Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I really don’t care what NIST has to say because you have not provided any evidence from the video, audio, seismic evidence of explosions cutting columns.

Again

For you to be right. Somebody had to plant 672 charges on 84 columns on a block of eight floors undiscovered and remain unmolested. What if there was this strange new box on a column where Nancy wanted to hang her “hang in there cat poster”. So long box with a charge. Those charges and ignitions systems had to maintain there integrity over hours of wide spread fires and damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Each of those 672 charges had to create enough pressure to cut their section of column. That is the simultaneous detonations of 672 charges creating 672 pressure waves throwing shrapnel about before the building even begins to move down. And in Hulsey’s logic, if the system didn’t actuate correctly because of being damaged by Nancy hanging her car poster, fires and falling debris, WTC 7 would tip over.

For me to be right. There just had to be enough fire related failures like what was recorded in WTC 5 to cause column 79 to lose lateral support to buckle. The breaking of windows and kinking of WTC 7 during the penthouse dropping proves there was a far more serious internal collapse than what Hulsey wants to believe. And that you simple don’t understand negligible resistance.

Side note. For your narrative. When was the system rigged to blow. Something like air craft radar can induce enough current in the wire leads of a blasting cap to set it off. So in your narrative. How long was the planted control demolitions system sitting there live and hot? Waiting on an accidental detonation before 9/11 from something as simple as static electricity.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Can you provide evidence from the video, audio, seismic evidence that 672 cutting charges simultaneously activated to initiate the collapse, then the structure moved?

You complain about Ruby, but you're worse because you deny the evidence I have just shown.

Debate what I showed you. I am not going to entertain you anymore, till you do.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
You complain about Ruby, but you're worse because you deny the evidence I have just shown.

Debate what I showed you. I am not going to entertain you anymore, till you do.

I am worse because I ask you for evidence of columns being actively cut from the video, audio, and seismic evidence?

And I point out the short comings of your arguments point by point?

When an explosive detonations with the force to cut steel columns it is loud. The detonation would echo about the buildings of Manhattan. There would be visible shrapnel and effects from the pressure wave with the strength to cut steel columns. Now multiply that by 672 detonations setting off before WTC 7 would start to moving down.

There is zero evidence planted pyrotechnics initiated the collapse of WTC 7.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
You complain about Ruby, but you're worse because you deny the evidence I have just shown.

Debate what I showed you. I am not going to entertain you anymore, till you do.

I am worse because I ask you for evidence of columns being actively cut from the video, audio, and seismic evidence?

And I point out the shot comings of your arguments?

When an explosive detonations with the force to cut steel columns it is loud. The detonation would echo about the buildings of Manhattan. There would be visible shrapnel and effects from the pressure wave with the strength to cut steel columns. Now multiple that by 672 detonations setting off before WTC 7 would start to me down.

There is zero evidence planted pyrotechnics initiated the collapse of WTC 7.

Stop ignoring and answer people questions. Respect the other person and debate honestly. I reply to you do the same.
Go back and give me a reply above video wave video and collapse on the eastside.
Take all the time you need i don't need a reply straightway.
I not engaging anymore with you till you do.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What do you not get I don’t give a crap about NIST if you cannot provide evidence that the collapse was initiated by detonations. The collapse initiation is right there in the video, audio, seismic evidence.


And there are at least two other studies that back the NIST study. And there is a simulation that is better done than the Hulsey and NIST models that backs NIST’s conclusions.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What do you not get I don’t give a crap about NIST if you cannot provide evidence that the collapse was initiated by detonations. The collapse initiation is right there in the video, audio, seismic evidence.


And there are at least two other studies that back the NIST study. And there is a simulation that is better done than the Hulsey and NIST models that backs NIST’s conclusions.

Of course you don't now. It the official account of how building seven collapsed. It all nonsense. As I have shown
The Penthouse wreckage came through the roofline at free-fall speed.
Debunker used as evidence to debunk the truthers. But the forgot to look at NIST model of progressive collapse that showed the upper floors were progressively collapsing when the Penthouse failed.
The wave can only have happened if structural components underneath were completely gone.

But I sure you keep believing this hoax real.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Stop ignoring and answer people questions. Respect the other person and debate honestly.

There is post after post of mine where I considered what you posted, quoted you, and addressed what you posted.

When you base questions on false statements like this:

The front would react right away if 47 stories of concrete and floors began giving away in chaotic events inside the building.

Why would I chase your questions based on false assertions like: “forty stories of concrete” when the framing was steel?”

You

Progressive collapse is a slow buckling of structural support.

What scientific law is that again?

You

The facade will begin to crack open and pieces will break away and windows will break.
Progressive collapse is a slow buckling of structural support.

You mean like parts of WTC 7 that hit other buildings?



