WTC 7 - University of Alaska Fairbanks report.

[Katman]

So now that a far more comprehensive and transparent study than NIST's attempt has been completed on the collapse of WTC 7, does anyone still stick to the theory that the building collapsed due to office fires?

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

[Voltaire]

Watched a BBC doco on you tube, showed the twin towers from many angles and the WTC 7 building too. All three bore the hallmarks of controlled demolition . There was a lot of on he day interviews saying similar. Concrete apparently does not turn to dust without addition of explosives.

[onearmedbandit]

Concrete apparently does not turn to dust without addition of explosives.

I'm not getting into the 9/11 debate (and tbh I'm thinking this thread needs to go with the 9/11 thread already here) but have you never smashed a piece of concrete with a sledge hammer? I have, and I've seen it turn to dust.

[Viking01]

I know that we have discussed 911 earlier, and I can recall commenting
at the time (that modern steel frame skyscrapers built to appropriate
standards are approx 5x over-engineered; that their designs would have
allowed for events such as aircraft collision, and that building structural
engineering standards were not significantly revised post 911).

While the latest study is more robust, I still come back to one of the
simplest pieces of explanation performed very early on, that by physics
teacher David Chandler:

https://www.911tap.org/evidence/what-about-freefall/882-what-about-freefall/623-physics-wtc7-freefall-by-david-chandler

and which was used to help force NIST admit to "free fall acceleration"
of the WTC7 building during collapse.

Once you realise that this occurred - and that this outcome could only be
accomplished by action such as "controlled demolition", then the official
911 story becomes an absolute fairytale.

Politicians may lie, but basic physics doesn't.

I happened to more recently come across a blog posting (link below) that
also contained a number of items relating to physical evidence:

https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/911-short-and-powerful-questions/

See point 13 regarding concrete pulverisation. See point 17 regarding free
fall of building floors.

[Edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZjBAjZQVns

[Voltaire]

I'm not getting into the 9/11 debate (and tbh I'm thinking this thread needs to go with the 9/11 thread already here) but have you never smashed a piece of concrete with a sledge hammer? I have, and I've seen it turn to dust.

It's time for a new thread, be disappointing if you move just because you can, probably a name for that.
Yes I have broken up concrete, looks easier with explosives.

[austingtir]

I'm not getting into the 9/11 debate (and tbh I'm thinking this thread needs to go with the 9/11 thread already here) but have you never smashed a piece of concrete with a sledge hammer? I have, and I've seen it turn to dust.


Thats fine but you also have to severe or rip out the steel reinforcing inside said concrete. Thats going to take longer than the few second's of complete freefall those buildings fell at. You can watch bits of steel beam being ejected from the building at right angles and faster than freefall. Again impossible.


It is physically impossible for it to of been anything other than a controlled demolition.

Nano thermite and explosives.

And imo the evidence points most likely to israeli groups behind rigging that.


More and more people are slowly waking up that we have all been lied to. And they continue to do it with the likes of climate change and other charlatan bullshit.

[sidecar bob]

I'm not getting into the 9/11 debate (and tbh I'm thinking this thread needs to go with the 9/11 thread already here) but have you never smashed a piece of concrete with a sledge hammer? I have, and I've seen it turn to dust.

The concrete workshop yard is turning to dust & it's only getting trucks turned around on it.
Going a bit far to say that explosives are the only thing that turns it to dust.

[Katman]

The concrete workshop yard is turning to dust & it's only getting trucks turned around on it.
Going a bit far to say that explosives are the only thing that turns it to dust.

Let us know if it starts happening in nano-seconds.

[onearmedbandit]

It's time for a new thread, be disappointing if you move just because you can, probably a name for that.
Yes I have broken up concrete, looks easier with explosives.

I'm not going to move it 'just because I can', but as with any thread in the past which has covered the same subject as another they often get merged. Let's see how it goes huh.


Thats fine but you also have to severe or rip out the steel reinforcing inside said concrete...... other charlatan bullshit.

I did say I wasn't being drawn into the 9/11 debate, simply stating that it doesn't require explosives to turn concrete into dust. Surely you could have read that from my post. It's exactly what I said.


The concrete workshop yard is turning to dust & it's only getting trucks turned around on it.
Going a bit far to say that explosives are the only thing that turns it to dust.

And this was my point.

[husaberg]

The concrete workshop yard is turning to dust & it's only getting trucks turned around on it.
Going a bit far to say that explosives are the only thing that turns it to dust.

Im picking hes never seen a ball mill.
Or what happens under massive loads
If i could be assed i could do a video with testing concrete under compression. there is a reason they are crushed done straight out of the water or Humidifier.
but must be conspiracy etc............
this latest thread just seems to be a sad attempt to troll up another thread.

i wonder how much explosives were needed to produce this dust after the CHCH.:weird:
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/styles/fullsize/public/dust-christchurch-city.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T32YvlEYS7I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alC7JpUuDMI
or all the dust when a building is demo'd

[austingtir]

I'm not going to move it 'just because I can', but as with any thread in the past which has covered the same subject as another they often get merged. Let's see how it goes huh.



I did say I wasn't being drawn into the 9/11 debate, simply stating that it doesn't require explosives to turn concrete into dust. Surely you could have read that from my post. It's exactly what I said.



And this was my point.

I wasnt saying that either. The whole where did the concrete thing go is a rabbit hole for the uninitiated. Its as simple as this the concrete was ground to dust as the building fell. Once the building started to fall the concrete was being ground up... of course explosives helped this along.

I dont want to see this head the way of every other thread I have seen on the matter on multiple forums where people are arguing over how the bloody concrete turned to dust..... Honestly who gives a shit.

The crux of the argument has to be around was it a controlled demolition and who REALLY did it. Nothing else matters.

[Voltaire]

Google suggests a magnitude 6 is about 30 ww2 atom bombs. Both being sudden energy releases. Hard to see why a multi story building with some office fires would do it. Please no massive quotes as only have 3 line attention span.

