Study of the NIST Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Theory

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We certainly don't know the entire truth but there already is quite a bit of truth out there already. This thread and at least 2 others:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/

    The hard evidence of a conspiracy is the 9/11 event itself and the ensuing coverup. The attack was a conspiracy, there also was a conspiracy to do nothing of any substance both prior to and during 9/11. These are all hard evidence of a conspiracy.

    The ball has been rolling since 9/11. It isn't going to stop.
     
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,136
    Likes Received:
    26,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no empirical evidence of a US government conspiracy regarding 9/11.

    As someone with an engineering background I have read the NIST report and done the math for myself. While there may be some minor discrepancies the math checks out. Those discrepancies are circumstantial since nothing is ever built 100% to spec per the plans. Since we can no longer study the buildings themselves and only have the plans there is no way to ascertain exactly what those difference were. However the math does not lie and the math corroborates the NIST report within an acceptable margin of error.

    One way for those who believe that this is a conspiracy to verify for themselves what caused the collapse is for them to try this experiment for themselves. Build a bonfire and then have as many of them as they want pick up a small car and hold it up over the bonfire. Then watch what happens as those closest to the fire have to let go and move away. Eventually there won't be enough left to hold up the car and they will drop it.

    That is essentially what happened on 9/11. The remaining girders lost strength as they were weakened by the raging fires. Once enough weakening occurred the buildings collapsed. This is basic Strength of Materials 101 for any engineering course.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I thought I'd posted these videos in this thread.

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)

    (4:30:52 time mark)

    Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - w/ Ed Asner

     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So then please post your contradictions to Dr. Hulsey's findings, after you've actually read them. It's apparent you either haven't or you've ignored them. They not only don't corroborate NIST's theory they contradict it to the level of IMPOSSIBILITY. The "margin of error" according to Hulsey is 100% (a total contradiction), that is far from "acceptable". Please explain how or why YOUR math differs from Hulsey's. Explain on what basis your alleged engineering background and alleged math gives you any standing to contradict Hulsey's findings. In other words, what materials and methodology did you use besides posting a bunch of unsupported claims in a discussion forum?

    The WTC buildings were not a "bonfire" or a "small car" over one. So far your premise is unrelated and irrelevant. The study of the destruction of the towers on 9/11 has nothing to do with any conspiracy, it's strictly science or building collapse theory.You're already introducing a worthless red herring into the discussion. It will take a legitimate investigation by relevant experts with the proper tools and evidence to try to ascertain what might have cause the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11, not simplistic irrelevant claims made by an anonymous poster in a message forum.

    Not even close.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those videos have nothing to do with Hulsey's findings, other than that they created the incentive to fund his project.
     
  6. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, you comparing flesh and blood bodies with structural metal? lol Get outta town dude. lol

    I think there is evidence that this event did not happen as portrayed. That would stand up to scientific scrutiny. The problem is it will never be scrutinized. And if it is, you will never see it in the media.

    There is overwhelming evidence of something in our skies not of humanity, for we did not create the craft. But this field is also still considered tin foil hat territory. And this is just the way our reality is. Denial is a significant part of our reality.

    I am not into the 911 event, as it does not interest me. But I know if a powerful gov't want to hide things from their citizens, they have the ability today with the death of journalism to do just that. And yes, our gov't indeed has that power, especially today. And gov'ts have hid things since the rise of civilization. This should be well known today, surely. But one can of course deny it. We have seen reality denied for a very long time. And then we ignore the denials.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I know. Post #152 prompted me to post them. When I see stuff such as this...

    ...I can't resist posting those videos.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please note the following request for comments:

    As explained, if you believe you have anything serious and technical (preferably well detailed and sourced) to post with respect to Dr. Hulsey's findings, by all means, I invite you to do so in the appropriate thread.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't blame you and I admittedly have strayed as well. I'd like to keep this discussion on topic though and this is about Dr. Hulsey's findings, not about conspiracies or conspiracy theories.
     
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,136
    Likes Received:
    26,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The experiment is just a means to demonstrate in a very real way how heat alters strengths of materials. None of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists know anything at all about how that works and what role it played.

    As far as an investigation goes it was done on the science of engineering. That is indisputable and the math doesn't lie.

    The Bush/Cheney regime was one of the most incompetent and corrupt of my lifetime and expecting them to have pulled off a conspiracy of the magnitude required by 9/11 is so far beyond their abilities as to be ludicrous.

