?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Just now, DogOnPorch said: You're free to apologize for Islam. You are free to eat cockroaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You are free to eat cockroaches. That's what this adds-up to...no? All religions are the same so why pick on Islam?? Pretty much. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) NIST performed a fraudulent years long study of the collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. Their WTC7 study has now been proven to be a complete falsehood - it had a zero chance of being accurate. NIST didn't perform any study of WTC5, even though it burnt, full engulfed for hours and never collapsed, just like every other burning steel frame high rise that has never collapsed due to fire. See page 22EPN = PDF page 2 of, http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf All of them much longer and much more of the building being involved in flames. But we are supposed to buy the US government official conspiracy theory that 3 towers fell on the same day, in the same country, same state, same city. NIST was asked by many different scientists to look at specific issues, to perform simple, easily done experiments to prove their contentions. NIST never did! NIST hid most of their data. This is completely UNSCIENTIFIC, which is how NIST approached the whole sordid affair they got involved in, as an arm of the same Bush government. Quote "NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role." http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf Make a spurious assumption and then craft the "science" to meet that notion. That's not science. Edited March 7, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 41 minutes ago, hot enough said: NIST performed a fraudulent years long study of the collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. Their WTC7 study has now been proven to be a complete falsehood - it had a zero chance of being accurate. Again you confuse 'proof' with 'opinion', and you misquote the person with the opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 4 hours ago, ?Impact said: Again you confuse 'proof' with 'opinion', and you misquote the person with the opinion. Again you offer no proof for either of your fabrications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 Here is the exchange between the lawyer and Prof Hulsey  Daniel Sheehan [lawyer]: "On a scale of 1 to a 100, ... how probable do you think it is, or how possible do you think it is that this building [WTC7] could have collapsed simply because of the fires?"   Professor Hulsey: "Zero."  To see it for yourself go to, 13:09 of the following.  Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys     Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys JUSTICE IN FOCUS HIGHLIGHTS: Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys on September 11, 2016 Today, w...   =========================  Professor Hulsey also said and I paraphrase, WTC7 was built asymmetrically, stronger on one side than the other, for gods sake, even a symmetrically built building cannot come down in this fashion without being forced down.   Watch from 18:00 on of following to the end for a good, quick summary of how the NIST report is false.  Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 4: Dr. Leroy Hulsey on the WTC 7 Modeling Study  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegkDCBJxjY&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4&index=4 Reply Reply to All F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 I saw something from 2015 that said he was going to publish his paper for peer review, but it seems that it hasn't happened. As has been pointed out "testifies" is trumped up - this looks like a 9/11 Truth symposium of some kind. At least he is qualified in the field, I'll say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 32 minutes ago, hot enough said: Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 4: Dr. Leroy Hulsey on the WTC 7 Modeling Study  Slightly more detail than his previous presentation, but nothing really new here except he gives some hints on what his grad students will be studying next. I anxiously await their peer reviewed publication so it can be examined. Off the top of my head the biggest hole in what he talks about is he seems to think thermal expansion is a one way process. Note that he says the outside of the building buckled out, which seems to correlate with what the firefighters noticed around 2pm. The building itself did not come down until after 5pm. When the fires burn out, the expanded steel will expand negatively (ie. contract). In an ideal world the building would return to its former shape, but this is no an ideal world and things will shift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: As has been pointed out "testifies" is trumped up - this looks like a 9/11 Truth symposium of some kind.   It is important for people to understand what a word means to people who use a language. Do you have something personal against the truth? 1 Quote  M-W a : to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief : bear witnessb : to serve as evidence or proof 2: to express a personal conviction 3: to make a solemn declaration under oath for the purpose of establishing a fact (as in a court) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testify   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 Has anyone listened to Professor Hulsey? "We can't find any justification that it could come down by fire". Which is 100% in agreement with reality for none have ever come down. "... it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down". What does "forced" entail? Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: As has been pointed out "testifies" is trumped up If you don't mind, where was this pointed out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 I saw it somewhere, so it's not my idea. They could have said 'speaks' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I saw it somewhere, so it's not my idea. They could have said 'speaks' Am I to assume that you think it is good to repeat rumors about such serious issues? Had they used "speaks" it would not have conveyed the nuance that was illustrated perfectly by the dictionary quote I gave.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 I feel that it implies that he was under oath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 If the US governments' story is so bullet proof, if it is rock solid, a done deal, why is there so much vitriol expressed towards those who state and show with voluminous proof that it is a false narrative. Why is there nothing brought forward by any of the people who defend the indefensible? 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I feel that it implies that he was under oath. And you were proven to be in err. That nuance is the third choice. Dictionaries usually place words in an order that matches how they are used in society, among native speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 It's not fair but my experience is that people argue dishonesty. Â I had one poster, I seem to recall, say that he would never be convinced that it wasn't a conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:  I saw something from 2015 that said he was going to publish his paper for peer review, but it seems that it hasn't happened.  Have you also seen all the reports from, likely as far back as 2004, that NIST would never share their data on how they arrived at their conclusions? Is that scientific to your mind? Why haven't you commented about that scientific aberration? You can't have done much research on L Hulsey and his study because he took great pains to say that he was seeking peer review from as many quarters as was possible. He gave talks to his fellow peers at UofAF. Do you think he has gagged them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 I already commented on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: It's not fair but my experience is that people argue dishonesty.  I had one poster, I seem to recall, say that he would never be convinced that it wasn't a conspiracy. Tell me about it. I have discussed this with untold numbers in this thread that illustrate that even with scientific proof this convincing, as if this was even needed,  they still only do song and dances, using any and all distractions to turn talk away from the facts. Professor Hulsey has been completely forthcoming. NIST's leading and 2nd scientists outright lied, on the record. How many other scientists are there backing them up in their lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I already commented on him. Who is "him"? Why are you being so reticent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 I'm not. Â I commented on Professor Hulsey above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 Thank you very much for your contributions. I will discuss this further with those knowledgeable on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 2/26/2017 at 3:46 AM, betsy said:  Ask Donald Trump. Because, Hillary Clinton and Obama actually created ISIS, and other Islamic terrorists that are creating most of the turmoil all over the world.   Have you noticed lately that there has not been any real terrorist attacks any where since Donald Trump became President? I think that he has put a stop to those terrorist attacks by eliminating those with the power to cause terrorist attacks. Of course it is still early but it does look like Trump is having some kind of an effect on the promoters of terrorism.   Hey, you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 Professor Hulsey went on to say, "Even a symmetrical structure, for god's sake, isn't built perfectly, so nothing is ever gonna come straight down unless you force it to do that". That again means that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. There is no other reasonable explanation, none. Watch from 1:40 to 3:06 at the following link for NIST's Shyam Sunder stumbling thru an explanation that is obviously causing him a great deal of discomfort.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 Well there are indeed other possibilities. At least NIST made a case for the prevailing theory. Â I doubt you would have accepted it if they had just said "Fires ! Â No other explanation! " Explosives also need a plot behind all of this, and I have never seen one that is remotely plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.