Study of the NIST Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Theory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Sep 13, 2017.

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The supporting beams of the WTC towers were loaded in the vertical direction when the impacts occurred. Now consider 80,000 lbs travelling at 500 mph slamming into those beams horizontally. The beams sheared off at the point of impact as can be seen by the massive holes that were created. The energy contained in the planes was transferred to the sheared pieces of the beams which is what sent them flying from the point of impact.

    Take a piece of drywall and stand it vertically in an open space. Now swing a baseball bat at it as hard as you can and see what happens. That might give you some small idea of how the forces at work apply.

    Since those other buildings you are referring to where not hit by planes you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

    I am not defending anything. I am applying my own engineering knowledge to what I witnessed with my own eyes that day.
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is so typical. I responded to your post and asked you a bunch of questions. The above is obviously your way of avoiding everything I posted.

    1. Strength of material facts have nothing to do with this thread and is totally irrelevant to this topic.
    2. I have no standing or expertise to dispute strength of material facts.
    3. I never disputed or claimed to want to dispute strength of material facts or even expressed any desire to discuss the issue. I don't even understand why you would expect me to do that, especially given the subject of this particular thread. It seems to me the only purpose for that is to avoid discussing the topic of this thread and to try to derail it.

    1. Your "findings" are irrelevant to this thread. They are strictly YOUR theory, they are unpublished (since you never provided any requested link to any publication), not to mention they contradict all the known published findings by experts and other entities.

    2. I have no basis to nor am I inclined to refute or even discuss your personal theory. It doesn't belong in this thread and I specifically noted that I would prefer that you start your own thread to discuss YOUR personal theory. If and when you decide to post your theory in your own thread and back it up with some concrete detail, I may address it as I see fit. From what I see, you have no interest in answering any of the questions I asked you.

    1. I don't have any "fellow CT'ers", my name is Bob, I am me and this specific discussion is between you and I.

    2. My failure to address YOUR experiment has nothing to do with this thread or anything else for that matter. My purpose is to discuss the facts surrounding the NIST findings and their publications, at least within the context of this thread and its companion thread.

    Then your "no doubt whatsoever" would be 100% false.

    1. I don't have any "inane conspiracy theories".
    2. This thread has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory, never mind mine.

    And lastly, if you actually have a backbone and want to discuss the topic of this thread in a genuine and preferably scientific manner, please stick to the topic. Your attempts at derailing this thread are not welcome.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The guy is completely dishonest. Anyone who claims to be an "engineer" yet doesn't bat an eyelash at the manner in which the 3 massive towers came down in a uniform, unimpeded accelerating fashion at approximately free fall (WTC7) or 2/3 G acceleration (WTC1 & WTC2) from a "natural collapse" caused by the events of 9/11, can't possibly be an engineer. Engineering requires an extensive knowledge of physics. Anyone fully knowledgeable in the science of physics would draw his/her immediate attention to this incredible phenomenon. As he says:

    No they don't, but some anonymous posters definitely do, some habitually.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My peer review of the NIST findings is relevant to this thread since you are discussing a peer review of the NIST findings.

    That you have now admitted that you utterly lack the requisite knowledge necessary to determine whether or not what you are seeing in the video is factual simply exposes the GULLIBILITY of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

    By openly admitting to having zero relevant knowledge to evaluate what actually caused the buildings to collapse you have effectively derailed your own thread!

    :roflol:

    And lacking such knowledge means that you are unqualified to discuss this topic in a scientific manner. That you cannot follow even the most basic of the thermodynamic principles involved even when given elementary experiments that you could try for yourself makes a mockery of your allegations.

    Yes, this thread belongs here along with all the others because there is ZERO CREDIBILITY amongst those who can't accept the scientific facts that refute the bogosity that underlies all of these conspiracies.

    You have nothing of substance and you are, by your own admission, unwilling to learn anything that exposes your own gullibility in this matter.
     
  5. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    How would any conspiracy theorists even know that given that they swallow the blatant lies about the WTC without question?

