The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Action80 on February 18, 2024, 05:52:41 PM
-
Here is an interview with Dr. Leroy Hulsey, professor emeritus at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. His report directly conflicts with the NIST Report on WTC 7 (which never released the data sets utilized to model their version of how the building collapsed).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZXsIkbxMGo
-
Jimmy Dore and his show are known to spew or carry conspiracy theories about various topics. Caution should be given to falling down the proverbial conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
The collapse of the 9/11 buildings (also falling directly onto their own footprint) was caused by nothing more than a group of terrorists that flew two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full) through two buildings that instantly severed and compromised the buildings structures causing them to collapse when the structural integrity was compromised further by burning jet fuel. The collapse of the buildings and the buildings fires further compromised adjacent structures such as WTC 7. It was a domino effect.
See attached.
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
"Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
-
Titled ".... WTC BUILIDING 7 ..." (sic).
Obviously a critique with this level of peer-review deserves our full attention.
-
Jimmy Dore and his show are known to spew or carry conspiracy theories about various topics. Caution should be given to falling down the proverbial conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
The collapse of the 9/11 buildings (also falling directly onto their own footprint) was caused by nothing more than a group of terrorists that flew two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full) through two buildings that instantly severed and compromised the buildings structures causing them to collapse when the structural integrity was compromised further by burning jet fuel. The collapse of the buildings and the buildings fires further compromised adjacent structures such as WTC 7. It was a domino effect.
See attached.
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
"Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
Also from NIST:
https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
25. The simulation of the collapse modeling of WTC 7 does not match the video footage of the collapse. In particular, the large inward deformations of the upper exterior walls after the beginning of global collapse are not visible in the video footage. Can NIST explain the difference between the results of its computer model of the collapse and the available video evidence?
NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. In its comparison of the two analyses (see NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.5), NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events, and it is this simulation that is considered here.
NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the "kink" in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.
Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, "Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris." The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.
See bolded. In other words the NIST couldn't simulate an event where the exterior falls together. It says that events "after the initiation of the global collapse" the simulation differs.
They then give a series of excuses for why they can't simulate it, oddly while their other answers champion their simulation as a general proof.
Also, this is funny:
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
...
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
...
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
...
What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?
There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7.
...
NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?
In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.
Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private-sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.
The NIST investigation included no actual physical evidence and their analysis is based on some theories.
And in regards to their theories, the answer here claims that their computer models "produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred" despite a previous answer which says that their model of the exterior behavior does not match observation.
-
Jimmy Dore and his show are known to spew or carry conspiracy theories about various topics. Caution should be given to falling down the proverbial conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
The collapse of the 9/11 buildings (also falling directly onto their own footprint) was caused by nothing more than a group of terrorists that flew two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full) through two buildings that instantly severed and compromised the buildings structures causing them to collapse when the structural integrity was compromised further by burning jet fuel. The collapse of the buildings and the buildings fires further compromised adjacent structures such as WTC 7. It was a domino effect.
See attached.
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
"Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
Also from NIST:
https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
25. The simulation of the collapse modeling of WTC 7 does not match the video footage of the collapse. In particular, the large inward deformations of the upper exterior walls after the beginning of global collapse are not visible in the video footage. Can NIST explain the difference between the results of its computer model of the collapse and the available video evidence?
NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. In its comparison of the two analyses (see NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.5), NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events, and it is this simulation that is considered here.
NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the "kink" in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.
Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, "Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris." The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.
See bolded. In other words the NIST couldn't simulate an event where the exterior falls together. It says that events "after the initiation of the global collapse" the simulation differs.
Also, this is funny:
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
...
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
...
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
...
What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?
There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7.
...
NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?
In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.
Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private-sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.
Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom.
- NIST conducted two global collapse analyses. NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events
- The simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture and match various critical observations derived from the digital video recording
- NIST validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred
- Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed: "Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris. Simulation models aren't always 100% accurate and perfect and often contain some level of error.
Lastly, if you are of a conspiratorial mindset where you believe government agencies (such as NASA) lie a lot to cover things up, than one would think that the NIST (which is a Federal Agency within the Commerce Department) would have corrected or covered up any errors in their simulation. I guess on the flip side if NIST's simulation matched, you would then call into question why their simulation matched so well which would then be a simulation model conspiracy.