[husaberg]

Google suggests a magnitude 6 is about 30 ww2 atom bombs. Both being sudden energy releases. Hard to see why a multi story building with some office fires would do it. Please no massive quotes as only have 3 line attention span.
You get more than three lines regardless as you raised about four topics.
With the dust from ChCH you missed the point, concrete when its crushed under pressure creates huge amounts of dust.
Due to the sand and cement particles that make up about 1/2 of the concrete when its cured.
off the top of my head Concrete sand is generally less than 4mm with an average partical size of 1.8-2.8mm to start with its doesn't turn into a different form, but it forms a composite.
Concrete is about 1/2 ag (Ie Gravel) which i either 13mm or 19mm max size. Plus 1/2 sand and various amounts of Cement. but around 200-250KG per 2.5 tons for GP stuff 400 kg plus for bridges etc./M3
the fine dust from breaking down concrete, actually kills thousand of people a year. this is due to the ultra fine silica content of most sands and also was often used in concrete as an ad mixture Mirco silica.
that's why when you crush it,As when you test it you keep it wet, same when you cut it, also why you wear masks when you cut it.
No need for nukes or earthquakes.
There was a shit load of energy concentrated when the buildings collapsed F=MA.
its a accumulated collapse with each floor adding to the mass and speeding up the collapse, therefor adding for and more energy as it collapses, this energy is concentrated over a small area,
The bomb blasts on the other hand dissipate energy in the open atmosphere. from memory one of the Japanese sites was chosen as it was in a basin to concentrate the effects of the blast. To maximize the damage.
No one has ever produced a single piece of conclusive evidence that the WTC attacks were anything other than plane crash related.
if you look at the videos i posted the dust was from the concrete simply falling and breaking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAByIIzQSuU

here is dust from a building collapsing due to shoddy construction. Notice the dust and its only a small building.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLx49rmIRtA

[Katman]

or all the dust when a building is demo'd

You didn't really think that comment through, did you?

[Voltaire]

You get more than three lines regardless as you raised about four topics.
With the dust from ChCH you missed the point, concrete when its crushed under pressure creates huge amounts of dust.
Due to the sand and cement particles that make up about 1/2 of the concrete when its cured.
off the top of my head Concrete sand is generally less than 4mm with an average partical size of 1.8-2.8mm to start with its doesn't turn into a different form, but it forms a composite.
Concrete is about 1/2 ag (Ie Gravel) which i either 13mm or 19mm max size. Plus 1/2 sand and various amounts of Cement. but around 200-250KG per 2.5 tons for GP stuff 400 kg plus for bridges etc./M3
the fine dust from breaking down concrete, actually kills thousand of people a year. this is due to the ultra fine silica content of most sands and also was often used in concrete as an ad mixture Mirco silica.
that's why when you crush it,As when you test it you keep it wet, same when you cut it, also why you wear masks when you cut it.
No need for nukes or earthquakes.
There was a shit load of energy concentrated when the buildings collapsed F=MA.
its a accumulated collapse with each floor adding to the mass and speeding up the collapse, therefor adding for and more energy as it collapses, this energy is concentrated over a small area,
The bomb blasts on the other hand dissipate energy in the open atmosphere. from memory one of the Japanese sites was chosen as it was in a basin to concentrate the effects of the blast. To maximize the damage.
No one has ever produced a single piece of conclusive evidence that the WTC attacks were anything other than plane crash related.
if you look at the videos i posted the dust was from the concrete simply falling and breaking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAByIIzQSuU

here is dust from a building collapsing due to shoddy construction. Notice the dust and its only a small building.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLx49rmIRtA

That's impressive recall from the 3 lines I read.

[oldrider]

You didn't really think that comment through, did you?

:scratch: 18 years later - who ya gonna call? - husaberg or David Icke? :rolleyes:

husaberg (KB's know it all bullshit artist) versus David Icke's latest book "Trigger":- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDDBjE5QJk& - feature=youtu.be - :msn-wink:

<iframe width="903" height="508" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XrDDBjE5QJk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

That's impressive recall from the 3 lines I read.


While it's easy and quick to ask four questions.
Yet it takes much more space and time to answer them. Years ago I used to test concrete for a living. So i know a little bit about concrete.
So if you want to be sarcastic about the length of responses Why raise multiple questions, that you could easily answer if you actually looked up the subject mater.

[husaberg]

:scratch: 18 years later - who ya gonna call? - husaberg or David Icke? :rolleyes:

husaberg (KB's know it all bullshit artist) versus David Icke's latest book "Trigger":- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDDBjE5QJk& - feature=youtu.be - :msn-wink:


Lets see John
Post the bullshit i have made up and posted on KB.
I am happy to list the BS you have posted on KB. but it would run for more than two pages.
Funny You post David Ike the guy that believes the world is run by shapeshifting aliens. Nice one.

[TheDemonLord]

Although I've already done so in the other 9/11 thread - I feel it bears repeating:

Certainly the Study is Transparent, but when you read the Methodology, you find that they deliberately cut corners to 'save time and computational resources', as such - it's validity should be treated as suspect.

Katman's point in the other thread that there was no such transparency with the NIST report is somewhat fair, but then if the above statement about computational resources is to be believed, it's a reasonable conjecture that the NIST model may have been done on a supercomputer and as such certain transparency wouldn't be applicable (since revealing the methodology would allow one to reverse-engineer the computational power and from there work-out what cypher-breaking capabilities the US has.

[Katman]

Katman's point in the other thread that there was no such transparency with the NIST report is somewhat fair, but then if the above statement about computational resources is to be believed, it's a reasonable conjecture that the NIST model may have been done on a supercomputer and as such certain transparency wouldn't be applicable (since revealing the methodology would allow one to reverse-engineer the computational power and from there work-out what cypher-breaking capabilities the US has.

Bear in mind also, that NIST's computer generated graphic simulation of the collapse looked nothing like the collapse that was seen on 9/11.

That might indicate that it wasn't done on a very good supercomputer.

[Voltaire]

While it's easy and quick to ask four questions.
Yet it takes much more space and time to answer them. Years ago I used to test concrete for a living. So i know a little bit about concrete.
So if you want to be sarcastic about the length of responses Why raise multiple questions, that you could easily answer if you actually looked up the subject mater.

I didn't ask any questions.
Traditionally they have ? at the end of a sentence.

If I wanted to know more about it surely I'd not be asking here.
I'll just go with a load of Saudis precision crashed two planes into the twin towers which then collapsed in a non controlled way and another relatively undamaged building also collapsed. As you were.:msn-wink:

[Viking01]

Although I've already done so in the other 9/11 thread - I feel it bears repeating:

Certainly the Study is Transparent, but when you read the Methodology, you find that they deliberately cut corners to 'save time and computational resources', as such - it's validity should be treated as suspect.

Katman's point in the other thread that there was no such transparency with the NIST report is somewhat fair, but then if the above statement about computational resources is to be believed, it's a reasonable conjecture that the NIST model may have been done on a supercomputer and as such certain transparency wouldn't be applicable (since revealing the methodology would allow one to reverse-engineer the computational power and from there work-out what cypher-breaking capabilities the US has.