    :roflol:

    The math and physics are DOCUMENTED SCIENCE! They don't change and they fit with the FACTS as recorded on the videos and documented in the NIST findings.

    The only lies are the ones spouted by the conspiracy theorists because they lack the basic knowledge to differentiate between fact and fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves and the buildings collapsed because of the damage inflicted and the subsequent fires that weakened the supports.

    Anything else is just perpetuating lies and that is coming from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists alone.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The trouble is, this thread is NOT about YOUR alleged peer review of the NIST findings, it's about Dr. Hulsey's peer review of the NIST findings. Your peer review, as an anonymous poster in a discussion forum has little to no value with respect to those with verifiable and well respected credentials who author their work. It's also not newsworthy as you haven't even published your work.

    1. I admitted no such thing, yet another lie.
    2. Hulsey's video presentation, while technical, is fully understandable to anyone with reasonable intelligence and level of education. The fact is that you haven't bothered to discuss it once despite that it's the topic of this thread.
    3. Once again, I am not your personal demons (i.e. "9/11 conspiracy theorists"), I am Bob and this (non-)discussion is between you and I.

    Nonsense, I never admitted any such thing, childish emojis or not. I've thoroughly evaluated what could not possibly have caused the buildings to be destroyed many years ago and everything I've learned since has only confirmed what I learned years ago. I am fully capable of understanding and evaluating the issues at hand. Face it, you're either not an engineer or you have an incurable case of cognitive dissonance or both. Your diversions only reinforce that fact. As stated, you haven't once approached any of the issues presented by Dr. Hulsey. Rather than approach the details of his findings, you want to divert the discussion to your personal simplistic one-liner theories. You conflate science with conspiracy theory when the science doesn't agree with your personal beliefs in order to try to muddy up the issues. You're way too transparent.

    I will not respond to the rest, none of the above has anything to do with the topic of this thread in the first place. Either stick to the discussion of Hulsey's findings or stay out of this thread
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again, you are mostly trolling. Stick to the topic of this thread or leave the thread. This is the only sentence barely worth addressing.

    Then show in technical detail how Dr. Hulsey's findings are incorrect as they summarily contradict NIST's findings and your claim. Once again, this isn't about you, me, conspiracy theories/ists, your personal theories or your peer review (unless you can show a correlation to Dr. Hulsey's findings).
     
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Accusing another member of lying is a PF Rule violation. Do it again and you will be reported.

    As far as your bogus allegation goes these are your very own words ADMITTING that you have zero knowledge of the subject matter.

    Now to deal with the FACTS!

    The NIST report details the FAILURES of the building structures that caused the collapses to occur. That you don't even know that much says volumes about your own lack of qualifications.

    My own peer review addressed the CAUSE of the structural failures based upon well known engineering principles and scientific data.

    Your OP violated PF rules since it contained no actual points of discussion. It was just a broken link and some inane comments without any substantive content.

    At no point in this thread have YOU addressed one single thing that Hulsey claims to have found. Is this because you can't or because you lack the fundamental knowledge necessary to address the topic on a knowledgable basis as you have already admitted?

    As the OP the ONUS is entirely on YOU to provide the SPECIFIC POINTS raised by Hulsey pointing out EXACTLY what is allegedly wrong with the NIST report. You have FAILED to do so and instead you fallaciously project your own obligations onto others.

    That your CONSPIRACY THREAD topic is an ABJECT FAILURE is not my problem.

    Your lack of expertise on the subject matter has been revealed by your own admission and you cannot and will not engage in a substantive discussion on the ACTUAL CAUSES of the structural failures.

    Instead you have resorted to puerile ad homs which is the trademark stamp of all conspiracy theorists who are losing because the FACTS are not their friends.
     
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,067
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well actually, you ARE defending the official story, whether you understand that fine point or not.

    If you are applying your own engineering knowledge, upon what is that based? It must be purely hypothetical, because before that day, not one single modern steel building anywhere in the world had ever collapsed at free fall speeds from fire. Not one, and not one since, though several have burned quite nicely, and never collapsed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To clarify the purpose of this thread since it seems some posters are confused as to what it's all about:

    1. It was originally posted in the "Latest US & World News" section of the forum, exactly where it belongs. It was moved to the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the forum UNDER PROTEST. To date, no one has supported the validity of the move to this section with anything that makes any sense.