-
If the simulation is only explaining the global collapse and the events "after the initiation of the global collapse" differ from observation, then this is not a simulation which accurately explains events. Other NIST answers champion the simulation as "These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred." This is clearly wrong if their simulation of the exterior differs from observation.
The exterior structure of the building becomes severely deformed as it falls in the NIST model.
This is the deformity we are talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQtSprGafU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQtSprGafU)
(https://i.imgur.com/K3EkvrH.jpg)
NIST is correct here in their simulation. There should be severe deformity. It should not come down like a controlled demolition.
It seems like NIST just had a goal of simulating a global collapse caused by fire, and that's as far as they got in explaining the events. They simulated one thing and couldn't go further. They could not simulate what we saw, which is a disproof of their explanation.
-
NIST's simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture and match various critical observations derived from the digital video recording
NIST validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred
Once NIST's simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris.
-
This paraphrased explanation of "it's random and uncertain how it will look as it falls, and it's just a coincidence that it's falling like a controlled demolition -- random uncertain effect just made it look that way!" isn't really doing you any favors.
In the video in the OP the structural engineer has a model of how the building look would in a controlled demolition, and it closer matches the observed exterior of the event.
-
This paraphrased explanation of "it's random and uncertain how it will look as it falls, and it's just a coincidence that it's falling like a controlled demolition -- random uncertain effect just made it look that way!" isn't really doing you any favors.
Creating a paraphrase that isn't consistent to what was actually quoted in the report and then putting quotes around it (as an attempt to try and pass it off as being accurate) isn't really doing you any favors.
Tom's inaccurate paraphrase with his own quotes: "it's random and uncertain how it will look as it falls"
Actual report quote: "due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris"
Tom's inaccurate paraphrase with his own quotes: "and it's just a coincidence that it's falling like a controlled demolition"
Actual report quote: "there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence"
If you do believe in a demolition conspiracy in WTC 7, one would think that large pyrotechnic explosions and mini-blasts would have been recorded, observed, and heard.
-
Yes, you are calling it a coincidence based on "random" and "uncertain" events that the observation matches the model of the controlled demolition in the OP that the structural engineering professor presents on the Jimmy Dore Show.
Here is another explanation: It is not a coincidence.
-
Titled ".... WTC BUILIDING 7 ..." (sic).
Obviously a critique with this level of peer-review deserves our full attention.
Jimmy Dore is not performing a peer-review, as he is not a peer of Dr. Hulsey.
He was interviewing Dr. Hulsey, who had already released his peer-reviewed report on the collapse of WTC-7.
Could you perhaps disguise your disingenuous characterization a little bit better next time?
-
NIST validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred
^This is a lie.
NIST did not release any of the data inputs to validate their computer modeling of the collapse. And their model of the collapse absolutely does not match what was witnessed.
-
Were the pyrotechnic explosions used to bring down WTC 7 the silent kind, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRLShJW5drE
-
There was evidence of explosions associated with Building 7. See this 10 minute video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
Here is an article:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosions
Explosions | World Trade Center Building 7
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claims in its WTC 7 FAQs that “no blast sounds were heard on audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.” 1 However, both audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions during the destruction of WTC 7 contradict NIST’s claim.
Although there are not nearly as many eyewitness accounts of explosions in WTC 7 as in WTC 1 and WTC 2, there are a handful of accounts that strongly suggest explosions occurred immediately before and during WTC 7’s destruction. These include:
Craig Bartmer, former NYPD officer: “All of a sudden...I looked up, and... [t]he thing started peeling in on itself.... I started running...and the whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it.” 2
First-year NYU medical student identified as Darryl: “We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder.... Turned around — we were shocked.... It looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.... [A]bout a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.” 3
Kevin McPadden, unaffiliated, volunteer first responder: “And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound...BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.” 4
MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield hears a loud sound from several blocks north of WTC 7 and says, “Oh my god.... This is it.”
