Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2024, 08:56:49 PM »

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? 


Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2024, 08:54:14 AM »

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.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2024, 04:00:05 AM »

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).

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2024, 04:33:32 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2024, 09:01:24 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2024, 01:40:15 AM »
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.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2024, 08:04:09 AM »
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...
« Last Edit: February 22, 2024, 08:52:05 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2024, 10:44:52 AM »
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.           

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2024, 01:46:57 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2024, 01:50:07 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10712
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2024, 02:49:31 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2024, 03:00:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2024, 01:08:04 AM »
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?
           

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2024, 04:29:08 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2024, 04:35:13 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2024, 06:41:35 PM »
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?
               

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2024, 06:48:10 PM »
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?
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2024, 07:56:03 PM »
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?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2024, 08:03:09 PM »
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.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2024, 08:11:13 PM »
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)."
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2024, 08:24:40 PM »
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.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2024, 08:25:17 PM »
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.
 

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2024, 10:10:37 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2024, 10:16:06 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2024, 11:30:37 PM »
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.



 
« Last Edit: February 23, 2024, 11:34:13 PM by mahogany »