    2. The discussion should be about the ramifications of Dr. Hulsey's discovery. And that is the purpose, period, end of story.

    3. The technical discussion with respect to Dr. Hulsey's discovery is taking place here:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
     
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since there is no way for you to verify my knowledge there is no point in making unverifiable claims. Instead I provided the link and facts that support the basis of the collapse in my earlier post. You can use the internet to verify those facts about Strengths of Materials for yourself. They are consistent and factual. The engineering principles I am using are available to anyone who taken courses in structural engineering and applied math. This too can be verified by yourself if you wish to do so by looking them up on the internet. These links can help you get started. I will answer any questions you might have.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_engineering

    http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/

    http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM15/Contents.htm

    http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM15/BGSCM002/index.htm

    http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM15/BGSCM003/index.htm

    http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM15/BGSCM007/index.htm

    http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM15/BGSCM008/index.htm

    None of the other buildings that you are referring to had their structural integrity compromised by the violent impact of a fully loaded plane hitting it at full speed.

    The speed of the collapse was related to the point of impact and the weight of the floors ABOVE the point of failure. If you were to take buildings of the same size as the remaining floors and destroy their supports at ground level they would collapse in exactly the same manner and at the same speed because gravity is a constant.

    I am defending the math and the physics that the NIST report and I happen to both be using. What the Conspiracy Theorists need to do is to PROVE that the math and physics are wrong. No one, including Dr Hulsey, has done that.
     
    ArmySoldier likes this.
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,067
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Derideo

    With all due respect, we simply agree to disagree.

    At this stage in the game, 16 years after the fact, links to specious reasoning and sophistry prove nothing at all except the extent to which the sophistry has been accepted by the public.

    Never before, and never since, has any modern steel building caught fire and then collapsed at free fall rates. Architects and engineers question the story, and I the layman question the story.

    At every level, the official story is false, it is impossible.

    I know when I've been deceived by the government, and apparently you do not. That's OK by me.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're saying that unless someone (including Dr. Hulsey) can prove that basic engineering principles, physics and math are wrong, NIST and you are 100% right about their and your theories on the "collapse" of the 3 towers on 911 (regardless that your theory completely disagrees with NIST's theory). And you claim to be an engineer but you can't show a single lick of evidence to support either your claim that you're an engineer or any detailed paper about your theory. Ok thanks, I completely understand the basis for your confusion but this thread is still about Dr. Hulsey's interim paper, not your confusion.
     
  14. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The vast majority of architects and engineers have no problem whatsoever with the NIST findings because they are in accordance with standard engineering principles. It is only a small subset who are conspiracy theorists.

    Never before has a modern steel building been impacted at full speed by an airplane prior to catching fire.

    The official story might not have every single detail correct but that is hardly surprising given the magnitude of the destruction that compromised the ability to obtain all of the evidence.

    However the math and physics all add up and I, along with the vast majority of engineers and architects, consider the NIST findings to be credible.

    What I do consider to be false is the parade of conspiracy theorists who have no clue about any of the engineering principles involved making up "gotcha" nonsense and spreading it around as if they have discovered something of value. The sheer magnitude of the conspiracy that they are alleging is enough to discredit them.

    So yes, we can agree to disagree but that won't alter the math and physics that are fairly and honestly represented in the NIST study.
     
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are getting all excited about Dr Hulsey without having any clue as to what he is actually saying.

    Here is a NEWSFLASH for YOU! Dr Hulsey AGREES that it was a STRUCTURAL FAILURE that caused the collapse of WTC7!

    Shocking for you to discover that Dr Hulsey AGREES WITH ME AND NIST! :eek:

    His only MINOR QUIBBLE is with which supporting member collapsed first.

    That is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT and in no way refutes the NIST report or my own findings. The math and physics apply equally regardless of which support was the initial one to fail.

