I specifically said: It's apparent you're not one of those. So please stay out of my thread unless and until you have something intelligent to post, otherwise you're trolling.
Utterly bizarre! How does he supposedly know so much for that job and not find 9/11 "peculiar" for so long? psik
What do you mean by "peculiar"? The guy criticized the crap out of the NIST "investigation" and pretty much claimed WTC7 was not destroyed by fire alone. Many experts who are now activists and/or outspoken admit they didn't immediately investigate the 9/11 issue and it took years before they examined it closely, that includes people such as Richard Gage and Steven Jones. He now knows "so much" because he eventually investigated the issue thoroughly.
It happened more than 40 times in the history of high rise fires, including to the North Tower in 1975. Some of these were true infernos engulfing most of the building and lasting for several hours, quite unlike the twin tower fires on 9/11.
If you watch the video and listen to what he says, it is like he is saying things are obvious from mere observation. But if that is the case, how was it not Obvious TO HIM for FIFTEEN YEARS? Gravity and the application of mathematics to gravity goes back to Isaac Newton. The 9/11 Affair is peculiar. psik
If you read the response from the following post you would know it was addressed: So unless you missed the above, you are trolling. This thread is all about facts and common sense with regard to the NIST 9/11 investigation, it has nothing to do with hobbies. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute to this topic, please stay out of my thread.
That is something only Peter Ketchum can answer. Perhaps you may want to contact him and ask him directly. Not exactly, gravity goes back to the beginning of the Universe. The application of mathematics to gravity is a human invention by Isaac Newton. It is obviously quite unique, however this thread is about NIST's "investigation" into the "collapse" of 3 specific towers on 9/11. Can you correlate the above with the topic of this thread?
That's correct, however there are specific forum rules which you are violating. 1. I presented many FACTS, not "conspiracy theory", you are wrong. However, if you believe what I presented in this thread is "conspiracy theory" you are free to prove it via an intelligent discussion that is directly on topic. 2. I fully expect and encourage intelligent responses specific to the topic of this thread and for the purpose of discussing this topic, anything else will be considered trolling.
For one, you continually ignore the fact that these buildings, including WT7 were of different construction than the buildings you keep trying to compare them too as if an apples to oranges is 'proof' of something.
The above is false on every level and off topic as well. 1. I haven't ignored anything of the sort and I'm quite certain you can't show that I have. 2. I haven't made any comparison of any kind in this thread in terms of the construction of these buildings and I'm quite certain you can't show that I did. This fallacy has previously been claimed by another posted and addressed. 3. None of the above quoted has anything to do with the topic of this thread, which is in fact the methodology used by NIST to "investigate" the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 as mandated by Congressional appropriation and NIST's primary stated objective. 4. I am NOT the topic of this thread, please remain on topic. NIST's "investigation" of the destruction of the 3 towers and their subsequent official reports are the actual topic. So please direct and restrict your posts to these particulars, not any specific poster or me.
After such a long absence, this is the best you can come up with, a false claim? How the **** are you Shiner? Still in denial I presume? The thought that you might have been misled by authority must be terrifying, best put it out of mind. But thanks for your contribution anyway. Actually you're 100% wrong, the above is right on topic. There are 2 standards that NIST failed to legitimately address. The first standard is one of the primary issues addressed by this topic, the fire investigation standard that NIST helped to develop and failed to adhere to in their 9/11 "investigation", the NFPA protocols. The second standard is the history of steel frame high rise total collapses in an unimpeded accelerating fashion at G or near G. The standard is that it never happened before 9/11 (or after for that matter) and therefore the most probable cause must take precedence in any legitimate total building failure investigation. And it is a true and valid standard because no other cause is known to naturally exist. That standard is the total destruction by controlled demolition when properly planned and executed. In any legitimate investigatory approach (especially of a criminal and terroristic nature), the most likely cause must first be eliminated (via a thorough forensic/scientific investigation) as required by the other standard, NFPA. If and when the most likely cause can be eliminated, then the lesser likely causes must be investigated in order of probability. This is not even rocket science just plain old common sense. NIST however immediately eliminated the most likely cause in favor of the least likely cause. The video is of course exactly on topic. It's called 9/11 EVIDENCE. It's evidence never mentioned or even addressed by NIST in any of their twin tower reports. There's no question they had/have that video. If they don't, then it's either deliberate or they're incompetent, take your pick. But that's far from the only video or documented eyewitness claim they've either ignored or claimed ignorance about. For example the many corroborating molten steel and explosion claims from first responders and other eyewitnesses. That's also either deliberate or they're incompetent, take your pick. This thread is filled with NIST's either deliberate or incompetent conduct, some of it includes documented admissions by NIST. When an entity consists of highly trained experts and the volume of incompetent conduct is overwhelming, then one can begin to conclude it's deliberate. So no, the history of 40+ steel frame high rise infernos that never exhibited anything like what the WTC towers did on 9/11 (included is the North Tower fire of 1975) is not at all off topic and neither is the video of an account by firefighters who were there that is missing from all NIST official documents. Your claim is seriously illogical.
