Discussion in '9/11' started by Shinebox, Jun 20, 2018.
Still waiting ...
No need to lie, you're not waiting for anything. If you were really waiting for it, you would have read what I posted almost 3 months ago and never started this ignorant thread. An "engineer" such as you claim to be knows full well 3 steel framed high rises can be completely destroyed in a matter of seconds from fire, experts and Isaac Newton don't hold a candle to your vast knowledge of alchemy.
Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave the following update on March 27, 2018:
To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:
First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.
We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.
We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.
Again, we thank you for your interest in our study and we appreciate your patience as we strive to bring a truly scientific answer to the important question of how WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.
Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey
Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
No, I'm waiting for the full report and the following peer reviews ... and they didn't collapse due to fire alone ... quit misrepresenting the facts ... truthers lol ...
What for? Do you have any legitimate reason for your alleged "wait"?
No shyt Sherlock. You finally figured that out?
I'm not, according to NIST WTC7 "collapsed" strictly due to fire. That's a fact that it's NIST's claim and it's the whole point of Hulsey's study, the one you claim to be "still waiting" for. As for the twin towers, NIST only claims the complete destruction of the twin towers in a matter of seconds was "inevitable". They also claim they didn't bother to investigate the actual "collapses" but they blame the heat from the fires for weakening the steel and initiating the "collapses". The destruction of the twin towers are not part of Hulsey's study.
No reality, not your personal demons, lol. I'm Bob, not an Orwellian label used by you as an object of derision. Quit misrepresenting the facts. If you're not one who seeks the truth, the only other possibility is that you're comfortable with lies.
lying again Bob ... show me in the report where NIST says "strictly due to fire" ... you're a joke ...
I never said it was in the report. You're the one who's lying. Shyam Sunder was one of NIST's lead engineers and spokesman for NIST (with regard to the 9/11 "investigation"), he's the one who made that claim on behalf of NIST.
You don't need to personally attack me because you're pretending ignorance to try defend a criminal organization and a massive lie. It doesn't help you with your "hobby", trust me on this.
So Shiner I'm still waiting for your answer as to why you have any interest in the Hulsey study. You started this thread, why the **** for?
quite simple Bob ... Hulsey has produced nothing of substance yet keeps teasing that he will ... still waiting ...
For you. For anyone else who can read and understand what he's claimed so far, it's quite extraordinary.
No you're not, stop lying. If you really believe what you claim to believe, you're not waiting for anything nor are you interested in the least bit about Hulsey's study or any scientific report that contradicts the NIST report, even following peer review acceptance. Why don't you just admit it and quit creating worthless threads. There already exists a thread that genuinely discusses the Hulsey study, you haven't participated in any of that discussion and just make hot air claims that there is "nothing of substance".
Post #218 forward:
And Post #241 forward:
you have astounding arrogance ... please don't try to tell me what I believe as you haven't a clue what you believe in ... do you really want to pin your hopes of some grand conspiracy on column 79??? ...
when are you going to address the elephant in the room? ...
You did indeed state it was in the report in post #5.
No arrogance here, you've long proven you don't care about 9/11 in the least bit. Your own long ago admission that this is just a hobby for you says everything there is to say about your mentality. You expose yourself regularly.
I'm not "pinning my hopes" on anything, column 79 or otherwise. It isn't about "pinning hopes", it's about exposing the scam for what it is. All anyone needs to do is read the posts and the threads I create to know the conspiracy goes far beyond column 79. That's just a tiny portion of the scam.
Which is? When are you actually going to discuss the details of the Hulsey (preliminary) report as opposed to creating irrelevant threads that mean zero? Like I said you created this thread and so far the reasons are disingenious.
I'm semi retired Bob and have hobbies ... you have no understanding of engineering and building construction and continue to ignore the fact that nobody knows what really happened in WTC 7, neither NIST nor Hulsey ... you can prove NIST wrong all you want but it still doesn't address the fact that zero evidence exists for CD ... Hulsey put together a fine prelim report http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf that is essentially meaningless because NOBODY knows the forces at play considering the fires and damage from WTC 2 ...
your constant droning about "no building ever ... if it looks like a duck blah blah blah" is not evidence of CD ...
you are blinded by your hatred of the government ... start an anarchy movement ... you could use a hobby because you are delusional about 9/11 ... Muslims flew planes into buildings Bob ... get a grip ...
Congratulations, that has nothing to do with 9/11 or your admission that 9/11 is a "hobby" for you.
I understand more than enough to know when I've been scammed. You apparently not so much despite your claims as to your alleged background, which I find seriously suspect (talk about no understanding).
At least you concede that much.
Again, for you, for those who really care (including several 9/11 family members) it has tremendous implications.
If you're for real you show an incredible lack of understanding of the 9/11 issues. It isn't about addressing evidence for CD, it's about all the evidence concerning the fact that we've been deliberately scammed by the US government about the 9/11 event.
It's not about that, it's about the fact that 9/11 was never legitimately investigated and by your own claim, that if NIST doesn't know the "forces at play" they could not possibly claim the buildings collapsed from the events of 9/11, yet they did just that.