These eyewitness accounts are corroborated by MSNBC video footage of reporter Ashleigh Banfield several blocks north of WTC 7. In the video, she hears a loud sound, turns her attention to WTC 7, and says, “Oh my god.... This is it.” 5 About seven seconds after she hears the loud sound, WTC 7 collapses. As David Chandler observes in the video WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions:
“There were two blasts, followed by seven more regularly spaced all in two and a half seconds. Craig Bartmer’s testimony may come to mind: ‘The whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.”’....
“When we hear the sharp, regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter say, “This is it,” the building has not yet started to fall.... The blasts we heard occurred seconds before the building started to fall.”
In addition to eyewitness accounts of explosions at the time of WTC 7’s destruction, there were eye-witness accounts from two men — Michael Hess (Corporation Counsel for the City of New York) and Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services at the New York City Housing Authority) — who reported experiencing an explosion and smoke in a stairway in the northeast part of WTC 7 prior to the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:28 AM.6
It has been claimed that what Hess and Jennings experienced was the result of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC 7. However, this claim is not plausible, as Hess and Jennings were in a stairway at the opposite end of WTC 7 (northeast) from where debris impacted the building (southwest), and their account indicates that the explosion and smoke they witnessed occurred before the collapse of WTC 1.7
Endnotes
[1] NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, Question #13.
[2] https://youtu.be/xpoAmEGdsn4 (https://youtu.be/xpoAmEGdsn4)
[3] http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma)
[4] https://youtu.be/b4z-Wrp1pY8 (https://youtu.be/b4z-Wrp1pY8)
[5] https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg?t=2m6s (https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg?t=2m6s)
[6] Hess: https://youtu.be/6e3K9jcPdXc (https://youtu.be/6e3K9jcPdXc); Jennings: https://youtu.be/gwJi0R2jza4 (https://youtu.be/gwJi0R2jza4)
[7] Griffin, David Ray: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009), pp. 84-111.
-
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.
-
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.
what specifically is the lie?
-
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.
what specifically is the lie?
"Each carrying tens of thousands of jet full (sic)"
Once you admit this one, then you can deal with the lie of the "valid" NIST computer modeling.
-
Both 767s were destined for LAX. According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour. Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact. "Tens of thousands" in my book.
Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms. Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value.
Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
-
Both 767s were destined for LAX. According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour. Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact. "Tens of thousands" in my book.
Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms. Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value.
Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"
1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."
That is less than 10,000.
Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."
-
Both 767s were destined for LAX. According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour. Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact. "Tens of thousands" in my book.
Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms. Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value.
Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"
1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."
That is less than 10,000.
Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."
In my first post I forgot to add units of weight (pounds), as in tens of thousands of pounds of kerosene jet fuel. My bad.
I used to be a private pilot and so this was an honest miss but meant to add pounds.
The takeaway is still that both commercial airliners carried tens of thousands of pounds of fuel which is not a lie.
-
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"
1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."
That is less than 10,000.
Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."
So, "62,000 lb ........ that is less than 10,000". Please explain. Are you introducing gallons into this debate, when jet fuel is measured by mass, just to maintain your assertion that Mahogany is a liar?
-
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"
1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."
That is less than 10,000.
Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."
So, "62,000 lb ........ that is less than 10,000". Please explain. Are you introducing gallons into this debate, when jet fuel is measured by mass, just to maintain your assertion that Mahogany is a liar?
It seems jet fuel is measured by more than just mass.
"The cost of fueling your private jet can vary significantly. For example, on May 11, 2022, the IATA per gallon price was $4.82 in North America, $4.01 in Europe, and $3.55 in Asia. At Boston's Hanscomb Field Jet A was selling between $9.79 and $13.38 per gallon. In Oklahoma City it was as low as $7.05 per gallon."
But no. mahogany clarified he meant pounds.
So, if he meant pounds, he meant pounds. He didn't write that.
He also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling.
-
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"
1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."
That is less than 10,000.
Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."
So, "62,000 lb ........ that is less than 10,000". Please explain. Are you introducing gallons into this debate, when jet fuel is measured by mass, just to maintain your assertion that Mahogany is a liar?
It seems jet fuel is measured by more than just mass.
