Not really, he's going to show that NIST didn't do their job. And that means to date, 16 years after 9/11, we have not had any legitimate official forensic scientific criminal investigation into 9/11. That is not only a sad fact but criminal as well.
There were some mistakes made during that time, but none that lead to actually believe this was a false flag. My uncle was on his way to the pentagon on 395 and saw the airplane going down. People who witnessed it pulled over in the major parking lot at the pentagon. There was traffic that day and a bunch of people were there. Just my uncle's story. He was a COL. in the Marines at the time. You may choose to believe it or not.
Despite your apologist point of view, a few points: 1. This thread is about NIST and their failure to legitimate investigate the "collapse" of the 3 towers on 9/11 as mandated and funded by Congress, not about the Pentagon. It's also not about a false flag, it's strictly about facts and science. Having said that, there was no legitimate forensic criminal investigation of the Pentagon disaster either. 2. NIST's failure to legitimately investigate according to their mandate cannot be described as "some mistakes" as this thread clearly and meticulously details and as Dr. Leroy Hulsey will demonstrate by the document he will be publicly releasing for peer review. 3. None of the above is a "belief", it is well documented and supported by facts and science.
Despite another one of your apologist claims, it is well supported by research, the facts, science and experts.
No it's not. It's OPINIONS based on conspiracy theorists. Much like the "scientists" that claimed the fuel couldn't burn hot enough to burn the beams in the WTC
Facts and science are not conspiracy theories. There's nothing in this thread that can be considered a conspiracy theory and you show you don't even understand what a conspiracy theory is. You're just regurgitating what you've been indoctrinated to do when confronted with facts that undermine the official 9/11 narrative. You don't have any idea what you're talking about and seem to be basing your claims on personal fear. I doubt you read any of the issues presented in this thread. This thread is strictly based on the science of the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 as reported by NIST, it's not about who did or didn't do it. A conspiracy theory would necessarily involve a theory about who was responsible.
Let's face it soldier--the Official Conspiracy Theory, the one you still believe 16 years later, is based upon opinions and claims that are contradicted by facts. Those people who do not have the same level of faith in their government to tell the truth as you do are simply skeptics, unbelievers in the Official Conspiracy Theory. We are "doubting Thomas" types, if you know what that means. It's not that we advance any particular conspiracy theory so much, as it is that we simply understand that we were lied to by the mainstream media and the government, and that the deception is repeated again and again and over again, not just on the upcoming anniversary of the event, but all through the year, in an effort to rationalize the fraud that is the global war on terror in the eyes of a very gullible public.
Any science that does not conform to the official narrative is now a "conspiracy theory". Here's a bunch of "scientists" first proclaiming the steel melted and that's why the building was easily brought down, then denying there was any molten steel or just remaining silent on the issue:
Yes, once again giving their educated GUESS. Someone went in and melted the steel and hoped an airplane hit it?
Lol when you try to insult someone but then call the facts "a conspiracy theory", it's hard to take you seriously
You cannot appreciate how proud you make me, knowing that YOU do not take me seriously. 16 years after the fact, the only people who do not yet understand that they were deceived are so gullible that rational dialogue becomes impossible.
Yes Neo, we're just living in the Matrix, and you're the ONE! You, being a TINY, lowest of the low, percentage of Americans who believe the wild and crazy conspiracy theories...don't get to pretend like America is behind you on this
Sorry but it wasn't an "educated" guess, these were ignorant claims based on a lack of knowledge of the highest temperature of a kerosene (jet fuel) based fire vs the melting temperature of steel and the lack of any evidence supporting these "guesses". That's the difference between ignorance, propaganda and science. You're not making any sense. In any case this thread is about NIST and their "investigation" into the "collapse" of the 3 towers on 9/11. The reason the molten steel issue is relevant to the topic is because John Gross, NIST lead engineer denied ever hearing about any molten claims despite that there are quite a few corroborating documented eyewitness claims and it was all over the news for weeks following 9/11. And by his denial, NIST obviously never investigated these claims. These are documented facts, not theory, conspiracy theory or your silly attempt at ridiculing a serious topic.
According to polls, the majority of Americans believe the US government lied about 9/11. It's certainly not surprising since the 9/11 Commission co-chairs and most of the members claim they were lied to. And according to one poll (Scripps Howard), 16% believe Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories So to say 16% of over 300 million (48 million) is "tiny" is quite a stretch.