You

Everything joists, fittings, beam, girders, and columns are all interlocked in complex design.

Not when thermal stress results in breaking floor connections at vertical columns. That column in not interlocked to that floor member any longer. The buckling of the column would result in breaking floor connections.

Especially if WTC 7 had failures like what was found in WTC 5

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
But I sure you keep believing this hoax real.

Really?

Then if CD really occurred for WTC 7, were is it on the beginning of the collapse.

Where is the loud bang, the explosions echoing about Manhattan, the visual effects of pressure waves with the force to cut steel columns, and the spraying of shrapnel from 672 cutting devices simultaneously exploding in the video evidence before WTC 7 starts to move downward.

You post a lot of nonsense.
The information that coherent I reply to.
I should not have to be telling you the floor framing was composed of steel beams and concrete slabs.
You accuse people of lies and falsehoods and anywhere else you be banned for this. You can away with here, but you would not last long on stricter overly moderated forum like Metabunk. They might give you time to recover since you are debunker. 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
You post a lot of nonsense.
The information that coherent I reply to.
I should not have to be telling you the floor framing was composed of steel beams and concrete slabs.
You accuse people of lies and falsehoods and anywhere else you be banned for this. You can away with here, but you would not last long on stricter overly moderated forum like Metabunk. They might give you time to recover since you are debunker. 

You didn’t tell me. And what does that statement have to do with you stating

47 stories of concrete and floors began

Did you mean 47 stories of steal framing with metal floor panels topped with concrete?

And what does that have to do with zero evidence of detonations initiating the collapse of WTC 7

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I was trying to be humorous.

But, below is literally the checkpoints that fail when trying to prove WTC CD

For you to be right.

1
Somebody had to plant 672 charges on 84 columns on a block of eight floors undiscovered.

2
The controlled demolition system would have to remain unmolested. What if there was this strange new box on a column where Nancy wanted to hang her “hang in there cat poster”. Or the building electrician or contractor got curious? So long box with a charge.

3
For your narrative. When was the system rigged to blow. Something like air craft radar can induce enough current in the wire leads of a blasting cap to set it off. So in your narrative. How long was the planted control demolitions system sitting there live and hot? Waiting on an accidental detonation before 9/11 from something as simple as static electricity.

4
Those charges and ignitions systems had to maintain there integrity over hours of wide spread fires and damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

5
Each of those 672 charges had to create enough pressure to cut their section of column. That is the simultaneous detonations of 672 charges creating 672 pressure waves throwing shrapnel about before the building even begins to move down. There is no evidence of such an event in the video, audi seismic evidence.

6
And in Hulsey’s logic, if the system didn’t actuate correctly because of being damaged by Nancy hanging her cat poster, the system discovered by a building electrician / contractor, fires and falling debris, WTC 7 would tip over?

Sorry. Controlled demolition by a planted pyrotechnic system is a fantasy. And since the columns in Hulsey’s model had to fail instantly, uniformly, and simultaneously, that rules out slow acid or inconsistent and slow burning thermite attacks.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

This is one of my favorite post by benthamitemetric

www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-31#post-215963

www.metabunk.org...-215963

Fourth--let's step back and sum up Hulsey's study and comments to date in context. At every level, Hulsey's approach and conclusions are highly suspect and, at least to this interested, questioning citizen, Hulsey's study does nothing to actually call into question the overarching conclusion reached by each of the three other studies; the only things Hulsey has called into question to date with his stated conclusions are his integrity and competence:
There is only a single study (Hulsey's) that purports to reach a conclusion contrary to what the other studies have concluded re the vulnerability of WTC7 to progressive collapse from reasonable fire scenarios.
Hulsey received a grant of $300,000+ from an organization (AE911Truth) that has for years dedicated itself to the theory that WTC7 could not have collapsed as a result of fire, and that same organization was explicit in wanting Hulsey's study to prove that when it chartered the study.
Hulsey made his bias in favor of his sponsor's desired conclusion crystal clear when he announced he reached that conclusion before even completing his modeling. (It doesn't help appearances that he initially announced that conclusion at a PR event hosted in NYC by AE911Truth.)
Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.
On top of coming to a different overall conclusion re the vulnerability of the building to fire, Hulsey also seemingly came to the indefensible conclusion (which points to a fundamental error in his approach) that there could be no local connection failures at all in the building!
Hulsey is also the only study author of the bunch to describe his conclusion in absolute terms, even when that means defying logic and the reality of his limited study to claim he proved a negative.

www.metabunk.org...

So. Besides NIST. You have, “ Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise)”

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I was trying to be humorous.

But, below is literally the checkpoints that fail when trying to prove WTC CD

For you to be right.