    Obviously he has a book that he wants to sell to the gullible conspiracy theorists like you so he has come up with an alternative beam failure hypothesis. And he is titillating you by promising to reveal something else that he alleges was not the fire. More than enough to persuade the gullible and ensure that Dr Hulsey has a nice fat bonus on which to retire.

    The kicker is that it doesn't matter one iota what he says!

    He can pull something out of his ass and it will be believed by the gullible suckers who live and die by conspiracy theories. He can lie about everything because he is more interested in funding his retirement than his career which is over.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ARCHITECT & ENGINEER SIGNATORIES TO DATE:
    2,911

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news.html



    http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    So anyone who questions/disagrees with NIST and you are conspiracy theorists. The problem is even your one paragraph theory disagrees with NIST's theory. So that makes you a conspiracy theorist in your world.

    Except all the above, Dr. Hulsey's team and those who participated in the Weidlinger and ARUP studies. These are all "conspiracy theorists" because they disagree with NIST's findings. Who are these "vast majority" anyway? Source your claim.

    In your world all the above have no clue but you know better.

    No one in his right mind is going to "alter" math and physics. No matter how much you want to make it about math and physics, NIST could not possibly have conducted a "fair and honest" study if they:

    1. Failed to abide by their primary objective/mandate:

    What are the main objectives of the investigation?

    The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:

    • why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2006/09/nists-world-trade-center-investigation

    The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached - Footnote 2, NCSTAR 1 page xxxvii, PDF page 39.

    2. Failed to use standard investigation protocol that they helped create, publish and demand others use (namely NFPA).



    3. Failed to use the scientific method by failing to make data and methodology publicly available for peer review under false pretenses.

    http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

    4. Failed to use the correct data and structural components they had available from the original Frankel drawings.

    5. Lied about not having the physical evidence to conduct any forensic/chemical analyses.

    6. Failed to conduct interviews with key eyewitnesses and lied about not knowing anything about eyewitness claims about explosions and molten steel/metal.

    7. Immediately rejected any investigation into any and all causes other than fire and debris damage contrary to NFPA protocol, under false pretenses.

    8. Reverse engineered their "investigation" by concluding only two possible causes and worked backward to come up with a theory as to how their conclusion could have merit.

    (the above is just a short list off the top of my head)
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  17. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    29,582
    Likes Received:
    10,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many of those buildings you are referring to had a massive jet blow up in them?

    Please cite your sources so I can verify these claims
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.asce.org/about_asce/

    https://www.aia.org/about

    So that is 240,000 professional engineers and architects to your paltry 2900?

    In other words only 1.2% of them are conspiracy whackos!

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html

    Since there are 200 million registered voters in the USA that means that there are 22 million who believe in your 9/11 conspiracy theory but ONLY 2900 are engineers and architects.

    That means that only 0.013% of conspiracy theorists are professional engineers and architects!

    Your fallacious appeal to authority just crashed and burned because the math doesn't lie!

    :roflol:
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
  19. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,229
    Likes Received:
    26,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Typical conspiracy theorists posting puerile ad homs because they cannot refute the FACTS!

    Dr Hulsey's conclusions are QUIBBLING!

    He ACKNOWLEDGES the thermal expansion as playing a role.

    He QUIBBLES with how the collapse happens but does NOT deny that it was CAUSED by the FAILURE of the structual members.

    Per the NIST findings;

    https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    Per the Strengths of Materials link that I originally provided;

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...es/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    So the collapse occurred in the east side of WTC7 where the LONGEST beams were subjected to the highest temperatures and they deformed due to both creep and loss of strength.

    NIST, Dr Hulsey and I all agree on the CAUSE of the collapse.

    The quibbling about which beam collapsed first is IRRELEVANT.

    Yes, Dr Hulsey is one of an extremely tiny number of engineers who is making a lot of money from the millions of conspiracy theorists like yourself who don't actually have a clue what he is talking about because, by your own admission, you don't have any knowledge about the subject matter.

    But don't let that stop you from funding his retirement!

