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:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please note none of this is conspiracy theory, it's strictly science, the result of which contradicts NIST's official published theory (conclusion) on the "collapse" of World Trade Center 7 on 9/11/01. It is however, or should be, world breaking news. As of this post, to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong) not one of the largest 20 news outlets has published one sentence on this discovery by a leading and most respected forensic building collapse expert in a 2 year (and ongoing) study, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

    http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

    These are just his preliminary findings (see "Evaluation Progress"). He has much more information that he is currently in the process of verifying. All his findings and conclusions and methods are to be published for peer review shorly. The scientific method requires such transparency/availability and NFPA (fire investigation) protocol requires the use of the scientific method.

     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  2. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,879
    Likes Received:
    5,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reality is only what MSM and the official story tells us it is. If you notice a plethora of incoherence in that story of reality, you must never question it, even if you must stop all critical thought and rationality. To help you do that the CIA once coined the term, conspiracy theory, with that term having a negative connotation, in the same way MSM will chuckle and roll their eyes upon a reported UFO sighting. It is a secular shunning in a sense and it is remarkable as to how effective it is.

    I do not care how much science backed evidence appears in regards to bld 7, those that see this event as per the official story will not change their minds. It has something to do with the human mind and human nature which is more powerful that critical thinking and rationality. But 911 and other events always serve as a means test, which separates the quality of mind that people have. And it does not separate the critical thinkers from the tin foil hat crowd. It separates the non critical minds from the critical minds. For critical, rational, logical minds will never ignore too much incoherence and far too many coincidences. And so the official story is impossible. So there is a conspiracy here, but that is as far as I am willing to go. There is much more to it than what we have been propagandized to believe. And the more info that comes out, like this report, the more suspect the official story becomes. If you possess a critical mind.

    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
    The Mandela Effect and Bob0627 like this.
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    89,176
    Likes Received:
    21,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As usual when someone says it is science and NOT a conspiracy theory it is in fact a conspiracy theory devoid of any science.

    It is no surprise it is financed by AE911truth which is nothing more than a fraudulent organization of anyone and everyone EXCEPT architects and engineers who sit in their moms basement believing that they are enlightened for believing in conspiracy crap.

    Hulsey is nothing more than a self proclaimed expert with no credentials or peer review to support his idiotic conspiracy theory conclusions.

    The OP is a massive fail
     
    Just_a_Citizen and Antiduopolist like this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, who do you suggest has better qualifications? Why is he not independent? Who is most capable at forming his own team? What is your objection? Did you object to any of the NIST personnel? Why or why not?

    Of course, these things are not cheap. How much did the US government pay for the 9/11 Commission and NIST? Who else was going to pay for this? Right, no one. Thanks to this organization we have a REAL investigation into at least a small part of 9/11 as opposed to none.

    Of course, they're paying for it. For the same reason the US government reviewed the NIST Report, they commissioned and paid for it. It is also being peer reviewed, that means anyone and everyone are included, including you and me. If anyone has any input, it is quite welcome. How do I know?

    1. Because Dr. Hulsey has presented it for peer review and encourages it.
    2. The scientific method requires it.

    What makes it more thorough in your opinion? How were you able to arrive at that conclusion when Hulsey's report has yet to be completed and publicly released? Dr. Hulsey mentioned the Weidlinger Report and there is a thread on it in this section. I assume his paper will detail a review of the Weidlinger analysis as claimed by Hulsey, as well as the ARUP analysis. Once published you will have the opportunity (as will anyone, especially peers) to explain your position, whether you agree or disagree with his findings. You can also publish it if you wish, also for peer review.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    89,176
    Likes Received:
    21,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So basically you are only going off opinion and not evidence.
     
  7. Antiduopolist

    Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Messages:
    19,776
    Likes Received:
    7,801
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Doesn't this thread belong in the Conspiracy Forum?

    7 fell because it was massively damaged by unprecedented catastrophic events occurring at the twin towers.

    The end.
     
  8. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes long since proven fact.

    And yes this belongs in the conspiracy theory section.

    Bob will never allow his faith to be challenged and willfully ignores the vast evidence which refute sit but that is life for a conspiracy fool.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What opinion? How does your claim answer any of the questions I asked you?
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    89,176
    Likes Received:
    21,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does your claim constitute evidence?
     
    SiNNiK and Antiduopolist like this.
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Science and facts are not conspiracies. I've long maintained that 9/11 should not be relegated and trivialized to the conspiracy section of any forum. It is fact, it happened and it needs to be discussed on the level of one of the most significant events of our generation, because that's what it is.

