9/11

I cant believe after 17 years the conspiracy theorists have come up with a better story than that, its pathetic

 

People who follow science and the facts are not conspiracy theorists. That is a description for you zero evidence folks.

You have no evidence, VG, you, and also none of your fellow USGOCT conspiracy theorists have never provided any evidence for the impossible USGOCT and you never will because you don't have any because none exists.

But still you advance your lies, your distractions, your diversions. USGOCT conspiracy theorists are patently dishonest.

 

You have been going on for up to 17 years about tge 2996 "americans" murdered by the US government

Duh duh uh, uh whats 2996 -19 - (60) on the plane you say didnt crash in to tbe south tower

Duh uh uh uh, 17 yrs!!!

Duh, uh, uh

 

Duh uh uh, and minus the ones that arent american

Duh uh uh

 

With all due respect; The Guy that pushed the button is likely floating face down in the East River.

 

You would have to deny United 93 as well, and what the likes of Todd Beamer did.

You really want to be in the same club as this camlok guy?

 

I Don't Want To Be Labeled A "Killjoy" Here Folks.....BUT.....I Think This Discussion Re WTC Towers

One And Two Has Gone About As Far As It Can......I Know What I Feel To Be Correct.......

And Now I Feel It's Time To Move On To What Still Puzzles Me After All These Years......

Just What Caused Building 7 To Fall..???... And Why Did It Fall The Way It Did....???.....

Opens Can Of Worms.....



Cheers Glen.

 

A perfect example of your intellect, VG. And as always zero evidence for anything you say. Zero evidence for the loony USGOCT, the one you lie about believing in. No one can believe in a wacky conspiracy theory that has no evidence to support it.

 

You have no evidence for UA93 or for Todd Beamer. His cell phone didn't disconnect when "UA93" was obliterated. Really, VG, just how gullible can you be? Children, little children, wouldn't believe a fairy tale as ludicrous as is the USGOCT.

 

NIST's lies about WTC7 are totally dead, Glen/



Professor Leroy Hulsey, a forensic engineer from the Uof A, Fairbanks, is just wrapping up his 3 year long study of NIST's WTC7 study.

Let me give you a few important highlights.

First, the chance that the conclusions NIST drew as to what caused the fall of WTC7 have a ZERO chance of being true.

Second, NIST cooked up their ideas in a backward fashion, in other words, they fashioned/tailored inputs to get the result they desired. In other words they lied, a lot.

That is the antithesis of science.

In a lot of cases, the Hulsey study allowed and even expanded on the NIST hypothesis, ie. they gave extra to the NIST fire scenario.

LH is Leroy Hulsey, the forensic engineer.

[From: WTC 7 Evaluation Nearing the Finish Line: An Interview with Dr. Leroy Hulsey

Quote:LH: What we did is, we said: “Okay, we're not going to argue with you about the fires. We'll just take those fires and use them, which is a worse scenario than is truly out there. And if we can't determine the same thing you did with that, then obviously one of us is wrong.”


Guess what. Guess who is wrong.

Quote:LH: So that's what we did. And we determined a number of things through that process. First of all, we put the fires there. We let it move. And the first thing we discovered is their movement of five and a half inches—when they first said that it moved off and shoved off the support and that enabled column 79 to not be braced and it came buckling down. Well, guess what: They forgot the fact that there was a stiffener plate there that prevented it from being able to be shoved off.


LH is being overly generous towards NIST. NIST didn't forget "there was a stiffener plate there that prevented it from being able to be shoved off", NIST lied in order to make their story plausible.

When it was pointed out to them that their 5.5" wasn't enough to do what NIST said happened, NIST decided that it had expanded 6.25".

But even that NIST lie wasn't enough to help NIST because "there was a stiffener plate there that prevented it from being able to be shoved off".

NIST lied about many things that were on the WTC7 erection drawings.

Try as the U of A study did, they could not get any results that were close to NIST's results. Hardly surprising - real science doesn't do lies.