1
Somebody had to plant 672 charges on 84 columns on a block of eight floors undiscovered.

2
The controlled demolition system would have to remain unmolested. What if there was this strange new box on a column where Nancy wanted to hang her “hang in there cat poster”. Or the building electrician or contractor got curious? So long box with a charge.

3
For your narrative. When was the system rigged to blow. Something like air craft radar can induce enough current in the wire leads of a blasting cap to set it off. So in your narrative. How long was the planted control demolitions system sitting there live and hot? Waiting on an accidental detonation before 9/11 from something as simple as static electricity.

4
Those charges and ignitions systems had to maintain there integrity over hours of wide spread fires and damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

5
Each of those 672 charges had to create enough pressure to cut their section of column. That is the simultaneous detonations of 672 charges creating 672 pressure waves throwing shrapnel about before the building even begins to move down. There is no evidence of such an event in the video, audi seismic evidence.

6
And in Hulsey’s logic, if the system didn’t actuate correctly because of being damaged by Nancy hanging her cat poster, the system discovered by a building electrician / contractor, fires and falling debris, WTC 7 would tip over?

Sorry. Controlled demolition by a planted pyrotechnic system is a fantasy. And since the columns in Hulsey’s model had to fail instantly, uniformly, and simultaneously, that rules out slow acid or inconsistent and slow burning thermite attacks.

Facts
According to the Harrit red/grey chip study the nano-thermite was discovered in the Dust samples belonging to the twin towers. 
There absolutely is no evidence WTC7 was devastated by nanothermite, if I studied the material in the truth movement correctly? You can contemplate it, but I doubt this explains seven collapse on 9/11.  
Twin towers- i tend to concur with the explantation it was a nuclear or chemical trigger that led to the collapse.

You keep insisting there no evidence of controlled demolition. We already recognize it past history a usual strange phenomenon was identified and communicated about in an analysis paper from 2002- steel from WTC7 had softened and melted. Debunkers claimed steel did not melt that not a true factual statement.

 FEMA, as I have explained and was their best guess, claimed the steel was attacked by sulfur, due to 1000c heat ( this was minimum it had to be at) the steel started to erode away and melt.  For the debunkers to be right the rubble would have to be 1000c hot ( at least) and there had to be rich abundance of sulfur underneath the debris to harm the steel? I don't believe that for a second. There was merely a few floors on the lower end of the building on fire- 5 to 8 to 13 mostly. We have no evidence of fires above the 13 floor. So where all is the extra heat coming from?

WTC7
Demolitions don't function like that. There short burst high strength low energy level explosions that destroy around the space of the ignition. They're not bombs going off. It all depends on what the cutting charges contain how high of a bang it will make. You hear loud demolitions on video because there using low-speed demolition cord and TNT. TNT very intense, and powerful, and it's cheap to use.

 If they adopted a faster wiring system example fiber optics the demolition would be fast and speedy with no lag. Since we have only short up-close video of the building collapsing at 5.19 pm we have no inkling what was heard before then.  Plus we have no clue what the explosive used was to recognize how silent or loud it would be. I think it silly debunker question anyhow when they forget there no crash noise of 47 floors collapsing inside the building. They ignore the lack of commotion there. Where this 672 charges number come from?

My guess is the demolition were inserted between floor 15 and 30. That would take out the lower floors and top floors.

Twin Towers
In my view was not a typical controlled demolition. It would be a time consuming job to plant explosives inside this building it too massive. The devices used are likely to be energy based to cause a chemical/gas blast. 

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

This is one of my favorite post by benthamitemetric

www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-31#post-215963

www.metabunk.org...-215963

Fourth--let's step back and sum up Hulsey's study and comments to date in context. At every level, Hulsey's approach and conclusions are highly suspect and, at least to this interested, questioning citizen, Hulsey's study does nothing to actually call into question the overarching conclusion reached by each of the three other studies; the only things Hulsey has called into question to date with his stated conclusions are his integrity and competence:
There is only a single study (Hulsey's) that purports to reach a conclusion contrary to what the other studies have concluded re the vulnerability of WTC7 to progressive collapse from reasonable fire scenarios.
Hulsey received a grant of $300,000+ from an organization (AE911Truth) that has for years dedicated itself to the theory that WTC7 could not have collapsed as a result of fire, and that same organization was explicit in wanting Hulsey's study to prove that when it chartered the study.
Hulsey made his bias in favor of his sponsor's desired conclusion crystal clear when he announced he reached that conclusion before even completing his modeling. (It doesn't help appearances that he initially announced that conclusion at a PR event hosted in NYC by AE911Truth.)
Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.
On top of coming to a different overall conclusion re the vulnerability of the building to fire, Hulsey also seemingly came to the indefensible conclusion (which points to a fundamental error in his approach) that there could be no local connection failures at all in the building!
Hulsey is also the only study author of the bunch to describe his conclusion in absolute terms, even when that means defying logic and the reality of his limited study to claim he proved a negative.

www.metabunk.org...

