UA Anchorage releases the final report on WTC-7: Fires DID NOT cause the collapse

a reply to: CrazyFox

You

Of all of the theories currently out there and those that have yet to be developed I can truthfully state bear more truth than the garbage I read in the 911 commission report.

Well. Good thing I go right from the collapse video, the audio, seismic evidence, and there is zero evidence planted pyrotechnics brought down the WTC. And I use other sources than the commission report.

Shrugs?

a reply to: CrazyFox

You

If you are going to post a bunch of pictures to this reply please make them relevant to debunking the claims in my original post so YOU can prove to everyone how 911 was not a false flag.

Quote in this thread where I mention false flag one way or another. You have absolutely zero evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics. So you change the topic from the opening post, change the subject that is not related to anything I have posted, and are moving the goal post. Anything to distract from the lies of the truth movement concerning the WTC. You know when a conspiracist is losing the argument concerning WTC 7. They change the subject.

originally posted by: CrazyFox
a reply to: neutronflux

I Openly admitted I do not know what caused the towers to collapse did you miss it? Why are you asking me about someone else's theory on what happened. I was not there I have spent over a decade pouring thru available information and what I think is the most plausible theory was not of my creation and I provided a link to it. Did you follow the link?
Of all of the theories currently out there and those that have yet to be developed I can truthfully state bear more truth than the garbage I read in the 911 commission report.



If you are going to post a bunch of pictures to this reply please make them relevant to debunking the claims in my original post so YOU can prove to everyone how 911 was not a false flag.

WTF? You just &itched me out because I at least tried to post pictures somewhat related to “ UA Anchorage releases the final report on WTC-7: Fires DID NOT cause the collapse“. While you go off topic to complain I was trying to stay on topic?

Funny you want to rant than try to support the Hulsey’s report?

a reply to: Xtrozero

This is precisely the kind of explanation for this I needed to hear. I am grateful Xtrozero

a reply to: neutronflux

I do like to rant. Hulsey's report said it was not caused by fire, I pointed out a well evidenced thread that supported this theory. I am not theorizing on it being a typical controlled demolition. I am theorizing it being a nuclear controled demolition. I provided a thread that explained the theory better than my essential employee ass could hope too right now. All the OT I want yay. I replied to the op on his fantastic thread and provided a source that correlated to it right here on ats. I did not in any way shape or form mention anything about cutting steel planting explosives. I admitted I had investigated them but did not state they were my fancy only they were more credible than anything in the 911 commission.

Care to discuss controlled nuclear demolition reply.

a reply to: Identified

Thank you I appreciate that

I see what you are saying, I suppose it is possible they were initially traveling at a slow enough speed to pick up the towers or that I am simply conflating the different aircraft (such as those speed measured)

Not sure if radar is capable of measuring speeds in the case of U93?

a reply to: waypastvne

Xtrozero has done a good job of explaining it but if you have anything at all to add I would be in your debt

I'll admit it is not my area of expertise, by any means. It is very possible I'm mistaken here. All I was trying to say is there is a lot that didn't add up, at least not to me as a layperson without aviation or scientific experience, and the usual result of 1) ridicule or 2) dismissal does nothing to help answer those questions

Maybe to someone who understands aeronautics or engineering they are stupid questions, I do not know. But to me they have burned in the back of my mind since sometime around 2004/2005

I genuinely appreciate any input you can provide

a reply to: neutronflux

You did not mention ff I did, then I provided examples to support my statement, I was offering you the opportunity to prove my statement wrong and also million upon millions( of the Rocks fans) of believers of it being one.

In my original post which included a link to back up what the op which was about fires not causing the destruction.
You have not put anything refutable to the information I presented in the form of a link to a thread in this very forum that supports the very point of this thread that fires did not cause the destruction of world trade center 7.


Typical reaction of Deniers completely ignore what was discussed do no research on it and show pictures that has no relevance to the discussion. Then scream truthers. really?? we are on a frickin conspiracy website the term conspiracy theory created to cast doubt intentionally by programmers. Truther is the another one.

a reply to: CrazyFox

You

I pointed out a well evidenced thread that supported this theory.

By trying to prove fire related collapse was impossible? When there were fire related failures in WTC 5?