    :roflol:
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's very telling that you did not respond to one sentence of my response to your post other than the irrelevant nonsense (see "[snip]"). Sorry but your logic is just as awful as your engineering and physics "expertise". Citing the number of members in various entities does not support your claim that "The vast majority of architects and engineers have no problem whatsoever with the NIST findings". You still haven't shown one iota of evidence that all (or any of) these people "have no problem whatsoever with the NIST findings", much less for the alleged reason you claim that it's "because they are in accordance with standard engineering principles". But the emoji is cute, I'll give you that. The kiddies in this forum will be impressed.

    The various numerous experts and others appearing in the videos and in the links I posted EXPLICITLY reject the official narrative and NIST's official reports. It's not even questionable. That kind of evidence is incontrovertible, your "evidence" is make believe by the numbers, same as your peer review and your honesty.

    Further, you still believe that any science or expert who contradicts your personal beliefs is "conspiracy theory" and that "conspiracy theorists" are "whackos" (sic) even though tens of thousands of people make a career of conspiracy theories. It's obvious you're not only not an engineer but logic isn't within your area of expertise either.
     
  21. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,553
    Likes Received:
    5,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OP

    In response to the link - Wow that is some résumé; the man knows what he's talking about. Now to watch the above video and find out the real truth. Thanks Bob.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,067
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The vast majority of architects and engineers are just like the vast majority of lay americans--completely misinformed (by design) about what happened and did not happen on 11 September. Thus most don't know that the designers of the towers are on record as having specifically designed the towers to withstand strikes from airliners. Indeed, the vast majority were so traumatized by what they saw they have completely forgotten that the towers performed EXACTLY as designed, and stood for an hour or more after the strike.

    Nor are they aware that the seismic record shows significant explosions BEFORE the airplane strike. Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong published their analysis years ago showing just that. Nor are they aware that Willy Rodriguez was present in the basement area and corroborated that a massive explosion occurred before the strike on the North Tower.

    Many Americans were not even aware that WTC7 came down that afternoon, and that it was not hit by an airliner.

    To demonstrate how the math and physics DO NOT add up, you are not able or willing to provide any math and physics calculations to explain how massive structural pieces were sent sideways with sufficient force to impale into the American Express Building hundreds of feet away. That, from supposedly a gravitational event. Nope, no science or physics supports that fairy tale. Indeed, if one does some approximate calculations, the energy required to do that is significant, and could be achieved only with some sort of explosive force.

    The NIST study is a farce. Maybe one needs to be a layman to see that, but at least 2300+ architects and engineers are so capable.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm thinking you don't even believe what you're posting and you're just here to troll. Back about 5 decades ago, the popular term for the junk you're peddling was "FAR OUT!". No one is that intellectually bankrupt, not even those who swallow the official narrative.

    The following is a video from about a year ago. At about 10:10 attorney Daniel Sheehan states that Dr. Hulsey listed "8 or 10 very specific things that they (NIST) didn't do or did incorrectly" (for the list, see post #240 at http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/page-12 ). He then asks "do you think this falls within the realm of simple incompetence or you believe this demonstrates a pattern that is so gross that it had to have been done intentionally?". Dr. Hulsey says diplomatically that he doesn't know the answer to that and adds "I don't know how anybody could think that this was a coverup and know anything about finite element analysis and know structural engineering and think they could get away with that". He then asks "if one of your PHD students submitted this to you, would you have flunked them?". Hulsey immediately answers "YES". At 13:28, Sheehan asks Hulsey "on a scale of 1 to 100, how probable is it or how possible is it that this building could have collapsed simply because of the fires?". Hulsey quickly answers "ZERO".

     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,067
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cite my sources? With a man like you so deeply in denial, you would not believe it if Dick Cheney himself admitted it was an inside job, LOL.

    Links do nothing for a man who is not going to change his mind.
     
  25. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    29,582
    Likes Received:
    10,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked a simple question... how many of the buildings that you were talking about that caught fire, had a massive airplane blow up inside of them?

    If it's so funny to you, it must be an easy answer. Should we stand by for a deflection? I'm assuming you aren't man enough to give me a simple answer.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.

Share This Page