    Thanks for your anonymous, non-scientific and unsupported opinion but in comparison to a 2 year study by a well respected and esteemed expert using state of the art tools, your opinion has no standing in the real world and has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. But feel free to publish it if you're confident that's why WTC7 "fell". The official NIST position is that the damage caused by the destruction of the North Tower was not a significant cause of the "collapse" of WTC7 other than the debris caused the fires. So your personal opinion contradicts both NIST and Dr. Hulsey.

    Of what? Your opinion I assume.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evidence of what? You still haven't answered a single one of my questions. All you keep doing to avoid answering any questions is asking me ambiguous questions.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's incorrect BTW, the funding of the study is $300,000, it probably requires much more. It is also being supported by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  14. Antiduopolist

    Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Messages:
    19,776
    Likes Received:
    7,801
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An exploration of why people devote so much energy to conspiracy theories would be interesting, but this long-ago debunked junk science is not; good luck to the OP in resolving whatever drives your devotion. :)
     
  15. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    8,699
    Likes Received:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lol, this study reminds me of one I did when I used to sell crack.

    I gave away $50 sacks to a few of my bestus Custies, & asked them if it was good dope.

    Of the 10 heads involved in the study, not one said the dope sucked.
     
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  16. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Nazi if you had half a brain and knew how to use it you would not have to rely on the government fairy tale, and their hired lap dogs NIST to show them the correct answers...the questions remaining are too numerous to ignore, but you and your government masters chose to ignore them and keep on your merry little acting charade of not wanting to know the truth...how much are they paying you?
     
  17. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's hyperbole and not an argument.

    You have asked no questions and neither has any other truther you have only preached a bunch of crap which evidence debunks
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anonymous defenders of the official narrative can criticize Dr. Hulsey's detailed research all they want but it's not going to go away and it will soon be published for peer review. Once approved by the scientific community for official publication (as I'm certain it will be following perhaps some adjustments), it becomes science fact. As claimed, Dr. Hulsey will then turn his research to identifying the most likely possible cause(s) of the destruction of WTC7.

    Please remain on topic, following this post, all off topic posts (including those by a poster I have on ignore) will be reported. This thread is strictly about Dr. Hulsey's research into the "investigation" and conclusion published by NIST on the "collapse" of WTC7 on 9/11/01.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have posted the following in the "Feedback and Questions" section of the forum so all posters can read it as well:

    I am officially protesting the move of the thread:

    Study of the NIST Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Theory

    to the "Conspiracy Theory" section of the forum. Dr. Hulsey's study is NOT conspiracy theory, it's newsworthy and strictly science. I demand an explanation of how and why this subject is being categorized as a "conspiracy theory".
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Re-posting the video, the one in the first post is no longer valid.

     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can't/won't answer one single question, eh? That's what I thought.
     
  22. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    According to Barry Jennings an official with the NYC building authority, he was in Bldg 7 in the morning, and it had been recently vacated...there was a tremendous explosion in the sublevels, even before any "aircraft" allegedly hit the towers. This would certainly indicate controlled demolition, as this is part of the prep work for such an event....controlled demolition all the way on this one, was well as WTC 1 and 2
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The thing is, even without Barry Jennings, the position that the US government takes is that these 3 buildings totally collapsed naturally in a matter of seconds on the same day as a result of planes/fire/damage or just fire. The official position is that it was "inevitable" for the twin towers per NIST, but they did not investigate it by their own admission (in a footnote). So there is no official proof. Americans have to accept on faith that it was "inevitable" for the twin towers. The official position per NIST on WTC7 has scientifically/forensically been proven in technical detail to be false (peer review pending). So there is no official proof that WTC7 collapsed in a matter of seconds due to debris precipitated fire alone. Not to mention that the proof of a debris precipitated fire is lacking as well.

    So if there's no proof that the "collapses" were caused naturally and history has shown that naturally occurring total collapses of steel frame high rise buildings in a matter of seconds due to raging infernos are non-existent outside of 9/11 (1 out of 40+ is in dispute); And if the only event that is known to collapse high rise steel frame buildings in a matter of seconds is a well planned and executed controlled demolition; And if it wasn't a controlled demolition or a natural cause, then the only thing that's left is an absolute miracle.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2017
  24. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male

    You are wrong...Silverstein the owner admitted to demoltion when he said on PBS "they decided to pull the building"...Pull being the terminology used to controlled demolition....wakey wakey
     
  25. Antiduopolist

    Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Messages:
    19,776
    Likes Received:
    7,801
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That odd comment got me to look MUCH more closely at Building 7, but ultimately, it went down as a result of catastrophic structural damage.
     

Share This Page