If you're going to comment on the NIST report, then it is
worth actually reading the final NIST report:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1.pdf

[Yes, I have a copy. Yes, I read it once it was published]

If you want interpretation of the NIST report, then go to the
AE911 Truth website, and watch their critique of the report:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/193-a-critique-of-the-nist-wtc-building-failure-reports-and-the-progressive-collapse-

theory

The video clip is 79 minutes long, but you can go directly
to the 72 minute mark to hear their summary of why the
NIST report is such a poor document.

Specifically point 4. Why ?

Because (irrespective of computational power that NIST
may have had available), their supposed analysis of the
collapse scenario stopped exactly at the point of the
initiation of "building collapse" - and never proceeded
beyond that point (to model the actual building collapse
process itself).

The old IT flowchart equivalent of "... and then a miracle
happens".

Had they done so, the consequence of such action would
have been to invalidate their own findings, and to make a
nonsense of their own report. [And raise uncomfortable
questions]

How so ?

Because to model the collapse process itself (faithfully)
would have demonstrated two things:

1. A building whose floors structural supports are supposedly
failing progressively (and its floors "pancaking") does not
collapse "in free fall".

Its collapse would be impeded, and the rate of acceleration
experienced during collapse would not be anywhere close to
that of gravity alone (9.82 m/sec sq).

Which was observed and measured. As per the video clips in
post #4 earlier.

2. NIST would have had to model one or more scenarios which
demonstrated that for "free fall" to occur, the effect of vertical
structural supports between floors within the buildings would
have had to be "completely removed".

And that this effect would have had to occur immediately prior
to and/or during the time of the building collapse itself.

How do you suddenly just "magic away" structural supports
between floors ? [ to be consistent with "free fall" ]

That's right. You don't.

I'm only aware of one process that could have accomplished
this outcome. A "controlled demolition".

The same conclusion that many members of AE911 Truth (i.e.
engineers, physicists, demolition experts) quickly came to.

Which of course leads on to the point about the reduced amount
of structural steel and concrete observed in the rubble piles -
and the vast clouds of pulverised concrete observed during WTC
building collapse.

And I don't even have to be a "conspiracy theorist".

[TheDemonLord]

If you're going to comment on the NIST report, then it is
worth actually reading the final NIST report:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1.pdf

[Yes, I have a copy. Yes, I read it once it was published]

If you want interpretation of the NIST report, then go to the
AE911 Truth website, and watch their critique of the report:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/193-a-critique-of-the-nist-wtc-building-failure-reports-and-the-progressive-collapse-

theory

The video clip is 79 minutes long, but you can go directly
to the 72 minute mark to hear their summary of why the
NIST report is such a poor document.

Specifically point 4. Why ?

Because (irrespective of computational power that NIST
may have had available), their supposed analysis of the
collapse scenario stopped exactly at the point of the
initiation of "building collapse" - and never proceeded
beyond that point (to model the actual building collapse
process itself).

The old IT flowchart equivalent of "... and then a miracle
happens".

Had they done so, the consequence of such action would
have been to invalidate their own findings, and to make a
nonsense of their own report. [And raise uncomfortable
questions]

How so ?

Because to model the collapse process itself (faithfully)
would have demonstrated two things:

1. A building whose floors structural supports are supposedly
failing progressively (and its floors "pancaking") does not
collapse "in free fall".

Its collapse would be impeded, and the rate of acceleration
experienced during collapse would not be anywhere close to
that of gravity alone (9.82 m/sec sq).

Which was observed and measured. As per the video clips in
post #4 earlier.

2. NIST would have had to model one or more scenarios which
demonstrated that for "free fall" to occur, the effect of vertical
structural supports between floors within the buildings would
have had to be "completely removed".

And that this effect would have had to occur immediately prior
to and/or during the time of the building collapse itself.

How do you suddenly just "magic away" structural supports
between floors ? [ to be consistent with "free fall" ]

That's right. You don't.

I'm only aware of one process that could have accomplished
this outcome. A "controlled demolition".

The same conclusion that many members of AE911 Truth (i.e.
engineers, physicists, demolition experts) quickly came to.

Which of course leads on to the point about the reduced amount
of structural steel and concrete observed in the rubble piles -
and the vast clouds of pulverised concrete observed during WTC
building collapse.

And I don't even have to be a "conspiracy theorist".

There's a 531 page thread in Pointless Drivel covering off all of the above things you listed. With many-a-commentary on both the NIST report and the critique of it. I could re-hash the problems with a controlled Demolition claim - which include:

1: Triggering
2: Integrity of Explosives subjected to heat for extended periods of time
3: Lack of Explosions preceding the collapse (the 'jets of air' frequently cited occur DURING the collaps)
4: Lack of Explosions in general (when we compare similar controlled demolitions, even those in urban areas, the main blasting charges are still very much visible)
5: Once sufficient inertia has been gained, the deceleration experienced by the hitting the next structural support would be negligible - the same deceleration (for example) that your Motorcycle experiences when hitting a Fly.
6: Linking back to the above - there's a video on Youtube (that may or may not still exist) where someone did a backyard experiment to 'prove' the controlled demolition claim, which hilariously included a section whereby multiple sections of his model tower pancake collapsed, without one of his firecrackers going off, and all instantaneously

I could go on.

[Viking01]

There's a 531 page thread in Pointless Drivel covering off all of the above things you listed. With many-a-commentary on both the NIST report and the critique of it. I could re-hash the problems with a controlled Demolition claim - which include:

1: Triggering
2: Integrity of Explosives subjected to heat for extended periods of time
3: Lack of Explosions preceding the collapse (the 'jets of air' frequently cited occur DURING the collaps)
4: Lack of Explosions in general (when we compare similar controlled demolitions, even those in urban areas, the main blasting charges are still very much visible)
5: Once sufficient inertia has been gained, the deceleration experienced by the hitting the next structural support would be negligible - the same deceleration (for example) that your Motorcycle experiences when hitting a Fly.
6: Linking back to the above - there's a video on Youtube (that may or may not still exist) where someone did a backyard experiment to 'prove' the controlled demolition claim, which hilariously included a section whereby multiple sections of his model tower pancake collapsed, without one of his firecrackers going off, and all instantaneously

I could go on.


Yes, you could. But there's no need.

You don't need to explain HOW a controlled demolition might have been accomplished.

You just need to realise that only under the circumstances of a controlled demolition
could the building collapses have occurred in the manner observed.

[Laava]

So, to sum up.
1,thousands of people died in 911, incl people on the plane. Fact.
2, prob thousands of people were involved in coregraphing the explosions that brought down three buildings, none of whom have come forward to fess up. Opinion.
3, this was all done primarily to claim insurance on the buildings? Opinion.