Once again, it's not about evidence of a CD despite that every indicator, including a vast amount of circumstantial evidence points to it, it's about the fact that 9/11 was never legitimately investigated and that the official "investigations" were designed to scam the public and cover up the crime.
Irrelevant, non sequitur, immature and an idiotic red herring that has no place in any genuine discussion about 9/11.
So when are you actually going to discuss Hulsey's "fine prelim report"? Again you started this thread, what the **** for? You show no interest whatsoever in discussing it and every interest in avoiding any discussion of his "fine prelim report".
what crime is being covered up Bob? ... do you think you have enough to convict? ... the only scam is the 9/11 Truth Movement ...
Why are you pretending to be seriously dense? What is this section of the forum called?
I'm not a district attorney or a prosecutor. However, in a legitimate Constitutional Republic, there are quite a few people who would long ago be behind bars. The evidence for a criminal coverup, obstruction and destruction of evidence is overwhelming. Those trials would expose many others during the discovery phase of each trial and compel several criminal investigations. However in the cesspool infested by criminals in Washington, no one will ever see a courtroom, much less be convicted.
Truth is a scam to you? Yeah I'll go along with that, lies are your personal comfort zone.
So still no discussion from you on the topic YOU created, any childish silliness to divert the subject, right truth hater? What a phony, as you prove yourself to be nearly every single time you post something on the subject of 9/11.
conspiracy theories Bob ... it other words, imaginary bullsh!t ...
I agree that Washington is infested with criminals ... but I am damn certain that none of them, nor anyone else had anything to do with planting explosives in any buildings ... the only possible crime would be some CYA concerning intelligence failures and Saudi govt involvement ...
the truth is not a scam if you are rational enough to know at least the majority of the truth ...
his report is essentially meaningless as to tries to play the "perfect world" scenario ... he has no idea what the forces of play were in WTC7 ... just his guessing at fire temps is more than enough to invalidate his "theory" ... but I'll wait for the full report and peer reviews ...
9/11 was the crime and yes it was a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory or "imaginary bullsh!t". That's the crime I'm talking about, what are you talking about?
Why are you "certain" about anything? And how do you know what possible crimes were committed? Were you intimately involved in anything having to do with 9/11? No, you're just making up crap, as usual. You are in no position to be certain about anything or know all the possibilities. Politicians generally are not in the business of planting explosives, stop pretending stupidity. I'm trying hard to give you credit for minimal intelligence but you keep posting silliness.
The truth is never a scam, period, it stands on its own, it is incontrovertible. Lies change all the time, such as the official 9/11 narrative.
You said Hulsey put together a fine preliminary report and you also say it's meaningless. Which is it, it can't be both?
So by the same Shiner "logic", you're saying NIST guessing at the fire temps is more than enough to invalidate NIST's "theory". There's an awful lot more to Hulsey's study than his estimation of the fire temperatures. In fact if you read his study in detail you would know he uses NIST's fire temperature estimates as part of his study. If you want to discuss Hulsey's preliminary report, at least familiarize yourself with it. Labeling it as "meaningless" without even having grasped the contents or the extent of it is just an immature and cowardly cop out for your deliberate failure to genuinely discuss its details. The vast majority of Hulsey's study is a critique of the NIST report, NIST's methodology, the data NIST uses and their resulting "theory", among many other things. If you want to discuss it, read it and try to understand it Mr. "engineer".
Again, what for? It's all meaningless to you right? You posted that several times already. You dismiss it without even knowing what it's all about, the ultimate in phoniness.
It's almost sad to watch the troofer movement taking their last breaths ... can someone administer the Last Rites? ... "dearly beloved ...
What does that idiotic rant have anything to do with the topic you created, the Hulsey Report?
Remember when you were pining away for the 28 redacted pages Bob? ... the Hulsey report is just as useless ... stick a fork in it ...
take a look around Bob ... all the truther sites are dead and nobody dares to step in the debunking sites anymore ...
More ranting? One more time, what does your incessant ranting have anything to do with Hulsey's preliminary report? If it's "useless" to you, why did you start this thread? What you're saying is you started a useless thread. That's called spamming and it violates the rules of this forum. Stick to the topic YOU created or get lost fake one.
Goggle shows nothing in the way of updates on this groundbreaking report ... c'mon Doc!!! ... get with the effing program ... produce something that can be peer reviewed already ... what the **** is taking you so long? ...
my prediction is that the esteemed Dr. Hulsey will never deliver anything for outside study ...
He sounds like a nice old guy though ... I would love to sit and chat with him over a couple bottles of organic wine ... (no joke there btw ... I love fresh local wines) ...
Gotta wonder why this drags on?
Not that I care so much since I think the Twin Towers are the real issue. How do scientists and engineers spend 17 years not explaining the distributions of steel and concrete in 400 meter buildings? Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? Shouldn't middle school kids be able to understand the importance of that info?
Separate names with a comma.