Yes they are all documented facts on paper and video. Just follow this thread from the beginning as you obviously haven't done so. Some of that documentation has been around for almost 16 years, John Gross' claim has been around for a few years less. It's far from "breaking news". I've long held that 9/11 should have its own section and not be relegated to the "conspiracy theories" section. One of the key defining events of our generation should not be discussed and trivialized as if it were just a "conspiracy theory". There are thousands of documented facts about the event and other issues surrounding the event (such as the fake investigations) that require quite a bit of research and discussion by those who care. You don't seem to be one of them because you dismiss everything that doesn't align with the official narrative as a "conspiracy theory" regardless of the facts.
So to summarize: Dr. Hulsey's research, which after 2 years is yet to be completed, is comprised of multiple computer simulations using the NIST scenario, the scenario that incorporates structural components that NIST omitted (and admits to omitting) but are actually present in the original Frankel blueprint of WTC7 and a host of other scenarios. Hulsey used 2 competing researchers and 2 different programs (SAP2000 and ABAQUS) in his work (likely each much more sophisticated than whatever NIST used). Please note that NIST to this day refuses to release data (especially for its computer models) and methodology so it is still unknown exactly what vehicle NIST was working with. Suffice it to say NIST published its findings in 2008 so both computer and software were ancient in comparison to today's standards. The primary conclusions from Dr. Hulsey's approach are: 1. When using NIST's data, even if column 79's connection actually failed, the remaining connections did not disassemble and therefore did not eventually lead to progressive collapse. 2. When using actual data, results (from both SAP2000 and ABAQUS) showed that there was a lateral displacement (of the entire connected assembly, not just column 79) of less than 2 inches EAST, whereas NIST concluded a 5.5 inch displacement WEST, which was later modified by NIST to 6.25 inches. Hulsey claims that he does have a collapse model which he is still working on using multiple scenarios and even one where the core is removed entirely. Unlike NIST, Hulsey's work is completely open for peer review. Hulsey also mentioned both the ARUP and Weidlinger studies and is presenting those in his paper. Hulsey claims he is not criticizing NIST and is working purely from a scientific point of view. Those who would characterize Hulsey as a "conspiracy theorist" are just attempting to defend the official narrative with hot air. What Hulsey is doing is actually a highly detailed sophisticated technical peer review of NIST's publication on WTC7. Nothing in his work suggests or implies what may have caused the destruction of WTC7. It merely concludes that WTC7 did not collapse as a result of thermal expansion due to fire, contradicting NIST's published conclusion, effective invalidating NIST's theory in its entirety. Not being an expert, I will leave it to actual experts to analyze Hulsey's work (from a technical point) as I'm sure many will publish their own articles on the subject. Strictly from a layperson's point of view, NIST's work is being ripped apart and exposed as junk science at best and scientific and criminal fraud at worst. Dr. Hulsey is only confirming what many other experts have already concluded about NIST's work. As repeated numerous times, these people at NIST are highly qualified experts, not charlatans, so IMO none of what they did and didn't do can be categorized as a "mistake". In other words, the description in the title of this thread "The NIST 9/11 Scam ..." is quite appropriate. Hulsey wants to keep it professional and strictly scientific and that is exactly what he should and needs to do but neither I or any other observer are in his position.
As claimed NIST did not legitimately investigate the destruction of WTC7. Dr Hulsey listed several critical deficiencies by NIST that his team covered within their 2 year study. Many if not all of these resulted in a completely opposite conclusion. If after watching the video you still believe NIST's "investigation" was legitimate, can you please explain the basis for your belief? OTOH if you now agree that NIST did not legitimately investigate the destruction of WTC7 do you have the stones to admit you were wrong? A response would be appreciated but of course not required. A non response would be taken as your admission that the answer to the second question is NO you do not have the stones.
Calm down. I told you I was trying to get a better understanding of the thread. I'm trying to understand why this investigation seems illegitimate to you
I'm quite calm. Have you reviewed the most recent video I posted? Dr. Hulsey explains in detail what NIST did and didn't do. If there's something you don't understand please feel free to ask. I am admittedly not an expert but I have done extensive research on the subject and can point you to the appropriate experts and their articles/papers.