    There was no US government conspiracy to carry out 9/11 but I am more than prepared to believe that the Bush/Cheney regime were unwilling to reveal how badly they failed to protect the America after having clear warnings about what was about to happen. That is not a conspiracy as much as it is just criminal politicians not wanting to get caught for failing to uphold their oath of office and being help accountable at the polls by We the People.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you've been challenged to show how (in technical detail) Dr. Hulsey's study is wrong (and for that matter the ARUP and Weidlinger studies that also contradict NIST) and on what basis NIST is correct and it seems all you have is unsupported claims. That's what I thought, just a groundless belief, nothing that has anything to do with science.

    That part is correct. So please show how Hulsey's math is wrong and NIST's is correct. Or is this just another unsupported claim?

    Edit:

    Any multiple officials acting in concert to deliberately fail to uphold their Oath is a conspiracy but please take it to another thread, this one is not about any conspiracy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2018
  12. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wish I was interested enough to devote time to this issue, and study the 911 Commission report and then study the other side, including the group of people with the A and E group, which actually does contain experts and very credible men in their group. What little that I know about this group tells me they dispute this heat versus steel meme, causing the kind of failures we saw in the towers and Bld. 7. I would like to see scientists from both sides spend a weeks debating this, and yet that will never happen. Never. But until it does, I will always suspect that there is more to this story, significant things, than the american people know about
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The way it works is not in debate form. Dr. Hulsey will be publishing a detailed, comprehensive paper outlining his team's findings with respect to NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. It will be available for peer review by anyone, including NIST engineers (if any choose to conduct a peer review). Based on reviewer analysis, there may or may not be some corrections. Once all have had a chance to conduct their individual review within a 6 week time frame (I believe that is the time frame) a final official paper will be published and the paper will stand as settled science. This is all standard universally accepted scientific protocol. If that settled science finds the NIST report to be incorrect, then NIST's publication will be presumed invalid and worthless by the engineering/scientific community. Where that goes from there is anyone's guess but I understand Dr. Hulsey's team will then be studying what may have actually caused the "collapse" of WTC7.
     
  14. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My money says this will never come to fruition. It is hard to imagine entrenched academia will go along with it. And if there really was some conspiracy, of powerful men, they will not go quietly into that good night. Don't get your hopes up.
     
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,136
    Likes Received:
    26,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing to debate since the facts are documented in Strengths of Materials tables.

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

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They originally announced that the paper will be available for peer review in November 2017 so it is quite late. I don't know what the hold up is other than Hulsey's team wants to make sure to cover all bases and it's taking much longer than anticipated. They are being funded so they do have to report to AE911. The deadline from what is posted is April. Let's see what happens.

    One the peer review process is complete, it serves as a formal acceptance by the entrenched academia, so there is no choice other than a peer review rejection. If it is rejected, that will require detailed scientific substantiation/confirmation.

    Once again, this is NOT about any conspiracy, it's strictly science.

    On this matter, it's already 95% confirmed that the NIST report in question is fallacy, I don't need to get my hopes up, it is what it is.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct, there is nothing to debate about strength of materials, it is settled science. But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You keep introducing your personal opinion and red herrings into this discussion. If you can't/won't discuss Hulsey's paper, please stay out of this thread.
     
  18. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, but this is outside my field of expertise. But it isn't outside the fields of those on the other side, which you dismiss, and perhaps have never even listened to? I doubt you have. I would have to see a credible scientist or engineer, says, that disputes your position. I would have to see them, take on what you have stated. Then backed up by where science is at today, only then could I have an idea of what the truth is. It seems there is a growing number of experts who seem to think you are wrong. Given this presents an incoherence in regards to this issue, it must be settled, once and for all. Dissenting voices from other scientists and engineers actually is meaningful and pertinent, given powerful men have and will continue to affect our reality.

    I think this is a respectable position to assume. Only the pathological conspiracy theorists would survive such an inquiry, whereas people in my group, would accept the verdict. For what I saw on 911 was so unusual and only the term weird would accurately describe it. It was nontypical of what we have seen historically when it comes to buildings falling down. It is an anomaly. I don't like anomalies. I don't like when something appears to be one thing, and yet we are told another thing happened, which strains credibility. And I think this is the reason that numerous people are having a hard time believing the official story. But this should be normal, not abnormal. For what was witnessed looked to be impossible, given the surreal nature of the event to some people. And it is a one of a kind event, and engineered, or appears to be to some people.