My question is this, why didn't these incredibly clever people alleged to have orchestrated this alleged destruction, detonate their explosives to make it look like a plane flying into the building caused all this destruction?
Surely they could have just charterd a plane and filled it with explosives as well, would have been easier to cover up?

[Katman]

3, this was all done primarily to claim insurance on the buildings? Opinion.

I would suggest that the insurance claim on the buildings was simply an added bonus.

The never-ending 'War on Terror' was the real objective.

[TheDemonLord]

Yes, you could. But there's no need.

You don't need to explain HOW a controlled demolition might have been accomplished.

You just need to realise that only under the circumstances of a controlled demolition
could the building collapses have occurred in the manner observed.

It was magic Sky Pixies.

You don't need to explain HOW it could by Magic Sky Pixies, you just need to realise that only Magic Sky Pixies could have done it in the manner observed.



Come on, I know you to be better than that. If you can't explain the How - when you eliminate the impossible etc.

[Katman]

It was magic Sky Pixies.

You don't need to explain HOW it could by Magic Sky Pixies, you just need to realise that only Magic Sky Pixies could have done it in the manner observed.



Come on, I know you to be better than that. If you can't explain the How - when you eliminate the impossible etc.

So if the choice came down to controlled demolition or 'Magic Sky Pixies', which would you think was more likely?

[TheDemonLord]

So if the choice came down to controlled demolition or 'Magic Sky Pixies', which would you think was more likely?

Both are equal works of fiction requiring things that at the time (or now) are not known to exist.

[Katman]

Both are equal works of fiction requiring things that at the time (or now) are not known to exist.

And like I've said many times before - just because you don't know about something, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

[TheDemonLord]

And like I've said many times before - just because you don't know about something, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

Sure.

Just like Magic Sky Pixies.

[Katman]

Sure.

Just like Magic Sky Pixies.

Hey, if you want to believe that Magic Sky Pixies exist, don't let me stand in your way.

[TheDemonLord]

Hey, if you want to believe that Magic Sky Pixies exist, don't let me stand in your way.

Just like I don't stand in your way for thinking WTC7 was a controlled Demolition.

[Viking01]

It was magic Sky Pixies.

You don't need to explain HOW it could by Magic Sky Pixies, you just need to realise that only Magic Sky Pixies could have done it in the manner observed.



Come on, I know you to be better than that. If you can't explain the How - when you eliminate the impossible etc.

Crikey. Are we onto the WHO already ? Surmising as to possible
culprits ? I must have skipped a few posts. I'll try and keep up.

I applaud your sleight of hand.

I did do a cursory web search for "magic sky pixies", but it did
not yield any results. Let alone their possible involvement in
911. So it looks like they're in the clear from the time being.

And I couldn't find any mention of them on the AE911 Truth
website either.

Maybe it's just because scientists and engineers don't believe
in "magic sky pixies", and prefer to just deal with the mundane
(like physics and materials).

They tend to be more focused on identifying a "more likely"
scenario, instead of trying to "eliminate the impossible"(as
you mentioned).

[TheDemonLord]

Crikey. Are we onto the WHO already ? Surmising as to possible
culprits ? I must have skipped a few posts. I'll try and keep up.

I applaud your sleight of hand.

I did do a cursory web search for "magic sky pixies", but it did
not yield any results. Let alone their possible involvement in
911. So it looks like they're in the clear from the time being.

And I couldn't find any mention of them on the AE911 Truth
website either.

Maybe it's just because scientists and engineers don't believe
in "magic sky pixies", and prefer to just deal with the mundane
(like physics and materials).

They tend to be more focused on identifying a "more likely"
scenario, instead of trying to "eliminate the impossible"(as
you mentioned).

Now who is pulling a Sleight of Hand? You reject a critique that points to various impossibilities, as not needing to worry about the How.

So when I lampoon your statement with something else (specifically, something requiring things that are not known to exist - 'but could exist') - you reverse course.

Without a plausible 'How', the theory must be rejected.

AE911 for Truth, Pilots for Truth, and all the other 'for truth' sites - represent a fringe minority, often with a priori viewpoints (which color their claimed objectivity) and when looking at their membership numbers, a large number have only fringe involvement with the fields they claim allegiance to.

[Viking01]

Now who is pulling a Sleight of Hand? You reject a critique that points to various impossibilities, as not needing to worry about the How.

So when I lampoon your statement with something else (specifically, something requiring things that are not known to exist - 'but could exist') - you reverse course.

Without a plausible 'How', the theory must be rejected.

AE911 for Truth, Pilots for Truth, and all the other 'for truth' sites - represent a fringe minority, often with a priori viewpoints (which color their claimed objectivity) and when looking at their membership numbers, a large number have only fringe involvement with the fields they claim allegiance to.

On the contrary, I did give you a very plausible HOW. A "controlled
demolition".

What I did not do was seek to prescribe the exact manner in which
it was accomplished, recognising that there will undoubtedly be
several.

And I will continue to respect your right to your opinion, on the
topic of supposed fringe groups or other.

Though I don't necessarily feel the need to debate it (or them)
on this forum or other.

[TheDemonLord]

On the contrary, I did give you a very plausible HOW. A "controlled
demolition".

What I did not do was seek to prescribe the exact manner in which
it was accomplished, recognising that there will undoubtedly be
several.

And that's no more or no less of a Cop-out than Magic Sky Pixies.

[Katman]

And that's no more or no less of a Cop-out than Magic Sky Pixies.

The 'exact manner' in which the buildings collapsed is what should be the subject of a thorough and independent investigation.

Instead it was left up to NIST and the 9/11 Commission - which, as I've pointed out many times, was 'set up to fail' (according to one of the Commission's Chairmen).

[Viking01]

And that's no more or no less of a Cop-out than Magic Sky Pixies.

Well, given my lack of practical experience with demolishing buildings,
I thought it a quite reasonable qualification to make.

But since it's obviously of interest to you, and because you asked so
nicely, perhaps I can offer the following. There are four video clips
in total.

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/07/23/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/

Please note that no magic sky pixies were injured in the making
of these video clips.

[austingtir]

Some people just simply cant accept whats right in front of them....

This guy is on the money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmXUNnhexs

[TheDemonLord]

Well, given my lack of practical experience with demolishing buildings,
I thought it a quite reasonable qualification to make.

But since it's obviously of interest to you, and because you asked so
nicely, perhaps I can offer the following. There are four video clips
in total.

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/07/23/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/

Please note that no magic sky pixies were injured in the making
of these video clips.

