targets were destroyed with incredible perfection (and a 4th was collaterally and perfectly destroyed) and over 3,000 innocent people were massacred. 4. The US government deliberately destroyed evidence. 5. The US government deliberately classified a mountain of documents/evidence. 6. The US government did what it could to prevent any investigation into 9/11. 7. When pressured into conducting an investigation, the US government did everything in its power to limit and obstruct the investigation. 8. There were 4 claimed "significant" official investigations into 9/11 and a couple of lesser investigations. These were FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, NIST and the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation. There was an FAA investigation which was taken over by the FBI. 9. There was not one single legitimate forensic scientific and criminal investigation into 9/11. 10. The US government used "confessions" extracted via relentless torture to support the 9/11 Commission Report. One such "confession" was signed a detainee who wasn't allowed to read the document he signed. 11. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed. 12. More than 15 years later, there is still a ton of classified material on 9/11 that US government will not declassify. 13. Several independent forensic/scientific investigations have revealed that NIST's theories as published in their official reports are impossible and that their "investigation" was falsely conducted (i.e. not within any universally accepted standards, not even standards NIST helped develop, publishes and expects all official investigators to follow). There are many more 9/11 facts (the above are the more important ones) and most have one thing in common (see above), they point to the US GOVERNMENT.
Any questions/disagreements with the above 9/11 FACTS? If not, I take silence as an agreement that I haven't posted anything other than irrefutable/indisputable facts about 9/11.
Too much emphasis on the US Government. 9/11 is a physics problem. The government is irrelevant to whether or not some things that supposedly happed, could actually happen. Many people turn 9/11 into a pro-government versus anti-government dichotomy. People should be able to figure out some of those things regardless of what investigations the government does or does not do. The physics does not and cannot give a damn. psik