So. Besides NIST. You have, “ Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise)”

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

I realize you have comprehension issue. 
This was previously pointed out to you by me.
They differed from NIST theory.
Their failures dealt with fires on floors 9 and 10.
Three floors below. 
Their mechanism of collapse is altogether different.
They merely agree on one area of fire caused the collapse.
NIST thermal expansion was mocked by them in court, and only a few acute eyed debunkers have detected it and addressed it.
Complaints I have followed from them Hulsey did not scrutinize their failure mechanism in his report. I agree it not a detailed debunk of their work.
The problem is their failure mechanism is non starter since the claim is fires where on floors that already had gone out. 
There seeing fires where there isn't any, and it Ruby logic seeing things that are not really there but still claim it to accommodate their theory. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Facts
According to the Harrit red/grey chip study the nano-thermite was discovered in the Dust samples belonging to the twin towers.

You mean the study that never completed the discovery process. Published by a pay to play journal that skipped the papers coach and let people consulted to write the paper to peer review the paper. A study where the lab results were not independently verified by any other party. You mean the study that found rust and paint chips. They had to use a solvent used with industrial coatings to free up the iron and aluminum oxide. The study that never conducted a simple go / no go test in an inert atmosphere to see if the dust could support a thermite reaction. The study that assumed there was free Al2 because there was aluminum oxide, but never proved there was free Al2 to support a thermite reaction in the discovered chips.

Might read...,

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

quote the study where they conclusively state nano thermite was what was found?

Might read

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

aneta.org...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

You don't realise ASCE was involved in investigation of 9/11 collapses for the government?
They signed up to this nonsense.
There not going to side with a truther group as they have government contracts.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There absolutely is no evidence WTC7 was devastated by nanothermite, if I studied the material in the truth movement correctly? You can contemplate it, but I

Then why mention nano thermite?

You

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Truth movement never asserted that. They claim Nano-thermite was adopted so the temps inside the building were excessive. This mainly is theories about the twin towers.

Any who?

GOVERNMENT
9/11 destruction “controlled demolition” — fact or fiction?

canada.constructconnect.com...

The most probable explanation is a controlled explosion and mostly likely using thermite,

You do understand the truth movement was forced in to fizzle no flash bombs because there is no evidence of audio indicative of a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

Please quote Architects and Engineers where they whole heartily stated only nano thermite was used? And rule out thermite.

You

Twin towers- i tend to concur with the explantation it was a nuclear or chemical trigger that led to the collapse.

Sorry. Nukes are an idiotic fantasy based in pseudoscience. Again. No indication of an underground nuke. The core columns were cut from their foundations during cleanup. The slurry wall was was not breached. The bedrock is supporting new high-rises. There was no fission products or radioactivity or contamination associated with a nuclear detonation.

Chemical reactions? The thermite study is a fraud. There is no way a CD system would survive the jet impacts and fires where the jets hit which is were the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 initiated. Impacts that cut columns, electrical services, and left floor panels hanging.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Facts
According to the Harrit red/grey chip study the nano-thermite was discovered in the Dust samples belonging to the twin towers.

You mean the study that never completed the discovery process. Published by a pay to play journal that skipped the papers coach and let people consulted to write the paper to peer review the paper. A study where the lab results were not independently verified by any other party. You mean the study that found rust and paint chips. They had to use a solvent used with industrial coatings to free up the iron and aluminum oxide. The study that never conducted a simple go / no go test in an inert atmosphere to see if the dust could support a thermite reaction. The study that assumed there was free Al2 because there was aluminum oxide, but never proved there was free Al2 to support a thermite reaction in the discovered chips.

Might read...,

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

quote the study where they conclusively state nano thermite was what was found?

Might read

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

aneta.org...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Discovery process?
The defined precisely the experiments they performed here.
Not correct- it was peer-reviewed by others. The lady who dropped out did so because she believed the official story fire brought the towers. She criticized based on her own political and bias reads about the attack. It happens a lot when scientific reports are distributed. Scientists felt intimidated by new revelations. Good riddance if she that out of touch.
That false also - independents have analysed the chips and affirmed there was thermite materials embedded in the skin of the chips.
There be no thermite reaction like they defended if there were no thermite materials present.
You silly experiments are irrelevant, if the substances are part of the chips they found.
Mark Basille previously claimed the chips are nano-thermite on video. He said he do a comprehensive paper later about it but never released yet. He could be maimed, dead or something else in his life got in the way for him to finish it , that life. He did not post anything new in years that means he likely no longer associated with truther movement.,
Dr James Milletee is in the same category as NIST. He's got caught up the government cover up of health issues around the dust on 9/11. The debunker could have found someone responsible trustworthy, honest and respectable to debunk this study.