Seeing as we are playing the Video game - I managed to track down the video I was thinking of:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

Specifically - skip to 12:40 - now, putting aside the relative strengths of material and the crudeness of the Experiment (designed to advance the 'truther' claims), something interesting happens at the 12:53 mark - you see the bottom blow out, but all the middle/top sections have been weakened, Now, the explosives for some of those layers haven't gone off (since they are still intact) - and yet, if you notice, the top 7-8 levels all fail pretty much instantly. Considering the relative forces involved and the strength of materials, it demonstrates how a small failure (a single floor) on a much larger building could cause a cascading failure due to momentum.

[Katman]

Specifically - skip to 12:40 - now, putting aside the relative strengths of material and the crudeness of the Experiment (designed to advance the 'truther' claims), something interesting happens at the 12:53 mark - you see the bottom blow out, but all the middle/top sections have been weakened, Now, the explosives for some of those layers haven't gone off (since they are still intact) - and yet, if you notice, the top 7-8 levels all fail pretty much instantly. Considering the relative forces involved and the strength of materials, it demonstrates how a small failure (a single floor) on a much larger building could cause a cascading failure due to momentum.

While I'm not really sure how an experiment involving cardboard and paper is relevant to the collapse of the twin towers - this thread is specifically about WTC 7.

If there is no logical explanation for the collapse of building 7 (in the manner that we saw it) that fits with the official story, then a new investigation must surely be warranted.

And if it is proven that the collapse of building 7 could only have been achieved by controlled means then it stands to reason that everything about the official story of that day is based on lies.

[TheDemonLord]

While I'm not really sure how an experiment involving cardboard and paper is relevant to the collapse of the twin towers - this thread is specifically about WTC 7.

If there is no logical explanation for the collapse of building 7 (in the manner that we saw it) that fits with the official story, then a new investigation must surely be warranted.

And if it is proven that the collapse of building 7 could only have been achieved by controlled means then it stands to reason that everything about the official story of that day is based on lies.

And if a new investigation showed definitively that it wasn't a controlled Demolition - would you accept it?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough, let's go.

But I'd be tempted to bet my House that were such a report to be done, you wouldn't - trotting out the usual apologia.....

[Katman]

And if a new investigation showed definitively that it wasn't a controlled Demolition - would you accept it?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough, let's go.

If it was a full investigation done by an independent body, with absolute transparency, then yes.

[Viking01]

And if a new investigation showed definitively that it wasn't a controlled Demolition - would you accept it?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough, let's go.

But I'd be tempted to bet my House that were such a report to be done, you wouldn't - trotting out the usual apologia.....

That sounds fair enough. Though I would like to see and review the
Scope document first to see what they propose to cover.

And see who is proposed to perform and review the analysis process.

And whether any supposed fringe groups (like those AE911 people)
are to be involved.

Though, just as an observation, most of the scientists and engineers
that I've ever worked with have tended to keep their fringes short
and well manicured.

[TheDemonLord]

If it was a full investigation done by an independent body, with absolute transparency, then yes.

Define 'full'
Define 'Independant'
and Define 'Absolute Transparency'

And the reason I state that, is because the Alaska report certainly doesn't meet 2 out of those 3 criteria.

[Katman]

Define 'full'
Define 'Independant'
and Define 'Absolute Transparency'

And the reason I state that, is because the Alaska report certainly doesn't meet 2 out of those 3 criteria.

I disagree.

I think it meets all three. (Within the scope of what the study was trying to achieve).

[TheDemonLord]

I disagree.

I think it meets all three. (Within the scope of what the study was trying to achieve).

Exactly the response I expected....

It's not Full - by their own admission, they cut corners to save Time and Computational resources. Which as an addendum would exclude it from meeting it's own scope of what it set out to achieve.

Neither is it independent - It's been paid for by a group with a Vested Interest.

You are willing to overlook those 2 however, because it agrees with your beliefs, in a manner that you don't and more specifically wouldn't grant to a competing report.

Which links back to my earlier point - suppose such an investigation was done - I don't think you'd accept it.

[Katman]

Exactly the response I expected....

It's not Full - by their own admission, they cut corners to save Time and Computational resources. Which as an addendum would exclude it from meeting it's own scope of what it set out to achieve.

Neither is it independent - It's been paid for by a group with a Vested Interest.

You are willing to overlook those 2 however, because it agrees with your beliefs, in a manner that you don't and more specifically wouldn't grant to a competing report.

Which links back to my earlier point - suppose such an investigation was done - I don't think you'd accept it.

The scope of the study was to determine whether building 7 could have collapsed due to office fires - as per NIST's explanation.

In that respect, I consider it to be full, independent and transparent.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Today I learned that there is a university in Alaska.

[husaberg]

The scope of the study was to determine whether building 7 could have collapsed due to office fires - as per NIST's explanation.

In that respect, I consider it to be full, independent and transparent.

Really, reality differs it fails independent
University of Alaska Fairbanks and an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” have created a partnership in an investigative study of what brought down Building 7 of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
Who paid for it.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit organization promoting a controlled demolition conspiracy theory, disputing accepted conclusions around the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report as well as FEMA's "WTC Building Performance Study" (2002).


Members of the organization argue that the buildings of the World Trade Center could not have collapsed only because of the impact of the planes, or as a result of the fires that had been caused by them. On the one hand Gage has said that avoiding speculation on the attacks on the Pentagon or on the involvement of the Bush administration is critical to the mission of the organization. But on the other hand, Gage has said that if the destruction of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, this would mean that part of what happened on September 11, 2001, would have been planned by "some sort of an inside group". According to Gage, an elevator modernization program that had taken place before the attacks would have provided an opportunity to get access to the core areas of the WTC towers without creating suspicion.
When the partnership that is footing the bill states it can only have falen due to controlled demolition before the report is even started, how does that become independent.


We also know it wasn't full as they fudged the input to save time.
it also only had 3 authors rather than the 18 the 3 year full time NIST report took. With a substantially larger budget
The funding fo the 911 UAF study was only $316,153
NIST's 10,000-page report on the twin towers reportedly cost $20 million


it also fails under transparent s not once have you mentions the organisations involvement "likely, as you didn't know?
Or who chose to ignore it as you didn't realise others might notice
Or you just are that much of an egg you cant comprehend how much of an egg that makes you.

its also hardly new either its what 3 years old more.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311698

[Katman]

....how does that become independent.

It's independence comes from the fact that neither UAF or AE911 stand to gain anything from it other than the truth.

[husaberg]

It's independence comes from the fact that neither UAF or AE911 stand to gain anything from it other than the truth.