"The cost of fueling your private jet can vary significantly. For example, on May 11, 2022, the IATA per gallon price was $4.82 in North America, $4.01 in Europe, and $3.55 in Asia. At Boston's Hanscomb Field Jet A was selling between $9.79 and $13.38 per gallon. In Oklahoma City it was as low as $7.05 per gallon."
But no. mahogany clarified he meant pounds.
So, if he meant pounds, he meant pounds. He didn't write that.
He also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling.
So, three things.
1. In an earlier post, you conflated my accidentally not adding units of measure (pounds) to my "tens of thousands of kerosene jet fuel" comment as being a lie. I think you know that it was an honest miss on my part (that I forgot to add pounds) and yet you feel the need to inject emotion into the debate by then calling me a liar. Everyone makes typo's and written errors -- just because I accidentally omitted the word gallons from a sentence doesn't mean I am hiding some deep truth or dark sinister secret. If you want to have decent spirited debate, you need to try and leave your emotions at the door. You could have just asked me something like: I think you may have forgotten to add a unit of measure. Can you clarify what that may have been... and then move on.
2. You then say in your above post that "He (I) also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling." From this statement, you act as though I work at NIST and I performed the computer modeling at NIST. If you want answers about NIST's model, go ask them, I don't work there. I also didn't work on Dr. Hulsey's computer model either and so I can't speak for his model either (although you can ask Dr. Hulsey and the two Chinese PhD students that he did mention worked on it).
3. I watched the entre video that you posted. Here are my own takeaways.
- Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist. The discussion is already going to have the flavor of conspiracy-ism. No surprise.
- I was happy to see Dr. Hulsey stick to talking about his model at the beginning of the video, but then I became disheartened when he too started pushing conspiracy theories vs. sticking to just the data. He was also asked some direct questions but his answers were very weak. Here are some examples:
> (JD - Jimmy Dore): "wasn't fuel to the fire aided by office furniture?" (DH - Dr. Hulsey): "not so much".
> (DH): conspiracy theory of "no people in the planes, done by remote"
> (DH): conspiracy theory about the Oklahoma City bombing having another bomber
> (JD): talks about the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being a pretext to war. (DH continuously shaking his head in agreement).
> (DH): waning and waxing about the fact that hopefully nothing happens to him since he did the simulation and goes on that Dick Cheney is aware he did the simulation. He then says hopefully nothing happens to him and it was all for the people and that he is a Christian. Me - on the show I think he's just enjoying the moment and feels compelled to talk in a sanctimonious kind of way.
- Dr. Hulsey talks about how he found it strange or odd that a Fire Marshall on 9/11 said to a bunch of people: "this building (WTC 7) is coming down shortly." Could it be that because both twin towers collapsed that said Fire Marshall was worried about the same possible occurrence for WTC 7? I wouldn't expect two large sky-scraper buildings to collapse only hundreds of feet away from adjacent buildings (like WTC 7) only to have fire crews tell everyone that it's OK to stay in those buildings and go back to work. The fire crews were likely telling everyone around to get out of ALL adjacent buildings. I was surprised that the Dr. didn't consider this obvious possibility.
- Dr. Hulsey talks about how he found it strange or odd that the two jetliners would have brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2 given that the original building engineers designed the buildings to prevent jets from going through it. Need I remind everyone of what people said about the Titanic before it sank.
- Neither Jimmy Dore nor Dr. Hulsey asked a question I would have asked which is: "if you believe that pyrotechnic explosions caused the buildings to come down, than why weren't said explosions or puffs of pyrotechnic smoke visible as are visible in building demolitions." I was disappointed that no one asked this question. One the one hand, the building fell onto it's own footprint (like a demolition) and on the other hand there were no visible pyrotechnic explosions (unlike a demolition).
-
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.
You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.
So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.
Case closed.
-
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.
You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.
So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.
Case closed.
You seem to continue to trip over yourself.
Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.
What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."
All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."
I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
-
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.
You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.
So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.
Case closed.
You seem to continue to trip over yourself.
Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.
What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."
All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.
You are joking, right?
Or just lying.
Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."
I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.
You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.
Pathetic crap.
Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.
And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...
-
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.
You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.
So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.
Case closed.
You seem to continue to trip over yourself.
Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.
What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."
All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.
