The 9/11 Commission Scam Exposed in all its Glory

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

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Legitimate eh Bobby?

    Let's look at Hulsey's objective's as stated in his report.
    First two question regarding the above objectives.
    1. Did Hulsey correctly model the fires that may have occurred in WTC7? Why did he only model floors 12 and 13?
    2. Did Hulsey identify the types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse? Why did he just "remove" columns? That's not "identifying" a type failure.
     
  2. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,213
    Likes Received:
    12,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on 9/11 - ThoughtCo
    www.thoughtco.com/why-world-trade-center-towers...
    Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95 percent air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.

    Are you familiar with any of the other buildings Minoru Yamasaki designed?

    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey added to the height.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Was this response mistakenly directed at me instead of someone else? If not, I'm not sure what it has to do with what I posted regarding Hulsey's report on WTC7.
     
  4. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,213
    Likes Received:
    12,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Were you ever in the tower? It was open space not brick and mortar and it swayed as much as five feet.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What in the world does this have to do with anything you quoted from me regarding Hulsey and his WT7 report?
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,301
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not that it matters, but no one who counts disputes Hulsey's expertise and you are certainly in no position to do so. The best example of his expertise is the study and draft paper he produced. It follows all accepted scientific standards to my knowledge, but I'll let the experts review that for me since I make no claims as to my limited level of expertise on forensic investigation standards. Compared to NIST, well there is no comparison.

    PEER REVIEW, you understand what that is, right? Any half-assed forensic structural engineer worth his salt should be able to figure out if anything was tweaked once given the data and methodology. If Hulsey was caught "tweaking", that would be quite damaging to his career and reputation. An error is one thing, tweaking is something else altogether. NIST was ALL ABOUT tweaking, yet I never, ever saw you raise any concerns about that. You even deliberately avoided that discussion for months when I asked you for your opinion on tweaking (to be kind) by NIST.

    Absolutely, 100%.

    You obviously either didn't read the draft report or don't have any clue what you read. Hulsey used NIST's own false data and the correct data to model what SHOULD have happened (or not) in both cases.

    To put it in elementary terms for you, because that's how modeling works, trial and error. You remove some columns (including those claimed by NIST), see if the model replicates the actual collapse, then you remove others, then you remove them all to see what might replicate the actual collapse. And presto, magic, the one that works best is the one where all the columns are removed simultaneously. Hulsey does not say it means CD, but then again he doesn't have to, any idiot knows it means CD.

    If you had to ask the 2nd question in #2 above, you obviously are in no position to make that fallacious claim. What "type" of failure do you know of that removes all the columns simultaneously? Fire?

    You really are a piece of work. You're beginning to sound like Margot and that's not a compliment.
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,216
    Likes Received:
    2,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atta was a coke-snorting whore monger, and nothing more than a character in a morality play which you consider to be true life.

    The aircraft that struck the towers were NOT AA11 and UA175. There were no hijackings that day. There was a ruse, and you fell for it.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did you read his report Bobby? Obviously you didn't because you missed this sentence on page 63:
    Why only two floors Bobby? I thought you said he used NIST's own data? NIST did fire simulations for more than floors 12 and 13.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you point me to the part of the report where Hulsey did calculations for the type and amount of explosives used and where they were placed? Magically removing columns doesn't cut it Bobby. I wonder why Hulsey didn't mention "controlled demoltion" in his report?
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You describe Hulsey's reason for removing/failing the columns perfectly!!! Thanks!

    All column were removed simultaneuosly? You better go read his report again and view the video of his model. Then come back here and explain how you came up with "all the columns are removed simultaneously". Here's the video from the UAF site.


    How does removing all columns simultaneously result in the structure collapsing in three different stages? Good luck.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We already know it was tweaked to give AE9/11 the results they paid for. Look at the collapse of the east penthouse in the video above? Since when did the east penthouse collapse like what is shown? Wheher are the structural members below the east penthouse? It just magically stops descending a few floors down? Where's the kink that was seen? Where's the rotation of the building?
     
  12. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,213
    Likes Received:
    12,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOLOLOL..... whatever.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,301
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that a joke? The NIST report claims the failure occurred at those floors, so why on earth would Hulsey model simulations at other floors when his objective was to focus on NIST's collapse initiation claims?

    Again, you either have no clue what the draft report is all about or you're pretending to be clueless. Hulsey's study has nothing to do with explosives.

    Yeah it doesn't cut it for YOU because you can't possibly walk away from NIST's IMPOSSIBLE claim that only fire could have been the root cause of WTC7's global destruction.

    I don't.

    Yeah, CDs are magic, just remove all the columns and presto, magic happens, buildings drop at free fall. But in your world fire can do that too. That's why CD experts never blow all the columns simultaneously and always use fire to bring buildings down, right?

    It doesn't. The only 3 stages are planning, rigging and triggering. Only in your world does the free fall drop of a building happen in 3 stages because NIST said so.

    Go back and read Hulsey's draft report or watch the video, I already explained it but you ignored it. I'm not Hulsey nor did I write the draft report.

    What about NIST's "tweaking" to give the US government the results they paid for? Oh yeah it was ok for you because it made sure to yield the result you swear by. Only Hulsey showed that NIST's tweaking couldn't possibly have yielded what NIST claims it did.

    You keep asking ME the most idiotic questions when all you need to do is do the research, wait for the data and do the modeling yourself to either confirm or reject Hulsey's hypotheses (one for NIST's garbage and one for reality). You don't have to take my word for anything, I certainly don't take your word for anything, it makes zero sense. All you do is try to defend NIST's impossible hypothesis no matter how much it's proven that it is impossible.

    "The evidence is dispositive" - David R. Meiswinkle
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  14. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,213
    Likes Received:
    12,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Eyewitness accounts, per AE9/11, go against Hulsey's claim of "all columns being simultaneously removed". "Immediately before and during" the destruction does not equal "simultaneous removal of columns" due to demolitions.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosions
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The eyewitness account below does not agree with Hulsey's "simultaneous removal of all columns" conclusion.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosions
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,301
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
     
  20. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,213
    Likes Received:
    12,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your point of the video?
     
  21. 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".
     
  22. 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.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,301
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    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
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,301
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For you Margot, none. Just assume the videos are "beyond ridiculous". Nothing to see here.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  25. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,213
    Likes Received:
    12,672
    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.
     

Share This Page