Congratulations you just redefined its meaning.
The fact or state of being independent
Independence the state of being free of the control of some other person, country or entity.

Independent
but what would the oxford Dictionary know.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/independent
Free from outside control; not subject to another's authority Fail
(of a country) self-governing.
Not belonging to or supported by a political party. Fail
(of broadcasting, a school, etc.) not supported by public funds.
Not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence. Fail
(of income or resources) making it unnecessary to earn one's living. Fail
Capable of thinking or acting for oneself.
Not influenced by others; impartial. Fail
Not connected with another or with each other; separate. Fail
Not depending on something else for strength or effectiveness; free-standing.

Beats admitting what it really is i guess.

Lets not forget it also fail Full and transparent as well as Independent.

[Katman]

Congratulations you just redefined its meaning.
Beats admitting what it really is i guess.

And besides, no-one is claiming that the UAF study contains the definitive answers to what happened on 9/11.

It merely examined whether WTC 7 could have collapsed, in the manner that it did, from office fires.

[husaberg]

And besides, no-one is claiming that the UAF study contains the definitive answers to what happened on 9/11.

It merely examined whether WTC 7 could have collapsed, in the manner that it did, from office fires.




I consider it to be full, independent and transparent.
Yet its is what you just a few posts ago claimed it to be,
As its clearly not full independent or transparent or indeed new it 3 years old at least.
Is that really egg on your face...............or was it another conspiracy load blown on you.

[Katman]

As its clearly not full independent or transparent or indeed new it 3 years old at least.


The draft report was released about two weeks ago.

[husaberg]

The draft report was released about two weeks ago.

you have had a busy afternoon
You have ignored facts you have predefined the meaning of words and it seem you have found a tear in the space time continuum.

I consider it to be full, independent and transparent.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311698

1st November 2015, 03:29 PM
Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska
From AE 911
Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a study, using Finite Element Modeling, of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. Dr. Hulsey is the chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and brings decades of experience in failure analysis and modeling of structures.
In May, Dr. Hulsey and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process of virtually reconstructing WTC 7 — using the software programs SAP 2000 and Abaqus — and evaluating the range of possible causes of WTC 7’s collapse. By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79.
Based on his analysis, Dr. Hulsey will evaluate the probability of each hypothetical scenario being the cause of the collapse — and rule out scenarios that could not have resulted in collapse. Once the study is completed, Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.
Transparency and Public Participation
Unlike NIST, which has refused to release all of its modeling data based on the untenable excuse that doing so “might jeopardize public safety,” UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.
Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org, where members of the architecture and engineering communities, as well as the general public, can follow and scrutinize the research as it is being conducted.
Today, we’re giving you a sneak peek by inviting you to be the first to watch the official WTC 7 Evaluation Introduction Video. This video will be featured at the top of the forthcoming website WTC7Evaluation.org to introduce visitors to Dr. Hulsey and the goals of the UAF study.
By making the study open and transparent throughout the entire process, we expect it to attract widespread attention from the engineering community and the broader public, while also enabling interested observers to provide input and feedback. To that end, we enthusiastically invite you to register to become a participant in the study. Dr. Hulsey and the review committee vetting his research greatly welcome your help.
This Is a Turning Point
We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

hes been peddling this for years.

2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKBDkucjKIQ
2017
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/911-free-fall-dr-leroy-hulsey-and-ted-walter-on-the-wtc-7-study-civil-engineerin/10154377940906269/
https://news.uaf.edu/presentation-to-examine-911-building-collapse/

The University of Alaska Fairbanks will host a public presentation on an ongoing study into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 6, in Schaible Auditorium.
UAF researcher Leroy Hulsey is leading the study. He will present the findings outlined in his team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be released the same day. A draft report of the two-year study will be issued later this fall, followed by a six-week public comment period, with a final report scheduled for release in early 2018. Hulsey’s study is being funded by the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

or

September 11th, 2017 Why Did World Trade Center Building 7 Fall? New Study Claims Gov’t Story False
A two-year study has determined the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by office fires. This undermines a critical component of the “official story,” but in the age of President Trump will the painstaking investigation make a difference?

2018
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-wtc-seven-on-911/5653700

[Katman]

you have had a busy afternoo
You have ignored facts you have predefined the meaning of words and it seem you have found a tear in the space time continuum.
hes been peddling this for years.

Like I said, the draft report was released about two weeks ago.

[husaberg]

Like I said, the draft report was released about two weeks ago.

You mean years ago unless it is time travel
September 11th, 2017

https://www.mintpressnews.com/world-trade-center-building-7-fall-new-study-claims-govt-story-false/231780/

September 11th, 2017
By Derrick Broze
103 Comments
FacebookTwitterRedditEmailMore25.3K
Last Wednesday, Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks presented the findings and conclusion of his team’s two-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=NJAWl8unZeA
Published on Sep 8, 2017

343157

[Katman]

You mean years ago unless it is time travel
September 11th, 2017

Do you understand what a draft report is?

[husaberg]

Do you understand what a draft report is?

it wasn't 2017 two weeks ago.
Do you realise being a slow drip doesn't make you an ex-spurt.
By your own insistence you said the report was done over a year ago.

[Katman]

it wasn't 2017 two weeks ago.

Go back to post #1 and open the link.

On page 1 it quite clearly says September 2019.

That is when the draft report was released.

[husaberg]

Go back to post #1 and open the link.

On page 1 it quite clearly says September 2019.

That is when the draft report was released.

yeah because the report is gospel. Does it redefine what 2017 is or when it was?
Because i hope it does as so far you failed thus far on on Full independent and transparent.


The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.
The study is largely not new. While there is some new material, the bulk of the slides were used by Dr. Hulsey nearly a year ago, in October 2016. Most importantly the "UAF conclusions" slide is totally unchanged.

September 17
new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire
This week a team of experts said that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7
This week, eminent Alaska University engineers dismissed [the NIST] explanation. Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, said: ‘Fire did not and could not have caused the failure of this building.’


https://www.mintpressnews.com/world-...-false/231780/
September 11th, 2017
Last Wednesday, Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks presented the findings and conclusion of his team’s two-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001

[Viking01]

http://thesaker.is/stand-for-the-truth-a-government-researcher-speaks-out-911-evidence-and-nist/

[ Edit ]

I posted the above video clip earlier (32 minutes long), but was pressed for
time to also list some salient points from throughout the video clip.

If nothing else, just watch the clip from 18 min 30 secs to 23 min 30 secs.
And ponder those words of the presenter as you watch.