You are joking, right?
Or just lying.
Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."
I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.
You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.
Pathetic crap.
Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.
And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...
You've got to stop watching video feeds that are steeped with conspiracy theory content. I believe it's turned you paranoid and has perhaps taken away your ability to apply good rationale critical thought.
I watched the video and provided a list of my observations with some critical thought questions as well; you kind of ignored it and continue to shout "liar."
My observation of you is that it seems like you watch said conspiracy video content and then kind of repeat what the people in the video are saying. For example -- in the Jimmy Dore video you uploaded, he says stuff about labelling people who were questioning events as "truthers". You watched his video and are simply repeating exactly what he said.
My other observation of you is that you set a very low bar or low standard of evidence for anything you believe in and set an impossibly high bar of evidence for anything that doesn't align to your world view. For example, in a previous thread you will say things like (paraphrasing): whenever I have looked around / wherever I have looked around the earth looks flat to me, therefore I conclude it must be flat. You say this as a declaration and then kind of close the books. But then, your expectation from "the other side" is impossibly high to such a degree that you resort to calling people liars if, for example, they forget to add units of measure to a sentence.
-
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.
You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.
So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.
Case closed.
You seem to continue to trip over yourself.
Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.
What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."
All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.
You are joking, right?
Or just lying.
Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."
I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.
You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.
Pathetic crap.
Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.
And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...
You've got to stop watching video feeds that are steeped with conspiracy theory content. I believe it's turned you paranoid and has perhaps taken away your ability to apply good rationale critical thought.
"Conspiracy theory content" has nothing to do with it, yet, rather hypocritically, you choose to side with the CONSPIRACY THEORY (and that is exactly what it is, for the mainstream media and all government officials that day plainly stated the Arabs...CONSPIRED) that somehow, someway, Arabs with little to no flight training, were able to commandeer four US domestic airliners, armed with nothing more than boxcutters, and manage to achieve what has never before happened in all of human history; that is, manage to successfully bring down three buildings in a controlled demolition in New York, NY, punch a near perfect hole in the Pentagon through to the inner ring with an aluminum framed jet, and nose dive another into a field in PA, leaving hardly any scarred area on the ground.
Sorry, you should take your own advice and stop peddling clear, utter tripe on these boards.
I watched the video and provided a list of my observations with some critical thought questions as well; you kind of ignored it and continue to shout "liar."
My observation of you is that it seems like you watch said conspiracy video content and then kind of repeat what the people in the video are saying. For example -- in the Jimmy Dore video you uploaded, he says stuff about labelling people who were questioning events as "truthers". You watched his video and are simply repeating exactly what he said.
My other observation of you is that you set a very low bar or low standard of evidence for anything you believe in and set an impossibly high bar of evidence for anything that doesn't align to your world view. For example, in a previous thread you will say things like (paraphrasing): whenever I have looked around / wherever I have looked around the earth looks flat to me, therefore I conclude it must be flat. You say this as a declaration and then kind of close the books. But then, your expectation from "the other side" is impossibly high to such a degree that you resort to calling people liars if, for example, they forget to add units of measure to a sentence.
You offered absolutely nothing regarding the models presented by Dr. Hulsey, because you have nothing to counter what they demonstrate. The official story regarding the collapse of WTC - 7 on 9/11 is bullshit, plain, pure, and simple. And you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists need to stop pushing your unfounded conspiracy theories. They are lies and when you push them, that makes you a liar.
I repeated what Jimmy Dore said because it is true. The ones pushing the "official story," which is in reality, "a conspiracy theory," are the ones who wanted to mock the people questioning those events as "truthers." Turning a quest for truth about that day into some sort of insult.
Ain't gonna happen here.
I cannot help it if you are unable to post coherent sentences here on the forum. If you do not enjoy having that inability pointed out, perhaps you need to find another sandbox.
-
Odd how the WTC 7 building was seen to go into free fall - https://ic911.org/journal/articles/the-instantaneous-free-fall-of-world-trade-center-building-7-and-nists-attempt-to-hide-it/
All of these critiques are critiquing NIST, including the segment on the Jimmy Dore show. Referring to the NIST analysis again and again does nothing to contradict the analysis and critiques of NIST that are given.