That should not come as a surprise to anyone. NIST couldn't get their results to match REALITY.

Here is a 35 second video of the actual video collapse of WTC7 and NIST's computer simulation of that collapse. For those of you too frightened to watch it, I'll give you the gist - NIST's collapse DOES NOT REMOTELY APPROACH REALITY.

Matching reality is a central feature of science for all but the deeply delusional.

Actual video of WTC 7 destruction undermines NIST computer simulation

 

No I believe that Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. Government as a smokescreen to cover up their earlier activity.
Essentially creating a crime scene where one did not exist.

 

I Fully Accept That The Reason WTC 1&2 Collapsed Was Design Based.....BUT.... As I Understand

It Building 7 Was NOT Of The Same Construction.....???....Therefore Should NOT Have

Collapsed In The Manner It Did.

9/11 Has Been A Keen Interest Of Mine For Many Years......But Information Re Building 7......

And The Attack On The Pentagon.... Can Be A Bit "Thin On The Ground" To Put It Mildly......



Cheers Glen.

 

Wow, really

 

You chose to answer the bits that you can conveniently hide behind with fake science yet continue to ignore my question
For the last time How many people would it take to accomplish this " pretend terror attack " ??

 

Oh, and will you look at that, funded by ae911truth.org


WTC7

Yeah thats objective.

Well now we know the real reason you are here.

Wonder what the student association would think of this thread

 

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Project Info
Lead Researcher(s)

• J. Leroy Hulsey

Project Team

• Dr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral Researcher
• Zhili Quan, Ph.D. student

Project Dates
May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018

Funding
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Project Budget: $316,153



Ok right, so you have been copying and pasting from the universities web sites as well, font comes out the same. So are you actually one of the students?

Seems the project actually finished in April this year. Didnt get any press

If funded by ae911truth.org, why do you think they went to a university no one has heard of?

Why not go to MIT? (Besides ending up 5 times the cost) Press might have paid attention then.

$316, 000 for a years work, you can bet that professor paid himself $200,000. Thats not really much money for a year long study youd want to get taken seriously by the rest of the world.

Thats probably ten years of donations to ae911truth.org

Lol, shit, I didnt read that correctly, 3 years!!!

May 2015 to april 2018.

So 300k over 3 years, no way that even covers one professors salary

 

You know I hate to say it but you likely have a point there, VG. He's not here to convince anybody in normal discussion. That's for sure.

 

Something started to smell fishy the tenth time he posted something from the same website

 

I haven't looked into it, and so I'm afraid you're going to have to debate that issue with someone else.

The issue that you and I were discussing is that the observed lateral ejection of concrete and steel from the get-go not only required kinetic energy from the already fire-damaged upper block to do so, but reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block at the same time as well. Also, the pulverization of that concrete and steel took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block.

So the question to you was: where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?

You answered by stating that:

"There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way . . ."

I responded with:

". . . you've arbitrarily decided that the only thing holding up the core was the perimeter columns. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You responded to that question by attempting to bargain with me. You demanded that I first answer a question concerning an issue that you are debating with another poster. But that's not how it works. So, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the only thing holding the core up was the perimeter columns. I mean, you must have some basis for believing such a thing, or you wouldn't have said it. Right? Right. So let's have it . . .

 

I've already told you that I don't know. What I do know is that you've already admitted to the fact that when a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the stationary mass is moved, and the moving mass is slowed down. The next question to you was: Is it reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper block of the North Tower would maintain its integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below at virtual freefall speed? You mistakenly believe that if I don't know who was involved and how and why they did it, that that will somehow cancel out the point about the physically impossible collapse. But that's just wishful thinking on your part.

And that's when you decided to tell me that you weren't going to spend anymore time on this foolishness. But of course, since you've obviously changed your mind about that, is it reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper of the North Tower would maintain its integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below at virtual freefall speed?