Sorry I was mistaken. After going back through this thread, it was actually YOU (Hoosier8 ) that I had this discussion with and that you're now trying to rehash after a long absence. The discussion started at post #28 and you eventually abandoned it when you couldn't show any relevance to the topic of the thread and ended up resorting to more irrelevant silliness, example:
A very important update: Tune in at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to watch the livestream of Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s presentation from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There he will present the findings and conclusions of the study detailed in his team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be issued the same day. A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ Note that Hulsey's paper will be a peer reviewed study/analysis that fully contradicts NIST's published and stated conclusion (characterized by NIST as their "probable collapse initiation theory") that WTC7 was the first steel frame high rise building that was fully destroyed by fire alone, initiated by thermal expansion (see from 2:00 in the video from my prior post). According to Hulsey, once NIST's theory is scientifically rendered impotent, his next objective will be a detailed study/analysis of what may have caused the complete destruction of WTC7 in a matter of seconds. For now, understandably, the position he takes is that he does not know what may have been the cause. He does state that the probability that NIST's theory as detailed in their publication, the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7", is correct is ZERO. For me, common sense and logic dictates that the only KNOWN and PROVEN cause of the complete destruction of a steel frame high rise building in a matter of seconds is controlled demolition. There is no other KNOWN and PROVEN cause that exists. So nearly 16 years after 9/11/01, all we have is a bogus paper published by NIST as their "conclusion" from a bogus "investigation" (fully detailed in this thread).
The Bobby McIlvane Act On September 6, 2017, at 8:00 PM Eastern, Dr. Hulsey will present from the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Schaibel Auditorium on the findings and conclusions detailed in his team’s September 2017 Progress Report, which will be issued the same day. The presentation will be livestreamed so that viewers across the country and around the world can watch. Though originally scheduled for release in August, a draft report of the study is now on course to be issued in mid-October. A six-week public comment period will follow the release of the draft report, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. The final report, which will incorporate constructive comments and will be vetted by peer reviewers, will then be published in early 2018. Following on the heels of Dr. Hulsey’s presentation, Bob McIlvaine, Peter Ketcham, and Richard Gage will unveil the “Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act” at 1 PM Eastern on September 11, 2017, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. (This press conference will not be livestreamed, but a number of journalists will be there to record the event.) Later that day and over the next two days, we will hand-deliver the Bobby McIlvaine package to all 535 members of Congress. The Bobby McIlvaine Act, named after Bob McIlvaine’s son, who was tragically killed on 9/11 while entering the North Tower, would empanel a select committee in either chamber of Congress to reinvestigate the WTC destruction. Our goal over the next year — and beyond, if necessary — will be to find one or more members of Congress to introduce the bill. To be successful in this effort, we will need your help, so stay tuned for info on congressional outreach. http://www.ae911truth.org/news/387-news-media-events-bobby-mcilvaine-act.html Of course most of us know this bill will never be introduced by anyone in CONgress. Regardless that the NIST "investigation" is a proven fraud, no one in CONgress wants 9/11 legitimately investigated, they all need to perpetuate the official 9/11 myth for the benefit of the agenda of the military industrial complex.
The University of Alaska Fairbanks will host a public presentation on an ongoing study into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 6, in Schaible Auditorium. UAF researcher Leroy Hulsey is leading the study. He will present the findings outlined in his team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be released the same day. A draft report of the two-year study will be issued later this fall, followed by a six-week public comment period, with a final report scheduled for release in early 2018. Hulsey’s study is being funded by the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building that fell nearly seven hours after the collapse of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers on Sept 11, 2001. In a 2008 report, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology attributed the collapse to office fires in the lower stories of the building. The presentation is open to the public and will be streamed live at https://media.uaf.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/events/940...11268,\"tour_id\":null}"}],"has_source":true}