-
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.
You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.
So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.
Case closed.
You seem to continue to trip over yourself.
Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.
What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."
All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.
You are joking, right?
Or just lying.
Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."
I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.
You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.
Pathetic crap.
Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.
And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...
You've got to stop watching video feeds that are steeped with conspiracy theory content. I believe it's turned you paranoid and has perhaps taken away your ability to apply good rationale critical thought.
"Conspiracy theory content" has nothing to do with it, yet, rather hypocritically, you choose to side with the CONSPIRACY THEORY (and that is exactly what it is, for the mainstream media and all government officials that day plainly stated the Arabs...CONSPIRED) that somehow, someway, Arabs with little to no flight training, were able to commandeer four US domestic airliners, armed with nothing more than boxcutters, and manage to achieve what has never before happened in all of human history; that is, manage to successfully bring down three buildings in a controlled demolition in New York, NY, punch a near perfect hole in the Pentagon through to the inner ring with an aluminum framed jet, and nose dive another into a field in PA, leaving hardly any scarred area on the ground.
Sorry, you should take your own advice and stop peddling clear, utter tripe on these boards.
I watched the video and provided a list of my observations with some critical thought questions as well; you kind of ignored it and continue to shout "liar."
My observation of you is that it seems like you watch said conspiracy video content and then kind of repeat what the people in the video are saying. For example -- in the Jimmy Dore video you uploaded, he says stuff about labelling people who were questioning events as "truthers". You watched his video and are simply repeating exactly what he said.
My other observation of you is that you set a very low bar or low standard of evidence for anything you believe in and set an impossibly high bar of evidence for anything that doesn't align to your world view. For example, in a previous thread you will say things like (paraphrasing): whenever I have looked around / wherever I have looked around the earth looks flat to me, therefore I conclude it must be flat. You say this as a declaration and then kind of close the books. But then, your expectation from "the other side" is impossibly high to such a degree that you resort to calling people liars if, for example, they forget to add units of measure to a sentence.
You offered absolutely nothing regarding the models presented by Dr. Hulsey, because you have nothing to counter what they demonstrate. The official story regarding the collapse of WTC - 7 on 9/11 is bullshit, plain, pure, and simple. And you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists need to stop pushing your unfounded conspiracy theories. They are lies and when you push them, that makes you a liar.
I repeated what Jimmy Dore said because it is true. The ones pushing the "official story," which is in reality, "a conspiracy theory," are the ones who wanted to mock the people questioning those events as "truthers." Turning a quest for truth about that day into some sort of insult.
Ain't gonna happen here.
I cannot help it if you are unable to post coherent sentences here on the forum. If you do not enjoy having that inability pointed out, perhaps you need to find another sandbox.
If you believe WTC 7 was an inside demolition job, please provide the following so that we can have a good debate around it. These are my initial questions:
- based on your own research, what specific floors and what specific beams or support points were the pyrotechnic explosives placed?
- from the above question, what were the total number of pyrotechnic explosions placed and triggered?
- approximately how much pyrotechnic material (in pounds) was placed at each placement location?
- when do you believe all of these pyrotechnic explosives were placed and how long do you think it would have taken to place all of them?
- why didn't the "government" plant or place the pyrotechnic explosives so that the building fell in a more sideways manner. If they wanted to hide what they were doing, why wouldn't they have done so?
-
If you believe WTC 7 was an inside demolition job, please provide the following so that we can have a good debate around it. These are my initial questions:
- based on your own research, what specific floors and what specific beams or support points were the pyrotechnic explosives placed?
- from the above question, what were the total number of pyrotechnic explosions placed and triggered?
- approximately how much pyrotechnic material (in pounds) was placed at each placement location?
- when do you believe all of these pyrotechnic explosives were placed and how long do you think it would have taken to place all of them?
- why didn't the "government" plant or place the pyrotechnic explosives so that the building fell in a more sideways manner. If they wanted to hide what they were doing, why wouldn't they have done so?
LOL! "Pyrotechnic..."
Once again, the thread is about the paper and accompanying models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey.
If you want to address his paper and findings, great.