    But as I told Bob, don't hold your breath on the coming of fruition of what he says is in the process. No matter how much hard evidence, irrefutable, that might be presented to contradict the official story on structural failure and its causes. This can be predicted, IMO.
     
  19. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the scientists are right, of course it screams a conspiracy is at hand. That would be the immediate implications of the conclusion which is contrary to the official scientific conclusion. Of course BLD 7 was not addressed in the 911 report.

    So while it is about the science, what the science might imply is conspiracy. So there is this connection which is there.

    My opinion is, if indeed it was a conpiracy, involving very powerful men, they have the power to crush this. And will. For look what is at stake!! Just their lives, and who knows what else?

    If there is nothing to hide, this will go forward and we will have to see if other scientists can invalidate what is concluded and inferred.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is still off topic because this is strictly about science. The ramifications of Hulsey's discovery (if accepted via peer review) is not part of this topic. However, if Hulsey is correct, the ramifications are enormous so I will respond.

    The immediate conspiracy belongs to those in charge at NIST and their co-conspirators. That is, that the notion that they made errors or were incompetent is impossible. These people were/are experts in their respective fields and could not possibly have made such a volume of errors or types of errors. There is also a vast amount of circumstantial evidence corroborating that they conspired to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. This is well detailed in this thread:

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

    Further, since this would be a criminal conspiracy, a criminal investigation would absolutely be required to determine if they acted alone or were directed by another entity. And if they were directed, that would open up yet another conspiracy. Additionally, if NIST's theory (published under implication of fact) is impossible, then WTC7 was not destroyed by fire and some other (unknown and uninvestigated) event took place.

    That's correct and it would indicate yet another conspiracy.

    Science is a basic tool of criminal investigations so yes, there absolutely is a connection.

    No one can erase or crush a peer reviewed scientific discovery. They can propagandize it to death but it will never go away.

    The only ones who have anything to hide are criminals. Science theory can only be supported or invalidated by science.
     
  21. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If these powers exist, the peer review would never be peer reviewed. That is my point. Something would stop it, somehow, someway. They would nip it in the bud. If they had the ability. It will be interesting to watch and see how this plays out.
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The conspiracy part is easy peasy. Clearly, there was a conspiracy to plan and execute the events of the day. The only question is just who the conspirators were.

    I think finding the exact, precise truth is most difficult, but the first step in that process (if it's even possible to know the details) is to acknowledge that deception was involved, that the public was deceived, to the link-in-the-chain individual who must acknowledge that he was fooled. For some individuals, that is the most difficult step, understanding that he was tricked.

    And so by the rules of logic, if we may, if it can be shown the official theory about who planned and executed the attacks is false, then the table is full of other theories that may or may not be valid.

    If any element of a theory is false, by rule the entire theory fails. That is not rocket science, but only simple logic.
     
  23. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that would come later on, if the science contradicts the 911 science. And it must be all about the science for now. If the non official group contain credible scientists and engineers, and they are seeing something wrong with the official report, which does not hold up under scientific scrutiny, then we have a problem. Either all of these independent scientists and engineers are crazy and should be fired from their jobs, or something has a bad odor about itself when it comes to the 911 science. Now to think science cannot be bought, then one has to forget the fake science used to selll americans on margarine, as the science demonized butter long ago. I still remember it, as I lived in that time. It took decades to get the truth. Science provided it, when integrity asserted itself. Yes, we have had fake science, that could go unquestioned for years.
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course human scientists can be bought. That is what NIST was all about. Bush appointed Arden Bement Jr to NIST just one month before the attacks. Bement reported to Bush's Sec.Commerce Donald Evans, who was "like a brother" to Bush, according to Karen Hughes, one of Bush's counselors.

    The science and historical record show that not a single modern high rise building has ever collapsed from fires, and then in one single day in the same city block 3 buildings did.

    Is that science, or common sense?

    Aviation science also blows the official story out of the water. Just one example is the Flight Data Recorder for AA77, the airliner supposedly at the pentagon. That data was all forged. The FDR was not even assigned to an airframe.

    Cell phone science and physics also show the official story to be impossible.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once Hulsey publishes his paper for peer review, nothing can stop that process from happening, the paper will be public and can't be retracted. At that point (or prior), only Hulsey and his team can prevent a peer review. The problem is the cat's already out of the bag, his preliminary findings are already public. All the MSM can do is what they can to ignore it.
     

Share This Page