1 min 20 secs: Former NIST employee introducing himself and his background

3 min : His rationale for doing his own investigation a number of years later

4 min 30 sec: NIST Director Shyan Sunder presenting a summary and making
some assertions (most notable that "there was no evidence of explosives").

Even though NIST did not model or test a "controlled demolition" scenario,
and their own testing of a small number of samples was contradicted by
material testing subsequently performed at the University of Copenhagen:

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

5 min 30 sec : Presenters own initial conclusion

5 min 50 secs : NIST Director Syhan Sunder stating that "uncontrolled
fires had caused an extraordinary event"

Do the limited fires within WTC 7 look "wide scale and uncontrolled"?

6 min : The most feasible scenario (a "controlled demolition") was not even
investigated and modelled by NIST

8 min : Collapse of WTC 7 due to "modest fires", and "emergency personnel
waiting for a longe period for an impending collapse"

9 min 50 secs to 10 min 30 secs: NIST was struggling to "get a handle
on modelling the collapse"

10 min 30 secs : NIST put forward their preferred model, stating that
this collapse represented a "completely new phenomenon"

If this represented a "never before experienced event", would one not
have expected 911 to have been followed up by multiple investigations,
reviews and revisions of building codes for steel frame skyscrapers ?

Surely, architects and structural engineers would have been in favour
of such action ? Instead of organising themselves into an action group
to call out the NIST report as a sham.

13 mins to 15 mins 40 secs : Partial execution of NIST graphical model,
which does not align with video of observed building collapse behaviour.

So why should a reader believe the conclusion of the NIST report ?

18:30 mins to 23 mins 30 secs: Collapse of WTC2 (South Tower). Listen to
the questions being asked, as you watch the building collapse.

Q: How do huge horizontal steel beams get ejected laterally some considerable
distance from the building ? Where does all the energy needed come from ?

Because it sure is not jet fuel (which would have "flashed off" during and
immediately after aircraft collision with the buildings) ?

Q: How does such large volumes of structural concrete get pulverised into
such fine dust ?

Q: How does internal office equipment get blown apart into such small pieces
(instead of just being crushed - and being found in plenty - in the rubble pile) ?

Q: Why do we see a "ripple proceeding down the building", well in advance of
the floors collapsing ?

Q: If it was a structural failure and outer walls "bow" (as NIST purports within
their model), then why do corner beams still stay intact and in place when the
upper floors start to collapse ?

23 mins 30 secs: Why did NIST not model a "controlled demolition" scenario ?


You don't have to answer those questions, but any investigation worth its
salt would have. You have every reason to be sceptical of the official story.

[Katman]

yeah because the report is gospel. Does it redefine what 2017 is or when it was?


I'm well aware that the UAF study has been on the radar for a few years.

But the draft report was released in September 2019.

What can't you understand about that?

[husaberg]

I'm well aware that the UAF study has been on the radar for a few years.
?

Of course you were Steve i am surprised anyone would ever even doubt you at all thats why you have not posted anything about it at all prior to last week i guess:2thumbsup.................
So this NEW FULL TRANSPARENT and INDEPENDENT report is neither new transparent of independent or full. WOW..........
Welcome back 2017 Stevo missed you

[Katman]

Of course you were Steve i am surprised anyone would ever even doubt you at all thats why you have not posted anything about it at all prior to last week i guess:2thumbsup.................


Really?

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/170344-Who-still-believes-9-11-was-carried-out-by-terrorists-with-box-cutters?p=1131103967#post1131103967

[husaberg]

Of course you were Steve i am surprised anyone would ever even doubt you at all thats why you have not posted anything about it at all prior to last week i guess:2thumbsup.................
So this NEW FULL TRANSPARENT and INDEPENDENT report is neither new transparent of independent or full. WOW..........
Welcome back 2017 Stevo missed you


Really?

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/170344-Who-still-believes-9-11-was-carried-out-by-terrorists-with-box-cutters?p=1131103967#post1131103967

No mention of this report at all
but if it was you were talking in past tense so it was done then over a year ago......:facepalm:

there's been a two year technical study done
so if i give you the benefit of the doubt when was it done prior to to 2018 maybe 2017 perhaps


So when you said done prior to 19th July 2018, you thought it wasn't done until years later.

you know the one you claim now is new transparent independent and full. yet it is clearly not one of these things at all.
So which is it was it done years ago? or did you not know about it?
here is 2017 for you, welcome back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wtfhZwyrcc

[Katman]

but if it was you were talking in past tense so it was done then over a year ago......:facepalm:

As I asked earlier - do you understand the meaning of 'Draft Report'?

[husaberg]

But but new conspiracy not goberminta

Oh so there we go, back to 2017 to a report, you said was done then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um7pMggPnug

[Katman]

Oh so there we o back to 2017 to a report you said was done then.


What the fuck does that even mean?

[husaberg]

UAF study challenges theories on why third World Trade Center building collapsed on Sept. 11
Author: Dermot Cole September 9, 2017 calendar Published September 9, 2017
On Monday, a dissident "truther" group that claims there was a 9/11 cover-up, plans to use a study by the University of Alaska Fairbanks engineering department to announce its latest effort to show that a federal report about the "building collapses is false and that it is incumbent upon Congress to launch its own investigation."
The group is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded by Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect who has traveled the world for years saying the government has hidden "evidence of controlled demolition, particularly with the third high rise that collapsed on that day in the afternoon of 9/11, World Trade Center 7."
His group funded a two-year, $316,000 study led by UAF engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, who used computer modeling to examine No. 7 and how its steel and concrete elements would respond to fires
He now claims that because the UAF study offers good reason to doubt the official story about the collapse of No. 7 (the third building), there is plenty of reason to doubt the official story about the fall of the Twin Towers.


I would suggest that the insurance claim on the buildings was simply an added bonus.

The never-ending 'War on Terror' was the real objective.
really because you have state many times that the building owner demo'd the building to get insurance you even posted how he used demo terms.
You also calimed he did this as he was "jewish"


So now that a far more comprehensive and transparent study than NIST's attempt has been completed on the collapse of WTC 7,]
So explain how a small cheap study funded by an organisation that wants only one outcome be either comprehensive or transparent.


If it was a full investigation done by an independent body, with absolute transparency, then yes.
Yet you claim the UAF study completely funded by a Conspiracy site is independent. EGG


The 'exact manner' in which the buildings collapsed is what should be the subject of a thorough and independent investigation.
.

How about you call the study exactly what the study is the 911 truth movement funded study.
You try to talk a good game but the game you talk is poultry farming egg.