Enough floor connection failures along a vertical column, that column is going to lose lateral support and buckle.

Again. The Hulsey modeling was “rigged”

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

m.youtube.com...

Then you have Hulsey ignoring the true nature of the WTC 7 fires.

Hulsey did not model the fires throughout WTC 7. He only did a local fire loading, he failed to do global fire loading.

He ignored the nature of the penthouse collapse, WTC 7 building movement, and visible WTC 7 distortion/failures that point to an internal progressive collapse before facade movement. So he lies about the true nature of the WTC 7 collapse.

There is no evidence of an event that would result in Hulsey’s conclusion.

And Hulsey’s model does not include key collapse WTC 7 distortions that are seen in the video evidence.

Hulsey’s report was not properly reviewed.

Hulsey has ignored comments submitted during the public comment period.

The Hulsey’s report is a shame.

a reply to: CrazyFox

Again.

Do you have any evidence that over six hundred charges doing the below?



On every WTC 7 column for an eight floor span? Over six hundred charges of thermite? Burning over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. When Architects and Engineers clearly state the WTC 7 fires were never hotter than normal office fires? I guess that rules out over six hundred thermite fires burning over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit on every column.

a reply to: JBurns

1) the cell phones connecting above 10,000 feet at speeds greater than ~150Mph

They used seat back air phones not cell phones.

Ever time you reply back ignoring the contents of my post the more DENIER you appear. Now you are part of a group too, a group that denies truth. Which is worse a group who seeks truth or a group that denies it? I know which group is more likely to gain intelligence a reply to: neutronflux

do you have any evidence a nuclear reaction did not? You should pay attention to what you are denying. Right now you appear stuck on auto deny showing the same pictures over and over to debunk a claim made by some1 else. Wanna talk nuclear controlled demolition let's chat if not I guess go on with your irrelevant pictures trying to DENY and providing further proof of your abstinence of paying attention a reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: CrazyFox

Let’s start small.

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

Kostack Studio

m.youtube.com...

Is this assessment of the Hulsey modeling true or false. If you think it is false, prove otherwise.

The assessment from Kostack Studio is honest and true. And it is one of the many factors that shows the Hulsey modeling cannot be taken as credible.

I choose to go big this is from the thread mentioned



nuked


a reply to: neutronflux

Well, 11 pages later no ones’ mind was changed. Surprise. Surprise.

If you thought the 9/11 offical sorry, around building 7 specifically, was a lie, yo7 still do. If you were a staunch defender of the government’s offical story, including the NIST report, then you still are.

One we go with this debate.

Meanwhile, how is the Grand jury proceedings (9th district court NY) going with regard to the evidence of controlled demolition?

a reply to: CrazyFox

You cannot answer an honest question concerning valid criticism of the Hulsey’s report?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You mean you turning a bling eye to the fraudulent modeling of the Hulsey report?

Have to love conspiracists logic. They know somebodies world view because an individual points out the Hulsey report does not contain realist modeling, ignores the extent of the WTC 7 fires, the modeling was based a few floors, ignored the global modeling of fires, there is no record of a real world event from the video/seismic/audio evidence to support / initiate the studies conclusion, and the paper was improperly peer reviewed.


Then you should have no problem answering the question proposed to CrazyFox

Let’s start small.

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

Kostack Studio

m.youtube.com...

Is this assessment of the Hulsey modeling true or false. If you think it is false, prove otherwise.

The assessment from Kostack Studio is honest and true. And it is one of the many factors that shows the Hulsey modeling cannot be taken as credible.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I don’t know. You tell me. The Lawyers for architects and engineers sued for a progress report. What is the outcome of that lawsuit.

originally posted by: firerescue

What they were counting on was that the fire insulation would remain on the steel

Didn't count on having a jet airliner hit the building at 500 mph dislodging the fire proof material and exposing the steel

I guess my point was if steel is not affected by temperatures below 1300f there would be no reason to have fire retardant at all since there would be no fires that hot. Why spend millions on something not needed, but it is needed in that fires WOULD weaken the steel structure and they wanted to give hours of extra time to get the fires out before that point.

The whole 1300f theory is totally crap...lol