-
If you believe WTC 7 was an inside demolition job, please provide the following so that we can have a good debate around it. These are my initial questions:
- based on your own research, what specific floors and what specific beams or support points were the pyrotechnic explosives placed?
- from the above question, what were the total number of pyrotechnic explosions placed and triggered?
- approximately how much pyrotechnic material (in pounds) was placed at each placement location?
- when do you believe all of these pyrotechnic explosives were placed and how long do you think it would have taken to place all of them?
- why didn't the "government" plant or place the pyrotechnic explosives so that the building fell in a more sideways manner. If they wanted to hide what they were doing, why wouldn't they have done so?
LOL! "Pyrotechnic..."
Once again, the thread is about the paper and accompanying models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey.
If you want to address his paper and findings, great.
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:
1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?
The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
-
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:
1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?
The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?
-
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:
1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?
The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?
Where does he say that they weren't utilized?
-
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:
1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?
The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?
Where does he say that they weren't utilized?
Wait a minute. You are claiming they were utilized?
Why don't you stick to the video.
-
From A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center-7:
"• Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building, as asserted by
NIST. In order to allow for the observed collapse of the east penthouse approximately 7
seconds prior to the collapse of the rest of the structure, these columns needed to have
failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no
documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns
79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse (Section 4.3).
•The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core
columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore,
the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column
79 could trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse
of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event (Section
4.5).
"According to Appendix C of FEMA’s May 2002 report, a steel member recovered from
WTC 7 was found to have experienced corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and
sulfidation at 1,000°C, resulting in the formation of a liquid eutectic (see Figure 1.8).
Researchers have hypothesized that the presence of thermate, which is a form of thermite
incendiary that includes sulfur, would explain the sulfidation and formation of a liquid
eutectic (Jones, 2006 and 2007)."
-
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:
1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?
The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?
Where does he say that they weren't utilized?
Wait a minute. You are claiming they were utilized?
Why don't you stick to the video.
I am not claiming they were utilized.
I am claiming that he didn't say that they were not utilized.
-
From A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center-7:
"• Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building, as asserted by
NIST. In order to allow for the observed collapse of the east penthouse approximately 7
seconds prior to the collapse of the rest of the structure, these columns needed to have
failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no
documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns
79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse (Section 4.3).
•The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core
columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore,
the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column
79 could trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse
of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event (Section
4.5).
"According to Appendix C of FEMA’s May 2002 report, a steel member recovered from
WTC 7 was found to have experienced corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and
sulfidation at 1,000°C, resulting in the formation of a liquid eutectic (see Figure 1.8).
Researchers have hypothesized that the presence of thermate, which is a form of thermite
incendiary that includes sulfur, would explain the sulfidation and formation of a liquid
eutectic (Jones, 2006 and 2007)."
Why don't you stick to the video.
-
The video concerns his report, so I am the one sticking to the video. You are the one who is not. You are the one introducing wild conspiratorial conjecture which will no longer be tolerated.
He didn't say that explosives were not used to bring the building down because the report he released points to the evidence released by FEMA.
-
The video concerns his report, so I am the one sticking to the video. You are the one who is not. You are the one introducing wild conspiratorial conjecture which will no longer be tolerated.
He didn't say that explosives were not used to bring the building down because the report he released points to the evidence released by FEMA.
It appears that what was said in the Angry Ranting section turns out to be correct... that I am debating our lowest tier debate poster and a large rock while sadly losing an uphill battle against conspiracy theory circular logic.
You have my permission to have the last word.
-
Is there any evidence against controlled demolition that isn't a form of denial and excuse-making?
You have the coincidence explanation that it just looks like a controlled demolition. What else is there?
-
The video concerns his report, so I am the one sticking to the video. You are the one who is not. You are the one introducing wild conspiratorial conjecture which will no longer be tolerated.
He didn't say that explosives were not used to bring the building down because the report he released points to the evidence released by FEMA.
It appears that what was said in the Angry Ranting section turns out to be correct... that I am debating our lowest tier debate poster and a large rock while sadly losing an uphill battle against conspiracy theory circular logic.
You have my permission to have the last word.
You've got nothing except to keep pushing the actual conspiracy theory then.
Good to know.