[Katman]

UAF study challenges theories on why third World Trade Center building collapsed on Sept. 11
Author: Dermot Cole September 9, 2017 calendar Published September 9, 2017






really because you have state many times that the building owner demo'd the building to get insurance you even posted how he used demo terms.
You also calimed he did this as he was "jewish"


So explain how a small cheap study funded by an organisation that wants only one outcome be either comprehensive or transparent.


Yet you claim the UAF study completely funded by a Conspiracy site is independent. EGG



How about you call the study exactly what the study is the 911 truth movement funded study.
You try to talk a good game but the game you talk is poultry farming egg.

Have you not been taking your medication again?

[husaberg]

Have you not been taking your medication again?

I have never been prescribed medication for psychiatric issues or any behavioral issues, can you sincerely say the same thing steve?
How many people have defined you as being paranoid or narcissistic or detached form reality?
Why also stevo, in your mind does, not taking medication, make someone question why, you actually keep contradicting yourself, Over and over again?
Like your insistence that the report is independent or full or transparent or why the building collasped r the reason it did and you dd it.

[Katman]

Why also stevo, in your mind does, not taking medication, make someone question why, you actually keep contradicting yourself, Over and over again?

You should edit your post again.....and add some more commas.....again.

[sidecar bob]

You should edit your post again.....and add some more commas.....again.

Your last 6 or 7 posts in this thread, (I couldn't be bothered going back much further) contain nothing of substance, just a pile of semantics.

[Katman]

Your last 6 or 7 posts in this thread, (I couldn't be bothered going back much further) contain nothing of substance, just a pile of semantics.

Do you actually have any reason for being here?

[husaberg]

Do you actually have any reason for being here?

It can't just be, to show the forum your lack of critical thinking skills
You do that by yourself.
Like fo instance your insistence that the cheap report funded by a 911 conspiracy site is independent full and transparent.
Or that it provides anything new new it contains all the same crap that has been posted for years.

[sidecar bob]

Do you actually have any reason for being here?
More semantics without substance or any value whatsoever.
I could ask the same question.
Given your job, I won't say trade, because it's entirely possible that you don't have one, you could perhaps contribute some value to the forum, instead you argue retarded causes & bully & put down anyone that's not quite as retarded as you are.
What's your reason for being here?

[Katman]

What's your reason for being here?

Because I'm interested in the subject matter.

What's yours?

[husaberg]

Because I'm interested in the subject matter.

What's yours?

So how exactly many other sites have you been kicked off then?


Also how can you call the report Full, transparent and independent
When the people who paid for it handpicked who wrote it and paid for it?

[Katman]

So how exactly many other sites have you been kicked off then?

How exactly many...…?

Exactly one many.

[sidecar bob]

Because I'm interested in the subject matter.

What's yours?

Surprisingly, it's because I have a lifelong passion for motorcycles.:msn-wink:
Maybe you should find a different forum to post on, you seldom post about motorcycles, you simply drag other rubbish in here & then berate & belittle people that have an opinion that differs from yours.

[Katman]

Maybe you should find a different forum to post on, you seldom post about motorcycles, you simply drag other rubbish in here & then berate & belittle people that have an opinion that differs from yours.

Or maybe you could avoid threads that you have no interest in.

Just a thought.

(Or is your fixation taking on Berk sized proportions?)

[oldrider]

It can't just be, to show the forum your lack of critical thinking skills
You do that by yourself.
Like fo instance your insistence that the cheap report funded by a 911 conspiracy site is independent full and transparent.
Or that it provides anything new new it contains all the same crap that has been posted for years.

:innocent: Hello? - Exactly the same can be said for the NIST report - :rolleyes: - Probably more-so! - :msn-wink:

[husaberg]

:innocent: Hello? - Exactly the same can be said for the NIST report - :rolleyes: - Probably more-so! - :msn-wink:
If you could say that then, how can it be as katspam states, full independent and transparent.
He said the latest 911 conspiracy sites report. Was all those things, yet claimed the NIST report was one those things at all.
One of you must be wrong, is it you or steve that's 100% wrong on whether either reports are full transparent or independent.
for the record the NIST report was released 11 years ago, it does'nt get re-released ever year or two on the anniversary to get the most amount of publicity possible.
Also the only peope that thing the government had anything to gain out f the report are conspiracy theorists.
Any reasonable and logical person has no issue with the NIST completing the investigation.

:scratch: 18 years later - who ya gonna call? - husaberg or David Icke? :rolleyes:

husaberg (KB's know it all bullshit artist) versus David Icke's latest book "Trigger":- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDDBjE5QJk& - feature=youtu.be - :msn-wink:


Lets see John
Post the bullshit i have made up and posted on KB.
I am happy to list the BS you have posted on KB. but it would run for more than two pages.
Funny You post David Ike the guy that believes the world is run by shapeshifting aliens. Nice one.

So how are you getting on with the evidence to back up your statement.
I guess it easier to post nazi propaganda and racial hate than to post proof of anything other than your profound racism.

[oldrider]

As per usual - total overkill - when you going to learn - More is less - FFS! - :facepalm:

[husaberg]

As per usual - total overkill - when you going to learn - More is less - FFS! - :facepalm:
I doubt you have anything to teach me.
If you are so smart why is it you can't answer simple questions.....

:innocent: Hello? - Exactly the same can be said for the NIST report - :rolleyes: - Probably more-so! - :msn-wink:

If you could say that then, how can it be as katspam states, full independent and transparent.
He said the latest 911 conspiracy sites report. Was all those things, yet claimed the NIST report was one those things at all.
One of you must be wrong, is it you or steve thats 100% wrong on whether either reports are full transparent or independent.



I'll give you a hint, its nothing to do with the jews, and it's all to do with your own profound lack of intellect.
You talk 95% racist crap straight out of the Nazi's or KKK and when you are called on it, you run and hide like coward you clearly are.

[oldrider]

You are all class husaberg - no doubt about it - in a class all of your own! - :niceone: (snigger snigger):killingme

[oldrider]

[Quote] In other words, the study concludes that the building was intentionally destroyed by controlled demolition[Unquote]:- :yes: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=195144 - :doh:

[sidecar bob]

Or maybe you could avoid threads that you have no interest in.

Just a thought.

(Or is your fixation taking on Berk sized proportions?)

Maybe you could avoid starting threads about total rubbish & then belittling anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Looking at your post count on topic versus posts that are solely demeaning to others, its like you are really only here for the kick you get out of being a bully.

[Katman]

Maybe you could avoid starting threads about total rubbish & then belittling anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Looking at your post count on topic versus posts that are solely demeaning to others, its like you are really only here for the kick you get out of being a bully.

Are you sure you're not just being a little too sensitive there?